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  
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT  
and COST-BENEFT ANALYSIS (RIS)  
Agency Information:  
Department name:  
Labor and Economic Opportunity  
Bureau name:  
MIOSHA  
Name of person filling out RIS:  
Daniela Garza  
Phone number of person filling out RIS:  
517-284-7738  
E-mail of person filling out RIS:  
garzad@michigan.gov  
Rule Set Information:  
ARD assigned rule set number:  
2020-67 LE  
Title of proposed rule set:  
General Industry Safety Standard Part 74. Fire Fighting  
Comparison of Rule(s) to Federal/State/Association Standard  
1. Compare the proposed rules to parallel federal rules or standards set by a state or national licensing agency or  
accreditation association, if any exist.  
These proposed rules do not have any parallel federal rules or standards, as Federal Occupational Safety and Health  
Administration (OSHA) does not have jurisdiction over state, county, or municipal employers. These rules will be  
similar but not always as restrictive as National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA) consensus standards.  
A. Are these rules required by state law or federal mandate?  
Yes, as a state plan program, Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) is obligated to  
cover public sector employers.  
Public Act 143 of 2020 amends the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act 154 of 1974 by amending section  
14 and adding section 14r. The director shall promulgate rules in General Industry Safety and Health Standard Part  
74. Firefighting, to include rules for best practices regarding proper use, handling, and storage of firefighting foam  
containing Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).  
Public Act 291 of 1966, The Fire Fighters Training Council Act, was amended on October 6, 2020. As a result of  
these changes, the State Fire Marshal requested that MIOSHA update General Industry Safety and Health Standard  
Part 74. Firefighting to adopt by reference NFPA 1403: Live Fire Standard.  
B. If these rules exceed a federal standard, please identify the federal standard or citation, describe why it is  
necessary that the proposed rules exceed the federal standard or law, and specify the costs and benefits arising out  
of the deviation.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 2  
These proposed rules do not have any parallel federal rules or standards, as Federal OSHA does not have jurisdiction  
over state, county, or municipal employers. These rules will be similar but not always as restrictive as NFPA  
consensus standards.  
2. Compare the proposed rules to standards in similarly situated states, based on geographic location, topography,  
natural resources, commonalities, or economic similarities.  
Pre-employment physical - R 408.17411(1)(a)  
Illinois and Indiana do not appear to have a requirement for pre-employment physicals.  
Ohio’s Section 124.42 requires passage of a physical examination.  
Wisconsin’s Code Department of Safety and Professional Services (SPS), Chapter SPS 330 (SPS 330.15) requires fire  
fighters to be physically capable of performing assigned duties.  
Hose loading – R 408.17421(3)  
Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio do not appear to have requirements for performing hose loading operations on moving fire  
apparatus.  
Wisconsin’s Chapter SPS 330.09 has similar requirements as MIOSHA for hose loading operations on moving fire  
apparatus with the following two exceptions: (1) Wisconsin limits the fire apparatus direction of travel to forward  
only whereas MIOSHA does not. (2) Wisconsin does not require the use of a travel restraint system or appropriate fall  
protection by an employee in the hose bed whereas MIOSHA does.  
Life safety rope & equipment – R 408.17463(1)  
Illinois and Indiana do not appear to have requirements for ladder belt systems, life safety rope, harnesses, or auxiliary  
equipment.  
Ohio’s Rule 4123:1-21-02 requires a ladder belt, life safety rope, harness, and auxiliary equipment to meet the  
requirements of NFPA 1983: “Standard on Life Safety Rope and Equipment for Emergency Services,” 2012 edition  
whereas MIOSHA requires the 2001 edition.  
Wisconsin’s Chapter SPS 330.10 requires life safety ropes, harnesses, and hardware to meet the requirements of  
NFPA 1983: “Standard on Life Safety Rope and Equipment for Emergency Services,” 2017 edition whereas MIOSHA  
requires the 2001 edition.  
Portable ladders – R 408.17426  
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin do not appear to require portable ground ladders used in structural firefighting  
or training to meet the requirements of NFPA 1931: “Standard for Manufacturer’s Design of Fire Department Ground  
Ladders,” 1994 edition or NFPA 1932: “Standard on Use, Maintenance, and Service Testing of In-service Fire  
Department Ground Ladders,” 2015 edition.  
PFAS –Proper use, handling, storage, and containment of firefighting foam concentrate - R 408.17430  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 3  
Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio do not appear to have any requirements for the containment and handling of materials  
contaminated by foam containing PFAS.  
Wisconsin Act 101 of 2019 implemented measures that mitigate the discharge of PFAS-containing firefighting foam  
into the environment.  
Protective ensemble – R 408.17432  
Illinois and Indiana do not appear to have requirements for a protective ensemble for structural firefighting.  
Ohio Rule 4123: 1-21-02 Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment for Structural Firefighting requires that NFPA  
1971: “Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting,” 2013 edition be  
followed.  
Wisconsin Rule SPS 330.11 requires that NFPA 1971: “Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting  
and Proximity Fire Fighting,” 2018 edition be followed for new equipment. Existing protective clothing and  
equipment shall meet the NFPA standard that was current when the protective clothing or equipment was purchased or  
obtained by the fire department.  
Respiratory protection (SCBA & PASS) – R 408.17436 & R 408.17440  
Illinois and Indiana do not appear to have additional requirements for self-contained breathing apparatus ("SCBA")  
related to firefighting.  
Ohio requires that SCBA’s be approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the  
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). However, specific editions are not identified in Rule 4123: 1-21-02  
Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment for Structural Firefighting.  
Ohio Rule 4123: 1-21-02 Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment for Structural Firefighting requires that NFPA  
1982: “Standard on Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS),” 2013 edition be followed.  
Wisconsin Rule SPS 330.12(3) requires that NFPA 1981: “Standard on Open Circuit Self-Contained Breathing  
Apparatus (SCBA) for Emergency Services,” 2013 edition, be followed.  
Wisconsin Rule SPS 330.13 requires that NFPA 1982: “Standard on Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS),” 2013  
edition be followed.  
First Aid, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Automated External Defibrillator Training – R 408.17464  
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin do not appear to have firefighter-specific requirements for first aid,  
cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and automated external defibrillator training beyond what may be required if an  
employee is a licensed emergency medical services provider.  
NFPA 1403: Live Fire Training – R 408.17464  
Indiana and Illinois do not appear to have a requirement for live fire training.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 4  
Ohio has a Live Fire Certification Program (administrative code 4764-21-03). They also require the following of  
NFPA 1403: Standard on Live Fire Training Evolutions be followed during live fire training.  
Wisconsin requires NFPA 1403: Standard on Live Fire Training Evolutions be followed.  
A. If the rules exceed standards in those states, please explain why and specify the costs and benefits arising out of  
the deviation.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 5  
Pre-employment physical – R 408.17464 Training and education program.  
The proposed rules for pre-employment physicals exceed the standards in Illinois and Indiana because those states do  
not appear to require pre-employment physicals. A typical cost for a physical would be $65.00 per employee.  
Physicals are required to ensure that firefighters are healthy enough to perform their duties.  
Hose loading – R 408.17421 Fire apparatus generally.  
The proposed rules for hose loading exceed the standards in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio because those states do not  
appear to have requirements for hose loading. See the response to question 13 below for a cost breakdown associated  
with R 408.7421(3). The proposed rules would protect firefighters from falls from elevation during hose loading  
operations.  
Life safety rope & equipment – R 408.17421 Aerial apparatus.  
The proposed rules exceed the standards in Illinois and Indiana because those states do not appear to have  
requirements for ladder belt systems, life safety rope, harnesses, and auxiliary equipment. See the response to  
question 13 below for a cost breakdown associated with R 408.17463. The proposed rules would protect firefighters  
while working from a fixed position, from an aerial apparatus ladder and while supporting personnel during  
emergency operations or training for these operations.  
Portable ladders – R 408. 17426 Portable ladders.  
The proposed rules exceed the standards in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin because those states do not appear  
to require portable ground ladders used in structural firefighting or training. See the response to question 13 below for  
a cost breakdown associated with R 408.17426(1)(a) and (b). The proposed rule would ensure the ladders firefighters  
use are in accordance with NFPA 1931 and 1932.  
PFAS –Proper use, handling, storage, and containment of firefighting foam concentrate – R 408.17430.  
The proposed rules exceed the standards in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio because those states do not appear to have any  
requirements for the containment and handling of materials contaminated by foam containing PFAS. See the response  
to question 13 below for a cost breakdown associated with R 408.17430. The proposed rule would reduce and protect  
firefighters from occupational exposure to PFAS.  
Protective ensemble –Protective ensemble for structural firefighting - R 408.17432.  
