In FR Doc. 2026-00765 appearing on page 1669 in the Federal Register of Thursday, January 15, 2026, the following correction is made:

FCA is amending 12 CFR parts 611, 614, 620, 626, 628, and 630 to update regulatory references that have been removed, revised, or are otherwise no longer valid, and to correct other technical errors. These technical corrections are non-substantive.

The technical updates in this final rule are outlined below:

FCA is updating references and citations in §§ 614.4200(a)(3), 626.6010(a)(1), and 626.6020(a) to regulations issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that were previously issued by the Federal Reserve Board (FRB), including regulations B, 1 M, 2 and Z. 3 Effective July 21, 2011, Section 1061 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act)  4 transferred these regulations from the FRB to the CFPB, and the CFPB subsequently relocated these regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations. 5 Accordingly, FCA is replacing references to the FRB with references to the CFPB and updating the regulation citations.

In addition, we are updating § 626.6010(a)(1) to reflect Regulation B's current prohibited bases for discrimination as defined in 12 CFR 1002.2(z).

In § 614.4200(c) we are making a correction to a typographical error in a citation. Section 614.4200(c) requires loan amortizations. It contains a reference to § 614.41040(a), which does not exist and should have been § 614.4040(a).

In §§ 626.6010(a)(1) and 626.6020(a), we are making grammatical corrections.

In §§ 626.6010(a)(1), 626.6020(a), and 626.6025(b), we are updating the citations to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) to ensure all amendments to the ECOA are encompassed. The update to § 626.6025(b) will require a minor change to the ECOA citation specified in the text of the Equal Housing Lender poster. Institutions making loans for the purpose of purchasing, constructing, improving, repairing, or maintaining a dwelling or any loan secured by a dwelling must post and maintain this poster in their lobbies. To avoid the expense and effort institutions would have to expend to reprint and repost new posters to update the citation, FCA's revised regulation will allow System institutions to continue to use and display posters printed before March 1, 2026.

In § 626.6020(a), we are also removing the reference to 24 CFR part 109 because that part was repealed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and was not replaced. 6 We are leaving the reference to 24 CFR part 100 because that part was not repealed. Additionally, we are updating the reference from the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 3601-3631), to 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq., to be consistent with how the citation appears in other sections in part 626.

FCA is correcting a mistake to a citation in 611.1157(a). Section 611.1157(a) requires a System institution to provide, in its annual report to shareholders, information on its unincorporated business entity (UBE) investment and business activity. Section 611.1157(a) references § 620.5(a)(12), which does not exist. The correct reference is § 620.5(a)(11) because that section requires banks and associations to explain their business relationships with UBEs in their annual report to shareholders.

FCA is correcting a mistake to a citation in § 620.5(a)(11)(i). That section requires banks and associations to disclose, in their annual reports to shareholders, their business relationships with UBEs. This paragraph contains an incorrect reference to paragraph (a)(12)(ii) of this section, which does not exist. This reference is corrected to paragraph (a)(11)(ii).

FCA is correcting a mistake in the printing of part 628, Appendix A, Table A. The table, under the “Construction” category, incorrectly aligns the line items of “Improved property,” and ”Owner-occupied 1- to 4-family and home equity,” as subsets. These line items are loan categories, not subsets of the “Construction” category, and they should be left justified in Table A. Additionally, in the loan-to-value limit column for category, “Owner-occupied 1- to 4-family and home equity,” footnote number two appears before the number “85.” The position of footnote number two is incorrect and is changed to appear after the number “85.”

FCA is correcting a mistake to citations in § 630.4(a)(7) and (9). Those provisions require the Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation to request certain information from FCA if such information is not forthcoming from a bank in accordance with paragraph “(c)” of § 630.4. However, § 630.4(c) imposes requirements on associations, not banks. Section 630.4(b) is the provision that requires banks to provide information to the Funding Corporation. We are correcting this error by replacing the references to paragraph “(c)” in § 630.4(a)(7) and (9) with references to paragraph “(b).”

Public notice and comment are not required. Section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act  7 provides that when an agency for good cause finds that public notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. FCA has determined that good cause exists to finalize these amendments, which implement non-substantive technical corrections, updates to citation references, and updates to references to other agencies consistent with statutory changes, without public notice and comment.

The Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined by Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, made applicable to FCA by Executive Order 14215. This action is an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), FCA hereby certifies this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Each of the banks in the System, considered together with its affiliated associations, has assets and annual income in excess of the amounts that would qualify them as small entities. Therefore, System institutions are not “small entities” as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Under the provisions of the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this final rule is not a “major rule” as the term is defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Farm Credit Administration amends parts 611, 614, 620, 626, 628, and 630 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

On June 9, 2025, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking NPRM) entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Inside Thorofare, Ventnor City, New Jersey” in the Federal Register (90 FR 24256). There we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this regulatory change. During the comment period that ended July 9, 2025, we received no comments.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499. The Dorset Avenue Bridge across Inside Thorofare, mile 72.1, at Ventnor City, NJ, has a vertical clearance of 9 feet at mean high water in the closed to navigation position (unlimited in the open to navigation position) and a horizontal clearance of 50 feet between the bridge protective system. Waterway users include pleasure craft, commercial and sport fishing vessels.

The existing drawbridge operating regulation for the Dorset Avenue Bridge is listed in 33 CFR 117.733(i) and requires that the Bridge open on signal except that from June 1 through September 30, from 9:15 a.m. to 9:15 p.m., the draw need only open at 15 and 45 minutes after the hour. A review of the drawbridge logs provided by Atlantic County, the Bridge Owner, has revealed that requests for opening of the bridge have decreased thus indicating minimal use. For the years 2022, 2023, and 2024, from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., the Dorset Avenue Bridge has opened for vessels 42, 51, and 29 times, respectively. Because of minimal demand for bridge opening, between the hours of 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., the bridge owner has requested that during these hours, year-round, the bridge need only open when a four-hour advance notice is given.

The Coast Guard received no comments on the NPRM and provided a comment period of 30 days. The Coast Guard is amending Section 117.733 by revising paragraph (i) to include a new 4 hour notice requirement for openings between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. The final rule will require a four-hour advance notice for openings, between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., for the Dorset Avenue Bridge. Vessels that can pass under the restricted vertical clearance and without requesting a bridge opening may do so. The existing operating schedule for the June 1 through September 30 time period will remain. The existing regulations states from June 1 through September 30, from 9:15 a.m. to 9:15 p.m., the draw need open only on the 15 and 45 minutes after the hour. At all other times not mentioned, the bridge will open on signal.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received 0 comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Small entities can continue to pass under the drawbridge with a four-hour advance notice for openings, between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., for the Dorset Avenue Bridge. Vessels that can pass under the restricted vertical clearance and without requesting a bridge opening may do so.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph L49, of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

Generally, rulemaking requires notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553. However, an agency can bypass the notice and comment process if the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the drawbridges identified in the 81 effected citations either do not exist or no longer function as a drawbridge. Therefore, their regulations are no longer applicable and need to be removed. It is unnecessary to publish an NPRM because these bridges are no longer operational and the removal of these drawbridge regulations will have no impact on the public. Removing the obsolete drawbridge regulations ensures that our regulations only list drawbridge regulations that have an operational span intended to be opened for the passage of waterway traffic.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . For the same reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, the bridges removed by this rule no longer have an operational drawspan and therefore have no need for any operating regulation. The modification or abandonment of these bridges has already taken place and the removal of the regulation will not affect any mariners that may currently transit on these waterways. Therefore, a delayed effective date is unnecessary.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499. This authority authorizes the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating to issue regulations that govern the opening of drawbridges for the passage of vessels and other water crafts. This authority is delegated to the Coast Guard by DHS Delegation No. 00170.1(II)(65), Rev. 01.4.

This rule removes operating schedules of several bridges listed in 33 CFR part 117, subpart B that no longer function as drawbridges.

This final rule will update 33 CFR part 117, subpart B by removing language that governs the operating schedule of the aforementioned bridges, which in fact, in their current state, are no longer drawbridges. The removal of these obsolete regulations will not affect waterway or land traffic. This rule conforms our regulations to reflect the current use of these bridges. In the preamble and regulatory sections of this final rule, the bridges are presented numerically based on their section number and, if applicable, paragraph lettering under 33 CFR part 117, subpart B.

The following bridges remain across their respective waterways and remain in use in their transportation function, however; have been converted to or replaced with a fixed bridge:

The following bridges are no longer functional drawbridges. These bridges have either had their operable drawspan removed or the bridge was removed in whole from the waterway:

The following bridges remain in the waterway and are open to navigation or abandoned in the open to navigation position.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders.

The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has good cause to bypass the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is a conforming amendment and removes the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Both actions are categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph A3 and L49, of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.

The background for this action is discussed in detail in our August 28, 2025, proposal (90 FR 41930) and the accompanying Technical Support Document (TSD), available in the docket for this rule. In our August 2025 proposal we proposed to approve the revisions to the Arkansas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by ADEE to the EPA on February 4, 2025, for the codification of the APC & EC Rule 19 and Regulations 9, 26, and 31 into the CAR.

