[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 116 (Wednesday, June 18, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25975-25984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-11257]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0577; FRL-12588-01-R5]
Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Second Period Regional Haze Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve 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 April 3, 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: Comments must be received on or before July 18, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2021-0577 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's
docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI), Proprietary Business
Information (PBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI,
PBI, or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making
effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
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,
[email protected]. The EPA Region 5 office is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
I. What action is EPA proposing?
A. What is parallel processing?
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
A. Regional Haze Background
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second
Implementation Period
A. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
B. Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
C. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP Requirements
D. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards
the RPGs
E. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
IV. EPA's Evaluation of EGLE's Regional Haze Submission for the
Second Implementation Period
A. Background on EGLE's First Implementation Period SIP
Submission
B. EGLE's Second Implementation Period SIP Submission and EPA's
Evaluation
C. Identification of Class I Areas
D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
1. Emission Measures Necessary To Make Reasonable Progress
2. EPA's Evaluation of EGLE's Compliance With 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i)
F. RPGs
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
H. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards
the RPGs
I. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing?
On August 23, 2021, EGLE submitted a revision to its SIP to address
regional haze requirements for the second implementation period. On
April 3, 2025, EGLE submitted a supplement in draft for parallel
processing. 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 proposes to find that the Michigan Regional
Haze SIP submission for the second implementation period meets the
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. Thus, EPA proposes to
approve EGLE's submission into its SIP.
A. What is parallel processing?
Consistent with EPA regulations found at 40 CFR part 51, appendix
V, section 2.3.1, for purposes of expediting review of a SIP
submission, parallel processing allows a State to submit a plan to EPA
prior to final adoption by the State.
Generally, the State submits a copy of the proposed regulation or
other revisions to EPA before conducting its public hearing. EPA
reviews this proposed State action and prepares a notice of proposed
rulemaking. EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking is published in the
Federal Register during the same time frame that the
[[Page 25976]]
State is holding its public process. The State and EPA then provide for
concurrent public comment periods on both the State action and Federal
action.
If the revision that is finally adopted and submitted by EGLE is
changed in aspects other than those identified in the proposed
rulemaking on the parallel process submission, EPA will evaluate those
changes and if necessary and appropriate, issue another notice of
proposed rulemaking. The final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only
after the SIP revision has been adopted by the State and submitted
formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP.
On April 3, 2025, EGLE submitted a request for parallel processing
of a draft SIP supplement that it has taken to public comment on March
10, 2025. EGLE requested parallel processing so that EPA can act on its
Regional Haze SIP revision in advance of EGLE's submission of a SIP
supplement. As stated previously, the final rulemaking action by EPA
will occur only after the SIP supplement has been: (1) submitted
formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP and (2) evaluated by
EPA, including any changes made by EGLE after the April 3, 2025, draft
SIP supplement was submitted to EPA.
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
A detailed history and background of the regional haze program is
provided in prior EPA proposal action.\1\ For additional background on
the 2017 RHR revisions, please refer to Section III. Overview of
Visibility Protection Statutory Authority, Regulation, and
Implementation of ``Protection of Visibility: Amendments to
Requirements for State Plans'' of the 2017 RHR.\2\ The following is an
abbreviated history and background of the regional haze program and
2017 Regional Haze Rule as it applies to the current action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 90 FR 13516 (March 24, 2025).
\2\ See 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Regional Haze Background
In the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a program for
protecting visibility in the nation's mandatory Class I Federal areas,
which include certain national parks and wilderness areas.\3\ CAA 169A.
The CAA establishes as a national goal the ``prevention of any future,
and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in
mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade
air pollution.'' CAA 169A(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Areas statutorily designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness
areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all
international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. CAA
162(a). There are 156 mandatory Class I areas. The list of areas to
which the requirements of the visibility protection program apply is
in 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of anthropogenic sources and activities which are located
across a broad geographic area and that emit pollutants that impair
visibility. Visibility impairing pollutants include fine and coarse
particulate matter (PM) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon,
elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors (e.g., sulfur
dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and, in
some cases, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia
(NH3)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to
form fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the perception of clarity and color, as well as visible
distance.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ There are several ways to measure the amount of visibility
impairment, i.e., haze. One such measurement is the deciview, which
is the principal metric used by the RHR. Under many circumstances, a
change in one deciview will be perceived by the human eye to be the
same on both clear and hazy days. The deciview is unitless. It is
proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric extinction of
light, which is the perceived dimming of light due to its being
scattered and absorbed as it passes through the atmosphere.
Atmospheric light extinction (b\ext\) is a metric used for
expressing visibility and is measured in inverse megameters
(Mm-1). The formula for the deciview is 10 ln (b\ext\)/10
Mm-1). 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address regional haze visibility impairment, the 1999 RHR
established an iterative planning process that requires both States in
which Class I areas are located and States ``the emissions from which
may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment
of visibility'' in a Class I area to periodically submit SIP revisions
to address such impairment. CAA 169A(b)(2); \5\ see also 40 CFR
51.308(b), (f) (establishing submission dates for iterative regional
haze SIP revisions); (64 FR at 35768, July 1, 1999).
On January 10, 2017 (82 FR 3078), EPA promulgated revisions to the
RHR, that apply for the second and subsequent implementation periods.
The reasonable progress requirements as revised in the 2017 rulemaking
(referred to here as the 2017 RHR Revisions) are codified at 40 CFR
51.308(f).
