On November 9, 2016, Midwest Fastener, an importer of zinc and nylon anchors, filed a request with Commerce for a scope ruling that its zinc and nylon anchors should be excluded from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty Orders   1 on certain steel nails from Vietnam. 2 Midwest Fastener described the zinc and nylon anchors as a unitary article of commerce consisting of two parts: (1) A zinc alloy or nylon body; and (2) a zinc plated steel pin. 3

On May 17, 2017, Commerce issued its Final Scope Ruling, in which it determined that Midwest Fastener's zinc and nylon anchors are unambiguously within the scope of the Orders based upon the plain meaning of the Orders and the description of the zinc and nylon anchors contained in Midwest Fastener's scope ruling request and supplemental questionnaire responses. 4 Commerce also found that several factors under 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1)—particularly the petition, the final determination of the International Trade Commission (ITC) issued in connection with the underlying investigation, and prior scope rulings—further supported Commerce's determination that Midwest Fastener's zinc and nylon anchors fall within the scope of the Orders. 5 As a result of the Final Scope Ruling, Commerce instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue suspension of liquidation of entries of Midwest Fastener's zinc and nylon anchors. 6

Midwest Fastener challenged the Final Scope Ruling before the CIT, and on October 1, 2018, the CIT remanded Commerce's scope ruling. 7 In its Remand Order, the CIT held that Midwest Fastener's zinc and nylon anchors, as unitary articles of commerce, are not a “nail” within the plain meaning of the word and are, therefore, outside the scope of the Orders. 8 The CIT relied on dictionary definitions to determine the definition of “nail” and concluded that, because Midwest Fastener's zinc and nylon anchors are a unitary article of commerce, the entire product, not just a component part, must fit the definition of a nail to fall within the scope of the Orders. 9 The CIT held that the entire zinc or nylon anchor is not a nail “constructed of two or more pieces” pursuant to the Orders. 10 Additionally, the CIT held that, because the relevant industry classifies anchors with a steel pin as anchors, not nails, trade usage further supports the conclusion that Midwest Fastener's zinc and nylon anchors are not nails. 11 In support of its conclusion, the CIT cited its decision in OMG, Inc. v. United States, in which it found a product with a zinc anchor body and a steel pin outside the scope of the Orders. 12

The CIT remanded the Final Scope Ruling to Commerce for further consideration consistent with the CIT's opinion. 13 The CIT also directed Commerce to issue appropriate instructions to CBP regarding the suspension of liquidation of Midwest Fastener's zinc and nylon anchors. 14

Pursuant to the CIT's instructions, on remand, under protest, Commerce found that Midwest Fastener's zinc and nylon anchors do not fall within the scope of the Orders. 15 On June 3, 2019, the CIT sustained Commerce's Final Remand Results. 16

In its decision in Timken, 17 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 18 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held that, pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of court decision that is not “in harmony” with Commerce's determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's June 3, 2019 judgment in this case, sustaining Commerce's decision in the Final Remand Results that Midwest Fastener's zinc and nylon anchors fall outside the scope of the Orders, constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Final Scope Ruling. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, Commerce will continue the suspension of liquidation of Midwest Fastener's zinc and nylon anchors pending expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision.

Because there is now a final court decision with respect to this case, Commerce is amending its Final Scope Ruling and finds that the scope of the Orders does not cover the zinc and nylon anchors specified in Midwest Fastener's Scope Ruling Request. Commerce will instruct CBP that the cash deposit rate will be zero percent for the zinc and nylon anchors subject to Midwest Fastener's scope ruling request. In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or if appealed, upheld by the CAFC, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of Midwest Fastener's zinc and nylon anchors without regard to antidumping and/or countervailing duties, and to lift suspension of liquidation of such entries.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(e)(1) of the Act.

On November 6, 2018, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of this administrative review. 1 On December 18, 2018, Commerce postponed the final results of review by 58 days until May 3, 2019. 2 Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the partial federal government closure from December 22, 2018 through the resumption of operations on January 29, 2019. 3 Accordingly, the revised deadline for these final results is June 12, 2019.

On March 4, 2019, Nucor Corporation (Nucor) submitted pre-verification comments on the record of this administrative review. 4 Between March 7, 2019 and March 12, 2019, we conducted verifications of the questionnaire responses submitted by Hyundai Steel Co., Ltd. (Hyundai Steel) and POSCO. We released verification reports on April 9, 2019. 5

On April 19, 2019, Nucor, POSCO, and Hyundai Steel submitted timely case briefs. 6 Each also submitted timely rebuttal briefs on April 24, 2019. 7

Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The merchandise covered by the order is certain hot-rolled steel flat products. For a complete description of the scope of the order, see attachment to the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

All issues raised in interested parties' case briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The issues are identified in the Appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on the comments received from the interested parties and information received from Hyundai Steel after the Preliminary Results, we made changes to the net subsidy rates calculated for the mandatory respondents. For a discussion of these issues, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

For the companies not selected for individual review, because the rates calculated for Hyundai Steel and POSCO were above de minimis and not based entirely on facts available, we applied a subsidy rate based on a weighted-average of the subsidy rates calculated for Hyundai Steel and POSCO using publicly ranged sales data submitted by the respondents. This is consistent with the methodology that we would use in an investigation to establish the all-others rate, pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act.

We determine that, for the period of August 12, 2016 through December 31, 2016, the following total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates exist:

Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for these final results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce intends to issue appropriate instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after publication of the final results of this review. We will instruct CBP to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by the companies listed above, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, from August 12, 2016 through December 31, 2016, at the ad valorem rates listed above.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies listed in these final results will be equal to the subsidy rates established in the final results of this review; (2) for all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most-recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

These final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

Background

The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed incidental take authorization may be provided to the public for review.

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.

The NDAA for FY 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations indicated above and amended the definition of “harassment” as it applies to a “military readiness activity.” The activity for which incidental take of marine mammals is being requested addressed here qualifies as a military readiness activity. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.

On December 13, 2018, NMFS received a request from the Navy for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to target and missile launch activities on SNI. The application was deemed adequate and complete on April 10, 2019. The Navy's requested take of California sea lions ( Zalophus californianus ), harbor seals ( Phoca vitulina ), and northern elephant seals ( Mirounga angustirostris ) by Level B harassment only. Neither the Navy nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

NMFS has previously issued incidental take authorizations to the Navy for similar launch activities since 2001 with the current authorization in effect until June 3, 2019 (79 FR 32678; June 6, 2014 and 79 FR 32919; June 9, 2014).

The Navy plans to continue a target and missile launch program from two launch sites on SNI for testing and training activities associated with operations on the NAWCWD PMSR. SNI is one of the eight Channel Islands in the Southern California Bight, located about 105 kilometers (km) southwest of Point Mugu. The missiles are launched from one of several fixed locations on the western end of SNI. Missiles launched from SNI fly generally west, southwest, and northwest through the PMSR. The primary launch locations are the Alpha Launch Complex, located 190 meters (m) above sea level on the west-central part of SNI and the Building 807 Launch Complex, which accommodates several fixed and mobile launchers, at the western end of SNI at approximately 11 m above sea level. The Point Mugu airfield on the mainland, the airfield on SNI, and the target sites in the PMSR will be a routine part of launch operations.

Many of the beaches and rocky outcroppings around the perimeter of SNI are pinniped resting, molting, or breeding sites. The Alpha Launch Complex is approximately 2 km from the nearest beach where pinnipeds are known to routinely haul out. The Building 807 Launch Complex is 30 m from the nearest pinniped haulout.

Missiles vary from tactical and developmental weapons to target missiles used to test defensive strategies and other weapons systems. Some launch events involve a single missile, while others involve the launch of multiple missiles in quick succession. The Navy could conduct up to 40 missile launch events from SNI, but the total may be less than 40 depending on operational requirements. Launch timing will be determined by operational, meteorological, and logistical factors. Up to 10 of the 40 launches may occur at night, but this is also dependent on operational requirements and only conducted when required by test objectives. Airborne sound from these launch events may result in take of pinnipeds that are hauled out on SNI, by Level B harassment only. All flights over SNI would be subsonic; therefore, there would be no sonic booms that could affect pinnipeds hauled out at sites on SNI.

Missiles are rocket-propelled weapons designed to deliver an explosive warhead with accuracy at high speed. Missiles vary from small tactical weapons that are effective out to only a few hundred feet to much larger strategic weapons that have ranges of several thousand miles. Almost all missiles contain some form of guidance and control mechanism and are therefore often referred to as guided missiles. Guided missiles have four system components: Targeting or missile guidance, flight system, engine, and warhead. A guided missile powered along a low, level flight path by an air-breathing jet engine is called a cruise missile. An unguided military missile, as well as any launch vehicle, is usually referred to as a rocket. Tactical guided missiles are generally categorized according to the location of the launch platform and target and include: Air-to-air, air-to-surface, surface-to-air, anti-ship, and anti-tank (or assault).

Further details of the Navy's launch activities are provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (84 FR 18809; May 2, 2019).

A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to the Navy was published in the Federal Register on May 2, 2019 (84 FR 18809). That notice described, in detail, the Navy's activity, the marine mammal species that may be affected by the activity, and the anticipated effects on marine mammals. During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission). For full details of the Commission's comments, please see their letter, which is available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities . Summaries of the Commission's comments, and our responses, are provided below.

Comment: The Commission comments on many aspects of this IHA related to in-air thresholds. The Commission claimed that the thresholds for TTS/PTS stipulated in the Navy's Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) Technical Report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017) were incorrect and that revised thresholds presented in Southall et al., 2019 should be used. The Commission comments that the historical behavioral thresholds of 90 dB SPL for harbor seals/100 dB SPL for all other pinnipeds are what should be used for this IHA rather than the proposed 100 dB SEL value for all pinnipeds.

Response: Upon review of the Commission's comments and the two sets of thresholds, as well as additional communication with the authors of Southall et al., 2019, we have determined that the Navy's thresholds in the Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) Technical Report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017) for TTS/PTS are correct and, in fact, errors have been found in Southall et al., 2019. (The authors plan to address these errors in the publication). In addition, the issues the Commission points out regarding in-air behavioral thresholds are not applicable, as the estimated takes are based on the last three years of pinniped observation from Navy's monitoring reports and not directly based on specific in-air thresholds. The beaches that the Navy surveys are largely based on where sound received is expected to reach 100 dB SEL or greater and where animals are reacting to launch noises. In the case of harbor seals, the Navy is already monitoring beaches where sound levels are less than 100 dB SEL and often under 90 dB SPL (site O—Phoca Reef and Pirates Cove). The Navy is monitoring at site O because oftentimes the harbor seals are not hauled out on the western end of SNI on the typically monitored beaches during launch events. The Navy is cognizant of the fact that some harbor seals are reacting to sound levels lower than 90 dB SPL. Accordingly, the Navy is monitoring those pinnipeds and requesting additional take by Level B harassment to account for this potential (see Estimated Take section).

In addition, the Navy has previously surveyed other parts of SNI to determine if pinnipeds are reacting in response to launch events. The Navy conducted surveys of the eastern end of SNI and did not find pinnipeds reacting to launch events. The Navy has also conducted surveys on adjacent beaches to those that are typically monitored and did not find pinnipeds that reacted to launch events ( e.g., Coast Guard Beach in the Navy's 2015 monitoring report).

In summary, upon review of new information suggested by the Commission, the TTS/PTS thresholds originally proposed for use remain the best available scientific information. We also believe that the behavioral threshold proposed for use in this context is appropriate; however, the specific threshold discussed is of less importance here because the actual amount of authorized takes by Level B harassment are based on actual field monitoring conducted by the Navy of the pinniped haulout areas that could potentially be affected by noise form launch events.

Comment: The Commission recommends that NMFS use its standard tiered scale for determining when disturbance of hauled pinnipeds equates to Level B harassment for all activities, i.e., based on animals moving at least two body lengths rather than animals moving at least 10 m, as was proposed for the Navy's launch activities at SNI.

Response: The Navy's activities are considered military readiness activities, for which a different definition of Level B harassment is applied. For military readiness activities, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B harassment). The Navy has developed a slightly different version of the criteria for determining when behavioral response of a hauled pinniped rises to the level of harassment, as is appropriate for use with the definition of Level B harassment associated with military readiness activities. NMFS has determined that this version, which has been used in prior incidental take authorizations associated with launch activities on SNI (79 FR 32678; June 6, 2014), is appropriate for evaluating Level B harassment in association with this specified activity. NMFS may re-evaluate these criteria with the Navy for any subsequent applications we receive from for these activities.

Comment: The Commission comments that previous Navy monitoring reports from 2014-17 have indicated that for all but one launch 100 percent of the hauled out harbor seals within the view of the monitoring camera responded to the launch and, because of this, NMFS's presumption that only 2.39 harbor seals are taken per launch is an underestimate.

Response: In general, in recent years, few harbor seals have been observed during launch events. NMFS' take estimate of 3 (rounded from 2.39) harbor seals per launch is an average of animals taken during the 2015-2017 monitoring seasons. The average was calculated from the Navy's total of taken harbor seals during each launch. Using observations to determine a take estimate, especially in cases where so few numbers of harbor seals were present, is an appropriate use of available data. This average take estimate per launch is not the authorized value for a single launch event. The number of authorized launch events (40) is multiplied by 3 harbor seals (2.39 harbor seals conservatively rounded up) to obtain a take estimate of 120 instances of take for harbor seals by Level B harassment which can be distributed in varying ways across the total number of launch events.

There have been cases where the Navy observed harbor seals outside of the field of view in the camera and assumed they were taken by the launch. In the 2014 monitoring report, the Navy considered all 40 harbor seals observed as taken during a launch event even though they were not in the view of the camera during the launch, but observed during the visual count before the launch. Had NMFS used these 2014 monitoring results in its calculations, then we would have also considered these animals as taken even though they were not in the view of the camera. NMFS did not use this year in its take calculations because harbor seals have not been observed in this area during launch events over the last three years.

Comment: The Commission commented that NMFS did not authorize enough take for pinnipeds based on a variety of factors including the following: (1) The Commission assumes a 100-percent response rate (for harbor seals); (2) the Commission states that additional animals outside the regularly monitored areas should be assumed to be taken (harbor seals); and (3) the Commission's recommendation to use NMFS's non-military readiness pinniped disturbance criteria rather than the military readiness disturbance criteria developed by the Navy. The Commission recommends that NMFS authorize additional Level B harassment takes for all species.

Response: For harbor seals, NMFS believes the amount of Level B harassment takes suggested as appropriate by the Commission would be an overestimate based on previous observations during Navy's launch events. Before the launch events, the Navy monitors several sites around the western end of SNI to determine where pinnipeds are hauled out and what species are on the beaches. During this pre-launch monitoring, harbor seals are frequently not present. That said, NMFS understands the Commission's concerns, but taking a peak count in July and applying it over the entire year for every launch is not reasonable. To account for the possibility of some harbor seals hauling out and then reacting to a launch in a way equivalent to a take, NMFS has adjusted the take estimate from 120 to 480 harbor seals. Instead of taking an average per launch, the revised take estimate is developed by taking the total number of takes (12) and multiplying that by 40 launch events for a total of 480 instances of take by Level B harassment for harbor seals. NMFS believes that the number of authorized take is adequate and sufficient for California sea lions and elephant seals. These are based on animals taken by Level B harassment per the Navy's monitoring reports from 2015-2017.