The comment period on our August 2025 proposal closed on September 29, 2025. We received one anonymous comment on our proposal. The submitted comment is available for review in the docket for this rulemaking. Our response to the comment is provided in Section II of this rulemaking.

Comment: The commenter asks that the EPA should not approve the Arkansas SIP and should require the state to adopt the more stringent emissions control such as those adopted in the state of California.

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. The EPA must adhere to its obligation under section 110(k) to approve, disapprove, conditionally approve, in whole or in part, the codification of SIP in the state submittal at issue. The requirement of adopting more stringent emissions controls is not relevant nor relates to the subject matter raised in this rulemaking action and is thus outside the scope for this current action for EPA to address.

We are approving the revisions to Arkansas SIP submitted to EPA on February 4, 2025. The revisions codify the corresponding rules and regulations in the Arkansas SIP. We are approving this SIP submission in accordance with the requirements of section 110 of the Act and EPA's regulations.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference the revisions to the Arkansas regulations as described in Section III of this preamble, Final Action. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 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 Clean Air Act.

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the 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 the 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 27, 2026. 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).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.

The background for this action is discussed in detail in our July 7, 2025, proposal (90 FR 29818). 1 In that document we proposed to approve a portion of the revisions to the Oklahoma SIP submitted on November 22, 2024. Our July 2025 proposal addressed only the portion of the submittal that referred to the Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) Title 252, Chapter 100 (denoted OAC 252:100), Subchapter 13.

The revisions addressed in our July 2025 proposal concerned the removal of the requirement for using an Air Curtain Incinerator (ACI) for certain open burning operations in the Oklahoma City and Tulsa Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), to limit the use of an ACI to Oklahoma and Tulsa counties. The revisions also make administrative type changes to add clarity and consistency to the Oklahoma SIP. The revisions do not relax the current SIP rules and are consistent with Federal regulations at 40 CFR part 60, 40 CFR part 61, 40 CFR part 63. Therefore, and consistent with CAA section 110(l), we do not expect these revisions to interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act. More details on these revisions are provided in the docket for this action.

Our July 2025 proposal provided a detailed description of the revisions and the rationale for the EPA's proposed actions, together with a discussion of the opportunity to comment. The public comment period for our July 2025 proposal closed on August 6, 2025. We received one anonymous public comment. The entirety of the public comment may be found in the docket to this action. We offered consultation on our proposed rulemaking to tribal governments that may be affected by this action. 2 We did not receive any requests for tribal consultation. Below is a summary of the anonymous comment received and our response to the comment.

Comment: The EPA's review does not adequately address the potential for increased carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the Oklahoma analysis provided does not appear to include an evaluation of the potential GHG impacts, particularly from the change in ACI requirements, and an overall environmental impact must also consider the economic costs associated with increased CO 2 emissions.

Response: EPA acknowledges receipt of the anonymous comment. While we have reviewed and appreciate the commenter's comment, EPA is required to review the state's SIP revision for compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (the NAAQS) and as explained in the proposal, the state is currently attaining those NAAQS. CO 2 is not an air quality standard covered, therefore the comments pertaining to CO 2 are outside the scope of the rulemaking.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), the Governor of the State of Oklahoma requested approval under Section 10211(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005: A Legacy for Users, Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1937 (August 10, 2005) (“SAFETEA”), to administer in certain areas of Indian country (as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151) the State's environmental regulatory programs that were previously approved by the EPA outside of Indian country. The State's request excluded certain areas of Indian country further described below. In addition, the State only sought approval to the extent that such approval is necessary for the State to administer a program in light of Oklahoma Dept. of Environmental Quality v. EPA, 740 F.3d 185 (D.C. Cir. 2014). 3

The EPA has approved Oklahoma's SAFETEA request to administer all of the State's EPA-approved environmental regulatory programs in the requested areas of Indian country. As requested by Oklahoma, the EPA's approval under SAFETEA does not include Indian country lands, including rights-of-way running through the same, that: (1) qualify as Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, under 18 U.S.C. 1151(c); (2) are held in trust by the United States on behalf of an individual Indian or Tribe; or (3) are owned in fee by a Tribe, if the Tribe (a) acquired that fee title to such land, or an area that included such land, in accordance with a treaty with the United States to which such Tribe was a party, and (b) never allotted the land to a member or citizen of the Tribe (collectively “excluded Indian country lands”).

The EPA's approval under SAFETEA expressly provided that to the extent the EPA's prior approvals of Oklahoma's environmental programs excluded Indian country, any such exclusions are superseded for the geographic areas of Indian country covered by the EPA's approval of Oklahoma's SAFETEA request. 4 The approval also provided that future revisions or amendments to Oklahoma's approved environmental regulatory programs would extend to the covered areas of Indian country (without any further need for additional requests under SAFETEA).

As explained above, the EPA is approving revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Oklahoma, submitted to the EPA by the State of Oklahoma designee (“the State”) on November 22, 2024. The SIP revisions being approved address amendments to Subchapter 13, Open Burning, which will apply statewide in Oklahoma. Consistent with the D.C. Circuit's decision in ODEQ v. EPA and with the EPA's SAFETEA approval, these SIP revisions will apply to areas of Indian country as follows: (1) pursuant to the SAFETEA approval the SIP revisions will apply to all Indian country in the State of Oklahoma other than the excluded Indian country lands as described above; and (2) pursuant to the D.C. Circuit's decision in ODEQ v. EPA, the SIP revisions will also apply to any Indian allotments or dependent Indian communities that are located outside of any Indian reservation over which there has been no demonstration of tribal authority.

We are approving portions of a SIP revision submitted to the EPA by the State of Oklahoma on November 22, 2024. Specifically, we are approving the revisions to OAC 252:100, Subchapters 13 (Open Burning). These revisions were made to clarify the State's open burning rules and comply with Oklahoma Senate Bill 246 (2021) which revised the rules and requirements for the use of ACI for open burn operations. We find that the revisions do not change the types of activities that are allowed under the State's current open burning rules and only revise certain provisions pertaining to when an ACI can be required for land clearing operations and the burning of clean wood waste and yard brush. We are approving these revisions in accordance with section 110 of the Act.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference the revisions to the Oklahoma regulations as described in Section IV of this preamble, Final Action. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov a (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 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 Clean Air Act.

This approval of revisions to the Oklahoma SIP that require using an Air Curtain Incinerator (ACI) for certain open burning operations in counties or areas within a county that are or have been designated as non-attainment or where an ambient air quality monitor has documented a violation of the NAAQS, or those counties with a population of greater than 500,000 for land clearing operations or the burning of clean wood waste or yard brush will apply to certain areas of Indian country throughout Oklahoma as discussed in the preamble, and therefore has tribal implications as specified in E.O. 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). However, this action will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. This action will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments because no actions will be required of tribal governments. This action will also not preempt tribal law as no Oklahoma tribe implements a regulatory program under the CAA, and thus does not have applicable or related tribal laws. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes (December 7, 2023), the EPA offered consultation to tribal governments that may be affected by this action in a letter dated June 26, 2025. The EPA did not receive any requests for consultation.

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 27, 2026. 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).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

On December 29, 2021, IDEM submitted a revision to its SIP to address regional haze requirements for the second implementation period. IDEM 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.

On June 18, 2025 (90 FR 25944), EPA proposed to approve the Indiana regional haze SIP revision. In the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), EPA proposed to find that Indiana's Regional Haze SIP submission satisfied the regional haze requirements for the second implementation period contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f). As described further in EPA's proposed approval, IDEM utilized technical analyses and its source selection methodology to target the sources with the highest potential to impair visibility at mandatory Class I areas. 1 IDEM's initial list of twenty candidate sources for a four-factor analysis represented the majority of Indiana's emissions that may influence visibility impacts on out-of-state Class I areas. IDEM further refined that list by excluding eleven electric generating units (EGUs) that either had existing effective controls or that were not expected to continue operating beyond 2028. IDEM then proceeded with site-specific four-factor analyses for the remining nine non-EGU facilities identified through this process. A detailed analysis of Indiana's plan and EPA's evaluation are contained in the NPRM, dated June 18, 2025 (90 FR 25944), as well as the Technical Support Document (TSD), dated April 22, 2025, and will not be restated here.

The public review and comment period on EPA's NPRM opened June 18, 2025, and was originally scheduled to close on July 18, 2025. On June 26, 2025, EPA received a comment letter from the National Parks Conservation Association, the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, and the Sierra Club (Comment 1) requesting that EPA provide an additional 30 days for public comment on the NPRM. On July 16, 2025 (90 FR 31923), EPA published a NPRM extending the public review and comment period to August 18, 2025.

