Rule2025-17096
Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Second Period Regional Haze Plan
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 5, 2025
Effective
October 6, 2025
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) on August 23, 2021, and supplemented on July 24, 2025, as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the program's second implementation period. EGLE's SIP submission addresses the requirement that States must periodically revise their long-term strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The SIP submission also addresses other applicable requirements for the second implementation period of the regional haze program. EPA is taking this action pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of the CAA.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 170 (Friday, September 5, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 170 (Friday, September 5, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42833-42838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-17096]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0577; FRL-12588-02-R5]
Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Second Period Regional Haze Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) on
August 23, 2021, and supplemented on July 24, 2025, as satisfying
applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's
Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the program's second implementation
period. EGLE's SIP submission addresses the requirement that States
must periodically revise their long-term strategies for making
reasonable progress towards the national goal of preventing any future,
and remedying any existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility,
including regional haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The SIP
submission also addresses other applicable requirements for the second
implementation period of the regional haze program. EPA is taking this
action pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of the CAA.
DATES: This final rule is effective on October 6, 2025.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0577. All documents in the docket are listed on
the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI), Proprietary Business Information (PBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> or at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region
5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that
you telephone Matt
[[Page 42834]]
Rau, at (312) 886-6524 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Air and Radiation Division
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6524,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e99b889cc784889d9d818c9ea98c9988c78e869f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e99b889cc784889d9d818c9ea98c9988c78e869f">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
I. Background
II. Public Comment Process
III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA's Responses
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On August 23, 2021, EGLE submitted a revision to its SIP to address
regional haze requirements for the second implementation period. On
July 24, 2025, EGLE submitted a supplement (Supplement) to its original
submission providing expanded source-specific analyses and emissions
updates. EGLE made this SIP submission to satisfy the requirements of
the CAA's regional haze program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B
and 40 CFR 51.308.
EPA proposed to approve EGLE's submission into the SIP on June 18,
2025. A full background, the specifics of the Michigan regional haze
plan, and EPA's evaluation of the plan are given in the proposed rule
and will not be restated in this rule. See 90 FR 25975 (June 18, 2025).
EGLE submitted the Supplement in draft for parallel processing on April
3, 2025. Detail on parallel processing is provided in the proposed
rule.
In this final action, EPA is affirming that it is now the Agency's
policy that, where visibility conditions for a Class I Federal area
impacted by a State are below the uniform rate of progress (URP) and
the State has considered the four statutory factors, the State will
have presumptively demonstrated reasonable progress for the second
planning period for that area. EPA acknowledges that this final action
reflects a change in policy as to how the URP should be used in the
evaluation of regional haze second planning period SIPs but believes
that this policy better aligns with the purpose of the statute and RHR:
achieving ``reasonable'' progress towards natural visibility.
As described in the approval of West Virginia's regional haze plan
(90 FR 29737, July 7, 2025), EPA has discretion and authority to change
its policy. In FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., the U.S. Supreme
Court plainly stated that an agency is free to change a prior policy
and ``need not demonstrate . . . that the reasons for the new policy
are better than the reasons for the old one; it suffices that the new
policy is permissible under the statute, that there are good reasons
for it, and that the agency believes it to be better.'' 566 U.S. 502,
515 (2009) (referencing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of United States,
Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983)). See also
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn., 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015).