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
Five regional planning organizations (RPOs) were developed in the
lead-up to the first implementation period to address regional haze.
The Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO), one of the five
RPOs, is a collaborative effort of State governments, Tribal
governments, and various Federal agencies established to initiate and
coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze,
visibility, and other air quality issues in the Midwest. LADCO member
States are Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
The LADCO Regional Haze Technical Workgroup also includes Tribes, Iowa,
EPA, U.S. National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS).
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second Implementation
Period
Under the CAA and EPA's regulations, all 50 States, the District of
Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are required to submit regional
haze SIPs satisfying the applicable requirements for the second
implementation period of the regional haze program by July 31, 2021.
Each State's SIP must contain a long-term strategy for making
reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of remedying any
existing and preventing any future anthropogenic visibility impairment
in Class I areas. CAA 169A(b)(2)(B). To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f) lays
out the process by which States determine what constitutes their long-
term strategies, with the order of the requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1) through (3) generally mirroring the order of the steps in
the reasonable progress analysis \6\ and (f)(4) through (6) containing
additional, related requirements. Broadly speaking, a State first must
identify the Class I areas within the State and determine the Class I
areas outside the State in which visibility may be affected by
emissions from the State. These are the Class I areas that must be
addressed in the State's long-term strategy. See 40 CFR 51.308(f),
(f)(2). For each Class I area within its borders, a State must then
calculate the baseline (five-year average period of 2000-2004),
current, and natural visibility conditions (i.e., visibility conditions
without anthropogenic visibility impairment) for that area, as well as
the visibility improvement made to date and the ``uniform rate of
progress'' (URP). The
[[Page 25977]]
URP is the linear rate of progress needed to attain natural visibility
conditions, assuming a starting point of baseline visibility conditions
in 2004 and ending with natural conditions in 2064. This linear
interpolation is used as a tracking metric to help States assess the
amount of progress they are making towards the national visibility goal
over time in each Class I area. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1). Each State
having a Class I area and/or emissions that may affect visibility in a
Class I area must then develop a long-term strategy that includes the
enforceable emission limitations, compliance schedules, and other
measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress in such areas.
A reasonable progress determination is based on applying the four
factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) to sources of visibility impairing
pollutants that the State has selected to assess for controls for the
second implementation period. Additionally, as further explained below,
the RHR at 40 CFR 51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five
``additional factors'' \7\ that States must consider in developing
their long-term strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). A State evaluates
potential emission reduction measures for those selected sources and
determines which are necessary to make reasonable progress. Those
measures are then incorporated into the State's long-term strategy.
After a State has developed its long-term strategy, it then establishes
RPGs for each Class I area within its borders by modeling the
visibility impacts of all reasonable progress controls at the end of
the second implementation period, i.e., in 2028, as well as the impacts
of other requirements of the CAA. The RPGs include reasonable progress
controls not only for sources in the State in which the Class I area is
located, but also for sources in other States that contribute to
visibility impairment in that area. The RPGs are then compared to the
baseline visibility conditions and the URP to ensure that progress is
being made towards the statutory goal of preventing any future and
remedying any existing anthropogenic visibility impairment in Class I
areas. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)-(3). There are additional requirements in
the rule, including FLM consultation, that apply to all visibility
protection SIPs and SIP revisions. See e.g., 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ EPA explained in the 2017 RHR Revisions that we were
adopting new regulatory language in 40 CFR 51.308(f) that, unlike
the structure in 51.308(d), ``tracked the actual planning
sequence.'' (82 FR 3091, January 10, 2017).
\7\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in 40
CFR51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed in CAA
section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that States must
consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
While States have discretion to choose any source selection
methodology that is reasonable, whatever choices they make should be
reasonably explained. To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that
a State's SIP submission include ``a description of the criteria it
used to determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated.''
The technical basis for source selection, which may include methods for
quantifying potential visibility impacts such as emissions divided by
distance metrics, trajectory analyses, residence time analyses, and/or
photochemical modeling, must also be appropriately documented, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
Once a State has selected the set of sources, the next step is to
determine the emissions reduction measures for those sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress for the second implementation
period.\8\ This is accomplished by considering the four factors--``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 169A(g)(1). EPA has explained that the four-factor
analysis is an assessment of potential emission reduction measures
(i.e., control options) for sources; ``use of the terms `compliance'
and `subject to such requirements' in section 169A(g)(1) strongly
indicates that Congress intended the relevant determination to be the
requirements with which sources would have to comply to satisfy the
CAA's reasonable progress mandate.'' 82 FR 3091. Thus, for each source
it has selected for four-factor analysis,\9\ a State must consider a
``meaningful set'' of technically feasible control options for reducing
emissions of visibility impairing pollutants. Id. at 3088.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The CAA provides that, ``[i]n determining reasonable
progress there shall be taken into consideration'' the four
statutory factors. CAA 169A(g)(1). However, in addition to four-
factor analyses for selected sources, groups of sources, or source
categories, a State may also consider additional emission reduction
measures for inclusion in its long-term strategy, e.g., from other
newly adopted, on-the-books, or on-the-way rules and measures for
sources not selected for four-factor analysis for the second
planning period.