During the review and comment period, EPA received relevant comments from the following individuals, businesses, agencies, and organizations: an individual identified as Kurtis K. (Comment 2); three anonymous commenters (Comments 3, 4, and 5); IDEM (Comment 6); Power Generators Air Coalition (Comment 7); Ameren Missouri, American Electric Power Company, Inc. on behalf of its operating companies, and Nebraska Public Power District (collectively referred as the “Utilities for Reasonable Progress”) (Comment 8); Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC) and Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corporation (IKEC) (Comment 9); Abrams Environmental Law Clinic, Artists for Environmental Restoration, Inc., Citizens Climate Lobby-Evansville Chapter, Conservation Law Center, Environmental Advocacy Center at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, Faith in Place, Hessville Dune Dusters, Izaak Walton League-Indiana Division, Izaak Walton League-Porter County Chapter, Just Transition Northwest Indiana, National Parks Conservation Association, Owen-Putnam Friends of the Forest, Save the Dunes, Sierra Club-Hoosier Chapter, and Tri-State Creation Care (collectively referred to as “Community Organizations”) (Comment 10); Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANEVU) regional planning organization (Comment 11); and National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, Conservation Law Center, Save the Dunes, and the Indiana Division of the Izaak Walton League of America (collectively referred to as the “Conservation Groups”) (Comments 12 through 23).

All comments received are included in the rulemaking docket for this action. In the December 19, 2025, Response to Comments document (RTC), which is included in the docket for this rulemaking, EPA provides summaries of and detailed responses to all significant comments that further explain the basis for our final action.

In addition to the request to extend the public comment period, EPA received comments on the NPRM addressing several topics including, but not limited to, additional emissions monitoring, increased public engagement, climate resilience, visibility trends, public health, economic benefits, enforceability of retirements, existing effective controls, four-factor analyses, 2 cost considerations, Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART), and impacts on local communities. Additionally, EPA received several comments regarding EPA's URP policy. 3

EPA acknowledges the seven comments that were generally supportive of the proposed action and EPA's URP policy from Kurtis K. (Comment 2), two anonymous commenters (Comments 3-4), IDEM (Comment 6); PGen (Comment 7), Utilities for Reasonable Progress (Comment 8), as well as OVEC and IKEC (Comment 9). Comments received from the Community Organizations, MANEVU, and the Conservation Groups were generally opposed to EPA's proposed action: Comments 10—23. The comments, while summarized below, are available in full in the docket for this rulemaking and are addressed in EPA's December 19, 2025, RTC. The comments and EPA's responses summarized here are divided into two sections for those that are and are not specific to EPA's URP policy.

Comment and Response 2: Comments from Kurtis K., while supportive of EPA's proposed action, suggested additional emissions monitoring at three facilities and increased public engagement.

As addressed in the RTC, EPA notes that the type of emissions monitoring suggested is already provided for in the federally enforceable title V permits and considered in the visibility modeling efforts for the three facilities mentioned in the comment. As to providing for public engagement after SIP implementation, EPA notes that the RHR provides for public comment on SIP revisions and the progress of the SIP, generally every five years.

Comments and Responses 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9: Comments received from two anonymous commenters, IDEM, PGen, Utilities for Reasonable Progress, as well as OVEC and IKEC supported EPA's proposed action. EPA acknowledges their support for EPA's proposed approval.

Comment and Response 10: The Community Organizations asserted that EPA's proposed approval will allow pollution to continue harming the air quality, public health, and economy of local and national parks and communities.

As addressed in the RTC, Indiana has taken appropriate steps to reduce pollution that affects air quality in the affected Class I areas, including meaningful sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and nitrogen oxides (NO X ) emission reductions since the beginning of the second implementation period in 2019. Most of these emissions reductions have already occurred during the second implementation period and will continue to improve visibility in all Class I areas affected by emissions from Indiana. EPA notes that the visibility program prescribed by CAA sections 169A and 169B and implemented in 40 CFR 51.308 is not a public health-based program, and impacts on park tourism and local economies are not considerations within the Regional Haze statute or rule.

Comment and Response 11: MANEVU raised several items for EPA's consideration relating to changing circumstances since the time that MANEVU sent its “Asks” to Indiana on November 5, 2021, during the State's regional haze planning efforts. MANEVU observed that the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) has documented that modeled levels of nitrate in the winter have apparently been underestimated, and that declining trends in visibility impairment appear to have “flattened” in recent years. As a result, MANEVU asserted that additional measures will be needed in the future “to reinvigorate robust visibility improvements.”

As discussed in the RTC, EPA provides further explanation of LADCO's modeling and notes that MANEVU did not address a specific regulation or provision in question or recommend a different action on Indiana's 2021 SIP submission from what EPA proposed.

Comment and Response 12: The Conservation Groups assert that reducing haze pollution from Indiana facilities will improve visibility in Class I areas  4 and result in economic, public health, and environmental benefits.

As addressed in the RTC, concerns regarding public health, park visitation, and local economies are not considerations within the Regional Haze statute or rule.

Comment and Response 13: The Conservation Groups argue that EPA's proposal to approve the Indiana SIP Revision violates the CAA and RHR. In this regard, the Conservation Groups assert: (a) that EPA's reliance on permit limits and consent decrees, past emission reductions, and ongoing emission reductions to approve Indiana's 2021 SIP Revision is arbitrary and capricious; and (b) that Indiana failed to include federally enforceable measures in the 2021 SIP Revision for source retirements.

As detailed in the RTC, EPA disagrees with the Conservation Groups' assertions. Indiana did not rely on any planned EGU retirements, past emission reductions, reductions in utilization, or ongoing emission reductions that are not already federally enforceable as necessary to make reasonable progress in the second implementation period. As such, Indiana did not request any additional measures for the second implementation period be incorporated into the regulatory portion of Indiana's SIP at 40 CFR 52.770.

Comment and Response 14: The Conservation Groups assert that Indiana unreasonably refused to conduct four-factor analyses for sources that the State claimed are effectively controlled. The Conservation Groups argue that neither the CAA nor the RHR allows States to eliminate sources from the four-factor statutory analysis on the basis that they are effectively controlled. The Conservation Groups contend that Indiana's demonstrations of existing effective controls are flawed and that reasonable controls or upgrades are available for these facilities at some of the State's largest sources of regional haze-causing emissions, including Duke-Gibson, Alcoa-Warrick Power Plant, AEP-Rockport, IKEC-Clifty Creek, and Duke-Cayuga.

As further discussed in the RTC, EPA addresses this comment as well as comments regarding each of these five facilities below under Comments and Responses 14a to 14f, respectively.

Comment and Response 14a: Existing Effective Control Demonstrations. As described in more detail in the RTC, EPA disagrees with the notion that CAA sections 169A(b)(2) and (g)(1) and the RHR prohibit States from foregoing a four-factor analysis based on a State determination that a source is effectively controlled. As outlined in the 2017 RHR preamble, “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.”  5 However, within the bounds of the flexibility afforded to States, EPA also stated that States must “exercise reasoned judgment when choosing which sources, groups of sources or source categories to analyze.”  6 In the 2019 Guidance, section 3(f), EPA explained when it may be appropriate to forgo a four-factor analysis for sources with existing effective control measures and provided examples where a full four-factor analysis would likely result in the conclusion that no further controls are necessary. 7 EPA evaluated Indiana's Regional Haze SIP submission and concludes that IDEM's source selection methodology, thresholds, and justification for not conducting a four-factor analysis on all sources for this second implementation period are reasonable. EPA also concludes that IDEM sufficiently demonstrated that the sources selected for further evaluation at the facilities listed under this comment below are effectively controlled for the second implementation period.

Comment and Response 14b: Duke-Gibson. The Conservation Groups assert that excluding Duke-Gibson Unit 5 from LADCO's emissions projections in the 2028 visibility modeling was arbitrary and unlawful since there is no legal requirement preventing the unit from continuing to operate beyond 2028. The Conservation Groups further state that the existing NO X and SO 2 emission controls on Duke-Gibson Units 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are underperforming and that upgrades to the existing controls would likely be feasible and cost-effective.

As described in further detail in the RTC, EPA disagrees with this comment and notes that the assumptions used in modeling future projections were based on the best available information at the time. Although there is no current legal obligation for Unit 5 to retire, EPA continues to find that IDEM has sufficiently demonstrated that Units 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are effectively controlled for the second implementation period and that a four-factor analysis would not likely result in the conclusion that further controls are necessary for reasonable progress. In this regard, consistent with the 2019 Guidance, IDEM showed that the SO 2 emission rates for all units are below the 2012 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for coal-fired EGUs. Additionally, NO X emission rates are below the 0.08 pounds per million metric British thermal units (lbs/MMBtu) level for EGUs with optimized selective catalytic reduction (SCR) under the Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update, 8 flue gas desulfurization (FGD) control efficiencies are greater than 90 percent, and SCR control efficiencies are greater than 80 percent.

Comment and Response 14c: Alcoa-Warrick Power Plant. The Conservation Groups argue that Indiana should conduct a four-factor analysis on Alcoa-Warrick Power Plant's Units 1, 2, 3, and 4.