Comment: The Commission commented on a mitigation measure that was in the Navy's application, but not included in the proposed IHA. The mitigation measure required that the Navy avoid launching multiple missiles in quick succession over haulout sites, especially when young pups are present. The Commission recommends that NMFS require the Navy to avoid launching multiple missiles in quick succession over haulout sites, especially when young pups are present as this mitigation measure was previously required in prior incidental take authorizations for this activity.

Response: Before the proposed IHA was published, the Navy indicated that it could not fulfill the mitigation measure and had mistakenly included the measure its application. The Navy indicated that it is already limiting or avoiding launches during much of the year during the pupping season for pinnipeds and could not be limited further due to practicability and mission objectives. Therefore, the mitigation measure was not included in the proposed IHA.

Comment: The Commission commented that NMFS (1) enlist its technical experts to review the proposed acoustic monitoring plan, including the relevant metrics and thresholds to report, (2) require the Navy to revise the plan as necessary based on that review, and (3) require the Navy, in the final authorization, to collect and report its acoustic measurements consistent with any revisions.

Response: NMFS reviewed the acoustic monitoring plan and clarified a few items in the Navy's application. In the final IHA, the Navy is required to conduct acoustic monitoring according to this slightly modified.

Comment: The Commission questioned whether the public notice provisions for IHA Renewals fully satisfy the public notice and comment provision in the MMPA and discussed the potential burden on reviewers of reviewing key documents and developing comments quickly. Additionally, the Commission recommended that NMFS use the IHA Renewal process sparingly and selectively for activities expected to have the lowest levels of impacts to marine mammals and that require less complex analysis.

Response: NMFS has taken a number of steps to ensure the public has adequate notice, time, and information to be able to comment effectively on IHA Renewals within the limitations of processing IHA applications efficiently. The Federal Register notice for the initial proposed IHA (84 FR 18809; May 2, 2019) previously identified the conditions under which a one-year Renewal IHA might be appropriate. This information is presented in the Request for Public Comments section of the initial proposed IHA and thus encourages submission of comments on the potential of a 1-year renewal as well as the initial IHA during the 30-day comment period. In addition, when we receive an application for a Renewal IHA, we publish a notice of the proposed IHA Renewal in the Federal Register and provide an additional 15 days for public comment, for a total of 45 days of public comment. We will also directly contact all commenters on the initial IHA by email, phone, or, if the commenter did not provide email or phone information, by postal service to provide them the opportunity to submit any additional comments on the proposed Renewal IHA.

NMFS also strives to ensure the public has access to key information needed to submit comments on a proposed IHA, whether an initial IHA or a Renewal IHA. The agency's website includes information for all projects under consideration, including the application, references, and other supporting documents. Each Federal Register notice also includes contact information in the event a commenter has questions or cannot find the information they seek.

Regarding the Commission's comment that Renewal IHAs should be limited to certain types of projects, NMFS has explained on its website and in individual Federal Register notices that Renewal IHAs are appropriate where the continuing activities are identical, nearly identical, or a subset of the activities for which the initial 30-day comment period applied. Where the commenter has likely already reviewed and commented on the initial proposed IHA for these activities, the abbreviated additional comment period is sufficient for consideration of the results of the preliminary monitoring report and new information (if any) from the past year.

Comment: The Commission claims that NMFS did not have sufficient time to review public comments or to revise the proposed IHA accordingly. The Commission recommended that NMFS (1) delay issuance of the Final IHA until it has thoroughly reviewed and assessed the Commission's recommendations and any comments from the public and revised the authorization accordingly and (2) take all steps necessary in the future to ensure that it publishes and finalizes IHAs far enough in advance of the planned start date of the proposed activities to ensure full consideration is given to comments received.

Response: NMFS thanks the Commission for its concerns regarding the IHA process. NMFS had sufficient time and we thoroughly reviewed the comments received. We made all appropriate revisions to the final IHA.

Sections 3 and 4 of the Navy's application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments ) and more general information about these species ( e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS' website ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species ).

Table 1 below lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in the project area and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2018). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.

Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Pacific and Alaska SARs (Carretta et al., 2018). All values presented in Table 1 are the most recent available at the time of publication (draft SARs available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft- marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports ).

Marine mammal species likelihood of occurrence (designated as “unlikely,” “potential” or “likely”) was determined through review of NMFS SARs, species-specific literature research, and SNI monitoring reports (Table 1). “Unlikely” means occurrence is not expected, “potential” means the species may occur or there is casual occurrence history, and “likely” means there is a strong possibility of or regular occurrence in the project area.

A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by the Navy's project, including brief introductions to the species and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (84 FR 18809; May 2, 2019); since that time, we are not aware of any changes in the status of these species and stocks; therefore, detailed descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for these descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS' website ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species ) for generalized species accounts.

Distribution of California sea lions, harbor seals, and harbor seals on SNI, as well as on the other Channel Islands, was conducted during the NMFS' Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) July 2011-2015 survey. In 1987, the SWFSC began using aerial photography at the Channel Islands to census pinnipeds. Years later, the survey expanded to include all the Channel Islands in aerial surveys). July surveys are intended to census California sea lions after all pups have been born to monitor population trends and abundance of the U.S. population and to collect summer residence count-data for northern elephant seals and harbor seals (Lowry et al., 20187b). The perimeter of SNI was divided into small area-coded units to describe intra-island distribution of pinnipeds as shown in Figure 1 below. We include Figure 1 here as a reference when describing some of the census data by Lowry et al. (2017b) in the Estimated Take section, to describe what areas may be impacted by launch events and where the Navy is monitoring pinnipeds.

Acoustic effects on marine mammals during the specified activity can occur from target and missile launch activities. The effects of airborne noise from the Navy's planned activities have the potential to result in Level B harassment of pinnipeds hauled out on SNI, which could cause a disruption of natural behavioral patterns such as flushing into the water. The Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (84 FR 18809; May 2, 2019) included a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals; therefore, that information is not repeated here.

Impacts on marine mammal habitat are part of the consideration in making a finding of negligible impact on the species and stocks of marine mammals. Habitat includes, but is not necessarily limited to, rookeries, mating grounds, feeding areas, and areas of similar significance. We do not anticipate that the planned operations would result in any temporary or permanent effects on the habitats used by the marine mammals on SNI, including the food sources they use ( i.e., fish and invertebrates). While it is anticipated that the activity may result in marine mammals avoiding certain areas due to temporary ensonification, this impact to habitat is temporary and reversible and was considered in further detail earlier in this document, as behavioral modification. The main impact associated with the activity will be temporarily elevated noise levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals. Overall, the launch activities are not expected to cause significant impacts or have permanent, adverse effects on pinniped habitats or on their foraging habitats and prey. These potential effects are discussed in detail in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (84 FR 18809; May 2, 2019), therefore that information is not repeated here.

This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes for authorization through this IHA, which will inform NMFS' negligible impact determination.

Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. For this military readiness activity, the MMPA defines “harassment” as (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B harassment).

Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns (and/or TTS, although only some missile launches have exceeded the level at which TTS onset might occur, particularly for phocids) for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to airborne sounds from rocket and missile launch. Based on the nature of the activity, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor authorized.

As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.

Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available ( e.g., previous monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the factors considered here in more detail and present the authorized take estimate.

Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source ( e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle), the environment ( e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. Generally, for in-air sounds, NMFS predicts that harbor seals exposed above received levels of 90 dB re 20 μPa (rms) will be behaviorally harassed, and other pinnipeds will be harassed when exposed above 100 dB re 20 μPa (rms). However, more recent data suggest that pinnipeds will be harassed when exposure is above 100 dB SEL (unweighted) ( Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) Technical Report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017). NMFS previously helped develop the Phase III criteria and has determined that the criteria and thresholds shown in Table 2 are appropriate to determine when Level B harassment by behavioral disturbance may occur as a result of exposure to airborne sound on SNI. This behavioral disturbance criterion was used to determine the areas that the Navy should monitor based on the sound levels recorded at the pinniped haulouts during launch events. This criterion is not being used to directly estimate the take, rather to assume areas within which pinnipeds hauled out on particular beaches may be harassed (based on the previous acoustic monitoring).

Thresholds have also been developed identifying the received level of in-air sound for the onset of TTS (no PTS is anticipated to occur) for pinnipeds and discussed previously in this document (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017). The TTS/PTS threshold for pinnipeds (in-air) are repeated here (see Table 3 below).

In-air sound propagation from missile launch sources at SNI had not been well studied prior to monitoring work during 2001-2007. During the 2001-2017 period, the strongest sounds originating from a missile in flight over the beaches at SNI were produced by Vandal (no longer launched from SNI) and Coyote launches, with the exception of one SM-2 launched in 2015 (see Table 6-3 of the application, but also Table 4 below). The range of sound levels recorded on SNI during Coyote launches were 128 dB re 20 μPa2·s SEL- (115 dB SEL-A, 123 dB SEL-Mpa) closest to the launcher and ranged from 87 to 119 dB re 20 μPa2·s SEL-f (46 to 107 dB SEL-A, 60 to 114 dB SEL-Mpa weighted) at nearshore locations. These values demonstrate that the sound levels are high enough to cause disturbance based on the behavioral thresholds (Table 2), but below the TTS thresholds (Table 3) during Coyote launches (most frequently launched missile on SNI). For additional information on sound levels please refer to the application.

Coyotes are launched from the inland Alpha Launch Complex so there would be no pinnipeds near the launcher. The pinnipeds closest to the Coyote launches are on the beaches (areas L and M) directly below the flight trajectory, for which the CPA distance is about 0.9 km. Stronger sounds were also recorded at the launcher, but sound levels were dependent on the size of the missile launched. Launches of smaller missiles typically occur from the Building 807 Complex near the beach where the closest pinniped haulouts (area L and portions of K) are located about 0.3 km from the CPA. Harbor seal haulouts (areas L and J) are located at least 1 km from the CPA from the Building 807 Complex. It is important to note that in recent years, harbor seals are not always present when Navy conducts their monitoring during launch events, and there have not been many places to observe harbor seals during the launches. There is not a constant occupation of harbor seals on haulouts and occupation is dependent on tides. Harbor seals tend to be more sensitive to visual cues as well and do not prefer beaches with California sea lions. Most of the beaches where harbor seals are hauled out, and which Navy has been able to monitor, occur in area O which is north of both the Alpha Launch Complex and Building 307 Complex and not in the trajectory of launches that occur from these sites.

The Navy will continue to conduct marine mammal and acoustic measurements during every launch event at three pinniped sites per launch event within areas K, L, M or O. As an example in 2017, the Navy conducted acoustic and marine mammal monitoring during their launch events at beaches with hauled out pinnipeds (see Navy's Table 2.2 from the 2017 monitoring report) in areas M and L (beaches of Dos Cove and Redeye Beach) and in area O (beaches of Pirates Cove and Phoca Reef).

In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations. Some pinnipeds that haul out on the western end of SNI are expected to be within the area where noise from launches exceeds 100 dB SEL. However, it is likely that far fewer pinnipeds occur within the area where sounds from smaller launch missiles, such as the BQM missiles, reach above 100 dB SEL and none of the recorded SELs appear to be sufficiently strong to induce TTS. Previous monitoring during 2001-2017 showed that SELs above 100 dB re 20 μPa 2 ·s were measured in pinniped areas K, L, and M (Cormorant Rock to Red Eye Beach); therefore, these are the areas that the Navy focuses their marine mammal monitoring on. In more recent years, Navy started monitoring area O (Phoca Reef and Pirates Cove) as harbor seals are hauling out here now and not as frequently in areas K, L, and M. Refer to Figure 1 for a map of these areas.

During the July 2011-2015 census, California sea lion counts on SNI averaged 52,634.8 individuals per year (SD = 9,899.0) (Lowry et al., 2017b). Between 2001 and 2017, a maximum of 2,807 instances of take of California sea lions by Level B harassment were estimated to have been potentially harassed in a single monitoring year incidental to missile launches at SNI (Burke 2017; Holst et al. 2010; Holst et al. 2008; Holst et al. 2011; Ugoretz 2016; Ugoretz and Greene Jr. 2012). From the 2015-2017 monitoring seasons, there was a total of 4,940 instances of take of California sea lions by Level B harassment (702 sea lions in 2017, 1431 sea lions in 2016, and 2,807 sea lions in 2015) over 18 launches. Of these results, an average of 274.44 instances of take of sea lions by Level B harassment per launch occurred.

During the July 2011-2015 census, in July 2015 when all the Channel Islands were surveyed for harbor seals, 259 seals were counted at SNI (18.9 percent) (Lowry et al., 2017b). Harbor seals are not uniformly distributed around the perimeter of SNI. During the July 2011-2015 census most harbor seals were mostly found in areas L, N, and Q on SNI (see Figure 1 for a map of these areas). However, in recent years, the Navy has indicated that harbor seals are mostly found and monitored in area O, just north of the launch azimuths on the northern side of the island so that is where they conduct their acoustic and marine mammal monitoring for harbor seals. Between 2001 and 2017, a maximum of 31 instances of take of harbor seals by Level B harassment were estimated in a single monitoring year incidental to missile launches at SNI (Burke 2017; Holst et al. 2010; Holst et al. 2008; Holst et al. 2011; Ugoretz 2016; Ugoretz and Greene Jr. 2012). From the 2015-2017 monitoring seasons, a total of 43 instances of take of harbor seals (8 in 2017, 4 in 2016, and 31 in 2015) by Level B harassment occurred over 18 total launches. Of these results, an average of 2.39 instances of take of harbor seals by Level B harassment per launch occurred. These harbor seals were mostly observed in area O (Phoca Reef and Pirates Cove).

During the July 2011-2015 census, in 2015, when all islands were surveyed for elephant seals, 932 elephant seals were found on SNI (20.5 percent of total). Northern elephant seals were not uniformly distributed around the perimeter of SNI. Area K at SNI had the most elephant seals on island (Lowry et al., 2017b). From the 2015-2017 monitoring seasons, a total of 11 instances of take of elephant seals by Level B harassment occurred (0 in 2017, 1 in 2016, 10 in 2015) of the 100 animals that were observed. Overall, from the 2015-2017 monitoring seasons, 11 instances of take of northern elephant seals by Level B harassment occurred over 18 launch events for an average of 0.61 per launch event.

The NDAA (Pub. L. 103-136) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations indicated above and amended the definition of “harassment” as it applies to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows (section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA): (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A Harassment); or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B Harassment).

It is difficult to derive unequivocal criteria to identify situations in which launch sounds are expected to cause significant disturbance responses to pinnipeds hauled out on SNI. One or more pinnipeds blinking its eyes, lifting or turning its head, or moving a few feet along the beach as a result of a human activity is not considered a “take” under the MMPA definition of harassment. Therefore, the criteria used by the Navy to determine if an animal is affected by a launch event and is taken by Level B harassment is as follows:

1. Pinnipeds that are exposed to launch sounds strong enough to cause TTS; or

2. Pinnipeds that leave the haulout site, or exhibit prolonged movement (>10 m) or prolonged behavioral changes (such as pups separated from mothers) relative to their behavior immediately prior to the launch.

Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate. Previously, take estimates were calculated based on areas ensonified above the behavioral disturbance criterion and the estimated numbers of pinnipeds exposed to at or above that level. However, for this IHA we rely on the past three seasons of monitoring of pinnipeds to determine the take estimate.