\9\ ``Each source'' or ``particular source'' is used here as
shorthand. While a source-specific analysis is one way of applying
the four factors, neither the statute nor the RHR requires States to
evaluate individual sources. Rather, States have ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has also explained that, in addition to the four statutory
factors, States have flexibility under the CAA and RHR to reasonably
consider visibility benefits as an additional factor alongside the four
statutory factors.\10\ Ultimately, while States have discretion to
reasonably weigh the factors and to determine what level of control is
needed, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides that a State ``must include in
its implementation plan a description of . . . how the four factors
were taken into consideration in selecting the measure for inclusion in
its long-term strategy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, e.g., Responses to Comments on Protection of
Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016) (December 2016), Docket Number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2015-0531, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 186.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained above, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires States to
determine the emission reduction measures for sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four factors.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal must be
included in a State's long-term strategy and in its SIP. If the outcome
of a four-factor analysis is that an emissions reduction measure is
necessary to make reasonable progress towards remedying existing or
preventing future anthropogenic visibility impairment, that measure
must be included in the SIP.
The characterization of information on each of the factors is also
subject to the documentation requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
The reasonable progress analysis is a technically complex exercise, and
also a flexible one that provides States with bounded discretion to
design and implement approaches appropriate to their circumstances.
Given this flexibility, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) plays an important
function in requiring a State to document the technical basis for its
decision making so that the public and EPA can comprehend and evaluate
the information and analysis the State relied upon to determine what
emission reduction measures must be in place to make reasonable
progress. The technical documentation must include the modeling,
monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information on which the
State relied to determine the measures necessary to make reasonable
progress. Additionally, the RHR at 40 CFR 51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately
provides five
[[Page 25978]]
``additional factors'' \11\ that States must consider in developing
their long-term strategies: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including measures to address reasonably
attributable visibility impairment; (2) measures to reduce the impacts
of construction activities; (3) source retirement and replacement
schedules; (4) basic smoke management practices for prescribed fire
used for agricultural and wildland vegetation management purposes and
smoke management programs; and (5) the anticipated net effect on
visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source
emissions over the period addressed by the long-term strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed in CAA
section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that States must
consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the air pollution that causes regional haze crosses State
boundaries, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires a State to consult with
other States that also have emissions that are reasonably anticipated
to contribute to visibility impairment in a given Class I area. If a
State, pursuant to consultation, agrees that certain measures (e.g., a
certain emission limitation) are necessary to make reasonable progress
at a Class I area, it must include those measures in its SIP. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A). Additionally, the RHR requires that States that
contribute to visibility impairment at the same Class I area consider
the emission reduction measures the other contributing States have
identified as being necessary to make reasonable progress for their own
sources. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(B). If a State has been asked to
consider or adopt certain emission reduction measures, but ultimately
determines those measures are not necessary to make reasonable
progress, that State must document in its SIP the actions taken to
resolve the disagreement. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C). Under all
circumstances, a State must document in its SIP submission all
substantive consultations with other contributing States. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C).
B. Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
RPGs ``measure the progress that is projected to be achieved by the
control measures States have determined are necessary to make
reasonable progress based on a four-factor analysis.'' 82 FR 3091.
For the second implementation period, the RPGs are set for 2028.
RPGs are not enforceable targets, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii). While
States are not legally obligated to achieve the visibility conditions
described in their RPGs, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires that ``[t]he
long-term strategy and the reasonable progress goals must provide for
an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days since the
baseline period and ensure no degradation in visibility for the
clearest days since the baseline period.''
RPGs may also serve as a metric for assessing the amount of
progress a State is making towards the national visibility goal. To
support this approach, the RHR requires States with Class I areas to
compare the 2028 RPG for the most impaired days to the corresponding
point on the URP line (representing visibility conditions in 2028 if
visibility were to improve at a linear rate from conditions in the
baseline period of 2000-2004 to natural visibility conditions in 2064).
If the most impaired days RPG in 2028 is above the URP (i.e., if
visibility conditions are improving more slowly than the rate described
by the URP), each State that contributes to visibility impairment in
the Class I area must demonstrate, based on the four-factor analysis
required under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), that no additional emission
reduction measures would be reasonable to include in its long-term
strategy. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii). To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)
requires that each State contributing to visibility impairment in a
Class I area that is projected to improve more slowly than the URP
provide ``a robust demonstration, including documenting the criteria
used to determine which sources or groups [of] sources were evaluated
and how the four factors required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) were taken
into consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-
term strategy.''
C. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) requires States to have certain strategies and
elements in place for assessing and reporting on visibility. Individual
requirements under this section apply either to States with Class I
areas within their borders, States with no Class I areas but that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment
in any Class I area, or both. Compliance with the monitoring strategy
requirement may be met through a State's participation in the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, which is used to measure visibility impairment
caused by air pollution at the 156 Class I areas covered by the
visibility program. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), (f)(6)(i), (f)(6)(iv).
All States' SIPs must provide for procedures by which monitoring
data and other information are used to determine the contribution of
emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility impairment
in affected Class I areas, as well as a statewide inventory documenting
such emissions. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii), (iii), (v). All States' SIPs
must also provide for any other elements, including reporting,
recordkeeping, and other measures, that are necessary for States to
assess and report on visibility. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi).
D. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards the
RPGs
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a State's regional haze SIP revision
to address the requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through
(5) so that the plan revision due in 2021 will serve also as a progress
report addressing the period since submission of the progress report
for the first implementation period. The regional haze progress report
requirement is designed to inform the public and EPA about a State's
implementation of its existing long-term strategy and whether such
implementation is in fact resulting in the expected visibility
improvement. See 81 FR 26942, 26950 (May 4, 2016), (82 FR 3119, January
10, 2017). To this end, every State's SIP revision for the second
implementation period is required to assess changes in visibility
conditions and describe the status of implementation of all measures
included in the State's long-term strategy, including BART and
reasonable progress emission reduction measures from the first
implementation period, and the resulting emissions reductions. 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1) and (2).
E. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
CAA section 169A(d) requires that before a State holds a public
hearing on a proposed regional haze SIP revision, it must consult with
the appropriate FLM or FLMs; pursuant to that consultation, the State
must include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and recommendations in
the notice to the public. Consistent with this statutory requirement,
the RHR also requires that States ``provide the [FLM] with an
opportunity for consultation, in person and at a point early enough in
the State's policy analyses of its long-term strategy emission
reduction obligation so that information and recommendations provided
by the [FLM] can meaningfully inform the State's decisions on the long-
term strategy.'' 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). For EPA
[[Page 25979]]
to evaluate whether FLM consultation meeting the requirements of the
RHR has occurred, the SIP submission should include documentation of
the timing and content of such consultation. The SIP revision submitted
to EPA must also describe how the State addressed any comments provided
by the FLMs. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). Finally, a SIP revision must provide
procedures for continuing consultation between the State and FLMs
regarding the State's visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports,
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 40 CFR
51.308(i)(4).
IV. EPA's Evaluation of EGLE's Regional Haze Submission for the Second
Implementation Period
A. Background on EGLE's First Implementation Period SIP Submission
Please see section 2 of the May 22, 2025, technical support
document (TSD) accompanying this rule for background on EGLE's first
implementation period plan.
B. EGLE's Second Implementation Period SIP Submission and EPA's
Evaluation
In accordance with CAA section 169A and the RHR at 40 CFR
51.308(f), on August 23, 2021, and supplemented on April 3, 2025, EGLE
submitted a revision to the Michigan SIP to address its regional haze
obligations for the second implementation period that runs through
2028.
The following sections describe EGLE's SIP submission, including
analyses conducted by LADCO and EGLE's determinations based on those
analyses, EGLE's assessment of progress made since the first
implementation period in reducing emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants, and the visibility improvement progress at its Class I
areas and nearby Class I areas. This proposed rulemaking and the
accompanying May 22, 2025, TSD also contain EPA's evaluation of EGLE's
submission against the requirements of the CAA and RHR for the second
implementation period of the regional haze program.
C. Identification of Class I Areas
Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires each State in which any
Class I area is located or ``the emissions from which may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility'' in
a Class I area to have a plan for making reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal. The RHR implements this statutory requirement
at 40 CFR 51.308(f), which provides that each State's plan ``must
address regional haze in each mandatory Class I Federal area located
within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located
outside the State that may be affected by emissions from within the
State,'' and paragraph (f)(2), which requires each State's plan to
include a long-term strategy that addresses regional haze in such Class
I areas.
Michigan has two mandatory Class I Federal areas: Isle Royale
National Park (Isle Royale) and Seney National Wildlife Refuge (Seney).
LADCO performed a technical analysis to help assess state-level
contributions to visibility impairment at Class I areas for the second
implementation period. EGLE provided the analysis in section 2.1,
Tables 6 and 7 of its supplement.
Based on LADCO's source apportionment modeling results for 2028,
Michigan was projected to have the greatest visibility impact on the
Class I areas within the State, Seney and Isle Royale, contributing an
estimated 3.4 Mm-1 and 1.7 Mm-1 of visibility
impairment, respectively. This represents about 6.0 percent of the
total light extinction at Seney and 3.5 percent at Isle Royale.
Michigan also identified 13 out-of-state Class I areas where Michigan's
contribution to the total light extinction was 1 percent or greater. In
addition, Michigan identified the two Class I areas in Minnesota since
they are also located within LADCO, although the projected impacts to
these out-of-state areas are less than 1 percent at both Voyageurs
National Park and Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (0.2
Mm-1 and 0.3 Mm-1 impairment, respectively).
D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
The regulation at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) requires States to determine
the following for ``each mandatory Class I Federal area located within
the State'': baseline visibility conditions for the most impaired and
clearest days, natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and
clearest days, progress to date for the most impaired and clearest
days, the differences between current visibility conditions and natural
visibility conditions, and the URP. This section 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/or the impacts from wildland prescribed
fires that were conducted for certain, specified objectives. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B).
EGLE provided this analysis for Isle Royale and Seney in section 2
of its 2021 submission with updates in section 6 of its supplement. The
2002 to 2004 observed baseline visibility conditions for Isle Royale
are 6.77 deciviews (dv) on the 20 percent clearest days and 19.63 dv on
the 20 percent most impaired days. For Seney, the baseline visibility
is 7.14 dv on the 20 percent clearest days and 23.58 dv on the 20
percent most impaired days. The natural conditions at Isle Royale are
3.72 dv on the 20 percent clearest days and 10.17 dv on the 20 percent
most impaired days. Natural conditions at Seney are 3.74 dv on the 20
percent clearest days and 11.11 dv on the 20 percent most impaired
days. Current conditions, based on 2014 to 2018 monitoring data, at
Isle Royale are 15.54 dv on the 20 percent most impaired days and 5.30
dv on the 20 percent clearest days. At Seney, the current conditions,
based on 2014 to 2018 monitoring data, are 17.57 dv on the 20 percent
most impaired days and 5.27 dv on the 20 percent clearest days. Based
on the ambient data trends, steady progress towards natural conditions
is being made at both Isle Royale and Seney.