The proposed rules exceed the standards in Illinois and Indiana because those states do not appear to have  
requirements for a protective ensemble for structural firefighting. See the response to question 13 below for a cost  
breakdown associated with R 408.17432. The proposed rule would ensure firefighters’ protective ensembles meet or  
exceed a more recent version of NFPA 1971.  
Respiratory protection (SCBA & PASS) –Respirator protection devices - R 408.17436 and R 408.17440.  
The proposed rules exceed the standards in Illinois and Indiana because those states do not appear to have additional  
requirements for self-contained breathing apparatus ("SCBA") related to firefighting. See the response to question 13  
below for a cost breakdown associated with R 408.17436. The proposed rule would ensure firefighters’ respiratory  
protection devices meet or exceed a more recent version of NFPA 1981 and 1982.  
First Aid, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Automated External Defibrillator Training – R 408.17464.  
The proposed rules exceed the standards in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin because those states do not appear  
to have firefighter specific requirements for first aid, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and automated external  
defibrillator training beyond what may be required if an employee is a licensed emergency medical services provider.  
See the response to question 13 below for a cost breakdown associated with R 408.17464. The proposed rule would  
ensure that firefighters are capable of providing first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation to fellow firefighters.  
NFPA 1403: Live Fire Training –Training and education program - R 408.17464.  
The proposed rules exceed the standards in Indiana because Indiana does not appear to have a requirement for live fire  
training. See the response to question 13 below for a cost breakdown associated with R 408.17464(2). The proposed  
rule would ensure all live fire training evolutions are conducted according to NFPA 1403.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 6  
3. Identify any laws, rules, and other legal requirements that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed  
rules.  
There is minimal duplication since Public Act 291 of 1966, The Fire Fighters Training Council Act refers to MIOSHA  
General Industry Safety and Health Standard Part 74 Firefighting.  
Public Act 291 of 1966 references the following MIOSHA GI Part 74. Firefighting rules:  
R 408.17401 Scope  
R 408.17411 Duties of employer  
Proper use, handling, storage, and containment of firefighting foam concentrate  
R 408.17430(1)  
R 408.17430(2)  
R 408.17430(3)  
R 408.17430(5)  
Training and education program  
R 408.17464  
R 408.17464(2)  
A. Explain how the rules have been coordinated, to the extent practicable, with other federal, state, and local laws  
applicable to the same activity or subject matter. This section should include a discussion of the efforts undertaken  
by the agency to avoid or minimize duplication.  
Public Act 132 of 2020 amends the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act 451 of 1994. Section(s)  
324.14701, 14703, and 14705 overlap with GI Part 74 Michigan Rule R 408.17430 that requires a fire department to  
report the use of intentionally added PFAS firefighting foam. MIOSHA has decided to leave this requirement in our  
rules to emphasize this requirement for the fire departments.  
4. If MCL 24.232(8) applies and the proposed rules are more stringent than the applicable federally mandated  
standard, provide a statement of specific facts that establish the clear and convincing need to adopt the more  
stringent rules.  
MCL 24.232(8) does not apply to the proposed rules because there is no federally mandated standard for public sector  
firefighting.  
5. If MCL 24.232(9) applies and the proposed rules are more stringent than the applicable federal standard,  
provide either the Michigan statute that specifically authorizes the more stringent rules OR a statement of the  
specific facts that establish the clear and convincing need to adopt the more stringent rules.  
MCL 24.232(9) does not apply to these rules because there is no federally mandated standard for public sector  
firefighting.  
Purpose and Objectives of the Rule(s)  
6. Identify the behavior and frequency of behavior that the proposed rules are designed to alter.  
The behavior and frequency of behavior that the proposed rules are designed to alter include the following:  
Pre-employment physical – R 408.17411(1)(a)  
The behavior the proposed rule is designed to alter is to ensure prospective firefighters receive a pre-employment  
physical conducted by a physician or other licensed healthcare professional to ensure they have the ability to perform  
assigned emergency operations. The frequency of the behavior is required anytime a prospective firefighter is hired.  
Hose loading – R 408.17421(3)  
The desired behavior/practice is to ensure that any employee riding on or in a fire apparatus shall be safely secured by  
a seat belt or safety harness any time the apparatus is in motion. If the operation occurs while the apparatus is in  
motion several conditions must be met, as outlined in the proposed rule.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 7  
Life safety rope & equipment – R 408.17463(1)  
The behavior the proposed rule is designed to alter is to ensure that firefighters’ life safety ropes and equipment  
comply with a newer version of the NFPA 1983 standard. This would be for existing equipment already possessed by  
a department or future equipment purchases. The frequency of the behavior is anytime a firefighter uses life safety  
rope and equipment that is covered by the NFPA standard.  
Portable ladders – R 408.17426  
The behavior the proposed rule is designed to alter is to ensure that portable ladders used in structural firefighting or  
training comply with NFPA standards 1931 and 1932. This would be for existing equipment already possessed by a  
department or future equipment purchases. The frequency of the behavior is anytime a firefighter uses a portable  
ladder for structural firefighting or training.  
PFAS – R 408.17430  
The behavior the proposed rule is designed to alter is to ensure the following:  
(1) An employer must follow the specific, manufacturer provided safety data sheets (SDSs) for all firefighting foam  
concentrate that employees may be exposed to and follow best practices regarding the proper use, handling, and  
storage information.  
(2) An employer must prevent intentionally added PFAS containing foam concentrate or foam solution from entering  
groundwater, surface water, or storm drains as soon as possible.  
(3) An employer must dispose of materials contaminated by foam containing PFAS pursuant to the Natural Resources  
and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.101 to 324.90106.  
(4) An employer must ensure the decontamination of a firefighter’s body and equipment.  
(5) An employer must prohibit the use of firefighting foam concentrate containing intentionally added PFAS, by a  
firefighter, for training purposes.  
(6) An employer must prohibit the use of firefighting foam concentrate containing intentionally added PFAS, by a  
firefighter, for equipment calibration purposes (unless required by law or facility where the calibration takes place has  
implemented appropriate measures). The frequency of these behaviors occurs anytime a firefighter uses firefighting  
foam concentrate.  
Protective ensemble – R 408.17432  
The behavior the proposed rule is designed to alter is to ensure that the firefighters’ protective ensemble complies with  
a newer version of the NFPA 1971 standard. This would be for existing protective ensembles already possessed by a  
department or future purchases. The frequency of the behavior is anytime a firefighter is performing structural  
firefighting.  
Respiratory protection (SCBA & PASS) – R 408.17436 & R 408.17440  
The behavior the proposed rule is designed to alter is to ensure that the firefighters’ respiratory protection devices  
comply with a newer version of NFPA 1981 and 1982. This would be for existing respiratory protection already  
possessed by a department or future purchases. The frequency of the behavior is anytime a firefighter is required to  
wear an SCBA or PASS.  
Training & Education – R 408.17464  
The behavior the proposed rule is designed to alter is to ensure firefighters receive and maintain certification in first  
aid, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and automated external defibrillator. The frequency of the behavior is initial and  
continual training to maintain certifications.  
Live Fire Training – R 408.17464  
The behavior the proposed rule is designed to alter is to ensure all live fire training must meet or exceed the  
requirements of the NFPA 1403. The frequency of the behavior is anytime a department is going to participate in live  
fire training evolutions.  
A. Estimate the change in the frequency of the targeted behavior expected from the proposed rules.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 8  
The frequency of the targeted behavior for first aid, cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automated external  
defibrillator training is expected to increase to maintain certifications. There are no other expected changes in  
frequency for the other proposed rules.  
B. Describe the difference between current behavior/practice and desired behavior/practice.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 9  
Pre-employment physical – R 408.17411(1)(a)  
The difference between the current behavior/practice and the desired practice is that a pre-employment physical must  
be conducted by a physician or other licensed health care professional.  
Hose loading – R 408.17421(3)  
The current behavior practice allows employees to be unsecured on the moving apparatus while loading hoses. The  
desired behavior/practice is to ensure the following:  
Any employee riding on or in a fire apparatus shall be safely secured by a seat belt or safety harness any time the  
apparatus is in motion. No employee may stand or ride on the tail steps, sidesteps, running boards, or other exposed  
part of a fire apparatus while the apparatus is in motion, except when certain conditions are met as provided in this  
section.  
Life safety rope & equipment R 408.17463(1)  
The difference between the current behavior/practice and the desired behavior/practice is that firefighters’ life safety  
ropes and equipment must comply with a newer version of the NFPA 1983 standard.  
Portable ladders – R 408.17426  
The current behavior/practice is for portable ladders to be in compliance with General Industry Safety and Health  
Standard Part 2. “Walking-Working Surfaces.” The desired behavior/practice is for portable ladders used in structural  
firefighting or training to comply with NFPA standards 1931 and 1932.  