For California sea lions, take estimates were derived from three monitoring seasons (2015 to 2017) where an average of 274.44 instances of take of sea lions by Level B harassment occurred per launch event. Therefore, 275 sea lions was then multiplied by 40 launch events, for a conservative take estimate of 11,000 instances of take for California sea lions by Level B harassment (Table 4). This estimate is conservative because the Navy has not conducted more than 25 launch events (although authorized for more) in a given year since 2001.

For harbor seals, this take estimate is a change from the proposed IHA (84 FR 18809; May 2, 2019). The take estimate was revised from 120 to 480 harbor seal instances of take by Level B harassment. A total of 12 takes were derived from the 2016 and 2017 monitoring seasons and multiplied by 40 launch events for a total of 480 instances of take by Level B harassment (Table 4).

For northern elephant seals, take estimates were derived from three monitoring seasons (2015 to 2017) where an average of 0.61 instances of take of northern elephant seals by Level B harassment occurred per launch event. Therefore, one northern elephant seal was then multiplied by 40 launch events for a conservative take estimate of 40 instances of take of northern elephant seals by Level B harassment (Table 4). Generally, northern elephant seals do not react to launch events other than simple alerting responses such as raising their heads or temporarily going from sleeping to being awake; however, to account for the rare instances where they have reacted, the Navy considered that some northern elephant seals that could be taken during launch events.

In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)). The NDAA for FY 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136) amended the MMPA as it relates to military readiness activities and the incidental take authorization process such that “least practicable impact” shall include consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors:

(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned), and;

(2) the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

Personnel will not enter pinniped haulouts. Personnel will be adjacent to pinniped haulouts below the predicted missile path for two hours prior to a launch only for monitoring purposes.

Missiles will not cross over pinniped haulouts at elevations less than 305 m (1,000 ft). Launches at night will be limited. Launches will be avoided during harbor seal pupping season (February through April) unless constrained by mission objectives. Launches will be limited during the pupping season for northern elephant seal (January through February) and California sea lion (June through July) unless constrained by mission objectives or certain other factors. It is vital that the Navy effectively executes readiness activities to ensure naval forces can effectively execute military operations. The ability to schedule and locate training and testing without excessively burdensome restrictions within the Study Area is crucial to ensure those activities are practical, effective, and safe to execute. To meet its military readiness requirements (mission objectives), the Navy requires consistent access to a variety of realistic, tactically-relevant oceanographic and environmental conditions ( e.g., bathymetry, topography, surface fronts, and variations in sea surface temperature), and sea space and airspace that is large enough or situated in a way that allows activities to be completed without physical or logistical obstructions, in order to achieve the highest skill proficiency and most accurate testing results possible in areas analogous to where the military operates.

All aircraft and helicopter flight paths must maintain a minimum distance of 1,000 ft (305 m) from recognized seal haulouts and rookeries), except in emergencies.

Based on our evaluation of the Navy's mitigation measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

If a species for which authorization has not been granted, or a species for which authorization has been granted but the authorized takes are met, the Navy must consult with NMFS before the next launch event.

In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.

Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:

• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated ( e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, density);

• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment ( e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) affected species ( e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or behavioral context of exposure ( e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);

• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;

• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;

• Effects on marine mammal habitat ( e.g., marine mammal prey species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of marine mammal habitat); and

• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

The Navy will conduct suite of monitoring measures on SNI to document impacts of the launch events on marine mammals. These monitoring measures are described below.

The Navy proposes to conduct marine mammal monitoring during launches from SNI, using visual monitoring as well as simultaneous autonomous audio recording of launch sounds and video recording of pinniped behavior. The monitoring (all land-based) will provide data required to characterize the extent and nature of “taking.” In particular, it will provide the information needed to document the nature, frequency, occurrence, and duration of any changes in pinniped behavior that might result from the missile launches, including the occurrence of stampedes.

Visual monitoring, before and after launches, is a scan of the haulout beaches to count pinnipeds over a wider FOV than can be captured by a stationary video camera. This is typically done over a 15-30 minute period. Visual monitoring is conducted while the equipment is being set up and broken down for video and acoustic monitoring which is described in greater detail below. Prior to a launch event, Navy personnel will make observations of the monitored haulout and record the numbers and types of pinnipeds observed, noting the information on field data sheets. After a launch event, Navy personnel will return to the monitored haulout as soon as it is safe, and record the numbers and types of pinnipeds that remain on the haulout sites and any notable changes.

Video monitoring is conducted by recording continuously from a minimum of 2 hours before the event to approximately 1 hour after the event.

These video and audio records will be used to document pinniped responses to the launches. This will include the following components:

Identify and document any change in behavior or movements that may occur at the time of the launch;

Compare received levels of launch sound with pinniped responses, based on acoustic and behavioral data from up to three monitoring sites at different distances from the launch site and missile path during each launch; from the data accumulated across a series of launches, to attempt to establish the “dose-response” relationship for launch sounds under different launch conditions if possible;

Ascertain periods or launch conditions when pinnipeds are most and least responsive to launch activities, and

Document take by harassment.

The launch monitoring program will include remote video recordings before, during, and after launches when pinnipeds are present in the area of potential impact, as well as visual assessment by trained observers before and after the launch. Remote cameras are essential during launches because safety rules prevent personnel from being present in most of the areas of interest. In addition, video techniques will allow simultaneous “observations” at up to three different locations, and will provide a permanent record that can be reviewed in detail. During some launches, the use of video methods may allow observations of up to three pinniped species during the same launch, though in general one or two species will be recorded.

The Navy will seek to obtain video and audio records from up to three locations at different distances from the flight path of each missile launched from SNI. The Navy will try and reduce factors that limit recordings. On occasion, paired video and audio data were obtained from less than three sites during some launches, due to various potential problems with video and acoustic recorders, timing of remote recordings when launches are delayed, absence of pinnipeds from some locations at some times, etc. Corresponding data is available from the previous monitoring periods (2001-2018).

Two different types of cameras will be available for use in obtaining video data simultaneously from three sites:

(1) Small handheld high-definition video cameras on photographic tripods will be set up by Navy personnel at various locations on the day of a launch, with the video data being accessible following the launch. Recording duration varies between 300 and 600 minutes following initiation of record mode on these cameras, depending upon battery life, external memory card availability and other factors. The digital data is later copied to DVD-ROMs for subsequent viewing and analysis; and

(2) Portable Forward-Looking Infrared Radiometer (FLIR) video cameras will be set up by the Navy for nighttime launches. These cameras have a recording duration of approximately 300 minutes from initiation of the record mode. The FLIR video data will be accessible following the launch. The digital data will later be copied to DVD-ROMs for subsequent viewing and analysis.

Before each launch, Navy personnel will set up or activate up to three of the available video cameras such that they overlook chosen haulout sites. Placement will be such that disturbance to the pinnipeds is minimized, and each camera will be set to record a focal subgroup of sea lions or harbor seals within the haulout aggregation for the maximum recording time permitted by the videotape capacity. The entire haulout aggregation on a given beach will not be recorded during some launches, as the wide-angle view necessary to encompass an entire beach would not allow detailed behavioral analyses (Holst et al., 2005a; Holst et al., 2008). It will be more effective to obtain a higher-magnification view of a sample of the animals on the beach. Prior to selecting a focal animal group, a pan of the entire haulout beach and surrounding area will be made in order to document the total number of animals in the area.

Following each launch, video recordings will continue for at least 15 minutes and up to several hours. Greater post-launch time intervals are not advisable as storms and other events may alter the composition of pinniped haulout groups independent of launch events.

Video data will be transferred to DVD-ROMs. A trained biologist will review and code the data from the video data as they are played back to a monitor (Holst et al., 2005a; Holst et al., 2008). The variables transcribed from the videos, or recorded directly at the beach sites, will include:

Composition of the focal subgroup of pinnipeds (approximate numbers and sexes of each age class);

Description and timing of disruptive event (launch); this will include documenting the occurrence of launch, whether launch noise is evident on audio channel, and duration of audibility; and

Movements of pinnipeds, including number and proportion moving, direction and distance moved, pace of movement (slow or vigorous). In addition, the following variables concerning the circumstances of the observations will also be recorded from the videotape or from direct observations at the site:

○ Study location;

○ Local time;

○ Weather (including an estimate of wind strength and direction, and presence of precipitation); and

○ Tide state (Exact times for local high and low tides will be determined by consulting relevant tide tables for the day of the launch).

Acoustical recordings will be obtained during each monitored launch. These recordings will be suitable for quantitative analysis of the levels and characteristics of the received launch sounds. In addition to providing information on the magnitude, characteristics, and duration of sounds to which pinnipeds are exposed during each launch, these acoustic data will be combined with the pinniped behavioral data to determine if there is a “dose-response” relationship between received sound levels and pinniped behavioral reactions. The Navy will use up to four autonomous audio recorders to make acoustical measurements. During each launch, these will be located as close as practical to monitored pinniped haulout sites and near the launch pad itself. The monitored haulout sites will typically include one site as close as possible to the missile's planned flight path and one or two locations farther from the flight path within the area of potential impact with pinnipeds present. Autonomous Terrestrial Acoustic Recorders (ATARs) will be deployed at the recording locations on the launch day well before the launch time, and will be retrieved later the same day.

During each launch, data on the type and trajectory of the missile will be documented. From these records, the CPA of the missile to the microphone will be determined, along with its altitude above the shoreline. These data will be important in comparing acoustic data with those from other launches. Other factors to be considered will include wind speed and direction and launch characteristics ( e.g., low- vs. high-angle launch). These analyses will include data from previous and ongoing monitoring work (Burke 2017; Holst et al., 2010; Holst et al., 2005a; Holst et al., 2008; Holst et al., 2011; Ugoretz 2016; Ugoretz and Greene Jr. 2012), as well as measurements to be obtained during launches under this IHA.

A technical report will be submitted to the NMFS' Office of Protected Resources within 90 days from the date the IHA expires. This report will provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring tasks for launches activities at SNI that are covered under this IHA.

The technical report containing the following information: Species present, number(s), general behavior, presence of pups, age class, gender, numbers of pinnipeds present on the haulout prior to commencement of the launch, numbers of pinnipeds that responded at a level that would be considered harassment length of time(s) pinnipeds remained off the haulout (for pinnipeds that flushed), and any behavioral responses by pinnipeds that were likely in response to the specified activities. Launch reports would also include date(s) and time(s) of each launch; date(s) and location(s) of marine mammal monitoring, and environmental conditions including: Visibility, air temperature, clouds, wind speed and direction, tides, and swell height and direction. If a dead or seriously injured pinniped is found during post-launch monitoring, the incident must be reported to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources and the NMFS' West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator immediately. Results of acoustic monitoring, including the recorded sound levels associated with the launch and/or sonic boom (if applicable) would also be included in the report.

In the unanticipated event that any cases of pinniped mortality are judged to result from launch activities at any time during the period covered by this IHA, this will be reported to NMFS immediately.

NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival ( i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be “taken” through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses ( e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses ( e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline ( e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise levels).

To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analyses applies to all the species listed in Table 4, given that the anticipated effects of this activity on these different marine mammal species are expected to be similar. Activities associated with the proposed activities, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment only, from airborne sounds of target and missile launch events. Based on the best available information, including monitoring reports from similar activities that have been authorized by NMFS, behavioral responses will likely be limited behavioral reactions such as alerting to the noise, with some animals possibly moving toward or entering the water, depending on the species and the intensity of the launch noise. Repeated exposures of individuals to levels of sound that may cause Level B harassment are unlikely to result in hearing impairment or to significantly disrupt foraging behavior. Given the launch acceleration and flight speed of the missiles, most launch events are of extremely short duration. Strong launch sounds are typically detectable near the beaches at western SNI for no more than a few seconds per launch (Holst et al., 2010; Holst et al., 2005a; Holst et al., 2008; Holst et al., 2005b). Pinnipids hauled out on beaches where missiles fly over launched from the Alpha Launch Complex routinely haul out and continue to use these beaches in large numbers. At the Building 807 Launch Complex few pinnipeds are known to haul out on the shoreline immediately adjacent to this launch site. Thus, even repeated instances of Level B harassment of some small subset of an overall stock is unlikely to result in any significant realized decrease in fitness to those individuals, and thus would not result in any adverse impact to the stock as a whole. Level B harassment would be reduced to the level of least practicable adverse impact through use of mitigation measures described above.

If a marine mammal responds to a stimulus by changing its behavior ( e.g., through relatively minor changes in locomotion direction/speed), the response may or may not constitute taking at the individual level, and is unlikely to affect the stock or the species as a whole. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on animals or on the stock or species could potentially be significant ( e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007). Flushing of pinnipeds into the water has the potential to result in mother-pup separation, or could result in a stampede, either of which could potentially result in serious injury or mortality. However, based on the best available information, including reports from almost 20 years of marine mammal monitoring during launch events, no serious injury or mortality of marine mammals is anticipated as a result of the proposed activities.

In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:

• No injury, serious injury, or mortality are anticipated or authorized;

• The anticipated incidences of Level B harassment are expected to consist of temporary modifications in behavior ( i.e., movements of more than 10 m and occasional flushing into the water with return to haulouts), which are not expected to adversely affect the fitness of any individuals;

• The proposed activities are expected to result in no long-term changes in the use by pinnipeds of rookeries and haulouts in the project area, based on nearly 20 years of monitoring data; and

• The presumed efficacy of planned mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level of least practicable adverse impact.

Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.

There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS must review our proposed action ( i.e., the issuance of an incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts on the human environment. This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental harassment authorizations with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) requires that each Federal agency insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. No incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA was not required for this action.

As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to the Navy for conducting rocket and missile launch events on SNI provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.

The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed incidental take authorization may be provided to the public for review.

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.

On January 17, 2019, NMFS received a request from Chevron for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving and removal associated with the LWMEP in San Francisco Bay, California. The application was deemed adequate and complete on April 8, 2019. Chevron's request is for take of a small number of seven species of marine mammals, by Level B harassment and Level A harassment. Neither Chevron nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

NMFS previously issued an IHA to Chevron for similar work (82 FR 27240; June 17, 2017). However, the construction schedule and scope was revised and no work was conducted under that IHA. NMFS issued a second IHA on May 31, 2018 to Chevron for work not conducted in 2017 (83 FR 27578; June 13, 2018 ). This IHA covers one year of this larger project for which Chevron obtained the prior IHA, and Chevron also intends to request take authorizations for subsequent facets of the project. The larger multi-year project involves various construction activities that would allow Chevron to comply with Marine Oil Terminal Engineering and Maintenance Standards (MOTEMS) and to improve safety and efficiency at the Long Wharf. Chevron complied with all the requirements ( e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of the previous IHA and information regarding their monitoring results may be found in the Estimated Take section.

Because of the similarity of the work and marine mammal impacts to that covered in previous IHAs, we have often cited back to previous documents for more detailed descriptions.

Chevron's Richmond Refinery Long Wharf (Long Wharf) located in San Francisco Bay, is the largest marine oil terminal in California. Impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving and removal will be employed during the planned construction project. These actions could produce underwater sound at levels that could result in the injury or behavioral harassment of marine mammal species. Pile driving activities would be timed to occur within the standard NMFS work windows for Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed fish species (June 1 through November 30) over multiple years. An estimated 67 days of pile driving activity within the designated work window are planned for 2019. Additional work in the future will require subsequent IHAs. The IHA is effective from June 1, 2019 through May 31, 2020.