EGLE calculated the URP for the Class I areas for 2028 using
LADCO's 2016 base year modeling. The 2028 URP is 15.85 dv at Isle
Royale and 18.59 dv at Seney on the most impaired days. EGLE projects
14.83 dv impairment at Isle Royale and 16.67 dv at Seney on the most
impaired days, which are 1.02 dv and 1.92 dv below the URP,
respectively.
EPA proposes to find that EGLE has submitted a regional haze plan
that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) related to the
calculations of baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions;
progress to date; and the URP for the second implementation period.
E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
1. Emission Measures Necessary To Make Reasonable Progress
Each State having a Class I area within its borders or emissions
that may affect visibility in a Class I area must develop a long-term
strategy for making reasonable progress towards the national visibility
goal. CAA 169A(b)(2)(B). After considering the four statutory factors,
all measures that are determined to be necessary to make reasonable
progress must be in the long-
[[Page 25980]]
term strategy. In developing its long-term strategies, a State must
also consider the five additional factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv).
As part of its reasonable progress determinations, the State must
describe the criteria used to determine which sources or group of
sources were evaluated (i.e., subjected to four-factor analysis) for
the second implementation period and how the four factors were taken
into consideration in selecting the emission reduction measures for
inclusion in the long-term strategy. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
EGLE details its measures necessary to make reasonable progress in
section 5.2 of its supplement. EGLE's long-term strategy includes VOC
Control Techniques, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for some source categories, New Source Performance Standards
for solid waste incinerators and for residential wood heaters, Federal
onroad mobile sources rules, and several Federal non-road mobile
sources rules among other Federal measures.
EGLE's supplement builds on the long-term strategy presented in
EGLE's August 23, 2021, submission. In developing its long-term
strategy, EGLE considered both the four-factor analyses under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i) and the five additional factors under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv). As required by 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), EGLE considered
emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs,
referring to Federal emission control programs and documenting emission
reductions at its sources that have reduced visibility impact at all
Class I areas. As required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B), EGLE noted
its measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), EGLE addressed schedules for
source retirements and replacements. EGLE remarked that any major
stationary source upon restart is subject to permitting as a new source
and must comply with requirements pertaining to New Source Review and
Prevention of Significant Deterioration.\12\ To satisfy the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), EGLE considered smoke
management techniques for the purposes of agricultural and forestry
management in developing its long-term strategy. EGLE determined that
emissions from prescribed fires are not significantly affecting Class I
areas in Michigan. Thus, EGLE considered its smoke management strategy
to be adequate for long-term progress. Additionally, as required by 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E), EGLE considered the anticipated net effect on
visibility improvements due to projected changes in emissions from
point, area, and mobile sources during the second implementation
period, explaining that the visibility improvement expected was
estimated using LADCO's 2016 base year and 2028 modeled projections.
Given the information EGLE provided in this regard, EPA proposes to
find that Michigan reasonably considered and satisfied the requirements
for each of the five additional factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) in
developing its long-term strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See ``Affirmation of EPA's Long-Standing Reactivation
Policy'' in Attachment 2 of the November 16, 2022, memo from Joseph
Goffman, EPA, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. EPA's Evaluation of EGLE's Compliance With 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i)
The requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) relate to evaluating
sources and determining the emission reduction measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four statutory
factors.
Considering the four statutory factors, current effective control
technologies, emission reductions that have already occurred during the
second implementation period, and projected 2028 visibility conditions
for Class I areas influenced by emissions from Michigan sources are all
below the URP in 2028, EPA also finds it reasonable to conclude that no
additional measures are necessary to make reasonable progress in the
second implementation period. As detailed further later in this rule,
EPA proposes to approve EGLE's long-term strategy under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2).
In line with recent proposals from EPA,\13\ it is the Agency's
policy that, where visibility conditions for a Class I area impacted by
a State are below the URP and the State has considered the four
statutory factors, the State will have presumptively demonstrated
reasonable progress for the second implementation period for that Class
I area. As previously discussed, for each Class I area, there is a
regulatory requirement to compare the projected visibility impairment
(represented by the RPG) at the end of each implementation period to
the URP (e.g., in 2028 for the second implementation period).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 90 FR 16478, April 18, 2025; see pages 16483 and 16484.
\14\ We note that RPGs are a regulatory construct that we
developed to address statutory mandate in 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 3091-3092.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's new policy is that so long as the Class I areas impacted by a
State are below the URP and the State considers the four factors, the
State will have presumptively demonstrated it has already made
reasonable progress for the second implementation period for that area.
EPA believes this policy also recognizes the considerable improvements
in visibility impairment that have been made by a wide variety of State
and Federal programs in recent decades.
Applying this new policy in our evaluation of EGLE's plan and as
further detailed in the paragraphs that follow, EPA agrees with EGLE's
determination that, for the second implementation period, no additional
measures are necessary to achieve reasonable progress towards natural
visibility at Class I areas both in Michigan and other States that are
influenced by emissions from Michigan sources.
The SIP submission included evaluations for 19 emissions sources,
including consideration of the four statutory factors for three
facilities and consideration of existing control measures and emission
reductions at 16 facilities. Based on these evaluations and analyses,
EGLE did not submit to EPA any additional measures for reasonable
progress. In reaching this determination, EGLE also considered the
emissions reductions and visibility improvements that have already
occurred in the second implementation period in nearby Class I areas.
