RIS-Page 3
The current provisions of Reg. 637 do not contemplate a state-level coordinated mosquito treatment or vector
abatement program. The provisions for notifications are designed for and aligned with local mosquito abatement
programs that can provide for a lengthy process for notification and participation as part of an annual plan to address
insect populations. While notification is an important component of mosquito programs, when a disease like EEE is
detected in humans and animals, a delay of multiple weeks to conduct a notification process that allows for
individualized participation will result in the disease spreading even further.
C. What is the desired outcome?
When an emerging or re-emerging disease like EEE is detected, the State of Michigan must promptly take multiple
actions, including public notification, coordination with local health and emergency management departments,
engagement with the general public and the private sector on risk reduction and mitigation, as well as considering
implementation of pest abatement programs on a regional basis. When these kinds of public health threats occur, the
State must be ready to engage and respond quickly.
7. Identify the harm resulting from the behavior that the proposed rules are designed to alter and the likelihood
that the harm will occur in the absence of the rule.
Using the extensive processes for notification and participation for community-based pest treatment programs has
been effective in those parts of the state where they exist, in part because of their consistency and the regularity of
interactions between the treatment programs and the communities that support them. However, with emerging
diseases and outbreaks of human and animal illnesses appearing to be on the rise due to increased travel, globalization,
and changing weather patterns, that model requiring individualized notifications becomes a barrier to an emergency
response by the state. By design, the proposed additional option in case of a needed emergency response requires a
shared sense of urgency by two separate department directors and is thereby limited to state-level emergency
situations.
A. What is the rationale for changing the rules instead of leaving them as currently written?
Michigan’s experience with EEE in 2019 and 2020 provides a contrast in responses, and the vastly more efficient and
effective coordinated response during 2020 was the rationale to move forward with this change that was accomplished
through a temporary emergency rule. The proposed change addresses the gap that slowed the State of Michigan’s
response in 2019, and would hinder future responses to public health emergencies.
8. Describe how the proposed rules protect the health, safety, and welfare of Michigan citizens while promoting a
regulatory environment in Michigan that is the least burdensome alternative for those required to comply.
This proposed change is fundamentally balanced on protecting the health, safety, and welfare of Michigan by
addressing a bureaucratic gap that can delay effective response to an emerging or re-emerging disease outbreak.
Diseases spread by biting insects have been historically a problem in Michigan, and we expect they will continue to be
into the future. Particularly with arbovirus-related outbreaks, there are tools that can help to reduce the mosquito
population and thereby protect human and animal life. With EEE, 33% of people who become ill are likely to die, and
many of those who survive will have severe permanent health issues.
9. Describe any rules in the affected rule set that are obsolete or unnecessary and can be rescinded.
The department has thoroughly reviewed this portion of Regulation 637 during and after the EEE outbreaks of 2019
and 2020 and has not found any provisions to be obsolete.
Fiscal Impact on the Agency
Fiscal impact is an increase or decrease in expenditures from the current level of expenditures, i.e. hiring additional staff,
higher contract costs, programming costs, changes in reimbursements rates, etc. over and above what is currently
expended for that function. It does not include more intangible costs for benefits, such as opportunity costs, the value of
time saved or lost, etc., unless those issues result in a measurable impact on expenditures.
10. Please provide the fiscal impact on the agency (an estimate of the cost of rule imposition or potential savings
for the agency promulgating the rule).
The department estimates that this proposed change would not have any additional cost to the State of Michigan or to
the private sector or the public. Actually, not implementing these changes and then attempting to follow the
traditional notification and participation provisions over wide geographic areas of the state impacted by a disease
outbreak would impose substantial costs to the State, including production and distribution of informational bulletins,
staff time to conduct outreach in person and via phone, and database management on a regional or statewide basis.
MCL 24.245(3)