As described in further detail in the RTC, EPA disagrees with this comment and notes that IDEM has sufficiently demonstrated that Alcoa-Warrick Power Plant Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are effectively controlled for the second implementation period. All four units are subject to BART emission limitations from the first implementation period on a pollutant-specific basis and continue to operate BART controls. Thus, as described in the 2019 Guidance, although BART-eligible sources should not be categorically excluded from further analysis in each planning period, the source is currently operating controls to meet BART emission limits, and it is unlikely that there will be further available reasonable controls. Based on the information provided in Indiana's SIP submission and the BART analysis, IDEM appropriately demonstrated that a full four-factor analysis would likely result in the conclusion that no further controls are necessary.

Comment and Response 14d: AEP-Rockport. The Conservation Groups state that the existing NO X and SO 2 emission controls on AEP-Rockport Units 1 and 2 are underperforming and that a four-factor analysis should have been performed.

As further explained in the RTC, EPA disagrees with this comment and maintains that IDEM has sufficiently demonstrated that AEP-Rockport MB1 and MB2 are effectively controlled for the second implementation period. In this regard, as described in the 2019 Guidance, IDEM showed that with the recent installation of enhanced dry sorbent injection (DSI) and SCR on MB2, the SO 2 emission rates for both boilers are below the 0.2 lbs/MMBtu level for coal-fired EGUs in the 2012 MATS, and NO X emission rates are below the 0.08 lbs/MMBtu level for units with SCR under the Revised CSAPR Update.

Comment and Response 14e: IKEC-Clifty Creek. The Conservation Groups argue that additional cost-effective NO X and SO 2 emission controls are likely to exist for IKEC-Clifty Creek's six EGUs and that a four-factor analysis should have been performed.

As described in greater detail in the RTC, EPA disagrees with this comment and maintains that IDEM has sufficiently demonstrated that IKEC-Clifty Creek Units 1-6 are effectively controlled for the second implementation period as described in the 2019 Guidance, with FGDs achieving 98 percent SO 2 control efficiency, SCRs and overfire air achieving 70-90 percent NO X control on an annual basis, and actual SO 2 emission rates for all six units below the 2012 MATS level for coal-fired EGUs. Additionally, IDEM has thoroughly documented NO X emissions that are progressively constrained on an annual basis under the Revised CSAPR Update Rule and the lack of potential controls for NO X that IDEM considers cost-effective.

Comment and Response 14f: Duke-Cayuga. The Conservation Groups argue that Indiana should be required to conduct a four-factor analysis on Duke-Cayuga's two coal-fired EGUs Units 2 and 3 and that cost-effective options for additional NO X emission controls would likely be cost-effective.

As explained in greater detail in the RTC, EPA disagrees with this comment and maintains that IDEM has sufficiently demonstrated that Duke-Cayuga Units 2 and 3 are effectively controlled for the second implementation period. In this regard, as described in the 2019 Guidance, IDEM documented FGD systems achieving 95 percent control efficiency, SO 2 rates that are below MATS for coal fired units, and NO X emissions that are controlled by low-NO X burners with separated over fire air and SCR achieving 88 percent control efficiency.

Comment and Response 15: The Conservation Groups contend that EPA neglected its duty to review Indiana's source-specific four-factor analyses. The Conservation Groups also argue that IDEM did not rigorously analyze controls that the Conservation Groups maintain are likely cost effective and, in so doing, did not appropriately require additional control measures for any of the nine sources IDEM evaluated to reduce emissions to make reasonable progress. The nine sources include: (a) Lone Star Industries, Inc.-Greencastle dba Buzzi Unicem USA; (b) Cleveland-Cliffs Steel, LLC-Indiana Harbor East and Indiana Harbor West; (c) Cleveland-Cliffs Steel, LLC-Burns Harbor; (d) U.S. Steel-Gary Works; (e) SABIC Innovative Plastics-Mt. Vernon, LLC; (f) Warrick Newco LLC, formerly Alcoa Warrick Operations, LLC; (g) Cokenergy, LLC; and (h) Heidleberg Materials US Cement LLC-Mitchell Plant, formerly Lehigh Cement Company, LLC-Mitchell Plant.

As further explained in the RTC and as outlined in our NPRM and April 22, 2025, TSD, EPA carefully evaluated Indiana's 2021 SIP submission along with the comments from the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) consultation and the State's public notice period, as well as the State's responses to those comments. Based on the complete record, EPA explained its decision to approve the SIP and took comment on the proposed approval in the NPRM. EPA recognizes that IDEM worked directly with the sources to conduct extensive site-specific technical work and provide full documentation in support of its 2021 SIP to submit complete four-factor analyses evaluating potential feasible and reasonable control measures. In the NPRM and April 22, 2025, TSD, EPA documented the existing controls, permit limitations, control options, potential reductions, and potential costs for new controls that the State relied upon in its four-factor analyses. In making its determinations, IDEM properly considered the four statutory factors along with projected 2028 visibility conditions for Class I areas influenced by emissions from Indiana sources, emission reductions that have occurred, and current control technologies in concluding no additional controls were necessary to make reasonable progress.

Comment and Response 15a: Lone Star Industries, Inc.-Greencastle dba Buzzi Unicem USA. The Conservation Groups state that IDEM's four-factor analysis should have also evaluated SCR and lacked documentation with the consideration of selective non-catalytic reduction for the remaining useful life and interest rate in the cost calculations. The Conservation Groups also contend that Indiana reached its conclusions before the FLM consultation period and the public comment period.

As explained in detail in the RTC, EPA disagrees and notes that IDEM did consider SCR in determining feasible control options. For each control option evaluated, IDEM also provided extensive site-specific documentation, including an explanation of the control technologies, applicability, the limitations, expected removal efficiencies and performance, as well as considerations for cost analyses for both capital and operating costs and the relationship with reduction efficiency.

Further, EPA disagrees with the Conservation Groups' allegations that IDEM failed to incorporate FLM comments in its planning. EPA believes IDEM genuinely and consistently portrayed its intentions by clearly stating, “it is important to address the FLMs comments as thoroughly as possible to show that Indiana has seriously evaluated the selected sources . . .”  9 EPA finds in this final rulemaking that Indiana has satisfied the consultation and public notice requirements of 40 CFR 51.102 and 51.308(i).

Comment and Response 15b: Cleveland-Cliffs Steel, LLC-Indiana Harbor East and Indiana Harbor West. In addition to the potential controls examined in the four-factor analyses, the Conservation Groups assert that IDEM should have evaluated additional emission controls for the No. 5 Boiler House, Blast Furnace Stoves, Lime Kilns, and Walking Beam Furnaces.

As described in further detail in the RTC, EPA disagrees with this comment and notes that IDEM explained that Indiana Harbor East and Indiana Harbor West identified control measures that were commercially demonstrated on similar applications by searching air permits for other iron and steel mills and other similar sources, the Nucor 2010 Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis, 10 as well as EPA's Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), BACT, and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) Clearinghouse (RBLC). 11 The RBLC contains case-specific information on the “best available” air pollution technologies that have been required to reduce the emission of air pollutants from stationary sources. EPA maintains that IDEM's approach produced an extensive list of control measures relevant to the industry that had proven effective for certain applications and identified a thorough set of control measures for evaluation.

Regarding the cost analyses, IDEM and Cleveland-Cliffs Steel, LLC provided a thorough explanation, justification, and documentation of the cost parameters used in four-factor analyses as well as in its responses to the comments from the FLMs that appropriately considered site-specific factors. The Conservation Groups provided their own cost calculations, but their estimates did not include site-specific factors.

Comment and Response 15c: Cleveland-Cliffs Steel, LLC-Burns Harbor. In addition to the emission control options examined in the four-factor analysis, the Conservation Groups assert that IDEM should have evaluated additional options for the Coke Batteries, Coke Ovens, and Coke Oven Gas Export Line as well as provided better documentation for parameters such as the remaining useful life and interest rate in the cost calculations.

As discussed further in the RTC, EPA disagrees with this comment and notes that IDEM provided sufficient documentation and identified control measures that were commercially demonstrated on similar applications by searching air permits for other iron and steel mills and other similar sources, the Nucor 2010 BACT analysis, as well as EPA's RBLC. EPA notes that IDEM's approach produced an extensive list of control measures relevant to the industry that had proven effective for certain applications and identified a thorough set of control measures for evaluation. For the Coke Batteries, Coke Ovens, and Coke Oven Gas Export Line, the four-factor analysis search found no examples where SCR or wet scrubbers had been installed and successfully operated to control NO X and SO 2 emissions under similar physical and operating conditions to those at Burns Harbor. 12

Although the Conservations Groups assert that the cost analyses lacked documentation, IDEM and Cleveland-Cliffs Steel, LLC provided a thorough explanation, justification, and documentation of the cost parameters used in the four-factor analysis and in its responses to the comments from the FLMs.

Comment and Response 15d: U.S. Steel-Gary Works. In addition to the emission control options examined in the four-factor analysis, the Conservation Groups assert that IDEM should have evaluated SCR for the 84″ Strip Mill Reheat Furnace and used different values in the cost analysis for low-NO X burners on the Waste Heat Boilers 1 and 2.