A detailed description of the planned activities is provided in the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (84 FR 17788; April 26, 2019) for the issued IHA, Federal Register notice of the issuance of the 2018 IHA for Chevron's LWMEP project (83 FR 27578; June 13, 2018), the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (83 FR 18802; April 30, 2018), as well as Chevron's current IHA application for the 2019 work season. Therefore, a detailed description is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notices and application for the description of the specific activity.

A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA was published in the Federal Register on March 26, 2019 (84 FR 177880). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received a comment letter from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission). Specific comments and responses are provided below. The Commission's recommendations and our responses are provided here, and the comments have been posted online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities. The Commission recommended that NMFS issue the IHA, subject to inclusion of the proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures.

Comment 1: The Commission recommended that NMFS consult with external scientists and acousticians to determine the appropriate accumulation time that action proponents should use to determine the extent of the Level A harassment zones based on the associated SEL cum thresholds for the various types of sound sources, including stationary sound sources.

Response: NMFS considers this a priority and has formed a Working Group to focus on the issue of accumulation time. Once the NMFS internal Working Group develops a proposal, it will be shared with Federal partners and other stakeholders.

Comment 2: The Commission recommended that, for all relevant incidental take authorizations, NMFS refrain from using a source level reduction factor for sound attenuation device implementation during impact pile driving, including the 60-inch steel piles proposed for use by Chevron.

Response: While it is true that noise level reduction measured at different received ranges does vary, given that both Level A and Level B harassment estimation using geometric modeling is based on noise levels measured at near-source distances (~10 meters), NMFS believes it reasonable to use a source level reduction factor for sound attenuation device implementation during impact pile driving. In the case of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge impact driving isopleth estimates using an air bubble curtain for source level reduction, NMFS reviewed Caltrans' bubble curtain “on and off” studies conducted in San Francisco Bay in 2003 and 2004. The equipment used for bubble curtains has likely improved since 2004 but due to concerns for fish species, Caltrans has not been able to conduct “on and off” tests recently. Based on 74 measurements (37 with the bubble curtain on and 37 with the bubble curtain off) at both near (<100 meters) and far (>100 meters) distances, the linear averaged received level reduction is 6 decibels (dB). If limiting the data points (a total of 28 measurements, with 14 during bubble curtain on and 14 during bubble curtain off) to only near distance measurements, the linear averaged noise level reduction is 7 dB. Since impact zone analysis using geometric spreading model is typically based on measurements at near-source distance, we consider it appropriate to use a reduction of 7 dB as a noise level reduction factor for impact pile driving using an air bubble curtain system.

Bubble curtains are effective at attenuating sound originating within the water column. Pile driving does generate sound within the seafloor as well. This sound travels within the seafloor and emerges back to the water column, but its intensity is reduced within the sediment due to absorption by the sediment and reflection at the sediment/water interface.

NMFS will evaluate the appropriateness of using a certain source level reduction factor for sound attenuation device implementation during impact pile driving for all relevant incidental take authorizations when more data become available.

Comment 3: The Commission recommended that NMFS should direct Chevron to use its PSOs to monitor more sufficiently both the Level A and B harassment zones, including the shut-down zones. The Commission further recommended that one PSO should be located in the near-field to ensure an unobstructed view of the shut-down zones and one PSO should be located on the north end of the wharf to monitor harbor seals in the far field, focusing on the area between the wharf and Castro Rocks.

Response: NMFS believes that the monitoring plan provided by the applicant is adequate to sufficiently monitor Level A and B harassment zones, including shut-down zones. Chevron opted to place one PSO on the east side of the wharf to monitor any marine mammals that occur between the wharf and the shoreline. The wharf is covered with building and large equipment resulting in obstructed views. Therefore, it is impossible for a single PSO on the east side of the wharf to also monitor the near or far fields on the west side of the wharf. However, NMFS will recommend that the PSO stationed on the north end of the wharf will monitor the entire visible area, with extra focus on the section between Castro Rocks and the wharf.

Comment 4: The Commission recommended that NMFS refrain from implementing its proposed renewal process for Chevron's subsequent authorizations. The Commission believes that the renewal process should be used sparingly and selectively, by limiting its use only to those proposed incidental harassment authorizations that are expected to have the lowest levels of impacts to marine mammals and that require the least complex analyses. Also, the Commission recommended that NMFS provide the Commission and other reviewers the full 30-day comment opportunity set forth in section 101(a)(5)(D)(iii) of the MMPA.

Response: Regarding the Commission's comment that Renewal IHAs should be limited to certain types of projects NMFS has explained on its website and in individual Federal Register notices that Renewal IHAs are appropriate where the continuing activities are identical, nearly identical, or a subset of the activities for which the initial 30-day comment period applied. If Chevron seeks to obtain a Renewal IHA in the future, NMFS will determine at that time whether the request meets the necessary conditions under which a Renewal IHA could be considered.

NMFS has taken a number of steps to ensure the public has adequate notice, time, and information to be able to comment effectively on Renewal IHAs within the limitations of processing IHA applications efficiently. Federal Register notices for the proposed initial IHAs identified the conditions under which a one-year Renewal IHA might be appropriate. This information is presented in the Request for Public Comments section and thus encourages submission of comments on the potential of a one-year renewal as well as the initial IHA during the 30-day comment period. In addition, when we receive an application for a Renewal IHA, we will publish notice of the proposed IHA Renewal in the Federal Register and provide an additional 15 days for public comment, making a total of 45 days of public comment. We also directly contact all commenters on the initial IHA by email, phone, or, if the commenter did not provide email or phone information, by postal service to provide them the opportunity to submit any additional comments on the proposed Renewal IHA. Where the commenter has already had the opportunity to review and comment on the potential for a Renewal in the initial proposed IHA for these activities, the abbreviated additional comment period is sufficient for consideration of the results of the preliminary monitoring report and new information (if any) from the past year.

Comment 5: The Commission recommended that, NMFS (1) request that Chevron submit any future authorizations at least 6 months prior to the planned start date for incidental harassment authorizations and 9 months prior for rulemakings and (2) take all steps necessary to ensure that it publishes and finalizes proposed incidental harassment authorizations far enough in advance of the planned start date of the proposed activities to ensure full consideration is given to any and all comments received

Response: NMFS encourages all applicants to submit applications for IHA's 5-8 months in advance of the intended project start date and for rulemakings/LOA at least 9 months, and preferably 15 months, in advance of the intended project start date. NMFS provided the required 30-day notice for public comment, and has adequately considered all public comments received in making the necessary findings.

Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments ) and more general information about these species ( e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's website ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species ).

Table 1 lists species that may occur in the vicinity of the project area. A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities is found in the Federal Register notice of the issuance of the 2018 IHA for Chevron's LWMEP project (83 FR 27578; June 13, 2018), the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (83 FR 18802; April 30, 2018), as well as Chevron's current IHA application for the 2019 work season. NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the initial IHA, recent draft Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and other scientific literature, and determined that neither this nor any other new information affects which species or stocks have the potential to be affected or the pertinent information in the Description of the Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities contained in the supporting documents for the initial IHA. Specifically, the only change from the 2018 IHA is an increase in numbers of the eastern north Pacific stock of gray whale which have increased from 20,990 to 26,960.

A description of the potential effects of the specified activities on marine mammals and their habitat may be found in the Federal Register notice of the issuance of the 2018 IHA for Chevron's LWMEP project (83 FR 27578; June 13, 2018) and the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (83 FR 18802; April 30, 2018). This information remains applicable to the issuance of the 2019 IHA. NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the initial IHA and other scientific literature, and found no new information that would affect our initial analysis of impacts on marine mammals and their habitat.

This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes authorized through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration of “small numbers” and the negligible impact determination.

Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).

Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use of the acoustic source ( i.e., pile driving) has the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential for limited auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result, primarily for high frequency species (harbor porpoises) because predicted auditory injury zones are larger than for other functional hearing groups and for phocids (harbor seals) as there is a sizable harbor seal haulout (Castro Rocks) located in close proximity to the project area. The required mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of such taking to the extent practicable.

As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.

Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available ( e.g., previous monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the factors considered here in more detail and present the authorized take estimate.

Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).

Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources —Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source ( e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle), the environment ( e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007). Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above received levels of 120 dB re 1 microPascal, root mean square (μPa (rms) for continuous ( e.g., vibratory pile-driving), and above 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive ( e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent ( e.g., scientific sonar) sources.

Chevron's planned includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving and removal) and intermittent (impact pile driving) sources and, therefore, the 120 and 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) thresholds are applicable.

Level A harassment for non-explosive sources —NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (NMFS, 2018) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). Chevron's planned activity includes the use of impulsive (impact pile driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving and removal) sources.

These thresholds are provided in Table 2 below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.

Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and transmission loss coefficient.

The project includes impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving and vibratory pile removal. Source levels of some pile driving activities are based on hydroacoustic testing performed in 2018 at the LWMEP location as well as reviews of measurements of the same or similar types and dimensions of piles available in the literature. Based on this information, the source levels described below are assumed for the underwater noise produced by construction activities.

Eight batter steel pipe piles, 60-inch diameter would be installed using an impact hammer as it is difficult to vibrate in batter piles. These piles also have very high axial design loads that can only be achieved by impact driving methods. Other projects conducted under similar circumstances were reviewed in order to estimate the approximate noise effects of the 60-inch steel piles. The best match found for sound source levels is from summary values provided by Caltrans in their hydroacoustic guidance document (Caltrans 2015). Summary values for the impact pile driving of 60-inch steel pipe piles indicates that noise levels of up to 210 peak, 185 dB SEL (single strike), and 195 RMS would be produced at 10 meters during pile driving using no sound attenuation such as a bubble curtain. The use of properly functioning bubble curtains is expected to reduce the peak and RMS noise levels by about 7 dB. As a result, noise levels of 203 dB peak, 178 dB SEL (single strike), and 188 dB are utilized to assess potential acoustic impacts.

It is expected that just one 60-inch pile would be driven over one (1) hour of active driving in a given day and that only one (1) pile would be installed in a given week. Installation could require up to 2,400 blows from an impact hammer, such as a HHK-16 or similar diesel hammer, producing approximately 173,000 to 217,000 ft. lbs. maximum energy per blow and 1.5 to 2 sec/blow average. As noted above, bubble curtains will be used during the installation of the 60-inch steel pipe piles in order to reduce underwater noise levels, with an assumed attenuation of 7 dB. NMFS acknowledges that noise level reductions measured at different project locations as well as different received ranges can vary widely. However, NMFS believes it reasonable to use a source level reduction factor for sound attenuation device implementation during impact pile driving. NMFS reviewed Caltrans' bubble curtain “on and off” studies conducted in San Francisco Bay in 2003 and 2004. Based on near distance measurements (a total of 28 measurements, with 14 during bubble curtain on and 14 during bubble curtain off), the linear averaged noise level reduction is 7 dB. As a conservative approach, NMFS will use a standard reduction of 7 dB of the source level for impact zone estimates.

Installation of 24-inch diameter square concrete piles is planned for the modifications at the four berths. Approximately one to two of these piles would be installed in one work day, using impact driving methods and a bubble curtain attenuation system. Based on measured blow counts for 24-inch concrete piles driven at the Long Wharf Berth 4 in 2011, installation for each pile could require up to approximately 300 blows from a DelMag D62 22 or similar diesel hammer, producing approximately 165,000 ft lbs maximum energy (may not need full energy) and 1.5 second per blow average over a duration of approximately 20 minutes per pile, with 40 minutes of pile driving time per day if two (2) piles are installed.

To estimate the noise effects of the 24-inch square concrete piles, the underwater noise measurements recorded for this pile type at the Long Wharf during the 2018 construction season are utilized. These measured values were: 191 dB peak, 161 dB SEL (single strike), and 173 dB RMS during attenuated impact driving (AECOM 2018).

As part of the Berth 4 Loading Platform seismic retrofit, four (4) clusters of 13 composite piles (52 piles total) will be installed to provide protection to the infrastructure. These plastic encased concrete piles would be installed with a vibratory pile driver (APE 400B King Kong or similar vibratory driver), with a drive time of approximately 10 minutes per pile. Up to five (5) of these piles could be installed in any single work day.

Projects conducted under similar circumstances with similar piles were reviewed in order to approximate the noise effects of the 12-inch composite barrier piles. Since these piles will be composed of concrete encased in plastic, vibratory installation of similarly sized concrete piles would provide a good surrogate. However, concrete piles are rarely installed with a vibratory driver, and no suitable data could be located. In the absence of this data, we are conservatively using data from the Anacortes Ferry Terminal in Washington State, where 13-inch plastic coated steel piles were installed with a vibratory hammer. RMS noise levels produced during this installation varied from 138 to 158 dB RMS at 43 meters (141 feet) from the pile (Laughlin 2012). From these measurements, a peak noise value of 178 dB and an average RMS value of 168 dB normalized to a 10 meter (33 feet) distance was used to estimate the extent of underwater noise from installation of the 12-inch composite piles. During installation of the 12-inch composite barrier piles for the planned Project, up to 50 minutes of vibratory driving could occur per day.

For the Berth 4 Loading Platform seismic retrofit, eight (8) 36-inch diameter temporary steel piles would be installed using a vibratory pile driver (APE 400B King Kong or similar vibratory driver) will be needed to support the guide template for the driving of the permanent 60-inch steel pipe piles. Each 36-inch temporary pile has an estimated drive time of approximately 10 minutes per pile. Up to four (4) of these piles could be installed in any single work day.

Projects conducted under similar circumstances with similar piles were reviewed in order to approximate the noise effects of the 36-inch steel pipe. The best match for estimated noise levels is from the Explosive Handling Wharf-2 (EHW-2) project located at the Naval Base Kitsap in Bangor, Washington (Illingworth and Rodkin 2013). During vibratory pile driving associated with this Project, which occurred under similar circumstances, average peak noise levels were approximately 180 dB, and the RMS was approximately 170 dB at a 10 meter (33 feet) distance (Caltrans 2015a). Installation of the 36-inch steel pipe piles is expected to be require 40 minutes per day.

In total, two of the eight 36-inch temporary piles will require proofing using an impact hammer. Each pile will require up to 30 strikes from an impact hammer during proofing which will take place during the last foot of pile driving. Up to two (2) piles would be proofed in one day, with each pile requiring up to 30 strikes from an impact hammer, for a total of 60 strikes in one day. The best match found for sound source levels is from summary values provided by Caltrans in their hydroacoustic guidance document (Caltrans 2015). Summary values for the impact pile driving of 36-inch steel pipe piles in water less than 5m deep indicates that noise levels of up to 208 peak, 180 dB SEL (single strike), and 193 RMS would be produced at 10 meters during pile driving. Since impact hammers are often operated at reduced power output during proofing, the source levels are likely to be lower than the values for impact driving used here. Due to very limited time that pile proofing would occur (60 strikes total, over a few minutes of active hammering) no sound attenuation would be used.

The Berth 4 Loading Platform seismic retrofit will require vibratory installation of, eight (8) 20-inch diameter temporary steel piles (APE 400B King Kong or similar vibratory driver) to support the guide template needed for the driving the permanent 60-inch steel pipe piles. Each 20-inch temporary pile has a drive time per pile of approximately 10 minutes. Up to four (4) of these piles could be installed in any single work day. The best match for estimated noise levels is from vibratory driving of 24-inch piles at the Explosive Handling Wharf-2 (EHW-2) project located at the Naval Base Kitsap in Bangor, Washington (Illingworth and Rodkin 2013). During vibratory pile driving associated with this Project, which occurred under similar circumstances, measured peak noise levels were approximately 180 dB, and the RMS was approximately 163 dB at a 10 meter (33 feet) distance (Illingworth and Rodkin 2013). During installation of the 20-inch steel pipe piles will require approximately 40 minutes per day.