PFAS  
There is no current behavior/practice for this rule. The desired behavior/practice is to ensure the following:  
(1) An employer must follow the specific, manufacturer provided safety data sheets (SDSs) for all firefighting foam  
concentrate that employees may be exposed to and follow best practices regarding the proper use, handling, and  
storage recommendations.  
(2) An employer must prevent intentionally added PFAS containing foam concentrate or foam solution from entering  
groundwater, surface water, or storm drains as soon as possible.  
(3) An employer must dispose of materials contaminated by foam containing PFAS pursuant to the natural resources  
and environmental protection act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.101 to 324.90106.  
(4) An employer must ensure the decontamination of a firefighter’s body and equipment.  
(5) An employer must prohibit the use of firefighting foam concentrate containing intentionally added PFAS, by a  
firefighter, for training purposes.  
(6) An employer must prohibit the use of firefighting foam concentrate containing intentionally added PFAS, by a  
firefighter, for equipment calibration purposes (unless required by law or if the facility where the calibration takes  
place has implemented appropriate measures).  
Protective ensemble – R 408.17432  
The difference between the current behavior/practice and the desired behavior/practice is that the firefighters’  
protective ensemble complies with a newer version of the NFPA 1971 standard.  
Respiratory protection (SCBA & PASS) – R 408.17436 and R 408.17440  
The difference between the current behavior/practice and the desired behavior/practice is that the firefighters’  
respiratory protection devices comply with newer versions of NFPA 1981 & 1982.  
Training & Education – R 408.17464  
There is no current behavior/practice for this rule. The desired behavior/practice is to ensure firefighters receive and  
maintain certification in first aid, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and automated external defibrillator.  
Live Fire Training – R 408.17464  
There is no current behavior/practice for this rule. The desired behavior/practice is to ensure all live fire training meets  
or exceeds the requirements of NFPA 1403.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 10  
C. What is the desired outcome?  
The desired outcome is for affected employers to comply with the proposed rules so that the desired  
behaviors/practices outlined above in question 6B are met.  
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.  
Firefighting is an inherently dangerous occupation. The proposed rules are designed to protect the health and safety of  
Michigan firefighters. In the absence of the proposed rules, Michigan firefighters will face an increased risk of serious  
injuries that could result in death or serious physical harm.  
A. What is the rationale for changing the rules instead of leaving them as currently written?  
Public Act 143 of 2020 amends the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act 154 of 1974 by amending section  
14 and adding section 14r. The director shall promulgate rules in General Industry Safety and Health Standard Part 74.  
Firefighting, to include rules for best practices regarding proper use, handling, and storage of firefighting foam  
containing Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).  
Public Act 291 of 1966, The Fire Fighters Training Council Act, was amended on October 6, 2020. As a result of these  
changes, the State Fire Marshal requested that MIOSHA update General Industry Safety and Health Standard Part 74.  
Firefighting to adopt by reference NFPA 1403: Live Fire Standard.  
The remainder of the proposed rule changes will include new requirements for pre-employment physicals, hose  
loading, life safety rope and equipment, portable ladders, protective ensemble, respiratory protection, and training and  
education. The proposed rules are consistent with the recommendations agreed upon by the Advisory Committee  
(AC), which was made up of industry representatives from both management and labor.  
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.  
The proposed rules include best practices for the proper use, handling, and storage of firefighting foam containing  
PFAS. The rules will help limit the amount of PFAS contamination while protecting Michigan citizens and the  
environment.  
The proposed rule changes will include new requirements for live fire training, pre-employment physicals, hose  
loading, life safety rope and equipment, portable ladders, protective ensemble, respiratory protection, and training and  
education programs pertaining to firefighting to improve the health and safety of Michigan firefighters. In some  
instances, the proposed rules referencing updated NFPA standards did not adopt the most recent version, which would  
have been more burdensome for some employers. In addition, some of the proposed rules have a delayed compliance  
date of January 1, 2025, to be less burdensome.  
9. Describe any rules in the affected rule set that are obsolete or unnecessary and can be rescinded.  
The following rules are being rescinded because they are being redefined in other added or amended sections of the  
new proposed rules: R 408.17434 – Foot and leg protection, R 408.17435 – Hand protection, R 408.17437 – Hearing  
protection.  
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).  
Printing and distribution of the rules is estimated to be $200, the cost to purchase the NFPA consensus standards is  
$453.50. In addition, in-house training for MIOSHA staff is estimated to be $1,000.  
11. Describe whether or not an agency appropriation has been made or a funding source provided for any  
expenditures associated with the proposed rules.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 11  
The MIOSHA agency has a training budget that includes purchasing any newly required NFPA Standards for  
educating our employees on revisions to standards.  
12. Describe how the proposed rules are necessary and suitable to accomplish their purpose, in relationship to the  
burden(s) the rules place on individuals. Burdens may include fiscal or administrative burdens, or duplicative  
acts.  
The proposed rules are consistent with the recommendations agreed upon by the Advisory Committee, which was  
made up of industry representatives from both management and labor. The committee weighed the benefits versus the  
fiscal burdens that would affect all sizes of fire departments and determined that the proposed rules are needed to  
ensure the safety and health of firefighters.  
A. Despite the identified burden(s), identify how the requirements in the rules are still needed and reasonable  
compared to the burdens.  
The proposed rules are consistent with the recommendations agreed upon by the Advisory Committee, which was  
made up of industry representatives from both management and labor. The committee weighed the benefits versus the  
burdens and determined that the proposed rules are needed to ensure the safety and health of firefighters.  
Impact on Other State or Local Governmental Units  
13. Estimate any increase or decrease in revenues to other state or local governmental units (i.e. cities, counties,  
school districts) as a result of the rule. Estimate the cost increases or reductions for other state or local  
governmental units (i.e. cities, counties, school districts) as a result of the rule. Include the cost of equipment,  
supplies, labor, and increased administrative costs in both the initial imposition of the rule and any ongoing  
monitoring.  
The cost to purchase the NFPA consensus standards updated in R 408.17405 is $453.50. However, many  
municipalities already maintain the latest version of all NFPA consensus standards. The NFPA consensus standards  
are also available for inspection at the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity, MIOSHA Standards & FOIA  
Section.  
On July 30, 2021, MIOSHA sent out a GI Part 74 Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) survey to an extended list of  
Advisory Committee members and to the list of contacts provided by the State of Michigan Fire Marshal. The RIS  
survey was used to gather information regarding the new proposed rules and the impact the changes will have on  
small, medium, large, very large and “unknown” (no responses)-sized fire departments. Altogether, MIOSHA  
received 159 responses.  
The fire department’s size was divided up based on the annual operating budget intake. The small fire departments  
reflect an annual operating budget of $10,000-$500,000. The medium-sized fire departments reflect an annual  
operating budget of $500,001-$3,000,000. The larger fire departments reflect an annual operating budget of  
$3,000,001-$8,000,000, and the very large fire departments reflect an annual operating budget of $8,000,001 and  
above. The "unknown" size is data where fire departments responded but did not provide an annual operating budget,  
so MIOSHA could not place them amongst the others.  
No. of Fire Dept./SizeAvg. No. of employeesAvg. Annual Operating Budget  
Small 7620$182,890  
Med.4829$1,543,396  
Large2038$4,816,888  
V Large  
Unknown  
7224$36,200,000  
819No responses  
Below are the results of the data received:  
New subrule R 408.7421(3) - According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, 30% of small, 9% of medium, 0% of  
large, 0% of very large, and 0% of “unknown” fire departments currently have a travel restraint system.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 12  
Average estimated cost for compliance to new subrule R 408.7421(3): (small, medium, large, very large and  
“unknown” fire departments):  
• Small: $3,457 (No. of respondents: 7 out of 76)  
• Medium: $3,388 (No. of respondents 8 out of 48)  
• Large: $8,750 (No. of respondents 2 out of 20)  
• Very large: $30,000 (No. of respondents 2 out of 7)  
• “unknown”: $8,750 (No. of respondents 1 out of 8)  
Rule R 408.7424 (2) According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, 45% of small, 80% of medium, 95% of large ,  
100% of very large, and 43% of “unknown” fire departments' current belt systems meet or exceed NFPA 1983, 2001  
edition.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to amended subrule R 408.7424(2): (small, medium, large, very large, and  
“unknown” fire departments):  
• Small: $1,500 (No. of respondents 1 out of 76)  
• Medium: $1,133 (No. of respondents 3 out of 48)  
• Large: $1,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 20)  
• Very Large: No responses  
• “Unknown”: No responses  
Rule 408.17426(1)(a) According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, 94% of small, 95% of medium, and 100% of  
large, and 100% of very large and 100% of “unknown” fire departments meet or exceed NFPA 1931, 1994 edition.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to amended subdivision R 408.17426(1)(a): (small, medium, large, very large,  
and “unknown” fire departments):  
• Small: $10,520 (No. of respondents 5 out of 76)  
• Medium: $3,550 (No of respondents 2 out of 48)  
• Large: No responses  
• Very large: No responses  
• “Unknown”: No responses  
Rule 408.17426 (1)(b) According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, 94% of small , 97% of medium, 100% of  
large, 100% of very large, and 100% of “unknown” fire departments are in compliance with NFPA 1932, 2015  
edition.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to amended subdivision R 408.17426(1)(b): (small, medium, large, very large,  
and “unknown” fire departments):  
• Small: $2,100 (No. of respondents 2 out of 76)  
• Medium: No responses  
• Large: No responses  
• Very large: No responses  
• “Unknown”: No responses  
New Rule 408.17430. Proper use, handling, storage, and containment of firefighting foam concentrate. According to  
the GI Party 74 RIS survey results, 96% of small, 89% of medium, 93% of large, 100% of very large, and 86% of  
“unknown” fire departments are in accordance with SDS’s and already practicing appropriate storage measures.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to new rule R 408.17430: (small, medium, large, very large and “unknown”  
fire departments):  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 13  
• Small: $150 (No. of respondents 1 out of 76)  
• Medium: $7,675 (No. of respondents 2 out 48)  
• Large: No responses  
• Very large: No responses  
• “Unknown”:: $1,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 8)  
New Rule 408.17430(2) Containment and handling of materials contaminated by foam containing PFAS. According  
to the GI Part 74 RIS survey, 96% of small, 96% of medium, 100% of large, 100% of very large and 86% of  
“unknown” fire departments do not use intentionally added PFAS.  
