Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules  
Administrative Rules Division (ARD)  
MOAHR-Rules@michigan.gov  
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:  
2022-44 LE  
Title of proposed rule set:  
General Industry Safety and Health Standard Part 73. Fire Brigades  
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 parallel the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rules, 29 CFR  
1910.156, “Fire brigades.”  
A. Are these rules required by state law or federal mandate?  
Yes, as a state plan program, the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) is obligated to  
cover private and public sector employees. State plan programs are monitored by OSHA and must be at least as  
effective as OSHA in protecting workers and preventing work-related injuries, illnesses, and deaths.  
The legislative requirement of Public Act 143 of 2020 amended the MIOSHA Act 154 of 1974 by amending section  
14 and adding section 14r, which requires the director to promulgate rules regarding firefighters use of firefighting  
foam concentrate, to include rules for best practices regarding proper use, handling, and storage of firefighting foam  
containing Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).  
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 parallel the OSHA rules, 29 CFR 1910.156, “Fire brigades.” The proposed rules regarding a  
firefighter’s use of firefighting foam concentrate exceed the federal standard due to the legislative requirement of  
Public Act 143 of 2020 which amended the MIOSH Act 154 of 1974 by amending section 14 and adding section 14,  
which required the director to promulgate rules for best practices regarding proper use, handling, and storage of  
firefighting foam containing PFAS.  
These rules will be more restrictive than the federally mandated standard as MIOSHA will be adopting the following  
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) consensus standards:  
NFPA 1971: “Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting,” 2013  
edition.  
NFPA 1981: “Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for Emergency Services,” 2007  
edition.  
NFPA 1982: “Standard on Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS),” 2007 edition.  
2. Compare the proposed rules to standards in similarly situated states, based on geographic location, topography,  
natural resources, commonalities, or economic similarities.  
Illinois - Illinois operates an OSHA-approved State Plan covering only state and local government workers. Private  
sector employers and their workers are covered by federal OSHA.  
Indiana - Indiana operates an OSHA-approved State Plan covering most private sector workers and all state and local  
government workers.  
Ohio – Ohio is under federal OSHA jurisdiction, which covers most private-sector workers within the state.  
Wisconsin – Wisconsin is under federal OSHA jurisdiction, which covers most private-sector workers within the state.  
PFAS – Proper use, handling, storage, and containment of firefighting foam concentrate – R 408.17313  
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.  
Personal protective equipment for structural firefighting – R 408.17314  
Federal OSHA has jurisdiction in Illinois, Ohio, and Wisconsin, covering all private sector workplaces; federal  
agencies; maritime employers; military facilities; Native American sovereignty workplaces; and the United States  
Postal Service. Federal OSHA has a parallel standard, 29 CFR 1910.156, "Fire brigades." Indiana is a state plan  
program similar to Michigan, and they have adopted the same federal OSHA standard 29 CFR 1910.156, "Fire  
brigades."  
The federal OSHA standard 29 CFR 1910.156 "Fire brigades" list the individual components of the protective  
clothing used for interior structural firefighting. The components include foot and leg protection, body protection,  
hand protection, and head, eye, and face protection. The only element of protective clothing with requirements  
referencing NFPA standards is body protection, which the performance, construction, and testing of fire-resistive  
coats and protective trousers shall be at least equivalent to the requirements of the NFPA standard NFPA No. 1971-  
1975, "Protective Clothing for Structural Fire Fighting." The existing MIOSHA standard already exceeded the federal  
standard by requiring the protective ensemble elements to comply with NFPA 1971: "Standard on Protective  
Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting," 1997 edition. The new proposed rules combine  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 3  
the individual elements of the protective clothing under the category of the protective ensemble and reference a new  
version of NFPA 1971 (2013 edition).  
Respiratory protection (SCBA & PASS) – R 408.17320  
Federal OSHA has jurisdiction in Illinois, Ohio, and Wisconsin, covering all private sector workplaces; federal  
agencies; maritime employers; military facilities; Native American sovereignty workplaces; and the United States  
Postal Service. Federal OSHA has a parallel standard, 29 CFR 1910.156, "Fire brigades." Indiana is a state plan  
program similar to Michigan, and they have adopted the same federal OSHA standard 29 CFR 1910.156, "Fire  
brigades."  