The Class I areas impacted by emissions from Michigan sources are
all below the 2028 URP, and EGLE's SIP submission demonstrated that the
State took into consideration the four reasonable progress factors
listed in CAA 169A(g)(1) \1\ with respect to an adequate number of
emissions sources. Thus, EPA determines that EGLE's SIP revision is
fully approvable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The four statutory factors required to be taken into
consideration in determining reasonable progress are: the costs of
compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy and
non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the
remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such
requirements. CAA section 169(g)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing the regulations required by CAA section 169A(b), EPA
established the concept of the URP for each Class I area. The URP is
determined by drawing a straight line from the measured 2000 to 2004
baseline conditions (in deciviews) for the 20 percent most impaired
days at each Class I area to the estimated natural conditions (in
deciviews) for the 20 percent most impaired days in 2064. From this
calculation, a URP value can be calculated for each year between 2004
and 2064. EPA developed the URP to address the diverse concerns of
Eastern and Western States and account for the varying levels of
visibility impairment in Class I areas around the country while
ensuring an equitable approach nationwide. For each Class I area,
States must calculate the URP for the end of each planning period
(e.g., in 2028 for the second planning period).\2\ 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(vi)(A). States may also adjust the URP to account for
impacts from anthropogenic sources outside the United States and/or
impacts from certain wildland prescribed fires. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B). Then, for each Class I area, States must compare
the reasonable progress goal (RPG) for the 20 percent most impaired
days to the URP for the end of the planning period. If the RPG is above
the URP, then an additional ``robust demonstration'' requirement is
triggered for each State that contributes to that Class I area. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We note that RPGs are a regulatory construct that we
developed to address the statutory mandate in CAA section
169B(e)(1), which required our regulations to include ``criteria for
measuring `reasonable progress' toward the national goal.'' Under 40
CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii), RPGs measure the progress that is projected to
be achieved by the control measures a State has determined are
necessary to make reasonable progress. Consistent with the 1999 RHR,
the RPGs are unenforceable, though they create a benchmark that
allows for analytical comparisons to the URP and mid-implementation-
period course corrections if necessary. 82 FR 3091-92 (January 10,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2017 RHR Revisions, EPA addressed the role of the URP as it
relates to a State's development of its second planning period SIP. 82
FR 3078 (January 10, 2017). Specifically, in response to comments
suggesting that the URP should be considered a ``safe harbor'' that
relieve States of any obligation to consider the four statutory
factors, EPA explained that the URP was not intended to be such a safe
harbor. Id. at 3099. ``Some commenters stated a desire for
corresponding rule text dealing with situations where RPGs are equal to
(``on'') or better than (``below'') the URP or glidepath. Several
commenters stated that the URP or glidepath should be a `safe harbor,'
opining that States should be permitted to analyze whether projected
visibility conditions for the end of the implementation period will be
on or below the glidepath based on on-the-books or on-the-way control
measures, and that in such cases a four-factor analysis should not be
required.'' Id.
Other comments indicated a similar approach, such as ``a somewhat
narrower entrance to a `safe harbor,' by suggesting that if current
visibility conditions are already below the end-of-planning-period
point on the URP line, a four-factor analysis should not be required.''
Id. EPA stated in its response that we did not agree with either of
these recommendations. ``The CAA requires that each SIP revision
contain long-term strategies for making reasonable progress, and that
in determining reasonable progress States must consider the four
statutory factors. Treating the URP as a safe harbor would be
inconsistent with the statutory requirement that States assess the
potential to make further reasonable progress towards natural
visibility goal in every implementation period.'' Id.
Importantly, EPA's recently adopted policy does not make the URP a
safe harbor. The policy merely creates a presumption that the State's
second planning period SIP is making reasonable progress for a Class I
Federal Area if the State has taken into consideration the four
statutory factors
[[Page 42835]]
of 169A(g)(1) and that area is below the URP. This is consistent with
the CAA and RHR.
II. Public Comment Process
The public comment period on EPA's proposed approval ended on July
18, 2025. During this period, EPA received three sets of comments. The
Power Generators Air Coalition (PGen) and the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union (MANEVU) each submitted a set of comments. Four
conservation groups, including the National Parks Conservation
Association, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Law and Policy Center,
and the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, submitted a
third set of comments and are collectively referred to as ``the
Conservation Groups'' throughout this document.
III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA's Responses
EPA has included all comments in the rulemaking docket for this
action. The August 25, 2025, Response to Comments (RTC) document is
included in the docket for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2021-0577 and provides full and detailed responses to all
significant comments that further explain the basis for our final
action.
EPA received comments on the proposed rule that covered several
topics including, but not limited to, EPA's URP policy,\3\ an ``Ask''
from a regional planning organization, source selection, analysis of
effectively controlled sources, incorporation of measures into the SIP,
four-factor analyses,\4\ and the impact on local communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A change in Agency policy was introduced in the approval of
West Virginia's regional haze plan. See the April 18, 2025, (90 FR
16478) proposed rule) and the July 7, 2025, (90 FR 29737) final
rule.
\4\ Under CAA 169A(g)(1), the four statutory factors are the
costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. See also
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). An evaluation of potential control options
for sources of visibility impairing pollutants based on applying the
four statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) is referred to as a
``four-factor'' analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PGen's comments, summarized as Comment 1 in the RTC document, are
supportive of the proposed approval and EPA's URP policy. EPA concurs
with the supportive comments and acknowledges the comment on the URP
policy.