According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey, 75% of small, 100% of medium, 0% of large, 0% of very large, and 100% of  
“unknown” fire departments have appropriate containment materials, equipment, and/or devices.  
New Rule 408.17430(4) prohibits the use of firefighting foam concentrate intentionally added PFAS for training, and  
the following results are responses received asking fire departments if they use intentionally added PFAS firefighting  
foam concrete for training purposes: 1% of small, 0% of medium, 0% of large, 0% of very large and 0% of  
“unknown”.  
New Rule 408.17430(5) prohibits the use of firefighting foam concentrate containing intentionally added PFAS for  
equipment calibration purposes, and the following results are responses received asking fire departments if they use  
intentionally added PFAS firefighting foam for equipment calibration purposes: 1% of small, 0% of medium, 0% of  
large, 0% of very large, and 0% of “unknown”.  
Rule 408.17432 According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, 89% of small, 88% of medium, 95% of large, 71%  
of very large and 86% of “unknown” fire departments are in compliance with NFPA 1932, 2015 edition.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to amended rule R 408.17432: (small, medium, large, very large, and  
“unknown” fire departments): –  
• Small: $8,313 (No. of respondents 8 out of 76)  
• Medium: $72,333 (No. of respondents 6 out of 48)  
• Large: $36,500 (No. of respondents 2 out of 20)  
• Very Large: $477,500 (No. of respondents 2 out of 7)  
• “Unknown”: $125,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 8)  
Rule 408.17436 According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, 77% of small, 92% of medium, 95% of large, 100%  
of very large, and 86% of “unknown” fire departments meet or exceed NFPA 1981, 2007 edition.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to amended rule R 408.17436: (small, medium, large, very large, and  
“unknown” fire departments): –  
• Small: $110,846 (No. of respondents 13 out of 76)  
• Medium: $304,975 (No. of respondents 4 out of 48)  
• Large: $210,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 20)  
• Very Large: No responses  
• “Unknown”: $36,500 (No. of respondents 1 out of 8)  
Rule 408.17440 According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey, 84% of small, 93% of medium, and 92% of large, 100% of  
very large, and 100% of “unknown” fire departments meet or exceed NFPA 1982, 2007 edition.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to amended rule R 408.17440: (small, medium, large, very large, and  
“unknown” fire departments): –  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 14  
• Small: $71,333 (No. of respondents 3 out of 76)  
• Medium: $479,900 (No. of respondents 1 out of 48)  
• Large: No Responses  
• Very Large: No responses  
• “Unknown”: No responses  
Rule 408.17463(1) According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, 66% of small, 80% of medium, 90% of large,  
100% of very large, and 57% of “unknown” fire departments meet or exceed NFPA 1983, 2001 edition.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to amended subrule R 408.17463(1): (small, medium, large, very large, and  
“unknown” fire departments):–  
• Small: $7,394 (No. of respondents 9 out of 76)  
• Medium: $28,917 (No. of respondents 6 out of 48)  
• Large: No Responses  
• Very large: $50,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 7)  
• “Unknown”: $9,500 (No. of respondents 2 out of 8)  
Rule 408.17464 Training and education program - live fire training. According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results,  
45% of small, 57% of medium, 61% of large, 60% of very large and 17% of “unknown” fire departments are  
currently performing compliant live fire training.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to amended rule R 408.17464: (small, medium, large, very large, and  
“unknown” fire departments) –  
• Small: $85,000 (No. of respondents 2 out of 76)  
• Medium: $50,333 (No. of respondents 3 out of 48)  
• Large: $1,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 20)  
• Very large: $1,002,667 (No. of respondents 3 out of 7)  
• “Unknown”: $6,500 (No. of respondents 1 out of 8)  
New rule 408.17464. Training and education program. According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, 88% of small,  
96% of medium, 100% of large, 100% of very large, and 100% of “unknown” fire departments have firefighters that  
are currently certified in first aid.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to new rule R 408.17464: (small, medium, large, very large, and “unknown”  
fire departments) –  
• Small: $2,117 (No. of respondents 6 out of 76)  
• Medium: 9,353 (No. of respondents 3 out of 48)  
• Large: $1,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 20)  
• Very large: No Reponses  
• “Unknown”:: $500 (No. of respondents 1 out of 8)  
14. Discuss any program, service, duty, or responsibility imposed upon any city, county, town, village, or school  
district by the rules.  
MIOSHA has exclusive jurisdiction for administering and enforcing the occupational safety and health programs in  
Michigan, covering all state and local government workers, including small municipality fire departments. No  
programs, services, duties, or responsibilities will be imposed on any city, county, town, village, or school district.  
A. Describe any actions that governmental units must take to be in compliance with the rules. This section should  
include items such as record keeping and reporting requirements or changing operational practices.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 15  
Pre-employment physical – R 408.17411(1)(a)  
The government unit must ensure prospective firefighters receive a pre-employment physical conducted by a  
physician or other licensed healthcare professional to ensure they have the ability to perform assigned emergency  
operations.  
Hose loading – R 408.17421(3)  
The government unit must ensure that any employee riding on or in a fire apparatus shall be safely secured by a seat  
belt or safety harness any time the apparatus is in motion. If the operation occurs while the apparatus is in motion,  
several conditions must be met, as outlined in the proposed rule.  
Life safety rope & equipment – R 408.17463(1)  
The government unit must ensure that firefighters’ life safety ropes and equipment comply with a newer version of  
the NFPA 1983 standard. This would be for existing equipment already possessed by a department or future  
equipment purchases.  
Portable ladders – R 408.17426  
The government unit must ensure that portable ladders used in structural firefighting or training comply with NFPA  
standards 1931 and 1932. This would be for existing equipment already possessed by a department or future  
equipment purchases.  
PFAS – R 408.17430  
The government unit must ensure the following:  
(1) An employer must follow the specific, manufacturer provided safety data sheets (SDSs) for all firefighting foam  
concentrate that employees may be exposed to and follow best practices regarding the proper use, handling, and  
storage information.  
(2) An employer must prevent intentionally added PFAS containing foam concentrate or foam solution from entering  
groundwater, surface water, or storm drains as soon as possible.  
(3) An employer must dispose of materials contaminated by foam containing PFAS pursuant to the Natural Resources  
and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.101 to 324.90106.  
(4) An employer must ensure the decontamination of a firefighter’s body and equipment.  
(5) An employer must prohibit the use of firefighting foam concentrate containing intentionally added PFAS, by a  
firefighter, for training purposes.  
(6) An employer must prohibit the use of firefighting foam concentrate containing intentionally added PFAS, by a  
firefighter, for equipment calibration purposes (unless required by law or facility where the calibration takes place  
has implemented appropriate measures).  
Protective ensemble – R 408.17432  
The government unit must ensure that the firefighters’ protective ensemble complies with a newer version of the  
NFPA 1971 standard. This would be for existing protective ensembles already possessed by a department or future  
purchases.  
Respiratory protection (SCBA & PASS) – R 408.17436 & R 408.17440  
The government unit must ensure that the firefighters’ respiratory protection devices comply with newer versions of  
NFPA 1981 and 1982. This would be for existing respiratory protection devices already possessed by a department or  
future purchases.  
