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