Michigan Senate Bill SB0385

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/10/25
• Refer: 6/10/25

Caption

Administrative procedure: rules; definition of a rule; exclude cleanup criteria and target detection limits. Amends sec. 7 of 1969 PA 306 (MCL 24.207). TIE BAR WITH: SB 391'25, SB 392'25

Summary

Senate Bill 385 amends Michigan’s Administrative Procedures Act definition of a “rule” to add an explicit exclusion for cleanup criteria and target detection limits developed by the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy under Part 201 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. In practical terms, the bill clarifies that these environmental cleanup standards would not be treated as rules for purposes of the APA’s rulemaking requirements, placing them alongside other listed exclusions such as certain health, corrections, and agency contract-related policies. The bill is tied to Senate Bills 391 and 392, and it would not take effect unless all three bills are enacted. Its effect is narrow but significant for administrative law: it changes which agency actions must go through formal rulemaking procedures, potentially reducing procedural burdens and limiting opportunities for public notice-and-comment or judicial challenges under the APA for the specified cleanup criteria and detection limits.

Impact

The bill would amend MCL 24.207 to expand the list of agency actions excluded from the statutory definition of a “rule.” The main legal impact is to remove Part 201 cleanup criteria and target detection limits from the APA’s rulemaking framework, meaning those standards would be treated as non-rule agency actions rather than formal rules subject to APA promulgation requirements. This affects EGLE, regulated parties involved in environmental cleanup and remediation, and potentially communities and property owners subject to cleanup standards. Because the bill is tie-barred to SB 391 and SB 392, its legal effect depends on enactment of the companion legislation.

Sentiment

There is limited recorded discussion or voting history available for this bill, so sentiment must be inferred from the text and caption. The bill appears to be a technical administrative measure aimed at clarifying regulatory treatment of environmental cleanup standards, which often draws support from agencies and regulated industries seeking procedural certainty. At the same time, because it narrows the set of actions treated as rules, it may raise concerns among environmental advocates, local communities, or transparency proponents who prefer formal rulemaking safeguards.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely whether cleanup criteria and target detection limits should be exempt from APA rulemaking requirements. Supporters may argue the exemption allows EGLE to update technical environmental standards more efficiently and avoid delays. Opponents may argue that excluding these standards from the definition of a rule reduces public participation, oversight, and legal accountability in decisions that can affect contamination cleanup, redevelopment, and public health. The tie-bar to SB 391 and SB 392 also suggests the bill is part of a broader package, so some stakeholders may view it as one piece of a larger policy compromise rather than a standalone change.