Training & Education – R 408.17464  
The government unit must ensure firefighters receive and maintain certification in first aid, cardiopulmonary  
resuscitation, and automated external defibrillator.  
Live Fire Training – R 408.17464  
The government unit must ensure all live fire training must meet or exceed the requirements of the NFPA 1403.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 16  
15. Describe whether or not an appropriation to state or local governmental units has been made or a funding  
source provided for any additional expenditures associated with the proposed rules.  
There are no appropriations or other funding sources available for the proposed rules that MIOSHA is aware of.  
Rural Impact  
16. In general, what impact will the rules have on rural areas?  
MIOSHA has exclusive jurisdiction for administering and enforcing the occupational safety and health programs in  
Michigan, covering all state and local government workers, including small municipality fire departments. According  
to the GI Part 74 RIS survey, small fire departments may be affected the most due to budgetary constraints and the  
costs associated with compliance for some of the proposed rules. See the response to question 13 above for a cost  
breakdown associated with the proposed rules.  
A. Describe the types of public or private interests in rural areas that will be affected by the rules.  
Public interests in rural areas, specifically fire departments, will be affected by the proposed rules. Private interests  
will not be affected by the proposed rules.  
Environmental Impact  
17. Do the proposed rules have any impact on the environment? If yes, please explain.  
The proposed rules regarding PFAS will have a positive impact on the environment. The proposed regulations  
prohibit the use of PFAS-containing firefighting foams for training. Such foams may only be used in emergency  
firefighting or fire prevention operation and for testing purposes in a facility that has implemented appropriate  
measures.  
In addition, the proposed rules require the prevention of intentionally added PFAS containing foam concentrate or  
foam solution from entering groundwater, surface water, or storm drains through the implementation of manual  
containment strategies such as blocking storm drains to prevent the contaminated foam/water solution from entering  
the wastewater system or the environment. Defensive tactics such as damming, diking, and diverting should also be  
employed to get the foam/water solution to an area suitable for containment until it can be removed in accordance  
with local, state, and federal regulations.  
The proposed rules require that immediately after the end of a fire or other incident at which a fire department uses  
firefighting foam containing intentionally added PFAS, the fire chief shall report the incident to the Michigan  
Pollution Emergency Alert System.  
Lastly, the proposed rules require the disposal of materials contaminated by foam containing PFAS to be in  
accordance with the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, PA 451 of 1944, MCL 324.101 to  
324.90106.  
Small Business Impact Statement  
18. Describe whether and how the agency considered exempting small businesses from the proposed rules.  
As the proposed rules only apply to municipalities, there will be no impact on small businesses due to the proposed  
rule changes.  
19. If small businesses are not exempt, describe (a) the manner in which the agency reduced the economic impact  
of the proposed rules on small businesses, including a detailed recitation of the efforts of the agency to comply  
with the mandate to reduce the disproportionate impact of the rules upon small businesses as described below (in  
accordance with MCL 24.240(1)(a-d)), or (b) the reasons such a reduction was not lawful or feasible.  
As the proposed rules only apply to municipalities, there will be no impact on small businesses due to the proposed  
rule changes.  
A. Identify and estimate the number of small businesses affected by the proposed rules and the probable effect on  
small businesses.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 17  
As the proposed rules only apply to municipalities, there will be no impact on small businesses due to the proposed  
rule changes.  
B. Describe how the agency established differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables for small  
businesses under the rules after projecting the required reporting, record-keeping, and other administrative costs.  
As the proposed rules only apply to municipalities, there will be no impact on small businesses due to the proposed  
rule changes.  
C. Describe how the agency consolidated or simplified the compliance and reporting requirements for small  
businesses and identify the skills necessary to comply with the reporting requirements.  
As the proposed rules only apply to municipalities, there will be no impact on small businesses due to the proposed  
rule changes.  
D. Describe how the agency established performance standards to replace design or operation standards required  
by the proposed rules.  
As the proposed rules only apply to municipalities, there will be no impact on small businesses due to the proposed  
rule changes.  
20. Identify any disproportionate impact the proposed rules may have on small businesses because of their size or  
geographic location.  
As the proposed rules only apply to municipalities, there will be no impact on small businesses due to the proposed  
rule changes.  
21. Identify the nature of any report and the estimated cost of its preparation by small businesses required to  
comply with the proposed rules.  
As the proposed rules only apply to municipalities, there will be no impact on small businesses due to the proposed  
rule changes.  
22. Analyze the costs of compliance for all small businesses affected by the proposed rules, including costs of  
equipment, supplies, labor, and increased administrative costs.  
As the proposed rules only apply to municipalities, there will be no impact on small businesses due to the proposed  
rule changes.  
23. Identify the nature and estimated cost of any legal, consulting, or accounting services that small businesses  
would incur in complying with the proposed rules.  
As the proposed rules only apply to municipalities, there will be no impact on small businesses due to the proposed  
rule changes.  
24. Estimate the ability of small businesses to absorb the costs without suffering economic harm and without  
adversely affecting competition in the marketplace.  
As the proposed rules only apply to municipalities, there will be no impact on small businesses due to the proposed  
rule changes.  
25. Estimate the cost, if any, to the agency of administering or enforcing a rule that exempts or sets lesser  
standards for compliance by small businesses.  
As the proposed rules only apply to municipalities, there will be no impact on small businesses due to the proposed  
rule changes.  
26. Identify the impact on the public interest of exempting or setting lesser standards of compliance for small  
businesses.  
As the proposed rules only apply to municipalities, there will be no impact on small businesses due to the proposed  
rule changes.  
27. Describe whether and how the agency has involved small businesses in the development of the proposed rules.  
As the proposed rules only apply to municipalities, there will be no impact on small businesses due to the proposed  
rule changes.  
A. If small businesses were involved in the development of the rules, please identify the business(es).  
As the proposed rules only apply to municipalities, there will be no impact on small businesses due to the proposed  
rule changes.  
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Rules (independent of statutory impact)  
28. Estimate the actual statewide compliance costs of the rule amendments on businesses or groups.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 18  
There is no practical way to determine the expected costs for those not already in compliance due to many variations  
in equipment, installation methods and operational processes. Advisory Committee members indicated that the  
majority of employers are already in compliance.  
A. Identify the businesses or groups who will be directly affected by, bear the cost of, or directly benefit from the  
proposed rules.  
All fire departments not in compliance already with the proposed rules will see a varying degree of financial costs in  
complying with the new rules. The smaller fire departments may face significant costs, compared to their budgets,  
complying with the proposed rules.  
B. What additional costs will be imposed on businesses and other groups as a result of these proposed rules (i.e.  
new equipment, supplies, labor, accounting, or recordkeeping)? Please identify the types and number of businesses  
and groups. Be sure to quantify how each entity will be affected.  
On July 30, 2021, MIOSHA sent out a GI Part 74 Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) survey to an extended list of  
Advisory Committee members and to the list of contacts provided by the State of Michigan Fire Marshal. The RIS  
survey was used to gather information regarding the new proposed rules and the impact the changes will have on  
small, medium, large, very large and “unknown” (no responses)-sized fire departments. Altogether, MIOSHA  
received 159 responses.  
The fire department’s size was divided up based on the annual operating budget intake. The small fire departments  
reflect an annual operating budget of $10,000-$500,000. The medium-sized fire departments reflect an annual  
operating budget of $500,001-$3,000,000. The larger fire departments reflect an annual operating budget of  
$3,000,001-$8,000,000, and the very large fire departments reflect an annual operating budget of $8,000,001 and  
above. The "unknown" size is data where fire departments responded but did not provide an annual operating budget,  
so MIOSHA could not place them amongst the others.  