As described in more detail in the RTC, EPA disagrees with this comment. EPA notes that IDEM identified control measures that were commercially demonstrated on similar applications by searching air permits for other iron and steel mills and other similar sources, the Nucor 2010 BACT analysis, and EPA's RBLC. However, IDEM's search did not find a SCR that had been installed and successfully operated on a similar source and under similar operating conditions as Gary Works.

Regarding the cost analyses for low-NO X burners for Waste Heat Boiler 1, although the Conservations Groups provided their own cost calculations using different parameters, EPA notes that IDEM and U.S. Steel-Gary Works provided a thorough explanation, justification, and documentation of the cost parameters used in the four-factor analysis  13 and in its responses to the comments from the FLMs  14 that appropriately considered site-specific factors that the Conservation Groups' estimates did not.

Comment and Response 15e: SABIC Innovative Plastics-Mt. Vernon, LLC. The Conservation Groups assert that IDEM's four-factor analysis lacked consideration of all emission sources besides the Co-generation Unit and COS Vent Oxidizer as well as appropriate assumptions for costs and remaining useful life.

As detailed further in the RTC, EPA disagrees with this comment and notes that of the emission sources listed in the facility's title V permit, 15 the Co-generation Unit accounted for the largest portion of the facility's total potential to emit NO X at 39 percent. Based on this, EPA agrees that IDEM appropriately focused its evaluation of potential emission reduction for NO X on the Co-generation Unit rather than the emissions from the other boilers and units. Although the Conservation Groups assert that IDEM did not provide underlying calculations and supporting information, EPA notes that the four-factor analysis provided a solid basis for calculating the total capital investment and cost effectiveness and documentation was provided in Section 15 and appendices I and J of Indiana's 2021 SIP submission.

Comment and Response 15f: Warrick Newco LLC, formerly Alcoa Warrick Operations, LLC. The Conservation Groups assert that the four-factor analysis should have evaluated NO X emissions as well as SO 2 emissions and provided better documentation for figures used in the cost calculations.

As discussed in further detail in the RTC, EPA disagrees with this comment and notes that NO X emissions from Alcoa Warrick Operations, LLC represented the lowest levels of all the sources that IDEM evaluated for a four-factor analysis. As such, IDEM's decision at the time to focus resources on addressing potential controls in the second implementation period for only SO 2 was well reasoned. EPA also determined that IDEM provided sufficient relevant documentation for the economic and emissions information used in the four-factor analysis.

Comment and Response 15g: Cokenergy, LLC. The Conservation Groups claim that the four-factor analysis was not a four-factor analysis, but rather a recitation of studies and projects, and should have also evaluated DSI and upgrades to other existing systems.

As further addressed in the RTC, EPA disagrees with this comment and notes that the summaries of the previous studies and projects served to develop a set of technically feasible control options for evaluation and that the four-factor analysis then addressed each of the statutory four factors in turn. Although the Conservation Groups assert that several other specific options should have been addressed, many of those suggested by the Conservation Groups were considered during the course of the studies mentioned above, including evaluations of installing or upgrading DSI, spray dryer absorbers, and atomizers. EPA notes that these options, along with the other options evaluated, represented a reasonable selection of control options.

Comment and Response 15h: Heidleberg Materials US Cement LLC-Mitchell Plant, formerly Lehigh Cement Company, LLC-Mitchell Plant. The Conservation Groups note that IDEM selected this source for a four-factor analysis but did not complete one.

As described in additional detail in the RTC, EPA notes that, pursuant to an amended Federal consent decree, 16 Lehigh will be permanently ending operations of Kilns 1, 2, and 3 by the end of 2025. In the future, Lehigh will be installing and operating SCR and meeting the NSPS for Portland Cement Plants (40 CFR 60, subpart F) for any new kilns.

Comment and Response 16: The Conservation Groups argue that source-specific BART determinations in the first implementation period need to be reassessed. Under 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(A), the Conservation Groups state that the CAA established BART as a mandatory part of “each applicable implementation plan” for “each” BART-eligible source that emits “any” air pollutant which may cause or contribute to “any” impairment of visibility in “any” Class I area.

As explained further in the RTC, EPA disagrees that States are required to conduct BART analyses anew in the second regional haze implementation period and onward. Specifically, EPA disagrees that its second implementation period regulations require a BART analysis for second implementation period SIPs. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(5), once Indiana satisfied the BART requirements in the first implementation period, Indiana's BART-eligible sources were then subject to the long-term strategy requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(f) for the second implementation period. As stated throughout our proposal and this final action, EPA finds that Indiana properly met the long-term strategy requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f) in the second implementation period.

Comment and Response 17: The Conservation Groups assert that EPA should analyze the impact of Indiana regional haze pollution on local communities since the same pollutants contributing to regional haze also contribute disparately to public health impacts on people residing closest to the sources. The Conservation Groups state that people living in these communities tend to be exposed to higher levels of particulate matter and NO X and tend to have less access to quality health care to treat the impacts of environmental pollution.

As discussed in more detail in the RTC, with respect to public health concerns, the primary national ambient air quality standards provide public health protection. In contrast, the visibility program, prescribed by CAA sections 169A and 169B and implemented in 40 CFR 51.308, is not a health-based program. EPA is acting upon Indiana's 2021 Regional Haze SIP submission as required by regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 51.308.

Comment and Response 23: The Conservation Groups commented that EPA must withdraw its proposal to approve Indiana's 2021 SIP Revision and disapprove it.

For the reasons stated in the NPRM, EPA's April 22, 2025, TSD, EPA's December 19, 2025, RTC, this notice of final rulemaking, and the foregoing summary of responses to comments in this docket, EPA disagrees that Indiana failed to satisfy the requirements of the CAA and RHR. EPA also disagrees that EPA's proposed approval of Indiana's 2021 SIP Revision was fundamentally flawed in such a way as to make it ineffective at achieving reasonable progress in the second implementation period. Thus, as proposed in the NPRM, EPA is finalizing its approval of Indiana's 2021 SIP Revision as satisfying the applicable requirements under the CAA and RHR for the program's second implementation period.

EPA received several comments regarding EPA's URP policy. Comments from IDEM (Comment 6), PGen (Comment 7), Utilities for Reasonable Progress (Comment 8), and OVEC and IKEC (Comment 9) were supportive of EPA's URP policy. Comments from the Community Organizations (Comment 10b), MANEVU (Comment 11a) and the Conservation Groups (Comments 18-22) were opposed to EPA's URP policy.

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 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 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 implementation 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.” 556 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 Indiana sources are all below the 2028 URP, and IDEM's SIP submission demonstrated that the State took into consideration the four reasonable progress factors listed in CAA 169A(g)(1)  17 with respect to an adequate number of emissions sources. Thus, EPA determines that Indiana's SIP revision is fully approvable under the Agency's new URP policy. Indeed, we think this policy better aligns with the statutory goal because it recognizes the considerable improvements in visibility impairment that have been made by a wide variety of State and Federal programs in recent decades.

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 implementation period). 18 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).

In the 2017 RHR Revisions, EPA addressed the role of the URP as it relates to a State's development of its second implementation period SIP. 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017). Specifically, in response to comments suggesting that the URP should be considered a “safe harbor” that relieves 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 implementation period SIP is making reasonable progress for a Class I Federal Area if the State has taken into consideration the four statutory factors of 169A(g)(1) and that area is below the URP. This is consistent with the CAA and RHR.

Comment and Response 11a: Instead of relying on the RPGs, MANEVU asserts EPA's URP policy is not permissible and that EPA is now using the URP as the determinative metric, to ignore the extensive work of the States, the FLMs, and the public in developing the RPGs.

As discussed further in the RTC, EPA disagrees with MANEVU's comment. EPA's URP policy does not ignore the results of a State's four-factor analysis if a Class I area is below the URP. Consistent with EPA's discussion under the preamble of the 2017 RHR, the URP continues to serve as a regulatory planning metric to inform States' decision making when considering the four statutory factors. EPA's URP policy recognizes the considerable improvements in visibility impairment that have been made by State and Federal programs resulting from decades of work and interaction between members of State and Federal agencies and the public.

Comment and Response 18: The Conservation Groups argue that EPA's URP Policy violates the CAA's visibility provisions. The Conservation Groups raise several issues pertaining to EPA's URP policy: (a) EPA's URP policy violates the plain language of the CAA, (b) EPA's contemporaneous understanding of the CAA reflects the best reading of the statute, (c) the context of the CAA's visibility provisions confirms the best reading of the statute, and (d) the purpose of the CAA's visibility provisions confirms the best reading of the statute.

EPA disagrees with each of these comments, including the Conservation Groups' position that the URP policy articulated in our proposed approval of Indiana's regional haze SIP submission is inconsistent with the CAA. The Conservation Groups' reading of the statute is not the best, and they misconstrue the recently adopted policy in several ways. EPA notes that the comments and responses on each above point are presented in detail in the RTC document.

EPA's new URP policy is consistent with the CAA. Pursuant to CAA 169A(a)(4), Congress explicitly delegated to EPA the authority 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 nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such requirement.” CAA 169A(g)(1).