EGLE generated a list of sources based on total process-level
emissions (Q) divided by distance (d) to the nearest Class I area,
where Q/d was used as a surrogate quantitative metric of visibility
impact in lieu of air quality modeling results. For Q, EGLE used the
combined emissions of NOX, SO2, PM2.5,
VOC, and NH3 for its unit and facility emissions. EGLE
selected sources to capture approximately 80 percent of NOX
and SO2 emissions from all sources statewide as detailed in
section 3.2.2 of its supplement. To capture 80 percent of
NOX and SO2 emissions, EGLE set a pollutant
specific Q/d threshold of greater than six at the unit level for
NOX or SO2 emissions. That Q/d threshold
identified 11 sources that have since experienced permanent emission
reductions representing 30 percent of the NOX and 65 percent
of the SO2 from all units in the second implementation
period with a sum Q/d of 1 or greater
[[Page 25981]]
based on the 2016 inventory. EGLE then selected the remaining 13 units
at eight facilities for potential further analysis. EGLE selected
Tilden Mining Company, Kilns 1 and 2, St. Clair/Belle River Power
Plant, Belle River Units 1 and 2, Empire Iron Mining Partnership, Units
2, 3, and 4, St. Mary's Cement, Inc., Charlevoix Plant, Compiled Kiln,
Holcim (US) Inc., DBA Lafarge Alpena Plant, Kilns 22 and 23, Billerud
Escanaba LLC, Number 11 Power Boiler, Neenah Paper Michigan Inc.,
Munising, Boiler 1, and Graymont Western Lime, Inc., Kiln 1. EGLE
provided this information on Tables 8 and 9 in section 3.2.2 of its
supplement. EPA further summarizes EGLE's source selection in section 3
of the May 22, 2025, TSD.
From the list of selected sources, EGLE determined that several of
the facilities either have idled indefinitely or have existing
effective controls. EGLE selected the remaining three sources for a
four-factor analysis for potential emissions controls. EGLE provided
this information in section 3.3 of its supplement.
EGLE performed four-factor analyses on the three selected sources
to address the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). For each four-
factor analysis, EGLE considered the cost of compliance, time necessary
to install the controls, energy and non-air impacts, and remaining
useful life of the sources. See CAA 169A(g)(1). Those analyses for
Billerud Escanaba LLC, Graymont Western Lime Inc., and Tilden Mining
Company are given in sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 of EGLE's supplement.
Upon considering the four statutory factors, EGLE ultimately determined
that no additional controls were necessary for reasonable progress for
the second implementation period. EGLE found no new measures to be cost
effective for Billerud Escanaba LLC. For Graymont Western Lime Inc.,
EGLE determined fuel substitution to be a potentially cost-effective
measure but expects ``a minimal or potentially unfavorable impact'' on
annual NOX emissions and thus EGLE eliminated that measure.
EGLE determined no new control measures on Tilden Kiln 2 are necessary
to make reasonable progress based on a finding of negligible visibility
improvement at both Isle Royale and Seney. See section 4 of the May 22,
2025, TSD for details of the emission control measures evaluated. EPA
concludes that EGLE appropriately considered the four statutory factors
and determined additional controls were not cost-effective for the
second implementation period.
EGLE evaluated the on-the-books and on-the-way controls and did not
request for any of those measures to be incorporated by reference into
the regulatory portion of Michigan's SIP at 40 CFR 52.1170.
EPA proposes to find that EGLE has satisfied the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) related to evaluating sources and determining the
emission reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress by applying the four statutory factors to sources in a control
analysis. EGLE's SIP submission reasonably applied their source
selection process, identifying sources accounting for approximately 80
percent of NOX and SO2 emissions. In addition,
EGLE adequately explained its decision to focus on the two pollutants,
SO2 and NOX, that currently drive visibility
impairment within the LADCO region. EPA proposes to find that EGLE
adequately supported its conclusions for its top-impacting sources in
determining that no additional measures are necessary for reasonable
progress in the second implementation period. EPA is basing this
proposed finding on EGLE's consideration of the four statutory factors,
the projected 2028 visibility conditions for Class I areas, both in
Michigan and influenced by emissions from Michigan sources, which are
all below the URP in 2028, emission reductions that have already
occurred during the second implementation period, and current effective
control technologies.
EPA proposes to find that EGLE's 2021 SIP submission and draft SIP
supplement meets the CAA and regulatory requirement to make reasonable
progress towards the national visibility goal. No measures are proposed
to be incorporated by reference into the Michigan SIP.
F. RPGs
Section 51.308(f)(3) contains the requirements pertaining to RPGs
for each Class I area. Michigan contains two Class I areas, making it
subject to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i). Section 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires a
State in which a Class I area is located to establish RPGs--one each
for the most impaired and clearest days--reflecting the visibility
conditions that will be achieved at the end of the implementation
period as a result of the emission limitations, compliance schedules
and other measures required under paragraph (f)(2) to be in States'
long-term strategies, as well as implementation of other CAA
requirements. The long-term strategies as reflected by the RPGs must
provide for an improvement in visibility on the most impaired days
relative to the baseline period and ensure no degradation on the
clearest days relative to the baseline period. Section
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) requires that if a State contains sources that are
reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a
Class I area in another State, and the RPG for the most impaired days
in that Class I area is above the URP, the upwind State must provide
the same demonstration.