MANEVU commented on EPA's URP policy and its ``Asks'' about the
DTE- St. Clair Power Plant. MANEVU's comments and EPA's responses can
be found in the RTC document at Comment 2a and 2b and Response 2a and
2b. EPA disagrees with MANEVU's comment as the URP policy is consistent
with the statute for the reasons as detailed in Response 2a in the RTC
document. EPA also disagrees with MANEVU's comment regarding DTE-St.
Clair Power Plant since EGLE fully responded to MANEVU's ``Asks'' \5\
in the Supplement, section 2.2. See Response 2b in the RTC document for
more detail on how EGLE addressed the MANEVU ``Asks.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The August 25, 2017, and July 27, 2018, MANEVU ``Asks''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Conservation Groups commented on the economic, public health,
and environmental benefits of reducing air pollution through Michigan's
regional haze SIP. EPA notes, as explained in Response 3 of the RTC,
that EGLE has made progress in reducing visibility-impairing pollution
during the second implementation period as demonstrated in the
monitoring data collected at the impacted Class I areas. EPA also notes
that regional haze program is designed to address visibility concerns
and that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, required by the
CAA, protect human health.
The Conservation Groups argue that EGLE's source selection process
is arbitrary and capricious since EGLE did not select sources that the
Conservation Groups previously recommended for selection. As explained
in Response 4 of the RTC, EPA disagrees with the comment. EGLE
addressed the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) in its source
selection process. EGLE provided information on its source selection
process and the results in section 3.2.2 of its Supplement.
The Conservation Groups commented that EPA's proposal to approve
EGLE's determination that no additional measures were necessary to make
reasonable progress in the second implementation period is arbitrary
and capricious. The Conservation Groups claim that EPA has no system to
determine how current control technologies or past and potential
ongoing emission reductions should be considered when evaluating
whether additional measures are necessary. The Conservation Groups also
assert that EPA failed to provide adequate public notice because the
proposed approval did not provide a metric or an analysis to determine
that no additional measures are necessary. See Comment and Response 5
in the RTC document for further details. EPA disagrees with the
comment. EPA fully evaluated the information EGLE provided for the
sources with current effective control technologies, as well as
emission reductions achieved in the second implementation period. In
the proposed rule, EPA articulated its rationale in determining how to
weigh current effective control measures and emission reductions to
approve EGLE's determination that no additional measures are necessary
for reasonable progress, citing references to effective control
demonstrations in section 3(f) of the 2019 Regional Haze Guidance. See
90 FR 25975 (June 18, 2025). The record in the docket for this
rulemaking contains evidence of enforceable emission reductions, as
well as EPA's evaluation of emissions reductions in the Technical
Support Document (TSD) accompanying the proposed rule. Therefore, EPA
disagrees with the Conservation Groups that consideration of these
emission reductions was improper in EGLE's determination that no
additional measures are necessary to make reasonable progress in the
second implementation period. EPA's proposed approval was not arbitrary
or capricious because of a lack of a metric and analysis and, as such,
does not constitute a failure of public notice.
The Conservation Groups claim that EGLE inappropriately failed to
perform four-factor analyses for seven facilities that were improperly
determined to be effectively controlled. The Conservation Groups state
that the plain language of the CAA and the RHR does not allow EGLE or
EPA to eliminate sources from analysis based on assertions that the
sources are effectively controlled, but rather requires that States
consider the four statutory factors. The Conservation Groups comment
that the seven facilities are not effectively controlled and that there
are likely cost-effective controls available for each of the sources
that would further reduce emissions. The Conservation Groups also
commented on two sources that EGLE did not select for analysis, saying
EPA did not address or analyze EGLE's decision. As explained in
Response 6 of the RTC document, EPA disagrees with this comment.