EPA emphasizes that just because a Class I area is below the URP does not mean that a State is relieved of its obligations under the CAA and the RHR to make reasonable progress. In other words, the URP is not a “safe harbor,” as that phrase has sometimes been used, because EPA still must review a State's determination whether additional control measures are necessary to make reasonable progress, determine whether the State submitted those measures for incorporation into the SIP, and evaluate whether the measures are consistent with other provisions in the CAA.

As required by the statute, Indiana took into consideration the four statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and determined that no additional controls were necessary to make reasonable progress at the sources selected. CAA section 169A(b)(2) only requires SIPs to include “such emission limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress” (emphasis added). IDEM concluded that it was not necessary to incorporate any new emission limits, schedules of compliance, or other measures into its SIP in light of the progress already made.

Comments and Responses 10 and 19: Both the Community Organizations and Conservation Groups argued that EPA's URP policy is inconsistent with the RHR.

As discussed in the RTC, EPA disagrees with the commenters' position that the URP policy is inconsistent with the RHR. This comment tracks many of the issues commenters raised with respect to their allegations that EPA's recently adopted URP policy is inconsistent with the CAA. Under the URP policy, and consistent with 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), States are still required to identify measures necessary for reasonable progress by considering the four statutory factors set forth in CAA 169A(g)(1) and to submit measures necessary for reasonable progress to EPA to be reviewed for approvability into the SIP. The URP policy does not create an exemption to either of these provisions.

Comment and Response 20: The Conservations Groups comment that EPA's articulation and application of its new URP policy is unclear and incoherent. In this regard, the Conservation Groups argue: (a) Mere consideration of the four factors is inconsistent with the CAA and the RHR and is fundamentally irrational, (b) EPA fails to explain why a four-factor analysis must be rational when, under the URP policy, its result does not matter and EPA does not substantively review it, and (c) EPA further muddies the waters by considering other factors in an arbitrary and capricious way.

As discussed in detail in the RTC for Responses 20a, 20b, and 20c, EPA disagrees with the Conservation Groups' arguments mentioned above regarding EPA's application of the URP policy being unclear and incoherent. EPA's recently adopted policy is consistent with the CAA and is not arbitrary or capricious. The Conservation Groups incorrectly assert that the URP policy ignores the results of a State's four-factor analysis if a Class I area is below the URP. Just because a Class I area is below the URP does not mean that a State is relieved of its obligations under the CAA and the RHR to make reasonable progress. EPA must still review a State's determination whether additional control measures are necessary to make reasonable progress, determine whether the State submitted those measures for incorporation into the SIP, and evaluate whether the measures are consistent with other provisions in the CAA.

Comment and Response 21: The Conservation Groups assert that announcing and applying EPA's new URP policy in state-specific regional actions violates the procedural requirements of the CAA under 306(a)(2) regarding consistency among Regional Offices in implementing the CAA. The Conservation Groups argue that EPA's URP policy unlawfully departs from national policy and is inconsistent with actions across EPA regions.

EPA disagrees with the Conservation Groups' position here as further explained in the RTC. EPA's change in policy is consistent with FCC v. Fox Television, 556 U.S. 502 (2009). Under FCC v. Fox, an agency's change in policy is permissible if the agency acknowledges the change, believes it to be better, and “show[s] that there are good reasons for the new policy.” 556 U.S. at 515. We stated our reasons for implementing the recently adopted URP policy in the final action approving the West Virginia SIP for the second implementation period. 90 FR 29737 (Jul. 7, 2025). The reasons for the recently adopted policy were more fully articulated in section V, The EPA's Rationale for Proposing Approval, of that proposal. 90 FR 16478 (Apr. 18, 2025). Therefore, EPA has sufficiently justified the change in policy under FCC v. Fox.

The decision in FCC v. Fox turned primarily on whether the FCC's change in policy would lead to the FCC “arbitrarily punishing parties without notice of the potential consequences of their action.” 556 U.S. at 517. The changed policy is prospective, which addresses the primary concern in FCC v. Fox. Additionally, the recently adopted URP policy “aligns with the purpose of the statute and RHR, which is achieving ‘reasonable' progress, not maximal progress, toward Congress' natural visibility goal.” 90 FR 16478, at 16483. Furthermore, we note that the legislative history of CAA section 169A is consistent with our change in policy. The reconciliation report for the 1977 CAA amendments indicates that the term “maximum feasible progress” in section 169A was changed to “reasonable progress” in the final version of the legislation passed by both chambers. See Legislative History of the CAA Amendments of 1977 Public Law 95-95 (1977), H.R. Rep. No. 95-564, at 535.

EPA notes that EPA's Regional Consistency regulations at 40 CFR part 56, and in particular 40 CFR 56.5(b), are not relevant to this action. 40 CFR 56.5(b) requires that a “responsible official in a Regional office shall seek concurrence from the appropriate EPA Headquarters office on any interpretation of the Act, or rule, regulation, or program directive when such interpretation may result in application of the act or rule, regulation, or program directive that is inconsistent with Agency policy” (emphasis added). As we expressly indicated in the proposal for this action, the approval is consistent with the change in agency policy, first announced in Air Plan Approval; West Virginia; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period. 90 FR 16478 (Apr. 18, 2025). Therefore, there is no obligation under the EPA's Regional Consistency regulations for anyone in the region to seek concurrence from EPA Headquarters to take action consistent with EPA policy. The lack of relevance of these regulations to this action accounts for the lack of materials related to compliance with the Regional Consistency process in the docket for this rulemaking.

The Conservation Groups also argue that EPA's URP policy effectively revises the RHR and raises the question of whether it has nationwide scope and effect.

EPA disagrees with the Conservation Groups' comment here as further explained in the RTC. EPA notes that this action is “locally or regionally applicable” under CAA section 307(b)(1) because it applies only to a SIP submission from a single State, Indiana. See Oklahoma v. EPA, 605 U.S. 609, 620 (2025) (a SIP is “a state-specific plan” and “the CAA recognizes this limited scope in enumerating a SIP approval as a locally or regionally applicable action”); see also, Am. Rd. & Transp. Builders Ass'n, 705 F.3d 453, 455 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (describing EPA action to approve a single SIP under CAA section 110 as the “[p]rototypical” locally or regionally applicable action).

Whether our proposal to approve Indiana's second implementation period SIP relies on a new national policy has no bearing on the applicability of EPA's final action. To determine whether an action is “nationally applicable” or “locally or regionally applicable,” “court[s] need look only to the face of the agency action, not its practical effects . . . .” EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C., 605 U.S. 627, 642 (2025) (“[W]e determine an action's range of applicability by ‘look[ing] only to the face of the [action], rather than to its practical effects.' ”) (quoting Am. Rd. & Transp. Builders Ass'n, 705 F.3d at 456) and Oklahoma, 605 U.S. at 621-622 (basis for EPA action is not relevant to determining its applicability); see also Sierra Club v. EPA, 926 F.3d 844, 849 (D.C. Cir. 2019) and RMS of Georgia, LLC v. EPA, 64 F.4th 1368, 1372 (11th Cir. 2023) (“our sister circuits have established a consensus that we should begin our analysis by analyzing the nature of the EPA's action, not the specifics of the petitioner's grievance”).

Furthermore, the comments that claim the recently adopted URP policy “amend[s] the nationally applicable RHR” are unsupported and incorrect. This action simply applies our recently adopted policy related to the URP in the context of EPA's evaluation of Indiana's regional haze SIP submission. Because this action applies a recently adopted policy to a SIP submission from Indiana alone, it is locally or regionally, not nationally, applicable.

Comments that claim that EPA “must” publish a finding that this action is “based on a determination of nationwide scope [or] effect” are also unsupported and incorrect. The Supreme Court has recognized that “[b]ecause the ‘nationwide scope or effect' exception can apply only when ‘EPA so finds and publishes' that it does, EPA can decide whether the exception is even potentially relevant.” Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C., 605 U.S. at 646, citing Sierra Club v. EPA, 47 F.4th 738, 746 (D.C. Cir. 2022). As the D.C. Circuit has also stated, the “EPA's decision whether to make and publish a finding of nationwide scope or effect is committed to the agency's discretion and thus is unreviewable.” Sierra Club v. EPA, 47 F.4th at 745; see also Texas v. EPA, 983 F.3d 826, 835 (5th Cir. 2020) (“when a locally applicable action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect, the EPA has discretion to select the venue for judicial review”).

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.

Comment and Response 22: The Conservation Groups comment that Indiana's 2021 SIP submission does not meet EPA's URP policy for presumptive approval. As such, the Conservation Groups argue that Indiana: (a) would not be able to meet the RHR monitoring requirements without the IMPROVE network if its continued operation were threatened, (b) relies on adjusted URP glidepaths that do not comply with the RHR, and (c) ignores additional out-of-state Class I areas affected by visibility impairing emissions from Indiana.