EGLE determined the RPGs using EPA's inventory and modeling
provided by LADCO. LADCO used the National Emissions Inventory
Collaborative's 2016 emissions inventory with updates to project 2028
emissions.
According to that modeling, the 2028 RPGs for the 20 percent most
impaired days are 14.83 dv for Isle Royale and 16.67 dv for Seney. The
2028 RPGs for the 20 percent clearest days are 5.23 dv for Isle Royale
and 5.17 dv for Seney. See section 6 of the supplement including Tables
32 and 33. EGLE included these RPGs in its regional haze plan for the
second implementation period. EGLE's long-term strategy and the RPGs
provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days
since the baseline period and ensure no degradation in visibility for
the clearest days since the baseline period, in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(i).
Section 51.308(f)(3)(i) also specifies that RPGs must reflect
``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other
measures required under paragraph (f)(2) of this section'' (emphasis
added). EPA interprets this provision as requiring that only emission
reduction measures that States--including upwind States--have
determined to be necessary for reasonable progress and incorporated
into their long-term strategies be reflected in a Class I area's RPGs.
This ensures that RPGs include only those measures that are reasonably
certain to be implemented.
The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii) notes that the RPGs are not
directly enforceable but will be considered by the Administrator in
evaluating the adequacy of the measures in the implementation plan in
providing for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility
conditions at that area.
Under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A), a State with a Class I area that
establishes an RPG for the most impaired days that provides for a
slower rate of improvement in visibility than the URP must calculate
the number of years required to reach natural conditions. The
demonstration requirement under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A) is not
triggered because EGLE's RPGs are below the URP.
[[Page 25982]]
Under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B), if a State contains sources that
are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a
Class I area in another State for which a demonstration by the other
State is required, then the State must demonstrate that there are no
additional emission reduction measures that would be reasonable to
include in its long-term strategy. The out-of-state Class I areas with
2028 projected contributions to total visibility impairment greater
than 1 percent from Michigan that are listed in Table 7 of the
supplement are well below the URP. Thus, EPA proposes to conclude that
the demonstration requirement under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) is not
triggered.
In sum, EPA proposes to determine that EGLE has satisfied the
applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3) relating to RPGs.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) specifies that each comprehensive revision of
a State's regional haze SIP must contain or provide for certain
elements, including monitoring strategies, emissions inventories, and
any reporting, recordkeeping and other measures needed to assess and
report on visibility. A main requirement of this subsection is for
States with Class I areas to submit monitoring strategies for
measuring, characterizing, and reporting on visibility impairment.
Compliance with this requirement may be met through participation in
the IMPROVE network.
EGLE uses its participation in the IMPROVE program \15\ to meet the
40 CFR 51.308(f)(6) monitoring strategy requirements. See section H.3
of EGLE's submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The IMPROVE sites also provide PM2.5 speciation
data. Therefore, these sites are a key component of EPA's national
fine particle monitoring in addition to being critical to tracking
progress related to regional haze regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The obligations of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(iii) only apply to States
without a Class I area, requiring procedures for using monitoring data
in determining the contribution of emissions to visibility impairment
at Class I areas in other States. Michigan has Class I areas, so this
requirement does not apply.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(iv) requires the SIP to provide for the
reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at
least annually for each Class I area in the State. EGLE backs the
IMPROVE monitoring network as stated in H.3 of EGLE's submission.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) requires SIPs to provide for a statewide
inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to
cause or contribute to visibility impairment, including emissions for
the most recent year for which data are available and estimates of
future projected emissions. EGLE included LADCO's emission inventories
in its plan. The emissions inventory includes VOC, NOX,
PM2.5, NH3, and SO2. See appendix 2 of
EGLE's supplement.
The provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(v) also require States to
include estimates of future projected emissions and include a
commitment to update the inventory periodically. EGLE produces
inventories meeting Federal requirements as noted in H.3 of EGLE's
submission.
The provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi) require a State to
consider other elements necessary to assess and report on visibility,
including reporting and recordkeeping. EGLE has met the other
applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), therefore no further
elements are necessary for it to assess and report on visibility
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi).
EPA proposes to find that EGLE has met the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6) through its continued participation in the IMPROVE
network, its contribution analysis, its emissions reporting to EPA, and
its statewide emissions inventory.
H. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards the
RPGs
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires that periodic comprehensive revisions
of States' regional haze plans also address the progress report
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5). The purpose of these
requirements is to evaluate progress towards the applicable RPGs for
each Class I area within the State and each Class I area outside the
State that may be affected by emissions from within that State.
Applying to all States, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2) require a
description of the status of implementation of all measures included in
a State's first implementation period regional haze plan and a summary
of the emission reductions achieved through implementation of those
measures. The regulations in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) apply only to States
with Class I areas within their borders and require such States to
assess current visibility conditions, changes in visibility relative to
baseline (2000 to 2004) visibility conditions, and changes in
visibility conditions relative to the period addressed in the first
implementation period progress report. The regulations in 40 CFR
51.308(g)(4) apply to all States and require an analysis tracking
changes in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility
impairment from all sources and sectors since the period addressed by
the first implementation period progress report. This provision further
specifies the year or years through which the analysis must extend
depending on the type of source and the platform through which its
emission information is reported. Finally, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), which
also applies to all States, requires an assessment of whether any
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the
State have occurred since the period addressed by the first
implementation period progress report, including whether such changes
were anticipated and whether they have limited or impeded expected
progress towards reducing emissions and improving visibility.