The project includes the removal of 106 16-inch timber piles, and five (5) 18 to 24-inch square concrete piles using a vibratory pile driver. Up to 12 of these piles could be extracted in one (1) work day. Extraction time needed for each pile may vary greatly, but could require approximately 400 seconds (approximately seven (7) minutes) from an APE 400B King Kong or similar driver. The most applicable noise values for wooden pile removal from which to base estimates for the LWMEP are derived from measurements taken at the Pier 62/63 pile removal in Seattle, Washington. During vibratory pile extraction associated with this Project, which occurred under similar circumstances, the RMS was approximately 152 dB (WSDOT 2011). Applicable sound values for the removal of concrete piles could not be located, but they are expected to be similar to the levels produced by wooden piles described above, as they are similarly sized, non-metallic, and will be removed using the same methods.

For pile driving that does not have project specific hydroacoustic data available, the practical spreading model with a transmission loss coefficient of 15 (4.5 dB per doubling of distance) is used. However, project-specific transmission loss values have been measured for the impact driving of concrete piles and resulted in a measured transmission loss factor of 20 (~8 dB per doubling of distance) which has been applied to calculate distances to harassment isopleths for those specific piles. This value is calculated from hydroacoustic monitoring of attenuated impact driving of concrete piles conducted as part of the LWMEP. The results of the 2018 hydroacoustic monitoring are provided in Appendix A of the application.

When the NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in some degree of overestimate of Level A harassment take. However, these tools offer the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address the output where appropriate. For stationary sources (such as impact and vibratory pile driving), NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the activity, it would not incur PTS. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet, and the resulting isopleths are reported below in Table 3.

Table 4 shows the Level A harassment isopleths as determined utilizing inputs from Table 3. Note that for all calculations, the results based on SEL ss are larger than SPL pk , therefore, distances calculated using SEL ss are used to calculate the area. Level B Harassment isopleths for impact and vibratory driving and extraction are shown in Table 5.

In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations.

For the 2019 IHA application, a combination of nearby haul-out occupancy and at-sea densities were used to develop take estimates, in order to account for both local movements of harbor seals that haul out at Castro Rocks and other individuals that may be foraging in the more distant part of the Level B Harassment zone. By using hydroacoustic data collected in 2018, the extent of the harassment zones was refined for attenuated impact driving of concrete piles by using the transmission loss measured during 2018 project (20logr). As the Level B Harassment zones estimated for the 2019 IHA are generally more localized, only the occupancy from the local Castro Rocks haul-out is used.

Castro Rocks, located approximately 1.3 km northwest of the project site, is the largest harbor seal haul out site in the northern part of San Francisco Bay and is the second largest pupping site in the Bay (Green et al. 2002). Tidal stage is a major controlling factor of haul out usage at Castro Rocks with more seals present during low tides than high tide periods (Green et al. 2002). Additionally, the number of seals hauled out at Castro Rocks also varies with the time of day, with proportionally more animals hauled out during the nighttime hours (Green et al. 2002). Therefore, the number of harbor seals in the water around Castro Rocks will vary throughout the work period. Pile driving would occur intermittently during the day with average active driving times typically of a few hours per day, so varying sets of animals may be hauled out or in the water. However, there are no systematic counts available for accurately estimating the number of seals that may be in the water near Long Wharf at any given time. The National Park Service provided recent data indicating that up to 176 seals could be present each day at Castro Rocks. This value was conservatively based on the highest mean plus the standard error of harbor seals observed at Castro Rocks per day (Codde, S. and S. Allen 2013, 2015, and 2017), a value of 176 seals. The 2018 draft Long Wharf marine mammal monitoring report indicated that 24 harbor seals were observed within the Level B harassment zone and zero individuals were observed within the Level A harassment zone over 10 days of pile driving, which equals less than 1 percent of the authorized number of harbor seals with an average of 2.4 animals per day. The maximum number observed per day was six.

Since there are no California sea lion haul-outs in the vicinity of the project area, relatively few animals are expected to be present. However, monitoring for the RSRB did observe limited numbers in the north and central portions of the Bay during working hours. During monitoring for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB) Project in the central Bay, 83 California sea lions were observed in the vicinity of the bridge over a 17-year period from 2000-2017, and from these observations, an estimated at-sea density of 0.16 animals per square kilometer is derived (NMFS 2018). This bridge is located approximately 25 km south of the LWMEP location and is considered by NMFS to be the best available information. The 2018 Long Wharf draft monitoring report did not record any observations of sea lions.

Small numbers of northern elephant seal may haul out or strand on coastline within the Central Bay. Monitoring of marine mammals in the vicinity of the SFOBB has been ongoing for 15 years. From those data, Caltrans has produced an estimated at-sea density for northern elephant seal of 0.16 animal per square mile (0.06 animal per square kilometer) (Caltrans, 2015b). Most sightings of northern elephant seal in San Francisco Bay occur in spring or early summer, and are less likely to occur during the periods of in-water work for this project. As a result, densities during pile driving for the planned action are likely to be lower. Additionally, this species was not observed by the marine mammal observers in the vicinity of the Long Wharf during 2018 pile driving monitoring.

The occurrence of northern fur seal in San Francisco Bay depends largely on oceanic conditions, with animals more likely to strand during El Niño events. Equatorial sea surface temperatures are above average across most of the Pacific Ocean this year, and El Niño is expected to continue through winter of 2019 and into spring (NOAA 2019). There are no estimated at-sea densities for this species in San Francisco Bay and no seals were recorded during 2018 Long Wharf marine mammal monitoring.

A small but growing population of harbor porpoises utilizes San Francisco Bay which are typically spotted in the vicinity of Angel Island and the Golden Gate (6 and 12 kilometers (3.7 and 7.5 miles) southwest respectively) and the vicinity of Treasure Island (Caltrans 2018). However, they may occur in other areas in the Central Bay in low numbers, including the project area. Based on monitoring conducted for the SFOBB project in 2017, an in-water density of 0.17 animals per square kilometer has been estimated by Caltrans for this species (NMFS 2018). No members of this species were recorded during 2018 during pile driving activities at LWMEP.

Bottlenose dolphins are typically found close to the Golden Gate Bridge when they are observed in San Francisco Bay. There are no estimated at-sea densities for this species in San Francisco Bay available for calculating a take estimate. Beginning in 2015, two individuals have been observed frequently in the vicinity of Oyster Point (GGCR 2018; Perlman, 2017). The average reported group size for bottlenose dolphins is five. Reports show that a group normally comes into San Francisco Bay, is near Yerba Buena Island once per week for approximately two (2) weeks and then leaves (NMFS, 2017).

Gray whales have been observed entering the Bay during their northward migration period, and are most often sighted in the Bay between February and May. Most venture only about 2 to 3 km (about 1-2 miles) past the Golden Gate. However, gray whales have occasionally been sighted as far north as San Pablo Bay. Pile driving is not expected to occur during the February-May period, and gray whales are not likely to be present at other times of year. No whales were observed as part of 2018 Long Wharf marine mammal monitoring activities.

Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate.

When density data was available, take for the project was calculated by multiplying the density times the harassment zone (km 2 ) associated with pile driving activities that are underway times the number of construction days. Since density data was only available for harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and California sea lions, these were the only species whose take was calculated using this methodology. For species without density information, information on average group size or local observational data was used as described below.

Chevron initially estimated that all harbor seals (176) at Castro Rocks would be exposed to noise that reaches the threshold for Level B harassment on every day on which there was pile driving. The areas of the Level A harassment zones in which take by injury could occur were determined by subtracting the shutdown zone areas from Level A harassment zone areas. Chevron estimated Level A take for impact driving of the 60-inch and 36-inch steel piles by using Level B take and multiplying it by the ratio of the Level A zone area to the Level B zone area. Level A take is not requested for vibratory driving. This resulted in an estimated 11,968 takes by Level B harassment and 513 takes by Level A harassment. However, based on input from the Commission as well as the size of the Level B zones extending beyond Castro Rocks, NMFS is authorizing takes for all 176 seals per day multiplied by 37 days for all piles but 24-inch concrete. For 24-inch concrete, the max observed, which was two, has been multiplied by 30 as resulting in a total of 6,572 Level B takes of harbor seal as shown in Table 9. For Level A harassment the same rationale was used. The area of the Level A harassment zone for 60-inch piles is 0.62 km 2 , while the area of the Level B harassment zone is 1.7 km 2 . The ratio of these two areas was multiplied by 176 seals resulting in 64 takes per day and a total of 513 authorized Level A harassment takes as shown in Table 6 and Table 10.

For impact pile driving of the 60-inch steel piles, the shutdown zones (30 meters) are notably smaller than the Level A harassment zone and the applicant has accordingly requested take by Level A harassment for harbor seal so that pile driving can be completed on schedule without frequent shutdowns. Individuals occurring within the Level A harassment zone but outside of the shut-down zone may experience Level A harassment, if they reside in that area for a long enough duration. However, these animals can be highly mobile, and remaining within the small injury zone for an extended period is unlikely, though it could occur.

Monitoring data from the SFOBB Project over a 17-year period was used to develop a density of 0.16 California sea lions per square kilometer. This density and the areas of the potential Level B Harassment zones are used in Table 7. Level A harassment take of this species is not requested, due to the small size of the Level A harassment zone for otariid pinnipeds,

Section 117 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) requires NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to prepare stock assessments for each stock of marine mammals occurring in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States, including the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). These reports must contain information regarding the distribution and abundance of the stock, population growth rates and trends, estimates of annual human-caused mortality and serious injury (M/SI) from all sources, descriptions of the fisheries with which the stock interacts, and the status of the stock. Initial reports were completed in 1995.

The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS to review the SARs at least annually for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new information is available, and at least once every three years for non-strategic stocks. The term “strategic stock” means a marine mammal stock: (A) For which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level or PBR (defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population); (B) which, based on the best available scientific information, is declining and is likely to be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) within the foreseeable future; or (C) which is listed as a threatened species or endangered species under the ESA. NMFS and the FWS are required to revise a SAR if the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately determined. NMFS, in conjunction with the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific independent Scientific Review Groups (SRG), reviewed the status of marine mammal stocks as required and revised reports in the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific regions to incorporate new information.

The period covered by the 2018 SARs is 2012-2016. NMFS updated SARs for 2018, and the revised draft reports were made available for public review and comment for 90 days (83 FR 47137, September 18, 2018). NMFS received comments on the draft 2018 SARs and has revised the reports as necessary. This notice announces the availability of 46 final 2018 reports that were updated. The new individual draft report for the West Bay stock of common bottlenose dolphin stock was not finalized (see below). The final reports are available on NMFS' website (see ADDRESSES ).

NMFS is in the process of writing separate stock assessment reports for each of the 31 individual stocks contained in the Northern Gulf of Mexico Bay, Sound, and Estuary common bottlenose dolphin report. For the draft 2018 SARs, 2 new individual reports were completed separating out the West Bay and Terrebonne-Timbalier Bay Estuarine System stocks from the larger report. However, we are not finalizing the new individual report for the West Bay common bottlenose dolphin stock because the abundance estimate for this stock is based on a publication that is still currently in review (Litz et al., in review). NMFS will include the updated abundance estimate for the West Bay stock in the draft 2019 report, once the Litz et al. publication is in press or has been published. To date, we have completed individual reports for five bottlenose dolphin stocks (Terrebonne-Timbalier Bay Estuarine System, Barataria Bay Estuarine System, Mississippi Sound/Lake Borgne/Bay Boudreau, Choctawhatchee Bay, and St. Joseph Bay). The remaining 26 stocks are included in the Northern Gulf of Mexico Bay, Sound, and Estuary Stocks report.

NMFS received letters containing comments on the draft 2018 SARs from the Aleut Community of St. Paul Island Tribal Government; the Makah Tribe; the Marine Mammal Commission; the North Slope Borough; 11 non-governmental organizations (Alaska Oil and Gas Association, Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Law Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Children's Pool, Hawaii Longline Association, The Humane Society of the United States, Oceana, Point Blue Conservation Science, Southern Environmental Law Foundation, and Whale and Dolphin Conservation); and 3 individuals. Responses to substantive comments are below; comments on actions not related to the SARs are not included below. Comments suggesting editorial or minor clarifying changes were incorporated in the reports, but they are not included in the summary of comments and responses. In some cases, NMFS' responses state that comments would be considered or incorporated in future revisions of the SARs rather than being incorporated into the final 2018 SARs.

Comment 1: The Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) comments the requirements of Section 117 of the MMPA require inclusion of a minimum population estimate (Nmin), a key factor for effective management of marine mammal stocks using PBR. Without an Nmin derived from recent data, PBR cannot be calculated and an “undetermined” value results, which is useless for management purposes. Including the revised 2018 draft SARs, an Nmin estimate is lacking for 91 of the 251 identified stocks (or 36 percent). The Commission understands that the primary reason for this shortcoming is a lack of resources (mainly access to vessel and plane platforms from which surveys are conducted) to collect the necessary information. The Commission appreciates the efforts NMFS has made to address this shortcoming by setting priorities across regions, coordinating requests for vessel time, and maximizing the data collected during these surveys ( e.g., Ballance et al. 2017). The Commission recommends that NMFS continue its efforts to prioritize and coordinate requests to secure the necessary survey resources across regions. In addition to these internal efforts, the Commission acknowledges and encourages NMFS' continued engagement and collaboration with other federal agencies that also require basic information on marine mammal stocks, through programs like the Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species and similar programs in the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific. Further, the Commission recommends that these marine assessment programs continue to include appropriate personnel, logistical capability, and vessel time to allow for photo-identification, biopsy sampling, satellite tagging and other efforts to augment and increase the value of the core line-transect survey data collected. These additional efforts will assist in delineating stock structure, confirming at-sea identification of cryptic species, and furthering understanding of marine mammal distribution, habitat use, and behavior, all important to the overall management goals of NMFS under the MMPA.

Response: We acknowledge the Commission's comment and will continue to prioritize our efforts for the collection of data to address outdated Nmin estimates.

Comment 2: The Commission points out that adequate observer coverage continues to be an issue for many fisheries in most regions. In some cases, fisheries that have the potential to take marine mammals go unobserved entirely. For example, in Hawaii, several unobserved, state-managed line fisheries likely interact with endangered main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whales. In Alaska, numerous unobserved, state-managed salmon gillnet fisheries pose a significant risk of interactions with harbor porpoises. In other cases, observed fisheries with known interactions with marine mammals have observer coverage but is inadequate ( e.g., less than 10 percent). Observer coverage in the Category I Mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery, which is known to take significant numbers of common bottlenose dolphins, common dolphins, and harbor porpoises, averaged less than five percent from 2012 to 2016. On the positive side, annual coverage increased steadily from two to eight percent over that period. Observer coverage in the Category II Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl fishery averaged under eight percent coverage over the same period, although once again annual coverage increased from five to ten percent during that period. The Commission recommends that NMFS continue to increase observer coverage in all fisheries with significant marine mammal bycatch that lack adequate coverage to provide reliable estimates of incidental take levels, with increased efforts to develop collaborative observer programs for state-managed fisheries, particularly in Alaska and Hawaii.

