Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules  
Administrative Rules Division (ARD)  
611 W. Ottawa Street  
Lansing, MI 48909  
Phone: 517-335-8658 Fax: 517-335-9512  
REQUEST FOR RULEMAKING (RFR)  
1. Department:  
Health and Human Services  
2. Bureau:  
Economic Stability Administration  
3. Promulgation type:  
Full Process  
4. Title of proposed rule set:  
Family Independence Program  
5. Rule numbers or rule set range of numbers:  
R 400.3101 - R 400.3131  
6. Estimated time frame:  
6 months  
Name of person filling out RFR:  
Mary Brennan  
E-mail of person filling out RFR:  
Phone number of person filling out RFR:  
517-242-9634  
Address of person filling out RFR:  
333 S. Grand Avenue, 5th Floor, Lansing, MI 48909  
7. Describe the general purpose of these rules, including any problems the changes are intended  
to address.  
The purpose of these rules is to set guidance for DHHS on how to process and determine  
eligibility for the cash assistance program, specifically the Family Independence Program. The  
changes intend to address the ability for both applicants and recipients to choose either an in-  
house or telephone interview for benefits. The rules currently address only in-person interviews  
but offer alternatives only for undue hardship. Because many of the recipients and applicants have  
medical issues, transportation issues, or feel uncomfortable with the current COVID numbers, it  
may not be feasible or safe for the Department or the client to come into the MDHHS building to  
conduct an in-person interview. The change will be also allowing telephone interviews for the  
public without restriction of proving hardship.  
8. Please cite the specific promulgation authority for the rules (i.e. department director,  
commission, board, etc.).  
Department Director.  
A. Please list all applicable statutory references (MCLs, Executive Orders, etc.).  
By authority conferred on the department of health and human services by section 6 of the social  
welfare act, 1939 PA 280, MCL 400.6.  
MCL 24.239  
RFR-Page 2  
B. Are the rules mandated by any applicable constitutional or statutory provision? If so, please  
explain.  
No. Rulemaking is permissive under MCL 400.6.  
9. Please describe the extent to which the rules conflict with or duplicate similar rules,  
compliance requirements, or other standards adopted at the state, regional, or federal level.  
The proposed rules do not conflict with or duplicate other rules, compliance requirements, or other  
standards. Federal law permits the states to develop their own eligibility processes. DHHS would  
be adding a telephone interview to assist the public in getting needed benefits but not have to  
prove "hardship" when it is impossible or unlikely, due to health concerns, to go into the state  
buildings for interviews. This process of telephone interviews may make the process more  
efficient while mitigating the problems of missed appointments or exposure to COVID and other  
viruses of our State’s most vulnerable clientele.  
10. Is the subject matter of the rules currently contained in any guideline, handbook, manual,  
instructional bulletin, form with instructions, or operational memoranda?  
The rules are set forth in MDHHS policy manual, job aids, and trainings with the DHHS Office of  
Workforce Development and Training.  
11. Are the rules listed on the department’s annual regulatory plan as rules to be processed  
for the current year?  
The rules are not listed on the department’s annual regulatory plan for the current year.  
12. Will the proposed rules be promulgated under Section 44 of the Administrative Procedures  
Act, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.244, or under the full rulemaking process?  
Full Process  
13. Please describe the extent to which the rules exceed similar regulations, compliance  
requirements, or other standards adopted at the state, regional, or federal level.  
The proposed rules do not conflict with or duplicate other rules, compliance requirements, or other  
standards. Federal law permits the states to develop their own eligibility processes. DHHS would  
be adding a telephone interview for all clientele without the necessity of proving hardship. This  
will assist the public in getting needed benefits when it is impossible or unlikely, due to health  
concerns, to go into the state buildings for interviews. This process of telephone interviews may  
make the process more efficient while mitigating the problems of missed appointments or  
exposure to COVID and other viruses of our State’s most vulnerable clientele.  
14. Do the rules incorporate the recommendations received from the public regarding any  
complaints or comments regarding the rules? If yes, please explain.  
Yes. The public has complained and voiced their concerns regarding health and safety of coming  
back into a state building due to Covid and the variants. Further, minimizing the risk of issues  
associated with coming into the local county building, i.e. some clientele are vaccinated and some  
are not; those with underlying health risks, reduces the chances of the population getting COVID  
or other viruses which, without the option of a phone interview, may lead to increased health costs.  
15. If amending an existing rule set, please provide the date of the last evaluation of the rules  
and the degree, if any, to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed  
the regulatory activity covered by the rules since the last evaluation.  
The rules were last reviewed and amended in 2019. Both technological ability to apply for  
benefits by telephone and the pandemic are the catalyst to request options for clientele to apply for  
benefits.  
MCL 24.239  
RFR-Page 3  
16. Are there any changes or developments since implementation that demonstrate there is no  
continued need for the rules, or any portion of the rules?  
There is a continued need for the rules to assist with the eligibility of clientele for assistance for  
themselves and their families.  
17. Is there an applicable decision record (as defined in MCL 24.203(6) and required by MCL  
24.239(2))? If so, please attach the decision record.  
No  
MCL 24.239  
;