The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and A350-1041 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 1, 2024 (89 FR 54393). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-0058R1, dated April 16, 2024, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA AD 2024-0058R1 stated that during a maintenance inspection, thrust reverser and pylon thermal blankets were found damaged due to air leaking from the PCE.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require repetitively testing the PCE for air leaks and reporting the results, and, depending on findings, inspecting the thermal blankets for damage and replacing the PCE.

Since the NPRM was issued, EASA issued AD 2024-0058R2, dated October 4, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0058R2) (also referred to as the MCAI). EASA AD 2024-0058R2 adds guidance regarding updated inspection procedures with instructions for additional inspections that can be accomplished before contacting Airbus. EASA AD 2024-0058R2 retains all requirements of EASA AD 2024-0058R1 and does not introduce any new requirements.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address damage to thermal blankets that, if combined with an independent event of engine fire, could lead to a temporary uncontrolled fire.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-1701.

The FAA received a comment from the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received additional comments from Delta Airlines (Delta). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Delta stated that EASA AD 2024-0058R1 and Airbus Alert Operator's Transmission (AOT) A36P010-23, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2024, have conflicting compliance times for the next leak test requirement after initial testing. Delta requested clarification of the compliance time for the PCE repetitive leak tests.

The FAA agrees to clarify. EASA had previously responded to a similar question in the Comment Response Document for EASA Proposed AD (PAD) 2024-0058. In that document, EASA confirmed that the first leak test must be accomplished before 5,500 flight cycles since new, which serves as the initial starting point for subsequent flight-cycle intervals. Thereafter, all subsequent inspections must occur at intervals not greater than 100 flight cycles. The FAA notes that if an operator conducts the first leak test at, for example, 5,400 total flight cycles, then the next leak test must occur before 5,500 total flight cycles ( i.e., an interval not to exceed 100 flight cycles since the previous leak test). However, if the operator decides to perform the leak test at, for example, 4,500 total flight cycles, then the next leak test must be performed before 4,600 total flight cycles. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

Delta stated that Airbus has recommended not to perform the PCE leak test earlier than 100 flight cycles before reaching the 5,500-flight-cycle threshold, due to the availability of spare parts. The FAA infers that Delta is requesting the compliance time be revised to specify that the initial leak test should not be accomplished prior to the accumulation of 5,400 flight cycles on the PCE.

The FAA does not agree to change this compliance time. The FAA notes that operators may choose to complete the initial leak test at any point before the 5,500-flight cycle threshold, including several flight cycles before that threshold. Additionally, in developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the FAA considered the recommendations of EASA, the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, the availability of required parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required actions. However, under the provisions of paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, the FAA will consider requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

Delta requested that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD be revised to exclude the requirement to contact Airbus and provide pictures of PCEs information, as specified in Airbus AOT A36P010-23, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2024. Delta stated that operators should not be mandated to provide pictures of an affected unit's cold path and smart aircraft condition monitoring system recorder (SAR017) data from flights because use of this information would not directly impact safety. Delta expressed concern over the risk of non-compliance with the proposed AD if they were unable to obtain SAR017 data from the next flight after PCE replacement. Delta stated that Airbus uses reporting for safety condition investigations and software development. Delta also stated that Airbus indicated that any SAR017 data of any flight after PCE replacement is acceptable, when SAR017 data is available.

The FAA disagrees with removing the reporting requirement but does agree to extend the compliance time for reporting SAR017 data. The reporting requirement is intended to provide the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) with information to determine the root cause of the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Furthermore, the OEM and EASA will review the inspection results, and other corrective actions may result from the reported data. Although the SAR017 data will be helpful for the OEM and EASA to determine if future action is needed, reporting that data is not an immediate or urgent requirement. Therefore, in consideration of Delta's comment, the FAA has revised the reporting requirement so that the SAR017 data is due 6 months after the completion of the applicable actions in this AD.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0058R2, dated October 4, 2024. This material specifies procedures for performing repetitive air leak tests of a certain PCE and reporting the results. If a leak is detected, EASA AD 2024-0058R2 specifies to replace the PCE and visually inspect the thrust reverser and pylon thermal blankets and replace if damaged. EASA AD 2024-0058R2 also requires performing an air leak test on any newly installed PCE. EASA AD 2024-0058R2 also limits the installation of affected PCEs.

This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA considers that this AD is an interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 32 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to take approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-800 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 25, 2024 (89 FR 78260). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that the compliance time for the initial ultrasonic inspection required by AD 2019-11-06, Amendment 39-19652 (84 FR 27193, June 12, 2019) (AD 2019-11-06), is insufficient for Model 737-800 series airplanes that have been modified to a freighter configuration using Boeing Drawing 800A0003. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require reducing the compliance time for the ultrasonic inspection of the skin under the drag link assembly. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking found in the station (STA) 540 bulkhead chord and skin, which could result in the inability of a primary structural element to sustain limit load. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in possible rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity of the airplane.

The FAA received comments from Boeing and an individual, who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received comments from Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) and an individual who supported the NPRM and had additional comments. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

APB stated that Boeing does not have a delegation to approve repairs in areas affected by the split scimitar winglet configuration of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE. APB also commented that approval by The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA), as specified in paragraph (j)(3) of the proposed AD, may not be given for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) for alternative inspections and corrective actions in those areas, but such approval must be obtained as specified in paragraph (j)(1) of the proposed AD. APB added that Boeing retains approval delegation for findings related to fuselage structures affected by the proposed rule.

The FAA acknowledges and concurs with APB's assertions. However, no change to this AD is necessary. Paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD state that AMOC approval be obtained using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in “paragraph (j)” of this AD, and does not limit approvals to the provisions of paragraph (j)(1) or (3) of this AD. Therefore, AMOC approval in accordance with paragraphs (j)(1) or (3) of this AD would be provided based on whether the actions needing an AMOC apply to the APB design or the Boeing design.

APB stated that accomplishing STC ST00830SE does not affect the actions specified in the proposed AD.

The FAA concurs with the commenter. The FAA has redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST00830SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST00830SE is installed, a “change in product” AMOC approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

An individual suggested including more detailed criteria for what would be considered an acceptable AMOC. The individual reasoned that clear and specific guidelines for AMOCs would provide greater clarity and consistency, helping to ensure that any AMOC would meet safety standards.

The FAA agrees to clarify. The AMOC process is outlined in 14 CFR 39.17 and 39.19, which specify that any AMOC request must include the specific actions proposed to address the unsafe condition, and that the proposed actions must provide an acceptable level of safety. AMOCs may be requested under the provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD. An AMOC may be applicable only to a specific airplane ( e.g., to repair cracks) or to an entire fleet ( e.g., to use revised service information). The FAA has therefore determined that adding additional AMOC guidelines or criteria to this AD is unnecessary. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

Accomplishing the actions required by this AD replaces the corresponding initial ultrasonic inspections and on-condition actions required by paragraph (g) of AD 2019-11-06 for Model 737-800 series airplanes converted to a freighter configuration using Boeing Drawing 800A0003 only.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1368, dated February 27, 2018. This material specifies an ultrasonic inspection of the skin under the drag link assembly and repair for any cracks; repetitive inspections for any cracks, including ultrasonic inspections, high frequency eddy current inspections, low frequency eddy current inspections, and detailed inspections; and a preventative modification if no crack is found.

The FAA also reviewed Boeing 737-800BCF Airworthiness Limitations, D140A006, Revision L, dated April 1, 2021. This material contains required inspections for principal structural element items. Section 5.2.1 of this material identifies the airplanes affected by this AD.

This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 18 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these actions:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Model ATR42-200, ATR42-300, ATR42-320, and ATR42-500 airplanes; and Model ATR72-101, ATR72-102, ATR72-201, ATR72-202, ATR72-211, ATR72-212, and ATR72-212A airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 10, 2024 (89 FR 82190). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-0132, dated July 9, 2024, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2024-0132) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states a manufacturing defect was identified in the lavatory fire extinguisher. This defect could potentially result in leakage at the eutectic tip, leading to a loss of pressure in the cylinder, making fire extinguishing capabilities ineffective. This condition, if not detected and corrected, in combination with fire in the lavatory waste bin, could result in the propagation of an uncontrolled fire.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require an inspection ( i.e., weight check) and replacement, as applicable, of certain lavatory compartment fire extinguishers, as specified in EASA AD 2024-0132. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit the installation of affected parts, as specified in EASA AD 2024-0132. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-2330.