Neither CAA section 169A(b)(2), CAA section 169A(g)(1), nor the RHR
prohibit States from forgoing a four-factor analysis based on a source
being effectively controlled. As outlined in the 2017 RHR, ``the EPA
has consistently interpreted the CAA to provide States with the
flexibility to conduct four-factor analyses for specific sources,
groups of sources or even entire source categories, depending on State
policy preferences and the specific circumstances of each State.'' 82
FR 3088, January 10, 2017. EPA acknowledges that a State may reasonably
decide not to select sources
[[Page 42836]]
that have recently installed effective controls. EPA notes that if a
source's emissions are already well-controlled, it is unlikely that
further cost-effective reductions are available. In this case, EGLE
evaluated the seven units, including permit limitations, control
efficiencies, regulations, actual emissions, past emission trends, and
projected 2028 emissions to demonstrate that the existing level of
control makes it reasonable to conclude that the controls are effective
and that a full four-factor analysis would likely result in the
conclusion that no further controls are necessary. EPA also disagrees
with the comment regarding two sources EGLE did not select for
evaluation of potential additional control measures. EGLE properly
addressed the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) in the source
selection process it used.
The Conservation Groups commented that EGLE's analyses of existing
effective controls are flawed and that EPA's TSD for the proposed rule
does not support EPA's proposed approval of EGLE's Regional Haze SIP
revision. The Conservation Groups also commented that EGLE did not
perform four-factor analyses for specific sources. Detail on the
general existing effective controls is given in Comment and Response 6
in the RTC document. Comment and Response 6a in the RTC document
provide details on the TSD comment. More detail on the comments
regarding the specific sources EGLE did not perform a four-factor
analysis on and the responses are found in the RTC document under
Comment and Response 6b: J. H. Campbell, Units 1, 2, and 3; Comment and
Response 6c: Consumers Energy--Dan E. Karn Units 3 and 4; Comment and
Response 6d: Tilden Mining Company Kiln 1; Comment and Response 6e:
Belle River Power Plant Units 1 and 2; Comment and Response 6f: St.
Mary's Cement--Charlevoix Plant; Comment and Response 6g: Holcim US
Lafarge Alpena Plant; and Comment and Response 6h: Neenah Paper
Michigan-Munising. EPA disagrees with the assertion that CAA sections
169A(b)(2), (g)(1), or the RHR require every source exceeding the
source selection threshold to require a four-factor analysis. EPA
disagrees with the commentors on what those portions of the CAA and the
RHR require of selected sources. Specifically, States have the
flexibility to determine that a source is effectively controlled. As
detailed in Response 6 in the RTC document, CAA section 169A(b)(2) does
not discuss which sources, types of sources, or groups of sources must
be considered to determine reasonable progress. Reasonable progress is
addressed in CAA section 169A(g)(1) in that States must ``take into
consideration'' the four statutory factors. Similarly, the RHR does not
give minimum source selection criteria. EPA disagrees that the TSD does
not provide support for the proposed approval. As explained in the TSD
and RTC, EPA's approval of the Michigan regional haze plan is based on
the consideration of all evidence provided in EGLE's submission and
additional information provided in the docket. EPA also disagrees with
the notion that a four-factor analysis is required for each of the
specific units that were identified by the Conservations Groups. In
summary, EPA finds that EGLE reasonably concluded that the units are
effectively controlled and that conducting a four-factor analysis would
not likely result in additional measures being needed for reasonable
progress.
The Conservation Groups also commented with concerns that two
specific sources, Midland Cogeneration Venture and EES Coke Battery,
were not selected for evaluation of possible additional control
measures. Further information regarding these two sources is found in
the RTC at Response 6i: Midland Cogeneration Venture and Response 6j:
EES Coke Battery. EPA disagrees that Midland Cogeneration Venture and
EES Coke Battery should have been selected for analysis and EPA finds
that EGLE's source selection process was appropriate and well
supported. EGLE sufficiently captured the State's sources with the
greatest impact on visibility impairment.
The Conservation Groups expressed concerns about EPA's review of
EGLE's four-factor analyses, arguing that EPA did not provide an
evaluation of EGLE's analyses or a conclusion as to whether the State's
determinations complied with the CAA and RHR. The Conservation Groups
also made specific comments on the four-factor analyses for three
facilities. A summary of this comment and EPA's full response can be
found as Comment and Response 7 in the RTC document. The comments and
responses on specific four-factor analyses for Tilden Mining Company
LLC Kiln 2, Billerud--Escanaba LLC Power Boiler 11, and Graymont
Western Lime Kiln 1 are detailed in the RTC document as Comments and
Responses 7a, 7b, and 7c, respectively. EPA disagrees with this
comment. As explained in the proposed rule, EPA carefully evaluated
EGLE's entire SIP submission, including the Supplement, the comments
from the FLM consultation and the State's responses to comments
received during the State comment period. EGLE worked directly with the
sources in evaluating potential measures and concluded that additional
control measures are not necessary for reasonable progress during the
second implementation period based on the four factors. EPA disagrees
with the comments on these specific facilities. EGLE considered the
four statutory factors, current effective control technologies,
emission reductions that have already occurred during the second
implementation period, and the projected 2028 visibility conditions for
Class I areas influenced by emissions from Michigan sources. EPA
therefore finds that EGLE reasonably concluded that no additional
measures are necessary to make reasonable progress in the second
implementation period for any of the three identified sources.