The federal OSHA standard 29 CFR 1910.156 "Fire brigades" does not require a self-contained breathing apparatus  
(SCBA) to meet the requirements of NFPA consensus standards. In addition, the "Fire brigades" standard does not  
require the use of a personal alert safety system (PASS) device in conjunction with an SCBA while performing  
interior structural firefighting. The new proposed rules require SCBAs to meet or exceed the requirements of NFPA  
1981: "Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for Emergency Services," 2007  
edition, when employees perform interior structural firefighting. In addition, the new proposed rules require the use of  
a PASS device for each employee utilizing a self-contained breathing apparatus when performing interior structural  
firefighting. The PASS devices shall meet or exceed the requirements of NFPA 1982: "Standard on Personal Alert  
Safety Systems (PASS)," 2007 edition.  
A. If the rules exceed standards in those states, please explain why and specify the costs and benefits arising out of  
the deviation.  
PFAS –Proper use, handling, storage, and containment of firefighting foam concentrate – R 408.17313.  
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. The proposed  
rule would protect employees by reducing occupational exposure to PFAS.  
There was no indication from the Advisory Committee (AC) these proposed rules would significantly increase costs  
to the point that they would outweigh the benefit of added employee protection by reducing occupational exposure to  
PFAS.  
Protective ensemble –Protective ensemble for structural firefighting - R 408.17314.  
The proposed rules exceed the standards in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin as those states enforce the federal  
OSHA standard 29 CFR 1910.156 "Fire brigades." See the response above in question 2 for an explanation of the  
proposed rules exceeding those of situated states based on geographic location. The proposed rule would ensure  
employees’ protective ensembles meet or exceed a more recent version of NFPA 1971, 2013 edition, effective January  
1, 2025.  
There was no indication from the AC that these proposed rules would significantly increase costs to the point that they  
would outweigh the benefit of added employee protection by ensuring protective ensembles meet or exceed NFPA  
1971, 2013 edition.  
Respirator protection devices - R 408.17320.  
The proposed rules exceed the standards in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin as those states enforce the federal  
OSHA standard 29 CFR 1910.156 "Fire brigades." See the response above in question 2 for an explanation of the  
proposed rules exceeding those of situated states based on geographic location. The proposed rule would ensure  
employees’ respiratory protection devices meet or exceed NFPA 1981 and 1982, 2007 edition, effective January 1,  
2025.  
There was no indication from the AC that these proposed rules would significantly increase costs to the point that they  
would outweigh the benefit of added employee protection by ensuring respiratory protection devices meet or exceed  
NFPA 1981 & 1982, 2007 edition.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 4  
3. Identify any laws, rules, and other legal requirements that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed  
rules.  
Public Act 132 of 2020 amends the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act 451 of 1994 – Section(s)  
324.14701(d) and 14703 duplicates/overlaps with GI Part 73 Michigan Rule R 408.17313 that requires an employer 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 brigades.  
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(d) and 14703 duplicates/overlaps with GI Part 73 Michigan Rule R 408.17313 that requires an employer 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 brigades.  
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.  
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.  
The proposed rules exceed the federal standards due to the legislation requirement – Public Act 143 of 2020 amends  
the MIOSHA Act 154 of 1974 by amending section 14 and adding section 14r. The director shall promulgate rules  
regarding a firefighter’s use of firefighting foam concentrate, to include rules for best practices regarding proper use,  
handling, and storage of firefighting foam containing PFAS. The director determines that there is a clear and  
convincing need to exceed the applicable federal standard.  
These rules will be more restrictive than the federally mandated standard as we are adopting the following NFPA  
consensus standards:  
NFPA 1971: “Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting,” 2013  
edition.  
NFPA 1981: “Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for Emergency Services,” 2007  
edition.  
NFPA 1982: “Standard on Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS),” 2007 edition.  
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 the proposed rule is designed to alter is to ensure the following:  
PFAS – R 408.17313  
R 408.17313 Proper use, handling, storage, and containment of firefighting foam  
concentrate.  
Rule 17313. (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  
ground water, surface water, or storm drains, as soon as possible. Manual containment strategies used for spills  
involving a hazardous liquid should be employed. These include blocking storm drains to prevent the contaminated  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 5  
foam/water solution from entering the wastewater system or the environment. Defensive tactics such as damming,  
diking, and diverting should 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. Immediately after the end of a fire or other  
incident at which an organized fire brigade uses firefighting foam containing intentionally added PFAS, the employer  
must report the incident to the Michigan pollution emergency alert system.  