The FAA received a comment from Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received additional comments from an individual. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

An individual requested that the FAA exclude certain airplanes from the proposed AD. The commenter stated the proposed AD is redundant if an aircraft has at least one additional fire extinguisher on board. The commenter stated that if the AD was narrowly written, it would not apply to aircraft that have at least one non-affected fire extinguisher on the aircraft and that while the proposed AD prioritizes safety, it is highly burdensome. The commenter stated that the AD should be inapplicable to aircraft that have multiple fire extinguishers.

The FAA disagrees with this request. The AD requires inspection and replacement of a specific lavatory fire extinguisher with a known manufacturing defect. In addition, 14 CFR 121.308 requires that each lavatory on all passenger-carrying airplanes be equipped with a built-in fire extinguisher for each disposal receptacle. Even if there are other non-affected fire extinguishers on an airplane, that airplane must still have a functional fire extinguisher in each lavatory. Therefore, the AD is necessary to address a known unsafe condition. The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of this comment.

In the NPRM, the FAA inadvertently included reference to paragraph (i) of this AD in paragraph (g) of this AD. The FAA has revised paragraph (g) of this AD to remove the unneeded reference to paragraph (i) of this AD.

Further, the FAA has revised the applicability to remove the reference to “as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency AD 2024-0132, dated July 9, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0132).” The FAA removed this statement as it is unnecessary because all airplanes are already captured without needing to reference the EASA AD. This further clarifies that ATR42-400 airplanes are not part of the applicability as Model ATR42-400 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

EASA AD 2024-0132 specifies procedures for the inspection ( i.e., weight check) and replacement, if any discrepancy is found ( i.e., the measured weight is more than 2.0 grams below the gross weight stated on the product label), of certain lavatory compartment fire extinguishers and prohibits the installation of affected parts. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates this AD affects 77 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition action that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 13, 2024 (89 FR 100923). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2024-30, dated August 27, 2024, issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada (Transport Canada AD CF-2024-30) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states a design review discovered software protection logic for potential large leaks from the engine bleed duct inside the engine core compartments was partially impaired. Under certain large leak conditions ( e.g., a duct burst at a specific portion of the engine's bleed ducting), Pratt & Whitney's PW1500G engine's electronic engine control (EEC) would not transmit the necessary information to the aircraft controller to automatically isolate the opposite engine from the leak path in the bleed system. This failure condition could lead to a dual engine failure.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require revising the existing AFM to incorporate the procedures for the flightcrew to manually isolate the opposite functional engine in the event of an engine bleed duct large leak condition, as specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2024-30.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-2554.

The FAA received a comment from Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

Transport Canada AD CF-2024-30 specifies procedures for revising the “Non-Normal Procedure” of the AFM to incorporate the procedures for the flightcrew to manually isolate the opposite functional engine in the event of an engine bleed duct large leak condition. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 132 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

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

On July 12, 2024, (89 FR 57120), the EPA proposed to approve the following rules into the California SIP.

These rules were submitted by the relevant counties to fulfill CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) ES requirements. We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they comply with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rules and our evaluation.

The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received one comment asserting that indoor cannabis growth is responsible for significant emissions of greenhouse gases. We acknowledge the information provided by the commenter regarding the potential for the cannabis cultivation industry to be a source of greenhouse gas emissions. As noted above and in our proposal notice, this action concerns administrative emission statement requirements under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). As a result, we do not consider this comment to be germane because it is outside the scope of our proposed action.

No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rules as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is approving these rules into the California SIP. There are no previous versions of Tehama County APCD Rule 2:20 in the SIP. The December 9, 2021 version of San Diego County APCD Rule 19.3 and the August 4, 2022 version of Eastern Kern APCD Rule 108.2 will replace the previously approved versions of these rules in the SIP.

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 of Eastern Kern APCD Rule 108.2 (amended 8/4/22), Tehama County APCD Rule 2:20 (adopted 3/1/22), and San Diego County APCD Rule 19.3 (adopted 12/9/21). The APCD rules regulate ES requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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);

• 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 (Public Law 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 May 19, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review, nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The interim final rule, “Practices Before the Department of the Interior,” published on January 10, 2025, at 90 FR 2332, included a 30-day public comment period that ends on February 10, 2025. The effective date of the interim final rule was February 10, 2025. The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is taking this action in accordance with Memorandum M-25-10 of January 20, 2025, from the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Implementation of Regulatory Freeze, regarding the postponement of effective dates of certain published regulations. The memorandum directed the heads of Executive Departments and Agencies to consider postponing for sixty days from the date of the memorandum the effective date for any rules that have been published in the Federal Register , or any rules that have been issued in any manner but have not taken effect, for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rule may raise. On February 10, 2025, OHA published a notification delaying the effective date (90 FR 9222) for the interim final rule published at 90 FR 2332 to March 21, 2025. This second notification further delays the effective date to May 5, 2025, to provide for Department review. OHA is extending the effective date of the interim final rule without opportunity for public comment and making the extension effective immediately, based on the good cause exemptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3), in that seeking public comment on the extension is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. This second delay of the effective date until May 5, 2025, is necessary to give Department officials the opportunity for further review and consideration of new regulations, consistent with the memorandum of the President, dated January 20, 2025. Given the imminence of the effective date of the interim final rule, seeking prior public comment on this delay is impractical, and contrary to the public interest in the orderly promulgation and implementation of regulations. For the foregoing reasons, the good cause exception in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) also applies to OHA's decision to make this action effective immediately.

This is a summary of the Commission's Seventh Report and Order (R&O), PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94; FCC 25-14, adopted February 27, 2025, and released February 28, 2025. The full text of this document is available by downloading the text from the Commission's website at: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-makes-weas-more-responsive-public-safety-and-consumer-needs. The full text of this document will also be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

A proposed rule relating to Wireless Emergency Alerts and the Emergency Alert System is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register .

1. To ensure that WEA remains a tool that alert originators can use to save lives and property in their states and in their communities without prompting widespread opt out, and to promote WEA's versatility to be used across a variety of circumstances and different times of day, we adopt our proposal to require Participating CMS Providers to support “silent alerts.” A silent alert is an alert that, at an alert originator's discretion, is presented without either the common audio attention signal, the common vibration cadence, or both. To ensure that WEAs sent without the Attention Signal can remain accessible to individuals with disabilities, we also require “WEA-capable mobile devices” to include the option to enable the presentation of the common vibration cadence for all WEA Alert Messages. If selected, that option must override the alert originator's selection on that device. We decline to adopt our proposal that Participating CMS Providers provide their subscribers with the option to durably turn off WEA's audio attention signal and vibration cadence for all alerts, which was opposed by commenters, because we agree with commenters that giving consumers this option risks increasing the rate at which people fail to notice Imminent Threat Alerts to which they must react immediately to protect their lives and property.

2. This action addresses concern in the record that the mandatory use of the Attention Signal with every WEA is limiting the situations where the benefits of using WEA outweigh the potential drawbacks. The National Ashanti Alert Network Stakeholder Working Group and Pilot Project Participants Working Group, groups established by the Department of Justice to create and share promising practices for missing adult alerts, jointly state that “WEA is a fantastic tool but is currently limited by the jarring alert tone that is currently associated with each and every activation.” They observe that WEA activations cause complaints when the public does not interpret the intrusiveness of the WEA Attention Signal as commensurate with the alert's relevance. They characterize the “blackout” periods that some alert originators have chosen to implement to spare the public from being awoken by a WEA at night as (in the case of AMBER Alerts) a “disservice to those who are missing and could be helped as there are many individuals who are awake and active ( e.g., truck drivers) who could receive an alert and provide valuable assistance in locating a missing adult.”