EGLE submitted its previous progress report on January 12, 2016,
which covered visibility data through 2014. Thus, EGLE's progress
report covers the period of 2015 to 2019.
EGLE, in section 8.3 of its supplement, provides its progress
report for the second half of the first period. EGLE describes the
status of emission reduction measures from the first implementation
period as required by 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). EGLE gives the status of
emission reduction measures at Holcim US DBA Lafarge Alpena Plant,
Billerud Escanaba, LLC, Saint Mary's Cement--Charlevoix Plant, Smurfit
Stone Container Corporation, and Tilden Mining Company, LLC. In section
8.3.2 of the supplement, EGLE gives the annual NOX and
SO2 emissions for each non-EGU source to summarize the
emission reductions from regional haze strategies as required by 40 CFR
51.308(g)(2).
EPA proposes to find that EGLE has met the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1) and (2) because its submission gives the status of
implementation of first period emission reduction measures and a
summary of the emission reductions achieved through such
implementation.
States are required by 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) to assess the visibility
progress of its Class I areas. In section 8.3.3 of its supplement, EGLE
provided the 2014 and 2019 IMPROVE visibility data for its Class I
areas demonstrating improvement in visibility during both the clearest
and most impaired days. In 2019, the IMPROVE monitor at Isle Royale
demonstrated a 5-year average light extinction of 14.9 dv, down from
17.3 dv in 2014 for the most impaired days. Light extinction at Seney
also decreased from 19.5 dv to 17.1 dv over the same time period. For
the clearest
[[Page 25983]]
days, Isle Royale's average light extinction decreased from 5.5 dv in
2014 to 5.1 dv in 2019. Similarly, light extinction Seney also
decreased from 5.5 dv to 5.1 dv over the same period. EPA proposes to
find that EGLE has satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3).
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), EGLE provided LADCO's emission
inventories in appendix 2 to its supplement. LADCO gives the 2011 and
2016 NH3, NOX, PM2.5, SO2,
and VOC emissions from all sources and activities, including from
point, nonpoint, non-road mobile, and on-road mobile sources for
Michigan and the other five States. EPA proposes to find that EGLE has
satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) by providing
emissions information for NH3, NOX,
PM2.5, SO2, and VOC emissions by source type.
As for the requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) to give an assessment
of changes impeding visibility progress, EGLE evaluated contributions
within and outside the State. EGLE states in section 8.3.4.3 of its
supplement that it does not anticipate any significant changes in
emissions within and from outside Michigan. EGLE remarked that while
there have been increases in NOX and SO2
emissions between 2014 and 2019 in some source categories within
Michigan and in other States, it does not expect any impediment in
visibility progress given the substantial emission reductions from
other sources that have occurred during the second implementation
period. EPA proposes to find that EGLE has met the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(g)(5).
I. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
Section 169A(d) of the CAA requires States to consult with FLMs
before holding the public hearing on a proposed regional haze SIP, and
to include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and recommendations in
the notice to the public. In addition, 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2)'s FLM
consultation provision requires a State to provide FLMs with an
opportunity for consultation that is early enough in the State's policy
analyses of its emission reduction obligation so that information and
recommendations provided by the FLMs can meaningfully inform the
State's decisions on its long-term strategy. If the consultation has
taken place at least 120 days before a public hearing or public comment
period, the opportunity for consultation will be deemed early enough.
Regardless, the opportunity for consultation must be provided at least
60 days before a public hearing or public comment period at the State
level. Section 51.308(i)(2) provides two substantive topics on which
FLMs must be provided an opportunity to discuss with States: assessment
of visibility impairment in any Class I area and recommendations on the
development and implementation of strategies to address visibility
impairment. Section 51.308(i)(3) requires States, in developing their
implementation plans, to include a description of how they addressed
FLMs' comments.
EGLE provided its February 2021 draft Regional Haze plan to the
USFS, FWS, and the NPS for a 60-day review and comment period pursuant
to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). A FLM consultation meeting was held on April
29, 2021.
On December 19, 2024, EGLE provided its regional haze plan
supplement to USFS, FWS, and the NPS for a 60-day review and comment
period. A consultation meeting was held on February 12, 2025. EGLE
provided the FLM comments in appendix 30 of the supplement and its
responses in appendix 32. EPA proposes to find that EGLE has satisfied
the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(i) to consult with the FLMs on its
Regional Haze SIP for the second implementation period.
EGLE published the public notice for the proposed update to
Michigan's Regional Haze SIP on its website on May 17, 2021. The public
comment period ran until June 30, 2021. A summary of the FLM and public
comments along with EGLE's responses is found in the EGLE submission
appendix D with the comments supplied in appendix E.
EGLE published the public notice for a supplement to Michigan's
Regional Haze SIP on its website on March 10, 2025. The public comment
period on the supplement was from March 10, 2025, to April 22, 2025.
V. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve the Regional Haze SIP revision
submitted by EGLE on August 23, 2021, and supplemented on April 3,
2025, as satisfying applicable requirements under the CAA and RHR for
the program's second implementation period.
VI. 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:
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);
Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065,
February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
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.);
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);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
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 rulemaking 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).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
[[Page 25984]]
Dated: June 2, 2025.
Anne Vogel,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2025-11257 Filed 6-17-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P