No. of Fire Dept./SizeAvg. No. of employeesAvg. Annual Operating Budget  
Small 7620$182,890  
Med.4829$1,543,396  
Large2038$4,816,888  
Very Large 7224$36,200,000  
Unknown  
819No responses  
Below are the results of the data received:  
New subrule R 408.7421(3) - According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, 30% of small, 9% of medium, 0% of  
large, 0% of very large, and 0% of “unknown” fire departments currently have a travel restraint system.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to new subrule R 408.7421(3): (small, medium, large, very large and  
“unknown” fire departments):  
• Small: $3,457 (No. of respondents: 7 out of 76)  
• Medium: $3,388 (No. of respondents 8 out of 48)  
• Large: $8,750 (No. of respondents 2 out of 20)  
• Very large: $30,000 (No. of respondents 2 out of 7)  
• “Unknown”: $8,750 (No. of respondents 1 out of 8)  
Rule R 408.7424 (2) According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, 45% of small, 80% of medium, 95% of large ,  
100% of very large, and 43% of “unknown” fire departments' current belt systems meet or exceed NFPA 1983, 2001  
edition.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to amended subrule R 408.7424(2): (small, medium, large, very large, and  
“unknown” fire departments):  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 19  
• Small: $1,500 (No. of respondents 1 out of 76)  
• Medium: $1,133 (No. of respondents 3 out of 48)  
• Large: $1,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 20)  
• Very Large: No responses  
• “Unknown”: No responses  
Rule 408.17426(1)(a) According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, 94% of small, 95% of medium, and 100% of  
large, and 100% of very large and 100% of “unknown” fire departments meet or exceed NFPA 1931, 1994 edition.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to amended subdivision R 408.17426(1)(a): (small, medium, large, very large,  
and “unknown” fire departments):  
• Small: $10,520 (No. of respondents 5 out of 76)  
• Medium: $3,550 (No of respondents 2 out of 48)  
• Large: No responses  
• Very large: No responses  
• “Unknown”: No responses  
Rule 408.17426 (1)(b) According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, 94% of small , 97% of medium, 100% of  
large, 100% of very large, and 100% of “unknown” fire departments are in compliance with NFPA 1932, 2015  
edition.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to amended subdivision R 408.17426(1)(b): (small, medium, large, very large,  
and “unknown” fire departments):  
• Small: $2,100 (No. of respondents 2 out of 76)  
• Medium: No responses  
• Large: No responses  
• Very large: No responses  
• “Unknown”: No responses  
New Rule 408.17430. Proper use, handling, storage, and containment of firefighting foam concentrate. According to  
the GI Party 74 RIS survey results, 96% of small, 89% of medium, 93% of large, 100% of very large, and 86% of  
“unknown” fire departments are in accordance with SDS’s and already practicing appropriate storage measures.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to new rule R 408.17430: (small, medium, large, very large and “unknown”  
fire departments):  
• Small: $150 (No. of respondents 1 out of 76)  
• Medium: $7,675 (No. of respondents 2 out 48)  
• Large: No responses  
• Very large: No responses  
• “Unknown”:: $1,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 8)  
New Rule 408.17430(2) According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey, 96% of small, 96% of medium, 100% of large,  
100% of very large and 86% of “unknown” fire departments do not use intentionally added PFAS.  
According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey, 75% of small, 100% of medium, 0% of large, 0% of very large, and 100% of  
“unknown” fire departments have appropriate containment materials, equipment, and/or devices.  
New Rule 408.17430(4) prohibits the use of firefighting foam concentrate intentionally added PFAS for training, and  
the following results are responses received asking fire departments if they use intentionally added PFAS firefighting  
foam concrete for training purposes: 1% of small, 0% of medium, 0% of large, 0% of very large and 0% of  
“unknown”.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 20  
New Rule 408.17430(5) prohibits the use of firefighting foam concentrate containing intentionally added PFAS for  
equipment calibration purposes, and the following results are responses received asking fire departments if they use  
intentionally added PFAS firefighting foam for equipment calibration purposes: 1% of small, 0% of medium, 0% of  
large, 0% of very large, and 0% of “unknown”.  
Rule 408.17432 According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, 89% of small, 88% of medium, 95% of large, 71%  
of very large and 86% of “unknown” fire departments are in compliance with NFPA 1932, 2015 edition.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to amended rule R 408.17432: (small, medium, large, very large, and  
“unknown” fire departments):  
• Small: $8,313 (No. of respondents 8 out of 76)  
• Medium: $72,333 (No. of respondents 6 out of 48)  
• Large: $36,500 (No. of respondents 2 out of 20)  
• Very Large: $477,500 (No. of respondents 2 out of 7)  
• “Unknown”: $125,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 8)  
Rule 408.17436 According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, 77% of small, 92% of medium, 95% of large, 100%  
of very large, and 86% of “unknown” fire departments meet or exceed NFPA 1981, 2007 edition.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to amended rule R 408.17436: (small, medium, large, very large, and  
“unknown” fire departments):  
• Small: $110,846 (No. of respondents 13 out of 76)  
• Medium: $304,975 (No. of respondents 4 out of 48)  
• Large: $210,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 20)  
• Very Large: No responses  
• “Unknown”: $36,500 (No. of respondents 1 out of 8)  
Rule 408.17440 According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey, 84% of small, 93% of medium, and 92% of large, 100% of  
very large, and 100% of “unknown” fire departments meet or exceed NFPA 1982, 2007 edition.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to amended rule R 408.17440: (small, medium, large, very large, and  
“unknown” fire departments):  
• Small: $71,333 (No. of respondents 3 out of 76)  
• Medium: $479,900 (No. of respondents 1 out of 48)  
• Large: No Responses  
• Very Large: No responses  
• “Unknown”: No responses  
Rule 408.17463(1) According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, 66% of small, 80% of medium, 90% of large,  
100% of very large, and 57% of “unknown” fire departments meet or exceed NFPA 1983, 2001 edition.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to amended subrule R 408.17463(1): (small, medium, large, very large, and  
“unknown” fire departments):  
• Small: $7,394 (No. of respondents 9 out of 76)  
• Medium: $28,917 (No. of respondents 6 out of 48)  
• Large: No Responses  
• Very large: $50,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 7)  
• “Unknown”: $9,500 (No. of respondents 2 out of 8)  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 21  
Rule 408.17464 According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, 45% of small, 57% of medium, 61% of large, 60%  
of very large and 17% of “unknown” fire departments are currently performing compliant live fire training.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to amended rule R 408.17464: (small, medium, large, very large, and  
“unknown” fire departments) –  
• Small: $85,000 (No. of respondents 2 out of 76)  
• Medium: $50,333 (No. of respondents 3 out of 48)  
• Large: $1,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 20)  
• Very large: $1,002,667 (No. of respondents 3 out of 7)  
• “Unknown”: $6,500 (No. of respondents 1 out of 8)  
New rule 408.17464. Training and education program. According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, 88% of small,  
96% of medium, 100% of large, 100% of very large, and 100% of “unknown” fire departments have firefighters that  
are currently certified in first aid.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to new rule R 408.17464: (small, medium, large, very large, and “unknown”  
fire departments)  
• Small: $2,117 (No. of respondents 6 out of 76)  
• Medium: 9,353 (No. of respondents 3 out of 48)  
• Large: $1,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 20)  
• Very large: No Reponses  
• “Unknown”: $500 (No. of respondents 1 out of 8)  
29. Estimate the actual statewide compliance costs of the proposed rules on individuals (regulated individuals or  
the public). Include the costs of education, training, application fees, examination fees, license fees, new  
equipment, supplies, labor, accounting, or recordkeeping.  
Approximately 1,029 fire departments and approximately 34,500 firefighters will be affected by the new proposed  
revisions to GI Part 74. Firefighting. There is no practical way to determine the expected costs for those not already  
in compliance due to many variations in equipment, installation methods and operations. Advisory Committee  
members indicated that the majority of employers are already in compliance. Please see question 13 for estimates on  
costs.  
A. How many and what category of individuals will be affected by the rules?  
Approximately 1,029 fire departments and approximately 34,500 firefighters will be affected by the new proposed  
rules.  
B. What qualitative and quantitative impact do the proposed changes in rules have on these individuals?  
The qualitative impact the proposed changes will have is that they will help improve the safety and health of  
firefighters by providing better medical assessments, better safety and health equipment, and better protection while  
handling and disposing of PFAS and other firefighting foam concentrates.  