The Conservation Groups commented that EPA did not analyze the
impact of haze-forming pollution from Michigan sources on the
communities that surround these facilities. See Comment and Response 8
in the RTC document. The RHR does not require an analysis of health
impacts. Instead, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards are
established to separately protect human health.
The Conservation Groups argue that EPA's URP Policy violates the
CAA's visibility provisions. The Conservation Groups comment on
specific portions of the CAA and cite several cases. Those comments and
EPA's responses are detailed in Comments and Responses 9, 9a, 9b, 9c,
and 9d in the RTC document. EPA disagrees with the comments. EPA's URP
policy is consistent with the CAA. Pursuant to CAA 169A(a)(4), Congress
explicitly delegated the authority to EPA to promulgate regulations
regarding reasonable progress towards meeting the national goal. In
determining the measures necessary to make reasonable progress,
Congress mandated ``tak[ing] into consideration the cost of compliance,
the time necessary for compliance, and the energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of
any existing source subject to such requirement.'' CAA 169A(g)(1).
However, nothing in the statute defines what it means ``to take into
consideration'' the four factors under CAA 169A(g)(1). Under this
statutory framework, Congress has empowered EPA to give meaning to this
statutory phrase. Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 395
(2024). The phrase ``to take into consideration'' implies a broader
process not limited to the four statutory factors, allowing
[[Page 42837]]
States to weigh other factors, like visibility, to support their
determination of whether additional measures are necessary to make
reasonable progress at Class I areas. This follows from the fact that
reasonable progress requires the improvement of visibility. CAA
169A(b)(2). As such, visibility improvement must be a fundamental part
of determining the extent of progress that is considered reasonable.
Being below the URP does not relieve a State of its obligations under
the CAA and the RHR to make reasonable progress.
The Conservation Groups state that the URP policy is inconsistent
with the RHR. The Conservation Groups comment that, ``EPA cannot square
its new policy with the RHR.'' See Comment 10 and Response 10 in the
RTC document for further detail. EPA disagrees with this comment. EPA's
URP policy is consistent with the RHR. To meet the reasonable progress
goal requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3), the reasonable progress
goals established by a State must reflect the measures it deemed to be
necessary to make reasonable progress within the applicable
implementation period and must be projected to be achieved by the end
of the applicable implementation period. Therefore, it is sufficient
under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3) that this SIP establishes reasonable progress
goals that reflect visibility conditions that are projected to be
achieved by the end of the second planning period.