Response: NMFS is charged with fulfilling a wide range of requirements under the Magunson-Stevens Act, MMPA, and ESA, and regulations implementing those Acts. These mandates include ending overfishing and rebuilding fish stocks, protecting and recovering threatened and endangered species, reducing bycatch, enforcing laws and regulations, and combating illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing internationally. In recent years, we have tried to meet performance goals ensuring that at least 38 U.S. fisheries continue to maintain adequate observer coverage through the deployment of at least 70,000 sea days observed nationwide. Allocation of observer coverage involves a variety of trade-offs that prevent each fishery from being observed each year, or at high levels of coverage.

In the case of the Hawaii line fisheries mentioned by the Commission, those fisheries are all Category III fisheries in the MMPA List of Fisheries (LOF). According to the 2018 LOF, only the Hawaii troll fishery has had documented marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed or injured. In light of the high-priority marine mammal interactions in the Category I Hawaii deep-set longline fishery and the Category II Hawaii shallow-set longline fishery and American Samoa longline fishery, and limited observer budget resources, the Hawaii line fisheries cited by the Commission are not prioritized for coverage at this time.

While we are not operating the Alaska Marine Mammal Observer Program (AMMOP) due to lack of available resources to fund additional observations of the southeast Alaska salmon driftnet fishery, we are working to assess the needed resources and actively exploring options to identify additional resources for the AMMOP.

Coverage rates for the Category I Mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery are limited both by funding and practical limitations, although observer coverage has continued to increase in recent years. Obtaining higher coverage is challenging due to the geographically dispersed nature of this fishery. In 2017, the observer coverage for this fishery was 9.36 percent and generally higher in strata where marine bycatch occurred. Despite having observer coverage rates of 5 to 10 percent from 2012-2016, the Category II Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl fishery generally has observer coverage required to meet the target of a 30 percent coefficient of variation (CV) for marine mammal mortality estimates in that fishery. In light of the fact that the 30 percent CV target is generally being met with 5 to 10 percent observer coverage, increasing observer coverage for this fishery is not a high priority given limited observer budget resources.

Comment 3: The Commission comments that Section 117 of the MMPA directs NMFS to review at least annually, all stock assessment reports for strategic stocks. How NMFS addresses this requirement varies by region. For example, the 2018 draft reports for Alaska include proposed revisions, some minor, to the reports for all strategic stocks. While the other regions may have reviewed each strategic stock in 2018, not every strategic stock was revised and released for public comment. Some strategic stocks have SARs that have not been updated in more than five years, presumably because no significant new information has been published on abundance, distribution, human-caused serious injury and mortality, stock structure or habitat concerns for those stocks. To help ensure NMFS is aware of new information relevant to all strategic stocks, the Commission recommends that NMFS include in the Federal Register notice, published when revised SARs are released, a specific request for new information for strategic stocks that were not updated that year. New relevant information could include peer-reviewed information on human-caused serious injury and mortality, fishery interactions, abundance, distribution, stock structure and habitat concerns, which could be incorporated into SARs, and other information that might draw attention to emerging concerns for a strategic stock.

Response: We appreciate the Commission's recommendation and will include in future Federal Register notices regarding draft stock assessment reports a request for new information relevant to all strategic stocks not updated in the current year.

Comment 4: The Commission expresses concern that NMFS' review of the stock structure of humpback whales under the MMPA in light of the 14 DPSs identified under the Endangered Species Act (81 FR 62259, September 8, 2016) has now been underway for two years with no timetable for its completion. They state the lack of reconciliation between humpback DPSs and humpback stocks has had effects on other management decisions undertaken by NMFS, such as those related to the proposed draft negligible impact determination for the California thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet fishery (<14 inch mesh) and the Washington/Oregon/California sablefish pot fishery, and those related to its response to the increased number of humpback whale entanglements on the west coast since 2014. The Commission recommends that NMFS take the necessary steps to conclude its review of humpback whale stock structure and revise the humpback whale SARs accordingly in the draft 2019 reports.

The Center for Biological Diversity, Humane Society of the United States, and Whale and Dolphin Conservation (CBD-HSUS-WDC) ask NMFS to elaborate on the status of the agency-wide moratorium on revising MMPA stock definitions and Point Blue Conservation Science expresses support for NMFS to clarify how the DPSs will be treated under the MMPA as quickly as possible.

Response: As described in our Federal Register notice requesting comments on the Draft 2017 Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (82 FR 60181, December 19, 2017), we are currently in the process of reviewing stock structure under the MMPA for all humpback whales in U.S. waters, following the change in ESA listing for the species in 2016, to determine whether we can align the stocks with the DPSs under the ESA. Until such time that the humpback whale stock structure under the MMPA with respect to the ESA listing has been completed, we are retaining the current stock delineations and any changes in stock delineation or MMPA section 117 elements (such as PBR or strategic status) will be reflected in future stock assessment reports. Revising the stock structure for humpback whales is a high priority; however, the process of reviewing stock structure under the MMPA has taken longer than anticipated because we are evaluating the Agency's process for stock designation.

Comment 5: The Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA) comments the draft assessment for the Bering Sea stock of harbor porpoise is an example of long-standing inadequacy in the development of Nmin and PBR for stocks with abundance estimates older than eight years. As a result of applying the guidelines for preparing the SARs, NMFS does not use abundance estimates older than eight years to calculate either Nmin or PBR due to a decline in confidence in the reliability of an aged abundance estimate. Both Nmin and PBR are considered “undetermined” or “unknown” which AOGA asserts is a mischaracterization that makes using SARs for permitting and management decisions very difficult. They suggest if Nmin can be identified, even from a survey that is outdated, it should be used to calculate PBR using the best available science. This approach seems analogous to the practice of under-estimating a PBR based on a recent survey which covers only a portion of an animal's total range. AOGA recommends that the guidelines for preparing the SARs be revisited and even if the “eight-year rule” remains the threshold for estimating Nmin and developing current PBRs, the SAR should identify the most recent data and an estimate of PBR that results from those data. If necessary, the SAR can provide caveats regarding the data and include statements to acknowledge the potential risks of using such data. They comment this is a more reasonable approach than stating that “PBR is considered unknown.”

Response: The topic of outdated abundance information was discussed at the 2011 workshop on the Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks (GAMMS). We proposed revisions to the GAMMS in 2012, including an approach to address outdated abundance estimates developed at the 2011 workshop. Due to the strenuous objections to the proposed approach received during public comment, we did not implement any changes regarding outdated abundance estimates at that time. We are currently working to develop an alternative approach, which would be included in the next revision of the guidelines. We will solicit public review and comment on any proposed revisions.

Comment 6: The Commission comments that accurate information on the taking of marine mammals by Alaska Natives for subsistence and handicraft purposes is becoming increasingly important in light of the pace of climate changes occurring in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. Over the past several years, the Commission has repeatedly recommended that NMFS, in collaboration with its co-management partners, improve its monitoring and reporting of subsistence hunting in Alaska. The Commission appreciates the efforts made by NMFS in this regard with an increase in the 2018 draft SARs in the number of communities reporting hunting levels for bearded and ribbon seals (from 12 to 16 villages for the most recent five years). Nevertheless, this still represents only one-quarter of the 64 communities that may hunt ice seals. Therefore, the Commission continues to recommend that NMFS pursue additional mechanisms to gather reliable information on the numbers of marine mammals taken for subsistence and creating handicrafts, including by securing adequate funding for comprehensive surveys of subsistence use and Native hunting effort. The Commission encourages NMFS to continue to provide updated information whenever it becomes available, even if it pertains only to a limited number of villages or a subset of years.

Response: We agree that it would be beneficial to have more comprehensive information about the harvest numbers of species of Alaska marine mammals taken for subsistence purposes and for creating handicrafts. We provide co-management funding to Alaska Native organizations under section 119 of the MMPA, in part to monitor harvests and report harvest numbers. The best available information is more comprehensive for some species ( e.g., bowhead whales, beluga whales, and northern fur seals) than for others ( e.g., harbor seals and ice seals). The shortcomings reflect the limited resources available to support harvest monitoring and reporting, as well as the large number of communities over a wide geographic area that subsistence hunt for species such as harbor seals, ice-associated seals, and Steller sea lions. Within the constraints of appropriations, we will continue to work with our co-management partners to monitor subsistence harvests and make that information publicly accessible as it becomes available.

Comment 7: Oceana points out that in addition to estimating direct human-caused mortality, for a strategic stock, the SAR must identify “other factors that may be causing a decline or impeding recovery of the stock, including effects on marine mammal habitat and prey.” They note that NMFS has not assessed the impacts of prey levels on strategic stocks, such as whether, or how, commercial fishing or any other factor may be decreasing the availability of prey and, consequently, causing declines or impeding recovery of strategic stocks and they request that NMFS assess how prey availability may be affecting humpback whale, Steller sea lion, and northern fur seal stocks.

Response: Overall, the NMFS Guidelines for Preparing Stock Assessment Reports (NMFS 2016) state if substantial habitat issues are important for strategic stocks, then a “Habitat” section should be used to summarize the existing data that indicate a problem. The guidelines also note that the SARs are not intended to be a forum in which to present significant new data and analysis. Instead, analyses are to be conducted and published separately, and such an analysis is not part of the SAR process itself.

There is no comprehensive information about how prey availability may be affecting humpback whale stocks. To address this question would require accurate data on prey abundance across the whales' entire range, prey consumption rates for individuals and populations, energetics of individual whales, and spatial and species overlap with commercial fishery catches. While the latter might be quantifiable, there is currently no way to obtain any reasonable data for the other variables involved, l et al one for the impact of changing environmental conditions on prey distribution and abundance.

The overall trend for most humpback whale populations found in U.S. waters is positive and points toward recovery (81 FR 62259; September 8, 2016), indicating that prey availability is not a major problem. However, a sharp decline in observed reproduction and encounter rates of humpback whales from the central North Pacific between 2013 and 2018 has been related to oceanographic anomalies and consequent impacts on prey resources (Cartwright et al. 2019), suggesting that humpback whales are vulnerable to major environmental changes.

The Western U.S. Steller sea lion SAR does summarize representative publications describing such potential threats in the “Habitat Concerns” section. It is also noted in the “Current Population Trend” section that the decline in pup abundance in the central Gulf of Alaska in 2017 was correlated with a dramatic decline in the abundance of Pacific cod in the area during the winter. There are no available data that definitively tie this decline to a drop in natality but the relationship is implied. As relevant studies become available they will be cited in future SARs.

A 3-year study to address whether prey availability during the breeding season may be a factor affecting Eastern Pacific northern fur seal recovery was initiated in 2018 by NMFS, in collaboration with the University of Washington and with support from the Lenfest Ocean Program. Study results, when published, will be cited in future SARs if relevant.

Comment 8: Oceana suggests the population trend, stock status, and habitat concern sections of the Steller sea lion assessment include a discussion on the observations and implications of localized extirpation of breeding sea lions from historical habitats.

Response: Under the MMPA, stock status is determined relative to the entirety of a stock. Steller sea lion population trend estimates are shown in the SAR by subregions to highlight trend differences, but these are not management units under the MMPA. Implications of declines in various regions within the western stock are discussed in context of population recovery under the ESA in the Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan.

Comment 9: Oceana recommends that an assessment of mitigation measures for recovery of the Steller sea lion population in the Pribilof region is needed because climate change is a threat to Steller sea lions and their habitat and there have been several unusual mortality events in the last decade documented for marine mammals in Alaska. They note that Steller sea lion pup counts in the central and eastern Gulf of Alaska in 2017 were subsequently lower than prior years, indicating that prey availability from the warm conditions decreased pup production.

Response: There have been three Unusual Mortality Events (UMEs) declared in Alaska since 1991 (large whales in 2015; ice seals (ringed, bearded, and spotted) in 2011; and sea otters in 2006). Consistent with our response to Comment 8, the Pribilof population of Steller sea lions is within the western stock of Steller sea lions, so it is not assessed separately in the current SAR. We will cite published studies that discuss the potential consequences of climate change and harmful algal blooms on western Steller sea lions in the “Habitat Concerns” section of future SARs if we determine that these changes in the Alaska coastal environment are of concern for the western Steller sea lion stock.

Comment 10: Oceana comments that while the draft SARs include annual mortality and serious injury rates from federally-managed commercial fisheries monitored and reported by groundfish fisheries observers, these observer data are limited and there are only partial observer data in some of the trawl fisheries ( e.g., Gulf of Alaska flatfish trawl, Gulf of Alaska pollock trawl, and Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod trawl fisheries). As a result, they point out the majority of fishing activity, and the possible marine mammal interactions through that activity, are without monitoring or accountability. What is reported in the SARs is a yearly estimate, with unreported variance, extrapolated from observer data, which makes it difficult to evaluate the accuracy of those marine mammal mortality estimates. They recommend it would benefit marine mammal monitoring to have higher rates of observer coverage on fisheries that potentially interact with endangered species like the western DPS Steller sea lion.

Response: Estimates of variance are reported as CVs and are consistently available for Alaska commercial groundfish fisheries that host fisheries observers. In the current SARs, CVs are reported for the estimates of mean annual mortality and serious injury rates. We will consider including the CVs for the yearly estimates of mortality and serious injury in future SARs; however, these CVs would only describe the uncertainty in the extrapolated estimates of mortality and serious injury based on observer data from randomly-selected monitored hauls; it is not possible to calculate CVs for mortality and serious injury from opportunistic data ( e.g., those collected from non-randomly selected hauls). The CVs for many observed fisheries are low because the proportion of the fleet that is observed is quite high. It is accurate that many Alaska fisheries that are known to have mortality and serious injury are observed at a low rate or are not observed at all. In general, the annual rates of mortality and serious injury reflected in the SARs are considered a minimum estimate for each stock. In Alaska, we place observers through an Annual Deployment Plan, which allows for flexibility as the priorities for observations change. We intend to observe state fisheries with at least an occasional level of mortality and serious injury of marine mammals if resources become available.

Comment 11: Oceana recommends the northern fur seal assessment include an estimate of the direct or indirect mortality and loss of production that occurs from competition with commercial fisheries. The Aleut Community of St. Paul Island Tribal Government (ACSPI) requests that NMFS include an estimation of commercial fisheries' impacts on the Eastern Pacific stock's population, habitat, and prey through removal of prey or provide an explanation as to why it is not included.

Response: See response to Comment 7.

Comment 12: ACSPI comments the MMPA requires that NMFS “describe commercial fisheries that interact with the stock, including . . . the estimated level of incidental mortality and serious injury of the stock by each such fishery on an annual basis [and] seasonal or area differences in such incidental mortality or serious injury . . .” They note that NMFS does not include estimates of incidental mortality from reduction in prey in the appendices that include these descriptions.

Response: See response to Comment 7. Also, note that reduction in prey is not defined as an “incidental mortality” in the MMPA; incidental mortality is defined as mortality incidental to direct human activities.

Comment 13: AOGA notes the draft northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific SAR refers to the pup harvests on St. George Island from 2014 through 2016, and a total of 157 pups were killed over that period. The SAR states that there is no reason to believe that limiting mortality and serious injury to the level of the PBR will reverse the decline. They suggest the report would benefit from adding a brief explanation of the scientific analysis used to justify changes in the fur seal subsistence harvest regulations and any potential impacts as described in the recent Final Environmental Impact Statement published by NMFS ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/notice-availability-final-supplemental-environmental-impact-statement ).