According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, the quantitative impact the proposed changes in rules have on  
firefighter’s are in the following rules:  
New subrule R 408.7421(3) – Travel Restraint System – Average estimated cost for compliance to new subrule R  
408.7421(3): (small, medium, large, very large and “unknown” fire departments):  
• Small: $3,457 (No. of respondents: 7 out of 76)  
• Medium: $3,388 (No. of respondents 8 out of 48)  
• Large: $8,750 (No. of respondents 2 out of 20)  
• Very large: $30,000 (No. of respondents 2 out of 7)  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 22  
• “unknown”: $8,750 (No. of respondents 1 out of 8)  
Rule 408.7424(2) – NFPA 1983: Standard on Life Safety Rope and Equipment for Emergency Services, 2001 edition  
– Average estimated cost for compliance to amended subrule R 408.7424(2): (small, medium, large, very large and  
“unknown” fire departments):  
• Small: $1,500 (No. of respondents 1 out of 76)  
• Medium: $1,133 (No. of respondents 3 out of 48)  
• Large: $1,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 20)  
• Very Large: No responses  
• “Unknown”: No responses  
Rule 408.17426(1)(a) – NFPA 1931: Standard for Manufacturer’s Design of Fire Department Ground Ladders, 1994  
edition – Average estimated cost for compliance to new subdivisions R 408.17426(1)(a): (small, medium, large, very  
large and “unknown” fire departments):  
• Small: $10,520 (No. of respondents 5 out of 76)  
• Medium: $3,550 (No of respondents 2 out of 48)  
• Large: No responses  
• Very large: No responses  
• “Unknown”: No responses  
Rule 408.17426(1)(b) – NFPA 1932: Standard on Use, Maintenance, and Service Testing of In-Service Fire  
Department Ground Ladders, 2015 edition – Average estimated cost for compliance to new subdivision R 408.17426  
(1)(b): (small, medium, large, very large and “unknown” fire departments):  
• Small: $2,100 (No. of respondents 2 out of 76)  
• Medium: No responses  
• Large: No responses  
• Very large: No responses  
• “Unknown”: No responses  
New Rule 408.17430 – Proper use, handling, storage, and containment of firefighting foam concentrate – Average  
estimated cost for compliance to new rule R 408.17430: (small, medium, large, very large and “unknown” fire  
departments):  
• Small: $150 (No. of respondents 1 out of 76)  
• Medium: $7,675 (No. of respondents 2 out 48)  
• Large: No responses  
• Very large: No responses  
• “Unknown”: $1,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 8)  
New Rule 408.17430(2) – According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey, 96% of small, 96% of medium, 100% of large,  
100% of very large and 86% of “unknown” fire departments do not use intentionally added PFAS.  
New Rule 408.17430(2)(a) – According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey, 75% of small, 100% of medium, 0% of large,  
0% of very large, and 100% of “unknown” fire departments have appropriate containment materials, equipment,  
and/or devices.  
New Rule 408.17430(4) prohibits the use of firefighting foam concentrate intentionally added PFAS for training, and  
the following results are responses received asking fire departments if they use intentionally added PFAS firefighting  
foam concrete for training purposes: 1% of small, 0% of medium, 0% of large, 0% of very large and 0% of  
“unknown”.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 23  
New Rule 408.17430(5) prohibits the use of firefighting foam concentrate containing intentionally added PFAS for  
equipment calibration purposes, and the following results are responses received asking fire departments if they use  
intentionally added PFAS firefighting foam for equipment calibration purposes: 1% of small, 0% of medium, 0% of  
large, 0% of very large, and 0% of “unknown”.  
Rule 408.17432 – NFPA 1971: Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Firefighting and proximity Fire  
Fighting, 2013 edition – Average estimated cost for compliance to amended rule R 408.17432: (small, medium, large,  
very large, and “unknown” fire departments):  
• Small: $8,313 (No. of respondents 8 out of 76)  
• Medium: $72,333 (No. of respondents 6 out of 48)  
• Large: $36,500 (No. of respondents 2 out of 20)  
• Very Large: $477,500 (No. of respondents 2 out of 7)  
• “Unknown”: $125,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 8)  
Rule 408.17436 – NFPA 1981: Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for  
Emergency Services, 2007 edition - Average estimated cost for compliance to amended rule R 408.17436: (small,  
medium, large, very large, and “unknown” fire departments): –  
• Small: $110,846 (No. of respondents 13 out of 76)  
• Medium: $304,975 (No. of respondents 4 out of 48)  
• Large: $210,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 20)  
• Very Large: No responses  
• “Unknown”: $36,500 (No. of respondents 1 out of 8)  
Rule 408.17440 – NFPA 1982: Standard on Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS), 2007 edition - Average estimated  
cost for compliance to amended rule R 408.17440: (small, medium, large, very large, and “unknown” fire  
departments):  
• Small: $71,333 (No. of respondents 3 out of 76)  
• Medium: $479,900 (No. of respondents 1 out of 48)  
• Large: No Responses  
• Very Large: No responses  
• “Unknown”: No responses  
Rule 408.17463(1) – NFPA 1983: Standard on Life Safety Rope and Equipment for Emergency Services, 2001  
edition – Average estimated cost for compliance to amended subrule R 408.17463(1): (small, medium, large, very  
large, and “unknown” fire departments):  
• Small: $7,394 (No. of respondents 9 out of 76)  
• Medium: $28,917 (No. of respondents 6 out of 48)  
• Large: No Responses  
• Very large: $50,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 7)  
New Rule 408.17464 – NFPA 1403: Standard on Live Fire Training Evolutions, 2018 edition – Average estimated  
cost for compliance to amended rule R 408.17464: (small, medium, large, very large, and “unknown” fire  
departments):  
• Small: $85,000 (No. of respondents 2 out of 76)  
• Medium: $50,333 (No. of respondents 3 out of 48)  
• Large: $1,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 20)  
• Very large: $1,002,667 (No. of respondents 3 out of 7)  
• “Unknown”: $6,500 (No. of respondents 1 out of 8)  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 24  
New rule 408.17464 – Training and education program/First Aid – Average estimated cost for compliance to new rule  
R 408.17464: (small, medium, large, very large, and “unknown” fire departments):  
• Small: $2,117 (No. of respondents 6 out of 76)  
• Medium: 9,353 (No. of respondents 3 out of 48)  
• Large: $1,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 20)  
• Very large: No Reponses  
• “Unknown”: $500 (No. of respondents 1 out of 8)  
30. Quantify any cost reductions to businesses, individuals, groups of individuals, or governmental units as a result  
of the proposed rules.  
If we reduce the use of intentionally added PFAS firefighting containing foam, it will reduce environmental clean-up  
and disposal costs. There will be no cost reductions to businesses, individuals, groups of individuals, or governmental  
units as a result of the proposed rules.  
31. Estimate the primary and direct benefits and any secondary or indirect benefits of the proposed rules. Please  
provide both quantitative and qualitative information, as well as your assumptions.  
The proposed changes will help improve the safety and health of firefighters by providing better medical  
assessments, better safety and health equipment, and better protection while handling and disposing of PFAS and  
other firefighting foam concentrates. There were no quantifiable benefits identified by the advisory committee.  
32. Explain how the proposed rules will impact business growth and job creation (or elimination) in Michigan.  
The proposed rule changes should not have an impact on business growth and job creation in Michigan. However,  
there may be a negative impact on the ability to maintain staffing levels for some fire departments if there is an  
increased cost of compliance for those fire departments.  
33. Identify any individuals or businesses who will be disproportionately affected by the rules as a result of their  
industrial sector, segment of the public, business size, or geographic location.  
Fire departments with smaller operating budgets may be disproportionately affected by the rules.  
On July 30, 2021, MIOSHA sent out a GI Part 74 Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) survey to an extended list of  
Advisory Committee members and to the list of contacts provided by the State of Michigan Fire Marshal. The RIS  
survey was used to gather information regarding the new proposed rules and the impact the changes will have on  
small, medium, large, very large and “unknown” (no responses)-sized fire departments. Altogether, MIOSHA  
received 159 responses.  
The fire department’s size was divided up based on the annual operating budget intake. The small fire departments  
reflect an annual operating budget of $10,000-$500,000. The medium-sized fire departments reflect an annual  
operating budget of $500,001-$3,000,000. The larger fire departments reflect an annual operating budget of  
$3,000,001-$8,000,000, and the very large fire departments reflect an annual operating budget of $8,000,001 and  
above. The "unknown" size is data where fire departments responded but did not provide an annual operating budget,  
so MIOSHA could not place them amongst the others.  