EPA disagrees with these comments as further discussed in the RTC. Indiana met the requirements of the recently adopted policy. First, the RHR requires States to submit a long-term strategy that addresses regional haze visibility impairment for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State and for each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the state that may be affected by emissions from the State. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2); see also CAA 169A(b)(2). However, there is no specific statutory or regulatory requirement to identify the precise set of Class I areas that are affected by emissions from Indiana, and there is no requirement to establish a source contribution threshold in identifying those areas. In this case, Indiana identified affected out-of-state Class I areas, none of which are above the 2028 URP.

EPA believes Indiana has reasonably documented its impacts to in-state and out-of-state Class I areas, and they are not reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment in any area that is above the URP.

In conclusion, IDEM took into consideration the four statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and determined that no additional controls were necessary to make reasonable progress for the specific sources selected for four-factor analyses. CAA section 169A(b)(2) only requires SIPs to include “such emission limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress” (emphasis added). IDEM concluded that it was not necessary to incorporate any new emission limitations, schedules of compliance, or other measures into its SIP for these sources. Thus, IDEM did not ignore the results of its consideration of the four statutory factors; rather, as supported by the recently adopted URP policy, the State properly used the URP to inform its final decision making as to the measures necessary to make reasonable progress in the second implementation period.

EPA determines that Indiana reasonably considered the statutory and regulatory requirements and appropriately determined what measures are necessary for reasonable progress for the second implementation period. As such, EPA finds that Indiana submitted a Regional Haze SIP revision that meets all the regional haze requirements for the second implementation period.

EPA concludes that Indiana's determinations of the measures necessary for reasonable progress were based on a reasonable consideration of the four statutory factors. IDEM thoroughly evaluated and determined the emission reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four statutory factors. IDEM also documented large statewide emissions reductions achieved during the second implementation period.

EPA is finalizing its approval of Indiana's December 29, 2021, Regional Haze SIP submission for the second implementation period as proposed.

For the reasons set forth in the June 18, 2025, NPRM, the April 22, 2025, TSD, the December 19, 2025, RTC document, and in this final rule, EPA is approving the Regional Haze SIP revision for Indiana submitted by IDEM on December 29, 2021, as satisfying the regional haze requirements for the second implementation period contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f).

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 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 March 27, 2026. 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).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Section 1007(a)(2) of the Legal Services Corporation Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2996f(a)(2), requires LSC to establish maximum income levels for individuals eligible for legal assistance. Section 1611.3(c) of LSC's regulations establishes a maximum income level equivalent to 125% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines (Guidelines), which HHS is responsible for updating and issuing. 45 CFR 1611.3(c).

Each year, LSC updates appendix A to 45 CFR part 1611 to provide client income eligibility standards based on the most recent Guidelines. The figures for 2026, set out below, are equivalent to 125% of the Guidelines published by HHS on January 15, 2026.

In addition, LSC is publishing a chart listing income levels that are 200% of the Guidelines. This chart is for reference purposes only as an aid to recipients in assessing the financial eligibility of an applicant whose income is greater than 125% of the applicable Guidelines amount, but less than 200% of the applicable Guidelines amount (and who may be found to be financially eligible under duly adopted exceptions to the annual income ceiling in accordance with 45 CFR 1611.3, 1611.4, and 1611.5).

Except where there are minor variances due to rounding, the amount by which the guideline increases for each additional member of the household is a consistent amount.

For reasons set forth in the preamble, the Legal Services Corporation amends 45 CFR part 1611 as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Direct Final Rule, in ET Docket No. 25-133, FCC 25-85, adopted on December 18, 2025, and released on December 19, 2025. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and can be downloaded at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-deletes-outdated-rules-long-forgotten-technologies-0. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Comment Period and Filing Procedures. Interested parties may file comments on or before the dates provided in the DATES section of this document. Comments must be filed in GN Docket No. 25-133. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

• All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.

Paperwork Reduction Act. This document does not contain new or modified information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs, that this rule is “non-major” under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of this Direct Final Rule to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

In initiating this proceeding, the Commission generally sought to identify rules that are obsolete, outdated, unlawful, anticompetitive, or otherwise no longer in the public interest. The Commission specifically focuses on the repeal of certain rules managed by the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) in parts 2, 15, and 18 for which prior notice and comment are unnecessary, but for which the Commission elects to provide an opportunity for input on that assessment. Absent any significant adverse comments in response to this document, these rules will be repealed.

Good Cause to Forgo Notice and Comment. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public comment “are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” it need not follow notice and comment procedures before modifying or repealing rules. Prior notice and comment are “unnecessary” when “the administrative rule is a routine determination, insignificant in nature and impact, and inconsequential to the industry and to the public.”

The Commission has identified 36 rule provisions, totaling 12,008 words and covering more than 25 pages in the Code of Federal Regulations, that no longer serve the public interest because they regulate obsolete technology, are no longer used in practice by the FCC, industry, or the public, or are otherwise outdated or unnecessary. Applying the “good cause” standard discussed above, the Commission concludes that prior notice and comment are unnecessary before repealing the rules identified in the Appendix.

Direct Final Rule Process. In this document, the Commission follows the processes previously outlined by the Commission regarding direct final rules, which it briefly summarize here. When the Commission has found that prior notice and comment is unnecessary before modifying or repealing rules, it has adopted the relevant rule change without any additional process. Although the Commission reserves the right to proceed in this manner, it elects in this decision to proceed using what is known as a “direct final rule” process. By proceeding through a direct final rule, the Commission chooses to provide expanded opportunities for public comment even though the “good cause” standard does not legally require it to do so. Under a direct final rule process, rule changes are adopted without prior notice and comment, but are accompanied by an opportunity for the public to file comments—and if the Commission concludes that significant adverse comments have been filed, the relevant rule changes would not take effect until after a full notice and comment process.

In particular, the Commission will publish this item adopting direct final rules in the Federal Register , and allow for comment from interested parties within 20 days of Federal Register publication. Until 20 days after Federal Register publication, this shall be a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding for purposes of the Commission's ex parte rules. Because this comment process is directed toward the discrete objective of the direct final rule process, and to avoid unwarranted delay in that process, the Commission prohibits filings addressing the rule changes contemplated in this document more than 20 days after Federal Register publication, absent further direction from the Commission published in the Federal Register . This both accords with the purpose of the comment process for direct final rules, and is similar (though not identical) to actions the Commission has taken in other contexts to provide a defined end-point for public filings to enable the Commission to focus its attention on the submissions already before it.

The rule revisions in this document will go into effect 60 days after Federal Register publication. If the Commission receives comments on these rule revisions, it will evaluate whether there are significant adverse comments that warrant further procedures before changing the rules. In its assessment, the Commission plans to be guided by the recommendation of the Administrative Conference of the United States (“ACUS”) that “[a]n agency should consider any comment received during direct final rulemaking to be a significant adverse comment if the comment explains why: a. The [direct final] rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach; or b. The [direct final] rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change.”

If the Commission concludes that a significant adverse comment has been filed, the Office of Engineering and Technology will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to prevent the rule revisions from going into effect until any appropriate additional procedures have been followed. If a significant adverse comment is filed only with respect to a subset of the rule revisions addressed by this document, the Office of Engineering and Technology will withdraw the portions of the Direct Final Rule that were subject to the significant adverse comment. For example, if a significant adverse comment is filed regarding a single rule within this document, which contains multiple rule revisions, the Commission will publish a withdrawal of only the rule addressed by the significant adverse comment.

In the event that no comments are filed in response to this document, the Commission does not anticipate publishing a confirmation of the effective date in the Federal Register but will simply allow the rule changes to take effect as originally specified. If comments are filed but none are deemed significant adverse comments, where warranted by the record the Office of Engineering and Technology will issue a Public Notice (PN) that briefly explains why the comments filed were not determined to be significant adverse comments.

Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 303(r) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 303(r), the Direct Final Rule is adopted . Except as specified in paragraph 8, this Direct Final Rule shall be effective upon Federal Register publication of the rule changes set forth in the Appendix, which shall also serve as the date of public notice of that action.

It is further ordered that the amendments of the Commission's rules as set forth in Appendix A shall be effective 60 days after Federal Register publication. In the event that significant adverse comments are filed, the Office of Engineering and Technology shall publish a timely document in the Federal Register withdrawing the rule so that the rule change does not become effective until any additional procedures have been followed. In the event that significant adverse comments are filed with respect to only a subset of the rule revisions, the Commission directs the Office of Engineering and Technology to publish a timely document in the Federal Register withdrawing only such rule(s) so that the rule change does not become effective until any additional procedures have been followed.

It is further ordered that the Office of the Managing Director, Performance Program Management, shall send a copy of this document in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

For the reasons set forth above, the Federal Communications Commission amends parts 2, 15, and 18 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

This document announces that on May 7, 2025, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 24-112, published at 89 FR 89832, November 13, 2024, with a Correction published at 89 FR 105473, December 27, 2024. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 3060-0999. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective dates of the information collection requirements and to correct a typographic error in the final rules.

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the Commission is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on May 7, 2025, for the information collection requirements contained in the revisions at 47 CFR 20.19(b)(3)(iii), (f), (h), and (i) under OMB Control Number 3060-0999. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number.