(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 an employee’s body and equipment as follows:  
(a) Post fire response contaminated personal protective equipment (PPE) must be decontaminated as soon as  
practical. A mild detergent, with a pH of not less than 6 and not greater than 10.5, must be used. The use of chlorine  
bleach, chlorinated solvents, or other organic solvents is not permitted. Follow manufacturer’s recommended cleaning  
procedures.  
(b) An employee’s exposed skin, including the neck, face, and hands, must be decontaminated, post fire response  
and whenever exposed to firefighting foam. Employees must wash exposed skin with a mild soap and rinse  
thoroughly with water.  
(5) An employer must prohibit the use of firefighting foam concentrate containing intentionally added PFAS, by an  
employee for training purposes.  
(6) An employer must prohibit the use of firefighting foam concentrate containing intentionally added PFAS, by an  
employee, for equipment calibration purposes, unless required by law or the facility where the calibration takes place  
has implemented appropriate measures.  
The frequency of these behaviors occurs anytime an employee uses firefighting foam concentrate.  
Protective ensemble – R 408.17314 (4)  
When performing interior structural firefighting, the protective ensemble must meet or exceed the requirements of  
NFPA 1971: Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting,” 1997  
edition, as adopted in R 408.17301. Effective January 1, 2025, when performing interior structural firefighting, the  
protective ensemble must meet or exceed the requirements of NFPA 1971: “Standard on Protective Ensembles for  
Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting,” 2013 edition, as adopted in R 408. 17301.  
The frequency of the behavior is anytime an employee is performing interior structural firefighting.  
Respiratory protection (SCBA & PASS) – R 408.17320  
(1) Effective January 1, 2025, when performing interior structural firefighting, an employer shall ensure any self-  
contained breathing apparatus currently in use must meet or exceed the requirements of NFPA 1981: “Standard on  
Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for Emergency Services,” 2007 edition, as adopted in R  
408.17301.  
(2) Effective January 1, 2025, an employer shall provide and enforce the use of a Personal Alert Safety Systems  
(PASS) device to each employee utilizing a self-contained breathing apparatus when performing interior structural  
firefighting. PASS devices shall meet or exceed the requirements of NFPA 1982: "Standard on Personal Alert Safety  
Systems (PASS)," 2007 edition, as adopted in R 408.  
The frequency of the behavior is anytime an employee is required to use an SCBA or PASS when performing interior  
structural firefighting.  
A. Estimate the change in the frequency of the targeted behavior expected from the proposed rules.  
There are no expected changes in the frequency of the targeted behavior from the proposed rules.  
B. Describe the difference between current behavior/practice and desired behavior/practice.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 6  
PFAS – R 408.17313  
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. Manual containment strategies used for spills  
involving a hazardous liquid should be employed. These include 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 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. Immediately after the end of a fire or other  
incident at which an organized fire brigade uses firefighting foam containing intentionally added PFAS, the employer  
must report the incident to the Michigan pollution emergency alert system.  
(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 an employee’s body and equipment. An employer must ensure  
the decontamination of an employee’s body and equipment as follows:  
(a) Post fire response contaminated personal protective equipment (PPE) must be decontaminated as soon as  
practical. A mild detergent, with a pH of not less than 6 and not greater than 10.5, must be used. The use of chlorine  
bleach, chlorinated solvents, or other organic solvents is not permitted. Follow manufacturer’s recommended cleaning  
procedures.  
(b) An employee’s exposed skin, including the neck, face, and hands, must be decontaminated, post fire response  
and whenever exposed to firefighting foam. Employees must wash exposed skin with a mild soap and rinse  
thoroughly with water.  
(5) An employer must prohibit the use of firefighting foam concentrate containing intentionally added PFAS, by an  
employee, for training purposes.  
(6) An employer must prohibit the use of firefighting foam concentrate containing intentionally added PFAS, by an  
employee, for equipment calibration purposes (unless required by law or facility where the calibration takes place has  
implemented appropriate measures).  
Protective ensemble – R 408.17314(4)  
The current behavior/practice is when employees perform interior structural firefighting, the protective ensemble must  
meet or exceed the requirements of NFPA 1971: Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and  
Proximity Fire Fighting,” 1997 edition. The desired behavior/practice for the proposed rules is that effective January  
1, 2025, when performing interior structural firefighting, the protective ensemble must meet or exceed the  
requirements of NFPA 1971: “Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire  
Fighting,” 2013 edition.  
Respiratory protection (SCBA & PASS) – R 408.17320  
(1) Effective January 1, 2025, when performing interior structural firefighting, an employer shall ensure any self-  
contained breathing apparatus currently in use must meet or exceed the requirements of NFPA 1981: “Standard on  
Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for Emergency Services,” 2007 edition, as adopted in R  
408.17301.  