The Conservation Groups commented that the URP policy violates the
procedural requirements of the CAA. The Conservation Groups comment
that the URP policy unlawfully departs from national policy, that the
URP policy is inconsistent with actions across EPA Regions, that the
URP policy effectively revises the RHR, and that EPA must determine if
its URP policy has a nationwide scope. The comments and responses on
each point are presented in detail as Comments and Responses 11a, 11b,
11c, and 11d in the RTC document. EPA disagrees with each comment. As
for the comment noting that the URP policy was announced in a regional
action and that this change violates the CAA requirements that SIP
actions be consistent with national policy, EPA disagrees that our
Regional Consistency regulations at 40 CFR part 56, and 40 CFR 56.5(b)
in particular, are relevant to this action. The Conservation Groups
mention other regional haze actions in commenting that the URP policy
is inconsistent with actions across EPA Regions. EPA disagrees that its
change in policy means that all of its actions on second planning
period regional haze SIPs that pre-date its proposed approval of the
West Virginia second planning period submittal are inconsistent with
the URP policy. See 90 FR 29737 (July 7, 2025). The policy is
consistent with EPA's long-standing position that the URP is not a
``safe harbor.'' EPA's policy establishes a presumption that the
reasonable progress requirements of the CAA and the RHR are met if the
State has taken into consideration the four statutory factors and the
visibility impairment for each Class I Area is projected to be below
the URP (i.e., the ``glidepath'') at the end of the applicable planning
period. Unlike treating the URP as a ``safe harbor,'' the policy does
not exempt or allow a State to evade the requirements of the CAA or the
RHR. Treating the URP as a ``safe harbor'' would exempt States from
considering the four statutory factors and would allow States to
exclude measures necessary for reasonable progress from the SIP. EPA
disagrees with the comment that it must determine if the URP policy has
a nationwide scope. EPA notes that this action applies to a SIP
submission from one State--Michigan. EPA also states that the comment
that EPA ``must'' publish a finding that this action is ``based on a
determination of nationwide scope [or] effect'' is also unsupported and
incorrect. Under CAA section 307(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), a
petition for review of an action that is ``locally or regionally
applicable may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit,'' with one exception: if (i) the action ``is
based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect'' and (ii) ``if
in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such
action is based on such a determination,'' then any petition for review
must be filed in the D.C. Circuit. The Administrator has not made and
published a finding that this action is based on a determination of
nationwide scope or effect. Accordingly, any petition for review of
this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate regional circuit.
The Conservation Groups commented that EGLE's SIP Revision and
Supplement do not meet EPA's URP policy for presumptive approval. The
Conservation Groups commented on EGLE relying on the IMPROVE Network to
satisfy the monitoring requirement of the RHR and EGLE's URP
adjustments, as well as on EGLE not addressing additional Class I
areas. As explained in Responses 12a, 12b, and 12c of the RTC document,
EPA disagrees with these comments. The IMPROVE network was in operation
up to the time EGLE submitted its SIP revision. EGLE continues to
support and participate in the IMPROVE network. Concerns regarding the
future funding of the IMPROVE network are speculative, out of the
control of EGLE, and beyond the scope of the basis for our action on
EGLE's second planning period SIP. As for the URP adjustments, the RHR
at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) also provides the option for States to propose
adjustments to the URP line for a Class I area to account for
visibility impacts from anthropogenic sources outside the United States
and the impacts from wildland prescribed fires that were conducted for
certain, specified objectives. EGLE provided this analysis for its
Class I areas. Under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(B), States must consider
and address the emissions reduction measures identified by other States
for their sources as being necessary to make reasonable progress in the
mandatory out-of-state Class I area. EGLE analyzed the Class I areas
impacted by Michigan emissions using Lake Michigan Air Directors
Consortium (LADCO) modeling, as the comment noted. EGLE identified 13
out-of-state Class I areas in addition to its own two Class I areas
where Michigan sources contribute to total visibility impairment above
1 percent. EGLE also identified two additional Class I areas within the
LADCO States, Voyageurs National Park and Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness in Minnesota, even though Michigan sources contribute below
1 percent to total visibility impairment in each of those areas. The
comment included several additional Class I areas. EGLE found no
additional measures to be necessary to make reasonable progress in the
out-of-state Class I areas. The contribution from Michigan sources
would be even smaller at more distant Class I areas so there is no
reason to expect that EGLE would find additional measures necessary to
make reasonable progress for those distant Class I areas. EPA concludes
that EGLE properly considered Michigan sources that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment Class I areas.
IV. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is approving the Regional Haze SIP revision submitted by EGLE
on August 23, 2021, and supplemented on July 24, 2025, as satisfying
applicable requirements under the CAA and RHR for the program's second
implementation period.
[[Page 42838]]
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this action:
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065,
February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866;
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
<bullet> Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<bullet> Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has
demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 4, 2025. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: August 26, 2025.
Anne Vogel,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 52.1170, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for ``Regional Haze Plan for the Second Implementation Plan''
after the entry for ``Regional Haze Progress Report'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1170 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA--Approved Michigan Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Name of nonregulatory SIP geographic or EPA approval
provision nonattainment State submittal date date Comments
area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Regional Haze Plan for the Statewide....... 8/23/2021, 9/5/2025, 90 FR Full Approval.
Second Implementation Plan. 7/24/2025........... [Insert Federal
Register page
where the
document
begins].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2025-17096 Filed 9-4-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 5, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.