No. of Fire Dept./SizeAvg. No. of employeesAvg. Annual Operating Budget  
Small 7620$182,890  
Med.4829$1,543,396  
Large2038$4,816,888  
Very Large 7  
Unknown  
224  
$36,200,000  
819No responses  
Below are the results of the data received:  
New subrule R 408.7421(3) - According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, 30% of small, 9% of medium, 0% of  
large, 0% of very large, and 0% of “unknown” fire departments currently have a travel restraint system.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 25  
Average estimated cost for compliance to new subrule R 408.7421(3): (small, medium, large, very large and  
“unknown” fire departments):  
• Small: $3,457 (No. of respondents: 7 out of 76)  
• Medium: $3,388 (No. of respondents 8 out of 48)  
• Large: $8,750 (No. of respondents 2 out of 20)  
• Very large: $30,000 (No. of respondents 2 out of 7)  
• “Unknown”: $8,750 (No. of respondents 1 out of 8)  
Rule R 408.7424 (2) According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, 45% of small, 80% of medium, 95% of large ,  
100% of very large, and 43% of “unknown” fire departments' current belt systems meet or exceed NFPA 1983, 2001  
edition.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to amended subrule R 408.7424(2): (small, medium, large, very large, and  
“unknown” fire departments):  
• Small: $1,500 (No. of respondents 1 out of 76)  
• Medium: $1,133 (No. of respondents 3 out of 48)  
• Large: $1,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 20)  
• Very Large: No responses  
• “Unknown”: No responses  
Rule 408.17426(1)(a) According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, 94% of small, 95% of medium, and 100% of  
large, and 100% of very large and 100% of “unknown” fire departments meet or exceed NFPA 1931, 1994 edition.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to amended subdivision R 408.17426(1)(a): (small, medium, large, very large,  
and “unknown” fire departments):  
• Small: $10,520 (No. of respondents 5 out of 76)  
• Medium: $3,550 (No of respondents 2 out of 48)  
• Large: No responses  
• Very large: No responses  
• “Unknown”: No responses  
Rule 408.17426 (1)(b) According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, 94% of small , 97% of medium, 100% of  
large, 100% of very large, and 100% of “unknown” fire departments are in compliance with NFPA 1932, 2015  
edition.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to amended subdivision R 408.17426(1)(b): (small, medium, large, very large,  
and “unknown” fire departments):  
• Small: $2,100 (No. of respondents 2 out of 76)  
• Medium: No responses  
• Large: No responses  
• Very large: No responses  
• “Unknown”: No responses  
New Rule 408.17430. Proper use, handling, storage, and containment of firefighting foam concentrate. According to  
the GI Party 74 RIS survey results, 96% of small, 89% of medium, 93% of large, 100% of very large, and 86% of  
“unknown” fire departments are in accordance with SDS’s and already practicing appropriate storage measures.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to new rule R 408.17430: (small, medium, large, very large and “unknown”  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 26  
fire departments):  
• Small: $150 (No. of respondents 1 out of 76)  
• Medium: $7,675 (No. of respondents 2 out 48)  
• Large: No responses  
• Very large: No responses  
• “Unknown”: $1,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 8)  
New Rule 408.17430(2) According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey, 96% of small, 96% of medium, 100% of large,  
100% of very large and 86% of “unknown” fire departments do not use intentionally added PFAS.  
According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey, 75% of small, 100% of medium, 0% of large, 0% of very large, and 100% of  
“unknown” fire departments have appropriate containment materials, equipment, and/or devices.  
New Rule 408.17430(4) prohibits the use of firefighting foam concentrate intentionally added PFAS for training, and  
the following results are responses received asking fire departments if they use intentionally added PFAS firefighting  
foam concrete for training purposes: 1% of small, 0% of medium, 0% of large, 0% of very large and 0% of  
“unknown”.  
New Rule 408.17430(5) prohibits the use of firefighting foam concentrate containing intentionally added PFAS for  
equipment calibration purposes, and the following results are responses received asking fire departments if they use  
intentionally added PFAS firefighting foam for equipment calibration purposes: 1% of small, 0% of medium, 0% of  
large, 0% of very large, and 0% of “unknown”.  
Rule 408.17432 According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, 89% of small, 88% of medium, 95% of large, 71%  
of very large and 86% of “unknown” fire departments are in compliance with NFPA 1932, 2015 edition.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to amended rule R 408.17432: (small, medium, large, very large, and  
“unknown” fire departments):  
• Small: $8,313 (No. of respondents 8 out of 76)  
• Medium: $72,333 (No. of respondents 6 out of 48)  
• Large: $36,500 (No. of respondents 2 out of 20)  
• Very Large: $477,500 (No. of respondents 2 out of 7)  
• “Unknown”: $125,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 8)  
Rule 408.17436 According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, 77% of small, 92% of medium, 95% of large, 100%  
of very large, and 86% of “unknown” fire departments meet or exceed NFPA 1981, 2007 edition.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to amended rule R 408.17436: (small, medium, large, very large, and  
“unknown” fire departments):  
• Small: $110,846 (No. of respondents 13 out of 76)  
• Medium: $304,975 (No. of respondents 4 out of 48)  
• Large: $210,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 20)  
• Very Large: No responses  
• “Unknown”: $36,500 (No. of respondents 1 out of 8)  
Rule 408.17440 According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey, 84% of small, 93% of medium, and 92% of large, 100% of  
very large, and 100% of “unknown” fire departments meet or exceed NFPA 1982, 2007 edition.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to amended rule R 408.17440: (small, medium, large, very large, and  
“unknown” fire departments): –  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 27  
• Small: $71,333 (No. of respondents 3 out of 76)  
• Medium: $479,900 (No. of respondents 1 out of 48)  
• Large: No Responses  
• Very Large: No responses  
• “Unknown”: No responses  
Rule 408.17463(1) According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, 66% of small, 80% of medium, 90% of large,  
100% of very large, and 57% of “unknown” fire departments meet or exceed NFPA 1983, 2001 edition.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to amended subrule R 408.17463(1): (small, medium, large, very large, and  
“unknown” fire departments):  
• Small: $7,394 (No. of respondents 9 out of 76)  
• Medium: $28,917 (No. of respondents 6 out of 48)  
• Large: No Responses  
• Very large: $50,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 7)  
• “Unknown”: $9,500 (No. of respondents 2 out of 8)  
Rule 408.17464 According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, 45% of small, 57% of medium, 61% of large, 60%  
of very large and 17% of “unknown” fire departments are currently performing compliant live fire training.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to amended rule R 408.17464: (small, medium, large, very large, and  
“unknown” fire departments):  
• Small: $85,000 (No. of respondents 2 out of 76)  
• Medium: $50,333 (No. of respondents 3 out of 48)  
• Large: $1,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 20)  
• Very large: $1,002,667 (No. of respondents 3 out of 7)  
• “Unknown”: $6,500 (No. of respondents 1 out of 8)  
New rule 408.17464. Training and education program. According to the GI Part 74 RIS survey results, 88% of small,  
96% of medium, 100% of large, 100% of very large, and 100% of “unknown” fire departments have firefighters that  
are currently certified in first aid.  
Average estimated cost for compliance to new rule R 408.17464: (small, medium, large, very large, and “unknown”  
fire departments):  
• Small: $2,117 (No. of respondents 6 out of 76)  
• Medium: 9,353 (No. of respondents 3 out of 48)  
• Large: $1,000 (No. of respondents 1 out of 20)  
• Very large: No Reponses  
• “Unknown”: $500 (No. of respondents 1 out of 8)  
34. Identify the sources the agency relied upon in compiling the regulatory impact statement, including the  
methodology utilized in determining the existence and extent of the impact of the proposed rules and a cost-  
benefit analysis of the proposed rules.  
MIOSHA convened an Advisory Committee and conducted a GI Part 74 RIS survey and sent it out to an extended  
list of Advisory Committee members and a list of contacts provided by the State of Michigan Fire Marshal to gather  
information regarding the new proposed rules revisions and the impact it will have on fire departments (small,  
medium, large).  
A. How were estimates made, and what were your assumptions? Include internal and external sources, published  
reports, information provided by associations or organizations, etc., that demonstrate a need for the proposed  
rules.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 28  
MIOSHA relied on the expertise of the Advisory Committee members in evaluating the results of the GI Part 74 RIS  
survey that was sent out to all registered fire departments that was comprised of current members of the firefighting  
industry.  
Alternative to Regulation  
35. Identify any reasonable alternatives to the proposed rules that would achieve the same or similar goals.  
There are no reasonable alternatives to the proposed rules that would achieve the same or similar goals.  
A. Please include any statutory amendments that may be necessary to achieve such alternatives.  
There are no statutory amendments necessary to achieve such alternatives, as there are no reasonable alternatives to  
the proposed rules.  
36. Discuss the feasibility of establishing a regulatory program similar to that proposed in the rules that would  
operate through private market-based mechanisms. Please include a discussion of private market-based systems  
utilized by other states.  
The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA), administers the occupational safety and  
health program in compliance with the provisions of the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act, Act 154 of  
1974, as amended, and consistent with an agreement between Michigan and the United States Secretary of Labor,  
which became effective October 3, 1973, and is known as the Michigan State Plan for Occupational Safety and  
Health. Under the agreement, MIOSHA has jurisdiction for administering and enforcing the occupational safety and  
health program in Michigan that covers most private-sector employees and all state and local government workers.  
There are no private market-based systems utilized by other states.  
37. Discuss all significant alternatives the agency considered during rule development and why they were not  
incorporated into the rules. This section should include ideas considered both during internal discussions and  
discussions with stakeholders, affected parties, or advisory groups.  
The Advisory Committee discussed updating various NFPA consensus standards to reference the most current NFPA  
standards. It was determined that this could potentially increase the cost of compliance, so the committee adopted  
versions that would result in fewer compliance and still provide improved safety and health performance.  
Additional Information  
38. As required by MCL 24.245b(1)(c), please describe any instructions regarding the method of complying with  
the rules, if applicable.  
MIOSHA is developing an instruction for internal/external use on the enforcement and interpretation of the proposed  
rules. The Agency Instruction will be available on the MIOSHA website for public viewing.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
;