(2) Effective January 1, 2025, an employer shall provide and enforce the use of a Personal Alert Safety Systems  
(PASS) device to each employee utilizing a self-contained breathing apparatus when performing interior structural  
firefighting. PASS devices shall meet or exceed the requirements of NFPA 1982: "Standard on Personal Alert Safety  
Systems (PASS)," 2007 edition, as adopted in R 408.17301.  
C. What is the desired outcome?  
The desired outcome is for affected employers to comply with the behaviors/practices outlined above in question 6B.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 7  
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  
fire brigade members. In the absence of the proposed rules, fire brigade members 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 MIOSHA Act 154 of 1974 by amending section 14 and adding section 14r. The  
director shall promulgate rules regarding a firefighters use of firefighting foam concentrate to include rules for best  
practices regarding proper use, handling, and storage of intentionally added firefighting foam containing PFAS.  
The remainder of the proposed rule changes will include new requirements for protective ensemble and respiratory  
protection. The proposed rules are consistent with the recommendations agreed upon by the 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 protective ensemble and respiratory protection to protect  
the health and safety of Michigan employees. 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 and to give employers time  
to comply with the proposed rule changes.  
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 408.17302 – Adopted and referenced standards, R 408.17303 – Definitions; A to E, R  
408.17315 - Foot and leg protection, R 408.17316 - Body protection, R 408.17317 – Hand Protection, and R  
408.17318 – Head, eye, and face 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 are estimated to be $200, and the cost to purchase the NFPA consensus standards  
is $0. 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.  
The MIOSHA agency has a training budget that includes 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 AC, which comprised industry  
representatives from management and labor. The AC discussed the benefits and determined that the proposed rules  
are needed to ensure the safety and health of employees.  
A. Despite the identified burden(s), identify how the requirements in the rules are still needed and reasonable  
compared to the burdens.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 8  
The proposed rules are consistent with the recommendations agreed upon by the AC, which comprised industry  
representatives from management and labor. The AC discussed the benefits and determined that the proposed rules  
are needed to ensure the safety and health of employees.  
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.  
These proposed rules affect private fire brigades. They do not affect any other state or local governmental entities.  
14. Discuss any program, service, duty, or responsibility imposed upon any city, county, town, village, or school  
district by the rules.  
These proposed rules affect private fire brigades. They do not affect any other state or local governmental entities.  
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.  
Government units have no requirements/responsibilities imposed by these proposed rules.  
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.  
MIOSHA is not aware of any appropriations or other funding sources available for the proposed rules.  
Rural Impact  
16. In general, what impact will the rules have on rural areas?  
The proposed rules should have little to no impact on rural areas. The few facilities with structural firefighting fire  
brigades are large manufacturing-type facilities that provide their own fire prevention services.  
A. Describe the types of public or private interests in rural areas that will be affected by the rules.  
The proposed rules should have little to no impact on rural areas. The few facilities with structural firefighting fire  
brigades are large manufacturing-type facilities that provide their own fire prevention services.  
Environmental Impact  
17. Do the proposed rules have any impact on the environment? If yes, please explain.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 9  
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 the fire brigade uses  
firefighting foam containing intentionally added PFAS, the employer 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.  
MIOSHA administers the occupational safety and health program in compliance with the provisions of the MIOSHA  
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 exclusive 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. As a result, MIOSHA is unable to exempt small business from the proposed rules.  
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.  
MIOSHA General Industry Safety and Health Standard, Part 73. Fire Brigades is only required if an employer  
chooses to have their employees perform firefighting operations. Therefore, small businesses are not obligated to  
organize and implement a fire brigade covered under the standard. The proposed rules affect establishments such as  
industrial, private, or contractual fire departments that perform structural firefighting, which is more commonly  
found in large businesses. The proposed rules referencing updated NFPA standards did not adopt the most recent  
version, which would have been more burdensome for small employers. In addition, some of the proposed rules have  
a delayed compliance date of January 1, 2025, to be less burdensome and to give employers time to comply with 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.  
The U.S. Fire Administration does not provide an accurate accounting of industrial, private, or contractual fire  
departments on its website.  
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.  
MIOSHA did not establish differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables for small businesses under  
the rules.  
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.  
MIOSHA did not establish differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables for small businesses under  
the rules.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 10  
D. Describe how the agency established performance standards to replace design or operation standards required  
by the proposed rules.  