3. Comments reflect that alert originators are generally best positioned to make the important decision of whether an alert will trigger the Attention Signal. The approach that we adopt today gives alerting authorities the “maximum flexibility” that alert originators like King County, Washington Emergency Management and New York City Emergency Management state that they need to increase the effectiveness of alerts.

4. WEA is a powerful tool. We recognize the perspective of ATIS and Several Colorado Agencies that “adding an option to be exercised by the alert originator in the moment, such as whether to include the audio attention signal, increases the potential for human error.” There is a risk of alert originators “erroneously setting the `silent' notification for alerts where a notification is needed ( e.g., tornado)[,which] may result in citizens missing a WEA, putting them at risk.” We believe, however, that alert originators are the right stakeholders in the WEA system to manage this risk. King County, Washington Emergency Management observes that some alert originators already have experience determining whether to associate an audio attentional signal and vibration cadence with alerts based on the alert's urgency when they transmit those alerts via private mass notification systems. Even for alert originators that do not yet have experience controlling how the Attention Signal is presented along with their alerts, we believe that their experience managing emergencies in their communities is the most relevant to making decisions about how emergency alerts are presented. We therefore agree with AT&T that we should not attempt to establish “alert signal suppression rules for specific classes of WEA alerts that would remove the decision-making power from Alert Originators” and decline New York City Emergency Management's request that we limit alert originators' discretion in the use of silent WEAs to specific situations or specific alert message classifications. We encourage alert origination software developers to recognize the difficult task that alert originators confront and design this aspect of their alert origination software to be “configurable by each alerting authority” to maximize each agency's potential for effective alerting and minimize opportunity for error.

5. The record reflects that the ability to send silent alerts will be particularly useful in three scenarios: (1) AMBER Alerts, Missing and Endangered Persons (MEP) Alerts, and Blue Alerts sent either statewide or overnight; (2) follow-up messaging to relay additional, essential actions likely to save lives and/or safeguard property during ongoing emergencies; and (3) active shooter situations. While using silent alerts in these scenarios cannot completely eliminate the reasons for which people opt out of WEA, we agree with alert originators that use of silent alerts in the first two use cases can limit alert fatigue, which can reduce the rate of consumer opt out, and ultimately result in more people being opted in when their local alert originator sends an alert that could save their life. Alert originators also state that the ability to suppress the Attention Signal would make them more likely to send AMBER Alerts, MEP Alerts, and Blue Alerts during the evening and night when people are likely to be asleep. Sending these types of WEAs silently will make it possible for individuals that are awake and interacting with their mobile devices to receive and act upon the messages, including by rendering assistance to law enforcement, while avoiding the risk that such message will awaken or otherwise disturb people that might respond to the intrusion by opting out of receiving WEAs going forward. The National Weather Service and the United States Geological Survey recognize the value that silent WEAs would offer for the transmission of essential information after the initial alert about weather that poses an imminent threat and about earthquakes, respectively. Commenters state that the ability to suppress the Attention Signal for active shooter alerts will make it more likely that they will use WEA as a tool to keep people safe during such events because it will enable them to silently deliver WEAs that can direct people to avoid the area where the shooter is active while avoiding the risk that the Attention Signal will betray the location of people that need to remain hidden to stay safe. In light of this clear record, we decline CTIA's request that we seek further comment on whether the benefits of silent alerts outweigh the risks.

6. We agree with ATIS and CTIA that “the absence of any attention signal or vibration cadence will require the user to look at the mobile device display when the WEA is presented in order to be alerted” and that this creates “a risk that the user may be distracted away from their device because of the event and may miss any incoming WEA,” which would generally make those WEAs less effective. Accordingly, we take this opportunity to amplify the guidance that alert originators offer in this proceeding about how this new capability can maximize the effectiveness of WEA:

• When there is an imminent threat to life, emergency alerts “must get the attention of the targeted audience and compel review of the content.” There is an exception, however, for situations in which the audible delivery of the WEA Attention Signal could jeopardize the lives of those receiving the alerts, as described in the following bullet.

• Suppress the Attention Signal (1) when its presentation could jeopardize the lives of those receiving the alerts, including during active shooter situations, or (2) in situations where the receipt of a WEA has been shown to prompt recipients to opt out of receiving alerts, such as statewide AMBER and Blue Alerts.

• Public safety messages that accompany Imminent Threat Alerts and that provide essential advisories, like boil water orders, may be issued as silent alerts.

• State/Local WEA Tests should use the Attention Signal because people do not receive State/Local WEA Tests at all unless they have affirmatively opted in to receive them. Therefore, use of the Attention Signal “allows for public education on what the tone sounds like, ensuring the tone is working . . . in a controlled environment that would not increase opt-outs.”

We encourage but do not require alert originators to follow this guidance or to develop their own internal policies and procedures for determining whether and how to use the Attention Signal in their alerts. It will be important for alert originators to create and follow best practices about the use of silent alerts so that their use enhances, rather than limits WEA's efficacy.

7. Our action today to require that Participating CMS Providers and equipment manufacturers may only market a mobile device for public use under part 10 as a “WEA-capable mobile device” if the mobile includes a vibration cadence capability that enables subscribers to override alert originators' suppression of the common vibration cadence will also enhance WEA's efficacy. Ricky Harris, a Deaf resident of Houston, Texas, explains the challenges that individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing face during unpredictable thunderstorms and flash floods in his neighborhood: “I relied on guesswork and observation to navigate. Unfortunately, I was completely unaware that radio broadcasts were already issuing specific evacuation routes. This lack of information put me in danger and left me vulnerable. People later questioned my route choice, unaware of the communication gap I had experienced.” With the action that we take today, individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing will have the option to ensure that the common vibration cadence is always presented along with their WEA messages, irrespective of the alert originator's selection, which will draw their attention to the arrival of a WEA. New York City Emergency Management notes that using the vibration cadence alone can be sufficient to get people's attention in a range of scenarios. The vibration cadence can be felt, including by many people with disabilities, when the mobile device is in contact with their body, and can often be heard when the mobile device is in contact with another surface. In this way, the action that we take today realizes, in part, the advocacy objectives of New York City Emergency Management and a coalition of Accessibility Organizations and Academics, that “users—not providers or alerting authorities—decide whether to silence WEAs or cancel vibration cadences to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach to WEA notifications.” While the approach that we adopt today gives alerting authorities discretion over whether to transmit a silent alert, bearing in mind the needs of individuals with disabilities, those individuals will now be presented with greater control over their receipt of the common vibration cadence to strike the right balance for their individual needs. WEA-capable mobile devices must not, however, allow individuals to override alert originators' decision to suppress the audio attention signal; doing so would eliminate or seriously reduce the value of WEA in active shooter situations. If people are hiding together from an active shooter, any one of their devices emitting the audio attention signal would be sufficient to betray their location. While we understand CTIA's concern that allowing consumers to override the vibration cadence may potentially disclose a person's location during an active shooter situation, we find that supporting the ability for individuals with disabilities to receive potentially lifesaving alerts via the vibration cadence outweighs the low risk that the relatively quiet presentation of the WEA vibration cadence will result in injury or loss of life.

8. We reject Several Colorado Agencies' recommended approach that the Commission “require the audio attention signal for both EAS and WEA.” We also reject the Language Accessibility in Alert and Warning Working Group and Regional Disaster Preparedness Organization of the Portland-Vancouver Metro Region's recommended approach that “Alert Originators can set the WEA alert to one of three options: silent, follow the device's notification sound setting, or override and make sound and vibration.” Accepting either of these recommendations would deprive consumers of the flexibility that they currently have under our rules to mute the Attention Signal, e.g., by putting their device in do-not-disturb mode. We do not find removing this consumer choice to be in the public interest.

9. Nothing about the rule we adopt today would change functions that allow consumers to choose to opt out of receiving certain types of WEA messages, to mute the Attention Signal, or to specify vibration and audio attention signal presentation during active voice or data sessions. Participating CMS Providers and equipment manufacturers will still have the ability to implement a binary consumer opt out feature that defaults to have subscribers opted in to receive all WEA Alert Message classifications and their associated Attention Signal and that allows them to opt out of Imminent Threat Alerts, AMBER Alerts, and Public Safety Messages entirely. Participating CMS Providers and equipment manufacturers also may continue to enable subscribers to mute the Attention Signal using “do not disturb” and other mobile device capabilities for alerts where the Attention Signal is presented by default. Finally, Participating CMS Providers and equipment manufacturers may specify how the Attention Signal is presented during an active voice or data session, insofar as they currently take advantage of that flexibility and it remains relevant in the modern technological environment.