The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control No.: 3060-0999.

Title: Hearing Loss Compatible Wireless Handsets Section 20.19 and Hearing Aid Compatibility Act.

Form Numbers: FCC Form 655 and 855.

Type of Review: Revision to the currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 934 respondents; 934 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 13.92 hours per response (average).

Frequency of Response: On occasion and annual reporting requirements, recordkeeping requirements, and third-party disclosure requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 202, 214, 301, 303, 308, 309(j), 310 and 610 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 12,998 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Needs and Uses: This information collection relates to the Commission's Hearing Loss Compatible Wireless Handsets rules at section 20.19 of the Commission's rules. This revision is necessary to implement the final rules that the Commission adopted on October 17, 2024, in a Report and Order, WT Docket No. 23-388, FCC 24-112, and that the Commission released on October 18, 2024. This Report and Order delayed until OMB approval the following amendments to section 20.19: (1) adding paragraph (b)(3)(iii); (2) revising the heading of paragraph (f); (3) adding paragraph (f)(3); (4) revising paragraph (h); (5) redesignating paragraph (i)(4) as paragraph (i)(6); and (6) adding new paragraph (i)(4) and paragraph (i)(5). The revisions that the Commission adopted to these sections contain new or modified information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. This document is consistent with the Report and Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing OMB approval and the effective date of the information collection requirements contained in these sections.

The final rules that the Commission adopted require all future wireless handset models to be hearing aid compatible. These revised rules ensure that consumers with hearing loss will have equal access to the same handset models as consumers without hearing loss. In order to ensure compliance with the 100% hearing aid compatiblity requirement, the Commission adopted a Bluetooth equipment certification requirement and updated labeling, website posting, and annual handset manufacturers and service provider certification requirements. In addition, the Commission eliminated outdated information collection requirements, including labeling, website posting, and certification requirements, as well as eliminating all record retention requirements. The elimination of these requirements significantly reduces regulatory burden and cost for handset manufacturers and service providers and results in an information collection that is based on minimually necessary requirements and tied to specific statutory provisions.

The revised hearing aid compatiblility rules include a requirement that a certain number of handset models that handset manufacturers and service providers offer for sale or use in the United States meet Bluetooth coupling requirements. This Bluetooth coupling requirement will benefit consumers by ensuring more universal connectivity between handset models and hearing aids, including over-the-counter hearing aids, and reduces the issue of certain handset models only being able to pair with certain hearing aids. In order to ensure compliance with this new Bluetooth coupling requirement, the Commisison adopted the recommendation of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Task Force (HAC Task Force) and Samsung that handset manufacturers be required to submit a sworn declaration attesting to a new handset model's complaince with this pairing requirement. This attestation requirement is contained in section 20.19(b)(3)(iii) of the rules the Commission adopted and requires handset manufacturers to provide: (1) the specific Bluetooth coupling standard included in each handset model; (2) that the relevant handset model has been tested to ensure compliance with the designated Bluetooth coupling standard; and (3) after the transition to a non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling requirement, that the included Bluetooth coupling technology is consistent with certain Bluetooth functionality requirements. This attestation requirement was adopted pursuant to section 710(c) of the Communications Act which requires the Commission to establish or approve such technical standards as are required to ensure the compatibility of handsets models with hearing aids.

With respect to package labeling requirements, the Commission decided to maintain the requirement that the external packaging of a handset model indicate that the handset model is hearing aid compatible, and provide the handset model's conversational gain with and without hearing aids, if the handset model is certified as hearing aid-compatible under a standard that includes volume control requirements. The Commission also required a handset model's external packaging to indicate whether the handset model meets telecoil or Bluetooth coupling requirements or both, and in the case of Bluetooth coupling, which Bluetooth coupling technology the handset model includes. The Commission continued to allow handset manufacturers and service providers to design their own printed package labels as long as the labels include the required information. These external package label requirements ensure that the most pertinent information appears on the outside of the package and allows consumers to compare handset models by comparing package labels.

The Commission updated its internal package labeling requirements and removed outdated requirements. A handset model's internal packaging must include information on the hearing aid compatiblity settings of the handset model and how consumers can turn these settings on and off. In addition, the Commission eliminated the requirement that package inserts and user manuals must provide the M/T ratings of handset models certified under the 2011 ANSI Standard or older ANSI standards or provide an explanation of the ANSI M/T rating system. The Commission regonized that the new ANSI technical standard used for certifying handset models as hearing aid-compatible no longer utilizes the M/T rating system. The revised internal packaging requirements allow consumers who are interested in more detailed information about a handset model's hearing aid compatibility then is provide on the external label to find this additional information in a handset model's package insert or user manual.

The revised labeling requirements are in section 20.19(f)(1) and (2) of the rules the Commission adopted. These rules are consistent with section 710(d) of the Communications Act, which requires the Commission to establish requirements for labeling “as are needed to provide adequate information to consumers on the compatibility between telephones and hearing aids.” The information that the Commission is requiring handset manufacturers and service providers to provide to consumers allows consumers to be fully informed about a handset model's functions and capabilities and to make informed purchasing decisions.

In addition to these revised labeling rules, the Commission decided to allow handset manufacturers and service providers to use digital labeling technology as an alternative to including a printed insert or printed handset manual in a handset model's packaging. Handset manufacturers and service providers choosing this option must maintain publicly accessible websites where consumers can find the required hearing aid compatiblity information, and they must provide consumers with a Quick-Respone (QR) code and the related website address where the required hearing aid compatibility information can be found. The Commission decided to allow the use of digital labeling technology at the request of handset manufacturers and service providers who argued that the use of digital labeling would reduce regulatory burden and cost. The use of digital labeling will also ensure that consumers have access to the most up-to-date handset model information. The Commission's new digital labeling rules are in section 20.19(f)(3) of the rules the Commission adopted.

The Commission updated and streamlined its publicly accessible website posting requirements to be consistent with the 100% hearing aid compatiblity requirement. The Commission requires handset manufacturers and service providers to indicate the type of coupling technologies that their handset models include and whether the handset models meet volume control requirements. The Commission also adopted point-of-contact requirements that consumers can use to ask knowledgable company employees handset model compatiblity questions. These website posting requirements can be found in section 20.19(h) of the rules the Commission adopted, and these rules are consistent with section 610(a) of the Communications Act which requires the Commission to establish regulations that are necessary to ensure reasonable access to telephone service by persons with impaired hearing and section 610(d) which requires the Commission to establish labeling requirments that provide adequate information to consumers on the compatibility between mobile handset models and hearing aids.

The Commission also eliminated certain website posting requirements which it determined are no longer revelvent with the adoption of a 100% hearing aid compatiblity requirement. These provisions include posting requirements concerning a handset model's M/T ratings and providing an explanation of the M/T rating system. In addition, service providers will no longer be required to post: (1) a list of all the non-hearing aid-compatible handset models that they offer, including the marketing model name/number(s) and FCC ID number, or a list of all hearing aid-compatible handset models that they offered in the past 24 months but no longer offer, and (2) a link to a third-party website as designated by the Commission or the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, with information regarding hearing aid-compatible and non-hearing aid-compatible handset models.

In addition, the Commission eliminated all record retention requirements. These provisions required service providers to retain certain information about handset models they no longer offer for sale or use in the United States. Specifically, service providers will no longer be required to retain internal records for discontinued handset models, and the associated information that they presently have to make available to the Commission upon request. This handset model information includes: (1) the month/year each hearing aid-compatible and non-hearing aid-compatible handset model was first offered; and (2) the month/year each hearing aid-compatible and non-hearing aid-compatible handset model was last offered for all discontinued handset models until a period of 24 months has passed from that date.

The elimination of outdated website and record retention requirements significantly reduces regulatory burden and cost for handset manufacturers and service providers. The revised website posting requirements are in section 20.19(h) of the rules the Commission adopted.

Further, the Commission revised its annual certification requirements for handset manufacturers and service providers. After the 100% hearing aid compatibility transition period ends for handset manufacturers, these companies will no longer file FCC Form 655. Instead, handset manufacturers will start filing FCC Form 855 and service providers will continue to file this form. FCC Form 855 is a streamlined certification form that does not require the detail handset model information that FCC Form 655 collects. This change will significantly reduce regulatory burden and cost for handset manufacturers and was fully supported by commenters.

Finally, the Commission is updating FCC Form 855 to ensure it collects only the minumal amount of relevent information needed to ensure complaince with the 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement. These updates include removing outdated questions related to the current 85% handset model deployment benchmark. The Commission will require handset manufacturers to file FCC Form 855 by January 31 each year rather than the June 30 deadline for FCC Form 655. This change aligns the filing deadline for handset manufacturers with the filing deadline for service providers and allows the reporing period to cover the entire previous calendar year rather than parts of two calendar years. The revised annual certification requirements are in section 20.19 (i)(4) and (5) of the rules the Commission adopted.

In addition, in FR Doc. 2024-25088 appearing at 89 FR 89832 in the Federal Register on Wednesday, November 13, 2024, the following correction is made: