Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules  
Administrative Rules Division (ARD)  
MOAHR-Rules@michigan.gov  
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT  
and COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS (RIS)  
AGENCY INFORMATION:  
Department name:  
Labor and Economic Opportunity  
Bureau name:  
MIOSHA  
Name of person filling out RIS:  
Heather Albert  
Phone number of person filling out RIS:  
517-284-7738  
Email of person filling out RIS:  
AlbertH@michigan.gov  
RULE SET INFORMATION:  
ARD assigned rule set number:  
2026-25 LE  
Title of proposed rule set:  
Ionizing Radiation Rules Governing the Use of Radiation Machines - Part 5. Operators Qualifications  
COMPARISON OF RULE(S) TO FEDERAL/STATE/ASSOCIATION STANDARDS  
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.  
The proposed rules are consistent with the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists (ARRT) medical x-radiation  
technology training requirements.  
A. Are these rules required by state law or federal mandate?  
The proposed rules are required by MCL 333.13515, 333.13521, 333.13522, and 333.13527.  
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.  
There is no federal standard.  
2. Compare the proposed rules to standards in similarly situated states, based on geographic location,  
topography, natural resources, commonalities, or economic similarities.  
Illinois – issues accreditation, must pass an approved test. The ARRT limited examination is required for limited scope  
accreditation.  
Indiana – Requires a license; Indiana issues the license after an approved examination. The ARRT examination is  
one of the approved examinations.  
Minnesota – Requires the ARRT limited scope examination.  
Ohio – Ohio requires licensing (more stringent).  
Wisconsin – Requires ARRT certification or limited scope examination, state issues the license or permit.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 2  
A. If the rules exceed standards in those states, please explain why and specify the costs and benefits  
arising out of the deviation.  
The proposed rules do not exceed standards in similarly situated states listed above.  
3. Identify any laws, rules, and other legal requirements that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the  
proposed rules.  
The proposed rules do not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any laws, rules, and/or other legal requirements.  
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.  
MIOSHA has reviewed the ARRT credentialling criteria, in addition to California, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota,  
Ohio, and Wisconsin state laws, to become more consistent with the existing credentialling criteria for x-  
radiation operators. There are no existing federal laws governing x-radiation operator qualifications.  
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RULE(S)  
4. Identify the behavior and frequency of behavior that the proposed rules are designed to alter.  
Professionals in the field have reported the need for clarification on the current rules and exemptions. The proposed  
rules clarify language for the qualifications of the operators of medical radiologic technology devices and better define  
which individuals are exempt from the requirements of the current rules.  
A. Estimate the change in the frequency of the targeted behavior expected from the proposed rules.  
There is no estimated change in the frequency of the targeted behavior expected from the proposed rules.  
B. Describe the difference between current behavior/practice and desired behavior/practice.  
Professionals in the field have reported the need for clarification on the current rules and exemptions. The  
proposed rules clarify language for the qualifications of the operators of medical radiologic technology devices  
and better define which individuals are exempt from the requirements of the current rules.  
C. What is the desired outcome?  
The desired outcome is for the rules to clearly define which medical x-radiation technologists are required to  
receive formal documented training and which individuals qualify for exempt status.  
5. 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.  
If medical x-radiation technologists are not properly trained, there is an increased chance that the improper  
performance of medical x-radiation, or poor image quality may require repeat imaging. This causes additional  
unnecessary radiation exposure which can lead to potential hazards to employees and patients.  
A. What is the rationale for changing the rules instead of leaving them as currently written?  
The rationale is to clarify which medical x-radiation technologists are required to receive formal documented  
training and which individuals qualify for exempt status under the current rules so that industry professionals  
understand what is required to be compliant with the rules.  
6. 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 protect the health, safety, and welfare of Michigan citizens by preventing unnecessary exposure  
to radiation. The proposed rules continue to allow medical providers to provide their own training.  
7. Describe any rules in the affected rule set that are obsolete or unnecessary and can be rescinded.  
There are no current rules to rescind.  
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  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 3  
as opportunity costs, the value of time saved or lost, etc., unless those issues result in a measurable impact on  
expenditures.  
8. 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).  
There is no additional fiscal impact on the agency created by the proposed rules.  