10. To allow consumers to be confident that they are informed about the WEA capabilities of the mobile devices they purchase and to more fully describe how the requirements that we adopt today apply to those devices, we adopt our proposed definitions of a “mobile device” for the purposes of WEA and a “WEA-capable mobile device.” We define a “mobile device” for the purpose of WEA as “any customer equipment used to receive commercial mobile service.” This definition of a mobile device for the purpose of WEA reflects the WARN Act's direction that the Commission “adopt technical standards, protocols, procedures, and other requirements . . . necessary to enable commercial mobile service alerting capability.” While it may be possible to deliver emergency alerts to customer wireless equipment that Participating CMS Providers sell by using a technology other than commercial mobile service, as a legal matter, we would not consider those emergency alerts to be WEAs. Defining a mobile device for the purpose of WEA as customer equipment that can receive commercial mobile service is also appropriate from a technical perspective. AT&T states that customer equipment needs to be able to attach to the commercial mobile service network to directly receive a WEA via cell broadcast, the technology generally used to transmit WEAs to mobile devices. We also continue to believe, as the Commission stated in the 2023 WEA Accessibility FNPRM, that this definition of a “mobile device” for the purpose of WEA is appropriate because, unlike the part 10 rules' current definition of a mobile device, it acknowledges the possibility that equipment may not be technically capable of supporting WEA ( i.e., if it is not capable of receiving commercial mobile service). Distinguish this from a Non-service Initialized (NSI) phone. While NSI phones may not, in fact, receive commercial mobile service at a given point in time, they are technically capable of receiving commercial mobile service once service is initialized for the device. Therefore, NSI phones are “used to receive commercial mobile service” for the purpose of this rule and are “mobile devices” for the purpose of WEA. We clarify that Participating CMS Providers are not required to market NSI devices as “WEA-capable,” and may market them in this way conditionally ( e.g., “WEA-capable upon activation of service”). NSI phones—like all mobile devices—may only be marketed as “WEA-capable” if the device complies with part 10, subpart E of our rules. At the same time, this definition is broad enough to potentially include devices that are commonly considered to be mobile devices, such as commercial mobile service-enabled tablets, wearables, or other non-smartphone devices. A device such as a tablet or wearable that connects to the internet solely by means other than commercial mobile service ( e.g., Wi-Fi) would not fall within section 10.10's “mobile device” definition. By contrast, devices such as tablets and wearables that support connection to the internet via commercial mobile service would be considered as mobile devices for the purpose of WEA under this rule.

11. The way that we define a mobile device for the purpose of WEA may include some smaller equipment that, AT&T opines, is not capable of presenting alert messages due to limitations such as chipset support, maintaining the form factor, and maintaining battery life. While this equipment may not have been designed with WEA in mind, the definition of a mobile device for the purpose of WEA that we adopt today signals to Participating CMS Providers and equipment manufacturers that consumers may expect those devices to be WEA-capable. Our adoption of this rule may prompt Participating CMS Providers and equipment manufacturers to consider whether smaller, wearable equipment that does not support WEA today can be made WEA-capable through changes to hardware or software. The definition of a mobile device for the purpose of WEA that we adopt today also excludes some devices that Participating CMS Providers sell. A smartwatch that is capable of only Wi-Fi or Bluetooth connectivity, for example, may be able to present a WEA to its wearer by receiving it through a WEA-capable smartphone to which it is tethered. We do not consider these devices to be “mobile devices” for the purpose of WEA, however, because their ability to receive a WEA is derivative of the device to which they are connected. Participating CMS Providers may continue to market this equipment for sale while continuing to participate in WEA “in whole.”

12. As proposed, we define a “WEA-capable mobile device” as a mobile device that is compliant with all of the Commission's WEA rules. When the Commission adopted the definition of a “mobile device” for the purpose of WEA in 2012 in anticipation of the system's deployment, the primary distinction between mobile devices for the purpose of WEA was whether they could receive alert messages. Today, the wireless industry's public disclosures reflect that devices marketed for public use under part 10 support a wide array of WEA functionalities, but that not all mobile devices support all of WEA's required features. The purpose of the rule we adopt today is to avoid consumer confusion about the WEA capabilities of mobile devices. We find that the rule we adopt today addresses any communication with consumers about the WEA capabilities of devices, which we could consider for purposes of these rules to be a form of marketing, regardless of whether a Participating CMS Provider would consider that communication to be a “disclosure.” We further note that sections 10.510, 10.520, and 10.530 of our rules already restrict how Participating CMS Providers and equipment manufacturers can “market” devices that support WEA, so we believe that it is appropriate to continue to use that language in the interest of consistency. To further ensure that consistency, we amend section 10.500 to continue to also use that “marketing” language. For example, T-Mobile markets as “alert-capable” Apple's iPhone 5, which is able to receive the basic 90-character maximum WEA text, but does not support clickable links, the preservation of alerts for user review, Spanish-language alerts, the presentation of alerts concurrent with active voice or data sessions, Public Safety Messages, State/Local WEA Tests, or enhanced geographic targeting. While, generally, mobile devices released after a rule's effective date support the features those rules require, Participating CMS Providers and equipment manufacturers have not pushed software updates necessary to enable new WEA features to mobile devices in the field that no longer support software updates. To account for the diversity among the WEA capabilities of mobile devices available today, we find it appropriate to update our regulatory framework to account for the extent to which the Commission has required WEA to evolve over the years to keep pace with advances in technology and changing consumer expectations for emergency communications. This change will promote informed consumer choice about the emergency alerting capabilities of mobile devices that consumers are considering for purchase.

13. We also make explicit that WEA-capable mobile devices must support each of the alert message requirements in part 10, subpart D. Specifically, a WEA-capable mobile device must support the WEA Alert Message classifications, device-based geo-targeting, Alert Messages that contain a maximum of 360 characters of alphanumeric text, embedded references, Spanish-language alerts, the silent alert feature we adopt today, and the basic equipment requirements codified in subpart E of the WEA rules. If the Commission were to adopt new alert message or equipment requirements in the future, the rules we adopt today would require devices to support those new requirements in order to continue to be considered to be WEA-capable, beginning on the deadline for the implementation of those requirements. However, devices can continue to be considered WEA-capable prior to that implementation deadline. Insofar as consumers make mobile device purchasing decisions based on marketed WEA capabilities, we believe that it is usually in connection with their purchase of a new device. According to ATIS, new mobile devices either support all of WEA's functions as of the date of their release, or they support none of them, which supports the binary distinction (“WEA-capable” or not) that we adopt. Today, the term “WEA-capable mobile device” is undefined in our rules but Participating CMS Providers use it in their marketing materials to refer to new mobile devices as well as mobile devices that are over a decade old and support only the basic WEA functions available since 2012. The Language Accessibility in Alert and Warning Working Group, King County, Washington Emergency Management, Michigan State Police, the New York State Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Services, and the County of San Diego Department of Emergency Services support adoption of our proposed definition of a “WEA-capable mobile device” because clearly labeling devices that support all WEA functions promotes informed consumer choice about public safety services and promotes the use of mobile devices as disaster preparedness tools. We agree with APCO that “the status quo approach to mobile device eligibility may mislead consumers into mistakenly believing that all [mobile devices marketed as] `WEA-capable mobile devices' offer all WEA capabilities.” Accordingly, we disagree with T-Mobile that whether a device supports the basic receipt of a WEA message is the most important criterion to the definition of a “WEA-capable mobile device,” and we disagree with Verizon that we should codify the WEA “versions” ( e.g., 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0) on which existing marketing materials rely.