No performance standards were established.  
20. Identify any disproportionate impact the proposed rules may have on small businesses because of their size or  
geographic location.  
Geographic location or establishment size will not be disproportionately impacted by the proposed rules. MIOSHA  
General Industry Safety and Health Standard, Part 73. Fire Brigades are only required if an employer chooses to have  
their employees perform firefighting operations. Therefore, small businesses are not obligated to organize and  
implement a fire brigade covered under the standard.  
21. Identify the nature of any report and the estimated cost of its preparation by small businesses required to  
comply with the proposed rules.  
The proposed rules do not have any costs associated with reporting requirements.  
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 companies with fire brigades, there will be no impact on small businesses. The  
only businesses MIOSHA found with structural firefighting fire brigades are large manufacturing-type facilities.  
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.  
There are no anticipated legal, consulting, or accounting costs associated with the proposed rules.  
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 companies with fire brigades, there will be no impact on small businesses. The  
only businesses MIOSHA found with structural firefighting fire brigades are large manufacturing-type facilities.  
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.  
There are no additional costs anticipated of the agency for enforcing the proposed rules. There are no lesser standards  
of compliance for small businesses.  
26. Identify the impact on the public interest of exempting or setting lesser standards of compliance for small  
businesses.  
There is no impact on public interest as the proposed rules are not exempting or setting lesser standards of  
compliance for small businesses.  
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 companies with fire brigades, there will be no impact on small businesses. The  
only businesses MIOSHA found with structural firefighting fire brigades are large manufacturing-type facilities.  
A. If small businesses were involved in the development of the rules, please identify the business(es).  
As the proposed rules only apply to companies with fire brigades, there will be no impact on small businesses. The  
only businesses MIOSHA found with structural firefighting fire brigades are large manufacturing-type facilities.  
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Rules (independent of statutory impact)  
28. Estimate the actual statewide compliance costs of the rule amendments on businesses or groups.  
Due to many variations in equipment, installation methods, and operational processes, there is no practical way to  
determine the expected costs for those not already in compliance. However, AC 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.  
Any fire brigades operating in the State of Michigan.  
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.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 11  
Due to many variations in equipment, installation methods, and operational processes, there is no practical way to  
determine the expected costs for those not already in compliance. The AC discussed updating various NFPA  
standards to reference the most current NFPA standards. 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.  
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.  
There was no indication from the AC that these proposed rules would significantly increase costs to the point that  
they would outweigh the benefit of added employee protection.  
A. How many and what category of individuals will be affected by the rules?  
The U.S. Fire Administration does not provide an accurate accounting of industrial, private, or contractual fire  
departments on its website. The only businesses MIOSHA found with structural firefighting fire brigades are large  
manufacturing-type facilities.  
B. What qualitative and quantitative impact do the proposed changes in rules have on these individuals?  
The qualitative and quantitative impact of the proposed changes will improve the safety and health of fire brigade  
employees by providing better safety and health equipment and better protection while handling and disposing of  
PFAS, and other firefighting foam concentrates.  
30. Quantify any cost reductions to businesses, individuals, groups of individuals, or governmental units as a result  
of the proposed rules.  
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 improve the safety and health of fire brigade employees by providing better safety and  
health equipment and better protection while handling and disposing of PFAS, and other firefighting foam  
concentrates.  
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.  
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.  
No individuals or businesses will be disproportionately affected by the proposed rules due to their industrial sector,  
segment of the public, business, size, or geographic location.  
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 AC comprised of employers that had fire brigades and representatives from the fire service.  
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.  
Due to many variations in equipment, installation methods, and operational processes, there is no practical way to  
determine the expected costs for those not already in compliance. The AC discussed updating various NFPA  
standards to reference the most current NFPA standards. 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.  
Alternative to Regulation  
35. Identify any reasonable alternatives to the proposed rules that would achieve the same or similar goals.  
No reasonable alternatives to the proposed rules would achieve the same or similar goals.  
A. Please include any statutory amendments that may be necessary to achieve such alternatives.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 12  
There should be 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.  
MIOSHA administers the occupational safety and health program in compliance with the provisions of the MIOSHA  
Act 154 of 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. Other states utilize no private market-based systems.  
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 AC discussed updating various NFPA consensus standards to reference the most current NFPA standards. It was  
determined that this could potentially significantly increase the cost of compliance, so the AC decided to adopt  
versions that would result in lesser costs to comply 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.  
There are no applicable instructions.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
;