9. Describe whether or not an agency appropriation has been made or a funding source provided for any  
expenditures associated with the proposed rules.  
The agency has not made any requests for increased appropriation associated with the proposed rules.  
10. 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 necessary to clearly distinguish which medical x-radiation technologists must complete formal  
training and which individuals qualify for exempt status under the current rules, ensuring that all industry professionals  
understand exactly what is required of them. There are no new requirements or burdens placed on individuals by the  
proposed rules.  
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 necessary to provide clear guidance to regulated individuals and to clearly identify what  
is required of them.  
IMPACT ON OTHER STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNITS  
11. 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.  
Our research indicated there were approximately 25 government facilities that operate medical x-radiation equipment.  
There should be no increase or decrease in revenues or costs to these entities as the proposed rule clarify what is  
already required by the current rules.  
12. Discuss any program, service, duty, or responsibility imposed upon any city, county, town, village, or school  
district by the rules.  
The proposed rules would not impose any additional program, services, duties, or responsibilities upon 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.  
The proposed rules would not require any additional actions to be taken by governmental units. The proposed  
rules are a clarification of the existing rules.  
13. 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.  
No appropriation to state or local government units has been made nor has any funding source been provided. The  
proposed rules are a clarification of the current requirements.  
RURAL IMPACT  
14. In general, what impact will the rules have on rural areas?  
The proposed rules will not affect rural areas any differently than urban areas. The proposed rules are for clarification  
of current training requirements.  
A. Describe the types of public or private interests in rural areas that will be affected by the rules.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 4  
The proposed rules will not affect rural areas any differently than urban areas. The proposed rules are for  
clarification of current training requirements.  
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT  
15. Do the proposed rules have any impact on the environment? If yes, please explain.  
The proposed rules will not have any impact on the environment.  
SMALL BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT  
16. Describe whether and how the agency considered exempting small businesses from the proposed rules.  
The agency did not consider exempting small businesses.  
17. 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.  
The proposed rules protect the health, safety, and welfare of Michigan citizens by preventing unnecessary exposure  
to radiation. The proposed rules do allow medical providers to provide their own training.  
A. Identify and estimate the number of small businesses affected by the proposed rules and the probable  
effect on small businesses.  
The estimated number of small businesses affected by the proposed rules includes 266 podiatrists, 851  
chiropractors, 942 healthcare clinics, and 40 radiology labs for a total of approximately 2,100 healthcare  
providers. The proposed rules will clearly distinguish which medical x-radiation technologists must complete  
formal training and which individuals qualify for exempt status under the current rules, ensuring that all industry  
professionals, including those of small businesses, understand exactly what is required of them.  
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.  
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.  
The proposed rules add clarity to the existing rules and do not implement any new compliance or reporting  
requirements or timetables to any business, including small businesses. Thus, MIOSHA did not consolidate or  
simplify the compliance and reporting requirements for small businesses. The skills necessary to operate a  
healthcare facility should be sufficient to comply with the reporting requirements.  
D. Describe how the agency established performance standards to replace design or operation standards  
required by the proposed rules.  
No performance, or design standards, were added by the proposed rules. The proposed rules clarify the current  
rules.  
18. Identify any disproportionate impact the proposed rules may have on small businesses because of their size  
or geographic location.  
The proposed rules will not have an impact on small businesses based on their size or geographic location. The  
proposed rules are for clarification of current training requirements.  
19. 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 require any business, regardless of size, to prepare a report.  
20. Analyze the costs of compliance for all small businesses affected by the proposed rules, including costs of  
equipment, supplies, labor, and increased administrative costs.  
There is no expected additional cost associated with the proposed rules.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 5  
21. Identify the nature and estimated cost of any legal, consulting, or accounting services that small businesses  
would incur in complying with the proposed rules.  
No additional legal, consulting, or accounting services will be required as a result of the proposed rules.  
22. Estimate the ability of small businesses to absorb the costs without suffering economic harm and without  
adversely affecting competition in the marketplace.  
There is no expected additional cost associated with the proposed rules.  
23. 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 would be no additional costs to the agency.  
24. Identify the impact on the public interest of exempting or setting lesser standards of compliance for small  
businesses.  
Allowing exemptions or allowing lesser standards of compliance for small businesses could potentially injure the  
general public and the employees employed by small businesses.  
25. Describe whether and how the agency has involved small businesses in the development of the proposed  
rules.  
MIOSHA did not involve small businesses in the development of the initial proposed rules. This is a clarification of the  
exemptions allowed by the current rules.  
A. If small businesses were involved in the development of the rules, please identify the business(es).  
The proposed rules are a clarification of the exemptions allowed by the current rules.  
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF RULES (INDEPENDENT OF STATUTORY IMPACT)  
26. Estimate the actual statewide compliance costs of the rule amendments on businesses or groups.  
There are no expected compliance costs associated with the proposed rules. This is a clarification of the exemptions  
allowed by the current rules.  
A. Identify the businesses or groups who will be directly affected by, bear the cost of, or directly benefit  
from the proposed rules.  
All businesses utilizing x-radiation technology will benefit from the clarification of requirements for the  
individuals performing x-radiation technology. Based on the proposed rules being a clarification of exempted  
individuals performing x-radiation technology, there is no additional cost, but the benefit would include clear  
expectations for the regulated community.  
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.  
There is no proposed additional costs, regardless of size, for the various types of facilities and their current level  
of training. This is a clarification of the exemptions allowed by the current rules.  
27. 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 are no expected compliance costs associated with the proposed rules. This is a clarification of the exemptions  
allowed by the current rules.  
A. How many and what category of individuals will be affected by the rules?  
Based on the proposed rules being a clarification of the current rules, there are no new regulations or costs for  
the individuals covered by these rules.  
B. What qualitative and quantitative impact do the proposed changes in rules have on these individuals?  
The impact is that the proposed rules clarify which medical x-radiation technologists must complete formal  
training and which individuals qualify for exempt status under the current rules, ensuring that all industry  
professionals understand exactly what is required of them.  
28. Quantify any cost reductions to businesses, individuals, groups of individuals, or governmental units as a  
result of the proposed rules.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 6  
Based on the proposed rules being a clarification of the current rules, there are no cost reductions to businesses,  
individuals, groups of individuals, or governmental units as a result of the proposed rules.  
29. 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 any assumptions.  
The primary and direct benefit of this clarification is that medical x-radiation technologists will be better able to identify  
the requirements necessary for compliance with the rules. Secondary or indirect benefits of the proposed rules would  
be ensure proper training and qualification of medical x-radiation technologists.  
30. Explain how the proposed rules will impact business growth and job creation (or elimination) in Michigan.  
The proposed rules should not have a significant impact on business growth and job creation, or elimination, in  
Michigan.  
31. 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.  
The proposed rules clarify the current requirements for medical x-radiation operators and businesses that employ  
medical x-radiation operators in facilities all across the state of Michigan, independent of size or geographic location.  
32. 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.  
While there are no costs associated with the proposed rule language, MIOSHA analyzed adjacent states and their  
medical x-radiation operator requirements to develop the clarified language in the rules. The following sources were  
used to compare the requirements in adjacent states with the proposed clarification of the existing ruleset:  
Illinois: https://www.ilga.gov/agencies/JCAR/EntirePart?titlepart=03200401  
Indiana: https://iar.iga.in.gov/code/2026/410/5.2  
Minnesota: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/4732/  
Ohio: https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-administrative-code/chapter-3701-72  
Wisconsin: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/462.pdf  
A. How were estimates made, and what assumptions were made? Include internal and external sources,  
published reports, information provided by associations or organizations, etc., that demonstrate a need  
for the proposed rules.  
MIOSHA used the Radiation Safety Online Data System, to determine the number of registered facilities  
impacted by the proposed rules within the state of Michigan.  
ALTERNATIVE TO REGULATION  
33. 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 that may be necessary to achieve such alternatives for the proposed rules.  
34. 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.  
There is no feasibility of establishing a regulatory program similar to that proposed in the rules that would operate  
through private market-based mechanisms. MIOSHA analyzed the surrounding states (i.e., Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois,  
Indiana, and Minnesota). The states listed above have established an internal regulatory program.  
35. 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.  
There are no alternatives to be considered as this is a clarification of the language in the current rules.  
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 7  
36. As required by MCL 24.245b(1)(c), please describe any instructions regarding the method of complying with  
the rules, if applicable.  
No applicable instructions.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
;