14. We recognize other commenters' perspective that defining a WEA-capable mobile device as we do today could also be confusing. Indeed, as a result of our action today, many mobile devices that are compatible with presentation of WEAs will no longer be marketed as “WEA-capable.” By contrast to the status quo, we find this potential for confusion to be acceptable and mitigable. If a consumer is confused about the WEA capabilities of a mobile device marketed as WEA-capable as we define it today, it would only be the surprise of learning that a device, in fact, has WEA capabilities that it was not marketed as having. We find this to be preferable to the confusion that might result from purchasing a device marketed as “WEA-capable” only to discover that it supports fewer than all of WEA's capabilities. To ensure that customers can be well informed about the WEA service that they should expect to receive on devices marketed as “WEA-capable,” we direct the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to publish a consumer guide and keep up to date information regarding the capabilities required of such devices.

15. Pursuant to the WARN Act, our rules permit CMS Providers to participate in WEA so long as at least one mobile device that they offer for sale is WEA-capable. We encourage Participating CMS Providers to make as many mobile devices as possible “WEA-capable” to ensure WEA is available on the types of devices often relied on by the public, including those with disabilities. New York City Emergency Management emphasizes the importance of preserving WEA compatibility for older devices that may no longer support over-the-air software upgrades necessary to comply with all the WEA equipment requirements, particularly for “populations that may not have the resources to obtain a newer device.” As AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon recognize, consumers with mobile devices that are no longer considered to be WEA-capable as a result of this regulatory change will continue to be able to receive WEAs on their mobile devices even though those devices do not support all WEA's features.

16. Finally, we make conforming edits to reflect that Participating CMS Providers and equipment manufacturers may market mobile devices irrespective of their WEA capabilities, but they will be prohibited from marketing a mobile device as a “WEA-capable mobile device” unless it complies with the revised WEA mobile device equipment requirements, including the ability to support silent alerts. Similarly included in this prohibition is marketing language that could mislead consumers into the mistaken belief that the device they are considering for purchase is compliant with the WEA rules ( e.g., “Wireless Emergency Alert Compatible Devices,” “alert-capable devices,” or the identification of mobile device capabilities by version number, such as 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0).

17. The deadline for compliance with the silent alert requirements will be 36 months from the publication of this Seventh Report and Order in the Federal Register . The record shows that compliance with these requirements would necessitate technically feasible changes to applicable standards and software. Specifically, support for this capability will require updates to alert origination software, FEMA's Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), Participating CMS Providers' WEA systems, and mobile devices. AT&T synopsizes as follows how the capability to send silent alerts would be implemented: “[i]t may be possible for Alert Originators to include an information element within a WEA message that would direct a user's device to suppress the alert signal while still displaying the WEA alert.” To support the subscriber capability to override the alert originator's suppression of the common vibration cadence, mobile device manufacturers and operating system developers will need to determine how WEA-capable mobile devices display the option to override silent alerts. We agree with AT&T that these capabilities “would require extensive study, standards development, testing, and deployment, and the Commission would need to provide sufficient time for these steps to be completed.” We provide sufficient time with the compliance deadline that we adopt today. ATIS, AT&T, and FEMA recommend study “of all potential use cases for the `silent alert,' along with the pros/cons of a silent alert” to give alert originators an opportunity to prepare best practices and procedures that enable them to use this capability effectively. We encourage our federal partners, such as FEMA and the National Weather Service and alert originators along with their advocacy groups, such as the National Emergency Management Association and the International Association of Emergency Managers, to conduct this study. We disagree with ATIS, however, that this study must “be undertaken prior to any decision to move forward with design and implementation.” Rather, we agree with AT&T that it is sufficient for this study to be completed before the capability's implementation because the study pertains to alert originators' use of the capability, not the technical feasibility of its implementation. While the record in this proceeding did not specifically quantify the amount of time that compliance would require, based on our experience with adopting other WEA requirements that have entailed at least this much technical development, we anticipate that 30 months will permit ample time for industry to complete the standards and software development work required to support this functionality while alert originators focus on developing best practices and use cases. However, we acknowledge that industry is already in the process of implementing new WEA capabilities. We acknowledge that the simultaneous adoption of several new WEA capabilities may potentially create resource constraints and cause delays to deployment, and therefore grant Participating CMS Providers an additional six months to implement silent alerts.

18. In adopting this 36-month compliance timeframe, we highlight that the date of required compliance marks the beginning, rather than the end, of the transition to full system support for this functionality. As AT&T and ATIS observe, at the outset there will be an “inherent mix of handsets that can and cannot support this feature,” but we disagree with AT&T that this will prevent the feature from being used. Rather, alert originators will determine the extent to which they will begin to use this feature on the date of required compliance in full knowledge of the limitations of handset support and with a reasonable expectation that handset support for the capability will mature over time. Our experience suggests that it will take about three years after the date of required compliance to reach 88% market penetration of mobile devices that support the capability to silence alerts. Out of an abundance of caution, and to ensure the continued accessibility of WEA, we emphasize that any mobile devices that do not support silent alerts as of the date of required compliance must present the Attention Signal for all alerts, subject to the consumer control over the presentation of the Attention Signal that our rules otherwise provide.

19. We believe it is particularly important that we adopt a definition of a WEA-capable mobile device in this Seventh Report and Order because, to maintain the accessibility of silent alerts for individuals with disabilities, the capability to support silent alerts must be accompanied by the capability to override the suppression of the vibration cadence. Prohibiting Participating CMS Providers and equipment manufacturers from marketing as WEA-capable mobile devices that support one of these capabilities, but not the other, will avoid the possibility that the adoption of this requirement renders silent WEAs inaccessible. To ensure that the public is able to realize the benefits of regulatory clarity that these new definitions provide and enable Participating CMS Providers to make any necessary adjustments to their marketing, these rule revisions will become effective 180 days after the publication of this Seventh Report and Order in the Federal Register . We join FEMA in encouraging standards bodies and mobile device manufacturers to consider solutions for the silent alerting functionality that support backwards compatibility with older systems to hasten the deployment of this feature and increase the availability of WEA-capable mobile devices.

20. We find that the benefits of requiring compliance with this requirement exceed the anticipated costs. Commenters generally agree with our proposal that giving alert originators the ability to suppress presentation of the Attention Signal during active shooter situations could make WEA a more effective tool in that situation. No commenter opposed our analysis that making WEA a better tool for active shooter scenarios could reduce casualties by discretely warning the public, which would yield substantial public safety benefits. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, there were 61 active shooter incidents in 2021, resulting in 243 casualties, including 103 deaths and 140 injuries. These incidents continue. In 2023, the Federal Bureau of Investigation designated an additional 48 shootings as active shooter incidents with 244 casualties, including 105 killed and 139 injuries. Accordingly, we continue to find it reasonable that suppressing the audio attention signal and vibration cadence during active shooters scenarios could generate significant public safety benefits. This is even before considering that selective suppression could benefit the public by reducing consumer opt out, that defining a “mobile device” for the purpose of WEA could benefit the public by increasing the availability of WEA on tablets and wearables, and that defining a “WEA capable mobile device” will enhance the value of marketing disclosures.

21. We find that the value of those benefits would have to exceed $37.7 million to exceed their anticipated cost. We find that premise is satisfied and that the cost estimates are valid. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission reasoned that these costs comprise approximately $814,000 to update applicable WEA standards and approximately $39.1 million to update applicable software. We continue to rely on this methodology for assessing the cost of compliance with this requirement, to which no commenter objected. On our own initiative, however, we update this analysis to account for changes in the wage rate of workers likely to be engaged in the process of compliance and to update our account of the number of CMS Providers that participate in WEA. We now estimate that the cost is slightly less than proposed: $889,000 to update applicable standards and $36.8 million to update applicable software for a total of $37.7 million.

22. Since WEA's inception, the Commission has never recognized a cost to Participating CMS Providers or equipment manufacturers associated with the marketing of mobile devices or their WEA capabilities. No commenter in this proceeding suggests that they will incur any costs to comply with this requirement, so we do not diverge from that analysis here. We continue to decline to assign a dollar value to that activity for the purpose of this cost benefit analysis because marketing is purely voluntary commercial activity unnecessary to the provision of commercial mobile service or the sale of mobile devices. CMS Providers that market their mobile devices do so because they anticipate that the economic benefits of doing so will outweigh the costs. Insofar as Participating CMS Providers and equipment manufacturers market their mobile devices based on their WEA-capabilities, the definitions that we adopt today may implicate changes to those marketing materials. No Participating CMS Provider or equipment manufacturer will have to change their existing marketing materials as a result of this requirement, however, because the WEA capabilities that they support on devices that they sell are completely at their discretion, pursuant to the WARN Act. CMS Providers may continue to participate in WEA “in part” so long as one mobile device that they sell is a WEA-capable mobile device, as we define it today.

23. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Accordingly, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule changes contained in this Seventh Report and Order on small entities. The FRFA is set forth in Appendix C of the Commission document.

24. 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 Seventh Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

25. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. 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, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

26. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice).

27. Accordingly it is ordered , pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(n), 301, 303(b), 303(e), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 307, 309, 316, 403, and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(n), 301, 303(b), 303(e), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 307, 309, 316, 403, and 606, as well as by sections 602(a), (b), (c), (f), 603, 604 and 606 of the Warning Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act, 47 U.S.C. 1201(a), (b), (c), (f), 1203, 1204 and 1206, that this Seventh Report is hereby adopted .

28. It is further ordered that part 10 of the Commission's rules is amended as specified in Appendix A of the Commission document. The definitions of a WEA-capable mobile device and a mobile device for the purpose of WEA (section 10.10(j) through (m)), along with conforming edits (to the introductory text of section 10.500, section 10.500(i) through (j), the introductory text of section 10.520, and the introductory text of section 10.530), will become effective 180 days after the publication of this Seventh Report and Order in the Federal Register . The silent alert rules adopted herein (sections 10.490 and 10.530(d)) will become effective thirty-six (36) months after publication of this Seventh Report and Order in the Federal Register .

29. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the Secretary shall send a copy of this Seventh Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

30. It is further ordered that the Office of the Managing Director, Performance & Program Management, shall send a copy of this Seventh Report and Order 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 discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 10 as follows:

NMFS manages the GOA groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the GOA under the FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared and recommended the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ). Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600, 679, and 680.

The FMP and its implementing regulations require that NMFS, after consultation with the Council, specify the total allowable catch (TAC) for each target species, the sum of which must be within the optimum yield (OY) range of 116,000 to 800,000 metric tons (mt) (§§ 679.20(a)(1)(i)(B) and 679.20(a)(2)). Section 679.20(c)(1) further requires that NMFS publish and solicit public comment on proposed annual TACs and apportionments thereof, Pacific halibut prohibited species catch (PSC) limits, and seasonal allowances of pollock and Pacific cod. Upon consideration of those public comments, NMFS must publish a notification of final harvest specifications for up to 2 fishing years as annual TACs and apportionments, Pacific halibut PSC limits, and seasonal allowances of pollock and Pacific cod, per § 679.20(c)(3)(ii). The final harvest specifications set forth in tables 1 through 27 of this rule reflect the outcome of this process, as required at § 679.20(c).

The proposed 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA and Pacific halibut PSC limits were published in the Federal Register on November 29, 2024 (89 FR 94680). Comments were invited and accepted through December 30, 2024. NMFS received one letter raising one distinct comment during the public comment period for the proposed GOA groundfish harvest specifications. No changes were made in this rule in response to the comment. NMFS's response to the comment is included in the Comments and Responses section of this rule.

In December 2024, NMFS consulted with the Council regarding the 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications. After considering public comment at public meetings and comments received for the proposed rule, as well as current biological, ecosystem, socioeconomic, and harvest data, NMFS is implementing the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications, as recommended by the Council but with reductions to account for a new directed octopus fishery established by the State of Alaska (“State”) in December 2024. This results in a 16 mt reduction from the Council recommended TACs. For 2025, the sum of the TAC amounts is 514,619 mt. For 2026, the sum of the TAC amounts is 464,741 mt.

In December 2024, the Alaska Board of Fisheries considered several proposals for management of fishing in State waters that could have affected the GOA groundfish harvest specifications. The BOF ultimately adopted one proposal, Proposal 43, for implementation starting in the 2025 fishing year. Proposal 43 establishes a directed octopus fishery in State waters in Prince William Sound (PWS). NMFS is setting the TAC to account for this State fishery by subtracting the maximum guideline harvest range (GHR) of 16 mt (35,000 pounds (lbs) rounded) from the acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommended by the SSC. This is to ensure that the sum of octopus removals from Federal and State waters do not exceed the GOA-wide ABC recommendation.

In December 2024, the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), its Advisory Panel (AP), and the Council reviewed the most recent biological, ecosystem, socioeconomic, and harvest information about the condition of the GOA groundfish stocks. The Council's GOA Groundfish Plan Team (Plan Team) compiled and presented this information in the 2024 SAFE report for the GOA groundfish fisheries, dated November 2024 (see ADDRESSES ). The SAFE report contains a review of the latest scientific analyses and estimates of each species' biomass and past, present, and possible future condition of the stocks and groundfish fisheries off Alaska. The SAFE report also contains an economic summary informed by the Economic SAFE and ecosystem information summarized from the Ecosystem Status Report (ESR).

The ESRs compile and summarize information about the status of the Alaska marine ecosystems for the Plan Team, SSC, AP, Council, NMFS, and the public, and they are updated annually. The ESRs include ecosystem report cards, ecosystem assessments, and ecosystem status indicators ( e.g., climate indices, sea surface temperature), which together provide context for ecosystem-based fisheries management in Alaska. The ESRs inform stock assessments and are integrated into the annual harvest recommendations through inclusion in stock assessments, including stock-specific risk tables. The ESRs provide context for the SSC's recommendations for overfishing limits (OFLs) and ABCs, as well as for the Council's TAC recommendations. The SAFE reports and the ESRs are presented to the Plan Team and at the October and December Council meetings before the SSC, AP, and Council make groundfish harvest recommendations and aid NMFS in implementing these annual groundfish harvest specifications. An ESR is prepared for the GOA ecosystem, the eastern Bering Sea ecosystem, and Aleutian Islands ecosystem.

The SAFE report also includes information on the economic condition of the groundfish fisheries off Alaska through the Economic Status Report. The SAFE report provides information to the Council and NMFS for recommending and setting, respectively, annual harvest levels for each stock, and for documenting significant trends or changes in the resource, marine ecosystems, and fisheries over time. From these data and analyses, the Plan Team recommends, and the SSC sets, an OFL and ABC for each species and species group. The 2024 SAFE report was made available for public review during the public comment period for the proposed harvest specifications.

In previous years, the greatest changes from the proposed to the final harvest specifications were based on recent NMFS stock surveys, which provide updated estimates of stock biomass and spatial distribution, and changes to the models used for producing stock assessments. At the November 2024 Plan Team meeting, NMFS scientists presented updated and new survey results, changes to stock assessment models, and accompanying stock assessment estimates for groundfish species and species groups that are included in the 2024 SAFE report per the stock assessment schedule found in the 2024 SAFE report introduction. The SSC reviewed this information at the December 2024 Council meeting. Changes from the proposed to the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications are discussed below.

The final 2025 and 2026 OFLs and ABCs are based on the 2024 SAFE report. The AP and the Council also review the data and analyses, including the 2024 SAFE report, as well as the Plan Team and SSC recommendations for OFLs and ABCs to develop their TAC recommendations. The FMP specifies the formulas, or tiers, for computing OFLs and ABCs. The formulas applicable to a particular stock or stock complex are determined by the level of reliable information available to fisheries scientists. This information is categorized into a successive series of six tiers to define OFL and ABC amounts, with Tier 1 representing the highest level of information quality available and Tier 6 representing the lowest level of information quality available. The Plan Team used the FMP tier structure to calculate OFL and ABC amounts for each groundfish species. The SSC adopted the final 2025 and 2026 OFLs and ABCs recommended by the Plan Team, with the exception of the ABC for sablefish. The SSC recommended a 5 percent reduction from max ABC for 2025 and 2026. After reviewing current stock status and ecosystem factors, the SSC determined a more conservative buffer between OFL and ABC for sablefish was warranted than the Plan Team's recommendation.