Response: We agree that the statement referenced by the commenter is unclear. The full sentence in the draft SAR stated: “However, given that the population is declining for unknown reasons, and this decline is not explained by the relatively low level of known direct human-caused mortality and serious injury, there is no reason to believe that limiting mortality and serious injury to the level of the PBR will reverse the decline.” We have replaced this sentence with the following sentence in the final 2018 SAR: “The PBR calculation assumes mortality is evenly distributed across males, females, and each age class; but that is not the case with the subsistence harvest, which accounts for most of the known direct human-caused mortality. The subsistence harvest is almost entirely sub-adult males and male pups and, therefore, has a relatively low impact on the population due to the disproportionate importance of females to the population. Thus, non-breeding male-biased mortality up to the maximum levels authorized for subsistence use does not represent a significant risk to the Eastern Pacific northern fur seal stock.” This issue is described in more detail in the recent Final Environmental Impact Statement cited by the commenter.

Comment 14: AOGA notes that information and updates on the Alaska stock of the ESA-listed Arctic subspecies of ringed seal are not provided in the 2018 SAR. Ringed seals are the most abundant marine mammal species in the Arctic throughout the year, and a species of major concern related to ongoing oil and gas activities in the U.S. Beaufort Sea and they are unclear why the report for this “strategic” stock was not reviewed and updated.

Response: The Alaska stock of ringed seals was listed as threatened under the ESA on December 28, 2012 (77 FR 76706). On March 11, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska issued a decision vacating the listing. A notice of appeal of the District Court decision was filed on May 3, 2016; and the listing was reinstated on May 15, 2018. Because the stock was not listed as threatened under the ESA or considered to be strategic under the MMPA when the draft 2018 SARs were prepared, we did not revise the ringed seal SAR in 2018; however, we will revise the SAR in 2019.

Comment 15: AOGA recommends NMFS include information in the beluga whale, Cook Inlet report that due to their continued small population size, the Yakutat Bay beluga whales remain part of the Cook Inlet stock and are still provided the same protections as the Cook Inlet stock including the limitations on hunting.

Response: We have added this information to the final 2018 Cook Inlet beluga whale SAR.

Comment 16: AOGA notes the draft Cook Inlet beluga whale SAR does not include the 164 observed dead stranded whales between 1998-2013 identified in the December 2016 Cook Inlet beluga whale ESA Recovery Plan. They suggest the average, unexplained mortality during this period of approximately 11 beluga whales per year may provide important context for the lack of recovery of this species.

Response: The mortality observed between 1998 and 2013 (Burek-Huntington et al. 2015) is described in detail in the “Other Mortality” section of the Cook Inlet beluga whale SAR. We will add information about this observed mortality to the Status of Stock section of the draft 2019 SAR.

Comment 17: The Commission expresses concern there remains appreciable uncertainty in the calculated PBR and estimated M/SI levels for the Southeast Alaska (SEAK) harbor porpoise stock due to: (1) Low observer coverage, (2) biased population estimates, and (3) insufficient data on stock delineation. In their comments on the 2017 draft SARs, the Commission recommended that NMFS address these uncertainties and although NMFS is working to understand and reduce the uncertainties, no significant changes were made in the 2018 draft SAR. The Commission urges NMFS to continue its efforts to address these issues.

Response: The PBR level of 12 for the Southeast Alaska harbor porpoise stock was estimated based on a survey that covered only a portion of the currently-recognized distribution of this stock, and it includes commercial fishery mortalities or serious injuries that occurred far north of the surveyed areas. We are concerned about the Southeast Alaska harbor porpoise stock and are collecting additional information on stock structure and abundance to reduce uncertainties in the data available to manage this stock, and we have prioritized the Southeast Alaska drift gillnet fishery for additional observer coverage should resources become available.

Comment 18: The Commission notes the MMPA requires NMFS to develop and implement take reduction plans (TRPs) for all strategic stocks (section 118(f)(1)) that interact with a Category I or II fishery, subject to the availability of funding (section 118(f)(3)). Further, the MMPA directs NMFS to give the highest priority to developing and implementing TRPs for stocks for which M/SI exceeds PBR, the population size is small, and/or the population is declining rapidly. Although the SEAK stock of harbor porpoise meets the first two criteria, NMFS has not yet chosen to develop a TRP for this stock. Given the small size of the stock and the fact that it is experiencing an unsustainable level of take, the Commission recommends that NMFS apply the criteria under section 118(f)(3) to give this stock high priority, establish a take reduction team (TRT), and initiate the development of a TRP. The Commission recognizes that TRTs require a minimum of information regarding population size, status, fisheries interactions, and mitigation options to develop TRP recommendations. In this case, based on what is known about this and other harbor porpoise stocks, their interactions with gillnet fisheries in the eastern United States and Europe, and the availability of approaches to reduce bycatch numbers ( e.g., Bjørge et al. 2013, Orphanides and Palka 2013, Read 2013, Reeves et al. 2013), the Commission believes NMFS has sufficient information to proceed.

Response: As we have noted in our response to Comment 17, we are actively working to collect and analyze data needed to assess this stock. As the Commission rightly points out, a minimum amount of data and analyses are needed to support TRT deliberations; we are endeavoring to collect those data and provide those analyses. Further, MMPA section 118(f)(3) notes that we prioritize based on availability of funding and are currently implementing several other TRTs that address higher priority stocks and fisheries where the TRPs are not yet meeting MMPA goals ( e.g., ESA-listed North Atlantic right whales, Hawaii pelagic false killer whales, and Northern and Southern North Carolina Estuarine System bottlenose dolphins).

Comment 19: The Commission recommends that NMFS undertake analyses using harbor porpoise population data and state gillnet fisheries data from throughout the range of harbor porpoises in Alaska, and bycatch-rate data from comparable harbor porpoise populations from the full range of the species, to develop model-based estimates of the likely magnitude of harbor porpoise bycatch in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea.

Response: We will investigate the feasibility of conducting the analyses recommended by the Commission with existing abundance data for these stocks; however, because the abundance data were collected between 1997 and 1999, the analyses would be based on 20-year-old data that may not reflect the current status of the population.

Comment 20: CBD-HSUS-WDC request that NMFS include in the Central North Pacific (CNP) humpback whale report the data presented and discussed at the November 2018 workshop that showed a decrease in Hawaii in overall humpback whale songs and a drop of nearly 80 percent in sightings of mother and calf pairs from 2014 to 2018.

Response: At the time the draft 2018 SARs were made available for public comment, no published information was available on this apparent change in winter distribution. NMFS will include information from a recently published paper (Cartwright et al. 2019) in the draft 2019 SAR.

Comment 21: CBD-HSUS-WDC note that in the CNP humpback whale report, one humpback injury was observed in the Hawaii shallow-set longline in 2015 that is not recorded in the report's paragraphs on “Fisheries Information” nor recorded in appendices giving fishery-specific information. The appendices to the Alaska stock assessment report do not include interactions of Alaskan stocks with Hawaii fisheries. Also, in 2017, the Pacific stock assessment report included only Appendix 3, a summary of stock information.

Response: Our marine mammal SARs contain information on human-caused mortality and serious injury; thus, the non-serious injury observed in 2015 in the Hawaii shallow-set longline fishery is not included in the Central North Pacific humpback whale SAR. However, publications by the NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center ( e.g., Bradford 2018, Bradford and Lyman 2018) that are cited in the SAR contain details about the human-caused mortality, serious injury, and non-serious injury of humpback whales observed in Hawaii fisheries and/or reported to the NMFS Pacific Islands Region stranding network. The 2017 U.S. Pacific SARs contain only the reports and appendices that were revised in 2017. An appendix in complete versions of the U.S. Pacific SARs ( e.g., Carretta et al. 2017) describes fisheries in U.S. west coast and Hawaii waters, while appendices in the NMFS Alaska SARs describe fisheries in Alaska waters.

Comment 22: CBD-HSUS-WDC urge NMFS to include more detail about the impacts of increasing ambient noise on humpback whales in the CNP humback whale report. For example, a recent study of humpback whales in Glacier Bay National Park found that as ambient sound levels increased, humpback whales responded by increasing the source levels of their calls by 0.81 decibel (dB) for every 1 dB increase in ambient sound. In addition, for every 1 dB increase in ambient sound, the probability of a humpback whale calling in the survey area decreased by 9 percent. They suggest these details are especially important to guide management measures to protect whales from increasing ocean noise pollution.

Response: Given the lack of conclusive data on negative impacts of anthropogenic noise on the humpback whale stock, we believe that the existing text in the “Habitat Concerns” section of the Central North Pacific humpback whale SAR is sufficient.

Comment 23: The North Slope Borough comments the bowhead quota from the International Whaling Commission (IWC) was changed in 2018 to take effect in 2019 and includes up to 67 strikes per year plus up to 33 previously unused strikes. They suggest because the new quota was broadly publicized, NMFS include a footnote in the bowhead whale report to reference the new quota that will take effect in 2019.

Response: We have added information about the new block quota for the period 2019 to 2025 to the final 2018 SAR.

Comment 24: CBD-HSUS-WDC request that the final stock assessment report for the AT1 Transient killer whale reflect that in 2015 one killer whale, apparently from an Alaska transient stock, was entangled in a California commercial Dungeness crab trap. Given the uncertainty in the stock definitions for Alaska killer whales and the overlap in range of the AT1 Transient stock with the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transient stock, they urge NMFS to identify all fishery-related serious injury and mortality for Alaska transient killer whales in the stock assessment report for AT1 Transient whales. Further, a second killer whale of unknown stock origin was reported entangled in a California commercial Dungeness crab trap and was able to self-release. CBD-HSUS-WDC stress the importance that the stock assessment reports identify the killer whale stocks that are vulnerable to entanglement in Dungeness crab traps. Neither the death in 2015 nor the interaction in 2016 is reported in the killer whale stock assessment report.

Response: Based on genetic analysis, the killer whale that entangled and died in commercial California Dungeness crab pot gear in 2015 was identified as a transient killer whale with a mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplotype that has been found in transient killer whales in the Pribilof Islands and western Aleutian Islands. However, the whale cannot be assigned to a specific stock because mtDNA haplotypes are unique to ecotypes of killer whales ( e.g., resident, transient, offshore) but not to populations. Therefore, we will assign this mortality to both the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transient killer whale stock and the West Coast Transient killer whale stock in the next revisions of these SARs and in the NOAA Technical Memorandum that contains information on human-caused mortality and injury of NMFS-managed Alaska marine mammal stocks in 2013-2017 (Delean et al. in press). The mortality will not be assigned to the AT1 Transient killer whale stock, because none of the whales in this population are missing. The killer whale that entangled in and self-released from commercial California Dungeness crab pot gear in 2016 was photographically identified as a member of the West Coast Transient stock of killer whales, and this non-serious injury will also be included in Delean et al. (in press). We will add a statement to the draft 2019 AT1 Transient killer whale SAR noting that transient killer whales have entangled in pot gear in other areas and entanglement in this type of gear may be a risk for the AT1 Transient stock of killer whales.

Comment 25: CBD-HSUS-WDC point out that NMFS presented information at the most recent (2018) meeting of the Atlantic Large Whale TRT regarding three concurrent large whale UMEs that are ongoing. According to this agency presentation, they include one from 2016-2018 affecting humpback whales in the Atlantic (Cause: Undetermined; Contributory Human Interaction); another from 2017-2018 affecting North Atlantic right whales in the Atlantic (Cause: Preliminary Human Interaction); and one from 2017-2018 affecting minke whales in the Atlantic (Cause: Undetermined; Contributory Human Interaction and Infection). Each of these three concurrent large whale UMEs span from approximately 2016 to the present and extend from Atlantic Canada to Florida and involve 155 whales in total. CBD-HSUS-WDC comment that although NMFS has made public the preliminary or contributory findings of human interaction in all three investigations public, there is little mention made of this in a number of the affected SARs.

Response: The period covered by the 2018 SARs is 2012-2016. The humpback whale UME began in January of 2016 and the 2018 SAR includes language about the UME in the other mortality section. Any 2016 animals included in the humback whale UME that were determined to be anthropogenic are included in the mortality table. The recent right whale UME was established in June of 2017. Although the time frame of this UME is outside the focus of the 2018 SAR, during its review of the SAR at the Atlantic SRG meeting in February 2018, the SRG suggested it was important to mention the UME in the text of the report. Prior to publishing the draft right whale SAR for public comment, NMFS updated the SAR text, added a link to the UME web page, and noted that all 2017 events that are determined to be anthropogenic in nature will be included in the 2019 SAR. The minke whale UME started in January of 2017 and also was outside the time frame of the the 2018 minke whale SAR. We have added text to the final 2018 minke whale SAR that references the UME and will include any events that are determined to be anthropogenic in nature in the mortality table and calcuations in the 2019 SAR.

Comment 26: The Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Law Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, The Human Society of the United States, Southern Environmental Law Foundation, and Whale and Dolphin Conservation (the Organizations) suggest that while NMFS has included some updates in the “Stock Definition and Geographic Range” section of the North Atlantic right whale report, this section should be revised to condense the historical distribution information and include the significant changes in right whale distribution that have occurred since 2010.

Response: We agree with the Organizations that the “Stock Definition and Geographic Range” section of this report could use substantial updates and will plan to make these updates in the 2019 SAR.

Comment 27: The Organizations appreciate that NMFS includes a statement in the “Stock Definition and Range” section of the North Atlantic right whale report noting a habitat shift resulting in an increased use by right whales of Cape Cod Bay and decreased use of the Great South Channel. However, they request NMFS also re-evaluate the section which states that “visual and acoustic surveys have demonstrated the existence of seven areas where western North Atlantic right whales aggregate seasonally: The coastal waters of the southeastern United States; the Great South Channel; Jordan Basin; Georges Basin along the northeastern edge of Georges Bank; Cape Cod and Massachusetts Bays; the Bay of Fundy; and the Roseway Basin on the Scotian Shelf (Brown et al. 2001; Cole et al. 2013).” The Organizations do not dispute the accuracy of the data from the sources cited but note that these sources are between five and 17 years old. The Organizations assert NMFS itself has acknowledged that sightings in the Bay of Fundy have declined over the past 10 years, and the Agency has recently shifted significant resources to Canada, leaving many areas of the Gulf of Maine, including Georges and Jordan Basins, without meaningful effort to evaluate the current importance of those locations to right whales.

Response: We have added a more recent reference to this section in the 2018 final SAR (Mayo et al. 2018). We will re-evaluate and update the section if newer sources are available for the 2019 SAR.

Comment 28: The Organizations disagree with NMFS' conclusion that sightings south of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard reflect only a “modest late winter use” of this area by the species, suggest that the waters south of Cape Cod are increasingly important, and ask the Agency to review its own use of Dynamic Area Management (DMA) declarations for these waters as additional confirmation of their significance. In light of distributional changes in right whale habitat noted since 2010, the Organizations comment it is important for the stock assessment reports to reflect not only historic, but also recent sightings outside of “traditional” habitat use that may indicate shifting habitat use and broader distribution.

Response: As the period covered by the 2018 SARs is 2012-2016, any sightings made and DMA zones declared in 2018 are outside of the time frame of this report, but we will reflect any updates in the 2019 SAR. We have removed the word “modest” and changed Stone et al. to Leiter et al.

Comment 29: The Organizations also ask NMFS to consider omitting older information and updating the references used in the “Stock Definition and Range” section of the North Atlantic right whale report. For instance, according to the draft SAR, “(h)igh-resolution ( i.e., using 35 microsatellite loci) genetic profiling has been completed for 66 percent of all North Atlantic right whales identified through 2001,” for which a 2007 publication is cited. However, a 2009 publication by Frasier et al. states that high-resolution genetic profiles are available for greater than 75 percent of catalogued right whales.