The Council adopted the SSC's OFLs and ABCs and the AP's TAC recommendations. The final TAC recommendations are based on the ABCs and are adjusted for other biological and socioeconomic considerations, including maintaining the sum of all TACs within the required OY range of 116,000 to 800,000 mt. The Council recommended 2025 and 2026 TACs that are equal to sub-area apportionments of ABCs for all stocks and stock complexes except for the following species: (1) pollock in the combined Western/Central/West Yakutat (W/C/WYK) area; (2) Pacific cod; (3) Western GOA shallow-water flatfish; (4) Western GOA arrowtooth flounder; (5) Western GOA flathead sole; (6) SEO district other rockfish; and (7) Atka mackerel. For sub-area apportionments of ABCs and TACs, refer to tables 1 and 2.

The final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications approved by the Secretary of Commerce are unchanged from those recommended by the SSC and Council and are consistent with the preferred harvest strategy outlined in the FMP, as well as the Final EIS and ROD, because they were set through the harvest specifications process. None of the TACs exceed the recommended ABCs, and the sum of all TACs is within the OY range (see ADDRESSES ). NMFS has reviewed the recommendations of the SSC and Council for OFLs, ABCs, and TACs for target species and species groups in the GOA as well as any other relevant information. Based on that review, NMFS is specifying the OFLs, ABCs, and TACs set forth in tables 1 through 27 of this final rule as consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and other applicable law.

NMFS finds that the Council's recommended OFLs, ABCs, and TACs are consistent with the biological condition of the groundfish stocks as described in the final 2024 SAFE report, while also accounting for ecosystem and socioeconomic information presented in the 2024 SAFE report (which includes the GOA ESR). NMFS also finds that the Council's recommendations for TACs are consistent with the biological condition of groundfish stocks as adjusted for other biological and socioeconomic considerations, including maintaining the sum of all TACs within the OY range. The TACs are set equal to sub-area apportionments of ABCs for all stocks and stock complexes except for pollock in the combined W/C/WYK area, Pacific cod, Western GOA shallow-water flatfish, Western GOA arrowtooth flounder, Western GOA flathead sole, SEO District other rockfish, Atka mackerel, and octopus. The combined W/C/WYK pollock TAC and the GOA Pacific cod TACs are set to account for the State's guideline harvest levels (GHLs) so that the ABCs for pollock and Pacific cod are not exceeded. NMFS set the octopus TAC to account for the State's GHR so that the ABC for octopus is not exceeded. The Western GOA shallow-water flatfish, Western GOA arrowtooth flounder, and Western GOA flathead sole TACs are set to allow for increased harvest opportunities for these target species while conserving the halibut PSC limit for use in other, more fully utilized fisheries. The other rockfish TAC in the SEO District is set to reduce the amount of discards of the species in that complex. The Atka mackerel TAC is set to accommodate incidental catch amounts (ICA) in other fisheries. NMFS reviewed the Council's recommended TACs and apportionments, and NMFS approves these harvest specifications under § 679.20(c)(3)(ii). The apportionment of TAC amounts among gear types and sectors, processing sectors, and seasons is discussed below.

Tables 1 and 2 list the final 2025 and 2026 OFLs, ABCs, TACs, and area apportionments of groundfish in the GOA. The 2025 harvest specifications set in this final action supersede the 2025 harvest specifications previously set in the final 2024 and 2025 harvest specifications (89 FR 15484, March 4, 2024). Pursuant to this final action, the 2025 harvest specifications are effective from 1,200 hours, A.l.t., March 18, 2025, through 2,400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2025, and the 2026 harvest specifications are effective from 0001 hours, A.l.t., January 1, 2026, through 1,200 hours, A.l.t., March 17, 2026.

NMFS's apportionment of groundfish species is based on the distribution of biomass among the regulatory areas over which NMFS manages the species. Additional regulations that govern the apportionment of pollock, Pacific cod, and sablefish are described below.

The TAC for the pollock stock in the combined W/C/WYK areas is set to account for the GHL established by the State for the Prince William Sound (PWS) pollock fishery. The Plan Team, SSC, AP, and Council have recommended that the sum of all State waters and Federal waters pollock removals from the GOA not exceed ABC recommendations. State fisheries managers set the PWS pollock GHL at 2.5 percent of the annual W/C/WYK pollock ABC. For 2025, this yields a PWS pollock GHL of 4,526 mt. For 2026, the PWS pollock GHL is 3,326 mt. After the GHL reductions, the 2025 and 2026 pollock ABCs for the combined W/C/WYK areas are then apportioned between four statistical areas ( i.e., Areas 610, 620, 630, and 640), as described below and detailed in tables 1 and 2. The ABCs and TACs for the four statistical areas, plus the State PWS GHL, do not exceed the combined W/C/WYK ABC.

Apportionments of pollock to the W/C/WYK areas are considered to be apportionments of the TAC. This more accurately reflects that such apportionments address management, rather than biological or conservation, concerns. In addition, apportionments of the TAC in this manner allow NMFS to balance any transfer of TAC among Areas 610, 620, and 630 pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B) to ensure that the combined W/C/WYK ABC, ACL, and TAC are not exceeded.

NMFS establishes pollock TACs in the Western (Area 610) and Central (Areas 620 and 630) Regulatory Areas and the West Yakutat (Area 640) and the SEO (Area 650) Districts of the GOA (see tables 1 and 2). NMFS also establishes seasonal apportionments of the annual pollock TACs in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA among Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630. Additional detail on area apportionments and seasonal allowances is provided in the Apportionments of Pollock TAC Among Seasons and Regulatory Areas, and Allocations for Processing by Inshore and Offshore Components section of this rule. Tables 3 and 4 list these amounts.

The 2025 and 2026 Pacific cod TACs are set to account for the State's GHLs for Pacific cod in State waters in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas, as well as in PWS (in the Eastern Regulatory Area). The Plan Team, SSC, AP, and Council recommended that the sum of all State waters and Federal waters Pacific cod removals from the GOA not exceed ABC recommendations. The Council recommended setting the 2025 and 2026 Pacific cod TACs in the Western, Central, and Eastern Regulatory Areas to account for State GHLs. After taking into account the GHL fisheries, the 2025 Pacific cod TACs are less than the ABCs by the following amounts: (1) Western GOA, 2,613 mt; (2) Central GOA, 5,127 mt; and (3) Eastern GOA, 731 mt. The 2026 Pacific cod TACs are less than the ABCs by the following amounts: (1) Western GOA, 2,455 mt; (2) Central GOA, 4,816 mt; and (3) Eastern GOA, 687 mt. These amounts reflect the State's 2025 and 2026 GHLs in these areas, which are 30 percent of the Western GOA ABC and 25 percent of the Eastern and Central GOA ABCs.

The Western and Central GOA Pacific cod TACs are allocated among various gear and operational sectors. NMFS also establishes seasonal apportionments of the annual Pacific cod TACs in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas. The Pacific cod sector and seasonal apportionments are discussed in detail in the Annual and Seasonal Apportionments of Pacific Cod TAC section and in tables 5 and 6 of this rule.

The Council's recommendation for sablefish area apportionments takes into account the prohibition on the use of trawl gear in the SEO District of the Eastern Regulatory Area (§ 679.7(b)(1)) and makes available 5 percent of the combined Eastern Regulatory Area TACs to vessels using trawl gear for use as incidental catch in other trawl groundfish fisheries in the WYK District (§ 679.20(a)(4)(i)). Tables 7 and 8 list the final 2025 and 2026 allocations of sablefish TAC to fixed gear and trawl gear in the GOA.

In October 2024, the Council's recommendations for the proposed 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications (89 FR 94680, November 29, 2024) were based largely on information contained in the final 2023 SAFE report for the GOA groundfish fisheries, dated November 2023. The final 2023 SAFE report for the GOA is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES ). The Council proposed that the final OFLs, ABCs, and TACs established for the 2025 groundfish fisheries (89 FR 15484, March 4, 2024) be used for the proposed 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications pending completion and review of the 2024 SAFE report at the Council's December 2024 meeting.

The final 2025 TACs are higher than the proposed 2025 TACs published in the proposed 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for pollock, Pacific cod, sablefish, deep-water flatfish, rex sole, arrowtooth flounder, flathead sole, Pacific ocean perch, northern rockfish, rougheye and blackspotted rockfish, and demersal shelf rockfish. The final 2025 TACs are lower than the proposed 2025 TACs for shallow-water flatfish, dusky rockfish, thornyhead rockfish, other rockfish, and octopus. The final 2026 TACs are higher than the proposed 2026 GOA TACs for Pacific cod, shallow-water flatfish, arrowtooth flounder, flathead sole, northern rockfish, rougheye and blackspotted rockfish, and demersal shelf rockfish. The final 2026 TACs are lower than the proposed 2026 TACs for pollock, sablefish, deep-water flatfish, rex sole, Pacific ocean perch, dusky rockfish, thornyhead rockfish, other rockfish, and octopus. For the remaining target species the Council recommended the final 2025 and 2026 TACs that are the same as the proposed 2025 and 2026 TACs.

Additional information explaining the changes between the proposed and final ABCs is included in the final 2024 SAFE report, which was not completed and available when the Council made its proposed ABC and TAC recommendations in October 2024. At that time, the most recent stock assessment information was contained in the final 2023 SAFE report. For the final specifications, the final 2024 SAFE report contains the best and most recent scientific information on the condition of the groundfish stocks, harvest information, and ecosystem and socioeconomic information, as previously discussed in this preamble, and is available for review (see ADDRESSES ). The Council considered the 2024 SAFE report in December 2024 when it made recommendations to NMFS for the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications. In the GOA, the total final 2025 TAC amount is 514,619 mt, an increase of 6.77 percent from the total proposed 2025 TAC amount of 482,000 mt. The total final 2026 TAC amount is 464,741 mt, a decrease of 3.58 percent from the total proposed 2026 TAC amount of 482,000 mt. Table A summarizes the difference between the proposed and final TACs.

Annual stock assessments incorporate a variety of new or revised inputs, such as survey data or catch information, as well as changes to the statistical models used to estimate a species' biomass and population trend. Changes to biomass and ABC estimates are primarily based on fishery catch updates to species' assessment models.

The changes for individual species or species groups from the proposed 2025 TACs to the final 2025 TACs are within a range of plus 135 percent and minus 18 percent, and the changes from the proposed 2026 TACs to the final 2026 TACs are within the same range. Differences in TACs are based on changes in the estimates of overall biomass in the stock assessment for 2025 and 2026, as compared to the estimates previously made for 2024 and 2025. For 2025, the species or species group with TAC increases greater than 10 percent are pollock, Pacific cod, rougheye and blackspotted rockfish, and demersal shelf rockfish. For 2026, the species or species group with TAC increases greater than ten percent are rougheye and blackspotted rockfish and demersal shelf rockfish. Based on changes in the estimates of biomass, the species group with TAC percentage decreases greater than 10 percent are pollock (2026), dusky rockfish (2025 and 2026), thornyhead rockfish (2025 and 2026), and other rockfish (2025 and 2026). For all other species and species groups, changes from the proposed 2025 and 2026 TACs to the final 2025 and 2026 TACs are less than a 10 percent net change. These TAC changes correspond to associated changes in the OFLs and ABCs as recommended by the SSC.

Detailed information providing the basis for the changes described above is contained in the final 2024 SAFE report. The final TACs are consistent with the biological condition of groundfish stocks as described in the 2024 SAFE report. The final ABCs reflect harvest amounts that are less than the specified OFLs. The final TACs are adjusted for other biological and socioeconomic considerations and do not exceed ABCs. These TACs are specified in compliance with the harvest strategy from the FMP and Final EIS and as described in the proposed and final rules for the 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications.

The final 2025 and 2026 TAC amounts for the GOA are within the OY range established for the GOA and do not exceed the ABC for any species or species group. The ABC does not exceed the OFL for any species or species group. Tables 1 and 2 list the final OFL, ABC, and TAC amounts for GOA groundfish for 2025 and 2026, respectively.

Beginning in 1995, fishing for Pacific halibut and sablefish with fixed gear in the IFQ regulatory areas defined in 50 CFR 679.2 has been managed under the IFQ Program. The IFQ Program is a regulatory regime designed to promote the conservation and management of these fisheries and to further the objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Northern Pacific Halibut Act. Persons holding quota share receive an annual allocation of IFQ. Persons receiving an annual allocation of IFQ are authorized to harvest IFQ species within specified limitations. Further information on the implementation of the IFQ Program, and the rationale supporting it, are contained in the preamble to the final rule implementing the IFQ Program published in the Federal Register , November 9, 1993 (58 FR 59375) and subsequent amendments.

Directed fishing for sablefish using fixed gear in any IFQ regulatory area is authorized only during the period specified by the Regional Administrator, who must take into account the opening date of the halibut season when determining the opening date for sablefish for the purposes of reducing bycatch and regulatory discards between the two fisheries (50 CFR 679.23(g)(1)). This announcement is consistent with and required by § 679.23(g)(1), which requires that the directed fishing season for sablefish managed under the IFQ Program be specified by the Administrator, Alaska Region, and announced by publication in the Federal Register . This method of season announcement was selected to facilitate coordination between the sablefish season, chosen by the Administrator, Alaska Region, and the halibut season, adopted by the IPHC. The directed fishing season for sablefish with fixed gear managed under the IFQ Program will open 1200 hours, A.l.t., March 20, 2025, and will close 1200 hours, A.l.t., December 7, 2025. This period runs concurrently with the IFQ season for Pacific halibut announced by the IPHC, except the hours are not the same. The IFQ and CDQ halibut season will be specified by a separate publication in the Federal Register of annual management measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62.

There is a difference in the time of day for opening and closing the halibut IFQ and CDQ commercial fishery and the Alaska IFQ and CDQ sablefish commercial fishery. IPHC regulations open the halibut IFQ and CDQ fishery at 0600 hours, A.l.t., on March 20, 2025, and NMFS will open the Alaska IFQ and CDQ sablefish fishery at 1200 hours, A.l.t., on March 20, 2025, pursuant to regulations that require that the time of all openings and closures of fishing seasons, other than the beginning and end of the calendar fishing year, is 1200 hours, A.l.t. (50 CFR 679.23(b)). Therefore, if gear is deployed to fish for halibut in the commercial fishery off Alaska before 1200 hours, A.l.t., on March 20, 2025, then IFQ or CDQ sablefish caught from that deployment may not be retained. If a vessel operator holds both halibut and sablefish IFQ or CDQ, and the operator intends to retain sablefish on March 20, then the vessel should deploy its commercial fishing gear after 1200 hours, A.l.t.

IPHC regulations close the halibut IFQ and CDQ fishery at 2359 hours, A.l.t., on December 7, 2025, and NMFS will close the Alaska IFQ and CDQ sablefish fishery at 1200 hours, A.l.t., on December 7, 2025 (50 CFR 679.23(b)). Therefore, if gear is deployed to fish for halibut in the commercial fishery off Alaska after 1200 hours, A.l.t., on December 7, 2025, then IFQ and CDQ sablefish caught from that deployment may only be retained up to the Maximum Retainable Amount (MRA). If a vessel operator holds both halibut and sablefish IFQ or CDQ, and the operator intends to retain sablefish on December 7, 2025, after 1200 hours, A.l.t., then the vessel may only retain IFQ or CDQ sablefish in accordance with the MRA regulations at § 679.20(e).

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would delay the opening of the sablefish fishery thereby preventing holders of sablefish IFQ and CDQ from participating in the Alaska IFQ and CDQ sablefish fishery, increasing bycatch and regulatory discards between the sablefish fishery and the halibut fishery, and preventing the accomplishment of the management objective for simultaneous opening of these two fisheries. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the relevant information for opening the Alaska IFQ and CDQ sablefish fishery only became available as of March 12, 2025. In addition, NMFS developed this action to open the Alaska IFQ and CDQ sablefish fishery concurrently with the halibut IFQ and CDQ fishery as quickly as possible given the other rulemakings necessary to provide notice of the harvest limits, allocations, and halibut season dates for the fisheries.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.