Response: We agree with the Organizations and have updated the Frasier cititation in the final 2018 SAR. As noted above, we will re-evaluate and update this section and include newer sources if available in the 2019 SAR.

Comment 30: The Organizations comment it is unclear why Nmin was removed from the “Population Size” section of the North Atlantic right whale SAR and why the estimates provided here appear to differ from those provided by NMFS in its 2018 Technical Memo. According to the draft SAR, it appears Nmin was negated and changed only to “N” due to uncertainties around a probabilistic model and a median abundance of 451 individuals is provided. However, the NOAA Tech Memo, also citing Pace et al. 2017, estimates an “overall species abundance of about 400.” They suggest this lower number—the minimum estimate of animals likely alive—would seem more appropriate to provide as an Nmin.

Response: The “min” was originally removed because the author thought using Nmin would cause confusion with the Minimum Number Alive calculation used in previous SARs. We have corrected this in the final 2018 report and added Nmin back to the text because the sentence refers to the 60 percent lower bound common to most SARs but in this case results from the mark recapture estimation procedure. The Nmin of 445 reported in the 2018 SAR is the lower limit of the 60 percent credible limit on the median estimate of 451. This is the calculation established by the GAMMS (NMFS 2016). The “overall species abundance of about 400” reported in the Hayes et al. 2018 NOAA Tech Memo was calulated by a different method and took into account the 2017 mortalities, which are outside the time frame for the 2018 SAR.

Comment 31: The Organizations suggest the “Current Population Trend” section in the North Atlantic right whale report should be revised and updated to omit aging literature ( e.g., from the 1990s) that appears less relevant. They strongly suggest retaining the figures in this section, abbreviating historic information and using language taken from the NOAA Tech Memo which more clearly assesses the current status including the recent population decline.

Response: We discussed this issue with the Atlantic SRG at their 2018 meeting. The consensus was that while this SAR should continue to maintain its temporal integrity for abundance analysis and the case by case reporting of interactions, language would be added to the text referring to the 2017 mortalities. Prior to publishing the draft right whale SAR for public comment, we added the following text to the “Annual Human-Caused Serious Injury and Mortality” section of the report: “ Although PBR analyses in this SAR reflect data collected through 2016, it should be noted that an additional 17 right whale mortalities were observed in 2017 (Daoust et al. 2017). This number exceeds the largest estimated mortality rate during the past 25 years. Further, despite the usual extensive survey effort, only 5 and 0 calves were detected in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Therefore, the decline in the right whale population will continue for at least an additional 2 years. ” We will report the statistical analysis of population trends that include the 2017 mortalities in the 2019 SAR.

Comment 32: The Organizations comment in the “Current and Maximum Net Productivity Rates” section of the North Atlantic right whale report, it is not clear how NMFS arrived at a total of 443 calves born between 1990 and 2016. According to NOAA's 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation for North Atlantic right whales, “(f)rom 1990-2014, 411 right whale calves were observed born, an average of 16.4 per year (with a standard deviation of 9.2). However, according to the 2017 Right Whale Report Card provided by the New England Aquarium, 17 calves were born in 2015 and 14 in 2016, which would raise the total to 442, not 443.

This section also includes a comparison of North Atlantic right whales to a counterpart species in the Southern Hemisphere. While we do not discount the information provided, it is unclear why NOAA did not rely instead on the more recent information in Corkeron et al. 2018. We understand the paper was not yet published when the draft report was made available to the public but note that it is not unprecedented for Stock Assessment Reports to include manuscripts “in review,” as evidenced by “Henry et al. in review,” cited in this draft.

Response: We have updated the total number of calves born between 1990 and 2016 to 442 in the final SAR. The Henry et al. paper, in review at the time we published the draft SAR, is the Serious Injury and Mortality Report for the same time period as the SAR and is on a parallel review track. The Henry et al. paper is currently in press and will be available shortly. In the interim, it will be provided upon request. The Corkeron et al. 2018 paper does cover more recent information but is more applicable to later SAR periods and will be included in the appropriate future SAR.

Comment 33: The Organizations appreciate the inclusion of a statement reflecting the unprecedented mortality of 17 right whales in 2017, the recent poor calving years, and the acknowledgement of a decline in the population but question whether any value of PBR other than zero is appropriate to use for this species when NOAA itself has determined the population is currently declining at 2.33 percent per year as a result of human causes.

Response: As directed in the MMPA, each SAR “shall” estimate the PBR level for the stock. Further, the statute states that PBR is calculated as the product of three elements: The minimum population estimate (Nmin); half the maximum net productivity rate (0.5 Rmax); and a recovery factor (Fr). In this case, PBR is calculated as 0.9.

Comment 34: The Organizations request NMFS to consider a comprehensive update of language in the “Annual Human-Caused Serious Injury and Mortality—Background” section of the North Atlantic right whale SAR to better reflect a more current view of anthropogenic impacts. For example, citations referencing analyses on entanglements of right whales are from 1999, 2001, and 2009; and, there are more recent information available. Additionally, they note there is no mention of sub-lethal impacts resulting from entanglements, in spite of available publications indicating this poses a significant population-level risk to the species.

Response: We will update the text and citations for this section in the 2019 report. Regarding sub-lethal impacts resulting from entanglements, we note that the van der Hoop et al. (2017) paper is cited in the `Productivity Rates' section of the report: “The available evidence suggests that at least some of the observed variability in the calving rates of North Atlantic right whales is related to variability in nutrition and possibly increased energy expenditures related to non-lethal entanglements (Rolland et al. 2016; van der Hoop et al. 2017).” We will discuss with the Atlantic SRG how best to incorporate discussion of sub-lethal effects into the “Annual Human-Caused Serious Injury and Mortality” section of the North Atlantic right whale SAR.

Comment 35: The Organizations request NMFS include more recent studies in the “Fishery-Related Mortality and Serious Injury” section of the North Atlantic right whale report which can be used to better assess the impacts of serious injury resulting from fishery interactions. For example, van der Hoop et al. 2017 concluded that the duration of an entanglement is critical in determining the survival of the impacted individual and that chronic entanglement is a costly life history stage, not a short-term event. Pettis et al. 2017 found that severely entangled whales, along with lactating females, were more likely to exhibit declining body conditions than any other population segment. While they acknowledge that NMFS has set criteria for which serious injury and mortalities are determined, the Organizations stress consideration of these kinds of studies can help inform these criteria and better evaluate the overall impact of fishery interactions on this declining species.

Response: We are working with partners on ways to quantify chronic entanglement so it can be incorporated into the serious injury determination process. A challenge that we are trying to address is that the status of individual whales might change between resights. We are undertaking a review of the policy distinguishing serious from non-serious injury and will consider this type of information throughout that process.

Comment 36: The Organizations ask NMFS to update the ID # for two North Atlantic right whales (#3996, #3610) and review its assessment of a number of individual North Atlantic right whales (including #3692, #2810, #1142, #1306, [#unidentified], and #4140) to determine whether they should be added to the list of M/SI cases in Table 1.

Response: The Northeast Fisheries Science Center staff reviewed all these cases and their determinations regarding serious injury were later reviewed by experienced staff at another Fisheries Science Center, the Greater Atlantic and Southeast Regional Offices, and the Atlantic SRG, per NMFS Policy and Procedure for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals. NMFS staff looks for evidence of significant health decline post event.

Regarding whale #3996 and #3610, we have updated Table 1 in the final report to include the ID numbers. Three of the cases (#3692, #2810, and #1306) are “inconclusive,” or have evidence of health decline on par with rest of population. Regarding the unidentified whale located on Roseway Basin on September 13, 2015, while NMFS agrees that it is a serious injury, our experts cannot determine the source of the injury; because there is no agreement on vessel strike or entanglement, it cannot be tallied with other human interaction events. There are other instances where whales have serious injuries, but we do not know the source. For whale #1142 and #4140, we will include the updated information on the additional sightings in the 2019 report.

Comment 37: The Organizations agree with NMFS' conclusion that the species should remain listed as endangered and is in decline. However, according to the 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation of the North Atlantic Right Whale ( Eubalaena glacialis ), the species has been in decline since 2010, not 2011, as amended in the draft SAR.

Response: The 2010 abundance estimate was higher than the 2009 estimate. The 2011 estimate was lower than 2010, so we are considering 2011 as the first year with evidence of decline.

Comment 38: CBD-HSUS-WDC suggest that the “Stock Definition and Geographic Range” section of the Gulf of Maine humpback whale report should be revised to condense the outdated information and include a more thorough examination of recent changes in distribution and habitat use.

Response: We agree that the “Stock Definition and Geographic Range” section of this report could use substantial updates and will plan to make these updates in the 2019 SAR.

Comment 39: CBD-HSUS-WDC comment they understand that NMFS cannot rely on an estimate based on data more than eight years old and appreciate NMFS' development of a minimum number alive for the Gulf of Maine stock of humpback whales based on the Center for Coastal Studies (CCS) humpback whale catalog. They note that these data are collected by CCS for dedicated research purposes and include opportunistic sightings contributed to CCS by others. These data represent the most comprehensive catalog of this management stock and are provided to NMFS as a courtesy. CBD-HSUS-WDC urge NMFS to consider providing dedicated support for the long-term sustainability of this catalog, since NMFS relies on it for management of this stock.

Response: We agree with the commenter on the importance of the CCS' humback whale catalog and acknowledge your comment.

Comment 40: CBD-HSUS-WDC do not disagree with NMFS's assessment that the lack of carcass recovery and post-mortem examination confound conclusions regarding whether ship strikes or entanglements are more prevalent and note that NMFS does not provide in the Gulf of Maine humpback whale SAR any data on the analysis of carcasses recovered in the ongoing UME. They suggest it would be useful to include a more updated review for a UME stock to assess the number of cases in which necropsies have been conducted and what, if any, causes of death were determined. For example, NMFS has indicated elsewhere that at least 23 out of 60 examined carcasses were confirmed or suspected vessel strikes and at least four were confirmed or suspected entanglement cases. Since more recent data are available, they should be used ( e.g., data from 2017 are used in the North Atlantic right whale SAR). In addition, CBD-HSUS-WDC request that NMFS consider providing more detail in the “Other Mortality” section beyond “causes of these UME events have not been determined.”

Response: While we included data from 2017 in the body of the right whale SAR as recommended by the Atlantic SRG, we did not yet include those data in the tables or in calculations. Any cases from the humpback whale UME that occurred in 2016 and were determined to be anthropogenic are included in Table 1 of the 2018 SAR. (See response to Comment 25.) For the 2019 SARs, we will review the UME language used in all reports and strive for more consistency. We will also provide some information on the number of cases necropsied, etc.

Comment 41: CBD-HSUS-WDC request NMFS clarify its conclusion in the “Fishery-Related Serious Injuries and Mortalities” section of the Gulf of Maine humpback whale report that 29 serious injuries were prevented by disentanglement between 2012 and 2016. For example, Spinnaker, an adult female humpback whale, was known to be entangled on at least four separate occasions and disentangled three times but ultimately died as a result of what appears to be her second gear interaction. CBD-HSUS-WDC is unclear as to how NMFS' evaluation of disentanglement success would have been applied in such a case.

Response: As noted above in our response to Comments 34 and 35, we do not currently have a method to address sublethal effects or more subtle/slow health decline for the assessment of long-term success. Under NMFS' Policy and Process for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals (NMFS 2012), we consider disentanglement to be successful unless there is additional information available on the condition of the animal such as a significant health decline. This was the case with Spinnaker. Her mortality was attributed to her 2014 entanglement event, based on evidence from her 2015 necropsy.

Comment 42: CBD-HSUS-WDC comment they understand the factors that dictate how NMFS evaluates a stock as strategic and greatly appreciate NMFS' clarification of the uncertainties in the case of Gulf of Maine humpback whales, including that entanglements are surely biased low and that the uncertainties associated with their assessment may lead to an incorrect determination of the stock's status.

Response: We acknowledge this comment.

Comment 43: CBD-HSUS-WDC note that abundance estimates and range definition in the fin whale report are based on survey data no more recent than 2011, at least 7 years ago. According to NMFS' own guidelines, abundance data should be more recent than eight years with a “worst case” scenario of a decline presumed thereafter. At the 2018 meeting of the Atlantic SRG, NMFS informed the group that though Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS) surveys have been funded by multiple agencies, no surveys were planned for 2018. In light of well-known perturbations in ocean temperatures and prey resources, CBD-HSUS-WDC recommends NMFS make every effort to assure that depictions of the species' range and survey-derived abundance estimates do not become outdated since there may be shifts in the ranges of large cetaceans who are dependent on distribution of key forage fish, which can result in exposure to different sources of risk ( e.g., encountering fisheries in new areas).

Response: We acknowledge this comment and note that we will provide a new abundance estimate for this stock in the 2019 SAR. The new estimate will be based on 2016 surveys, and the sighting locations will be added to the sighting distribution map in that SAR. As a point of clarification, the GAMMS (NMFS 2016) state that “unless compelling evidence indicates that a stock has not declined since the last census, the Nmin estimate of the stock should be considered unknown if 8 years have transpired since the last abundance survey.” This is different from presuming a “worst case scenario of a decline” as stated in the comment.

Comment 44: CBD-HSUS-WDC reiterate their comments on prior SARs, that where current information is readily available NMFS should incorporate that information into the most recent SAR to assure adequate depiction of the stock status. In the case of minke whales, the draft SAR makes no mention of a UME declared for this species in early 2017. In its public information page, NMFS states that “[p]reliminary findings in several of the whales have shown evidence of human interactions or infectious disease,” though a single definitive cause is not identified for all stranded animals. The declaration of an on-going UME should be added to the SAR either in the section on “Annual Human-Caused Mortality and Serious Injury” or in the section on “Other” mortality.

Response: See response to Comment 25.

Comment 45: CBD-HSUS-WDC point out that the abundance estimate for Risso's dolphins dates to 2011; and, as noted in a previous comment, according to NMFS' own guidelines, information on stock abundance should be more recent than 8 years. They recommend that NMFS update an abundance estimate as soon as possible so that it does not age out under GAMMS guidelines.

Response: We will provide a new abundance estimate for this stock in the 2019 SAR.

Comment 46: CBD-HSUS-WDC are concerned that the current mortality estimate for long-finned pilot whales is perilously close to the PBR. While they agree that the stock is considered “non-strategic” based on the most recent estimate of bycatch being below PBR, they recommend this may be temporary and bears watching. Because bycatch is so close to PBR and has fluctuated annually (often exceeding PBR), CBD-HSUS-WDC recommend that NMFS undertake an annual review of this stock's SAR rather than every 3 years as indicated under GAMMS for non-strategic stocks.

Response: We recognize CBD-HSUS-WDC's concern about long-finned pilot whales and are aware of the fluctuations of bycatch around PBR for this stock. Because of this situation, we have updated the WNA long-finned pilot whale report in 18 of the 20 existing SARs and will continue to closely monitor the bycatch of pilot whales.

Comment 47: CBD-HSUS-WDC stress the need to re-assess structure for short-finned pilot whales in both the Atlantic and in the Gulf of Mexico. They note at the Atlantic SRG's meeting in 2018, the SRG recommended that NMFS “. . . consider new data, including satellite-linked telemetry and photo identification, together with molecular evidence of stock structure, in a new analysis. In addition, the SRG recommends that both Centers prioritize the collection of new information that could contribute to the question of stock structure of this species, by deploying satellite linked transmitters, and collecting photo-identification images and biopsy samples for genetic analyses during upcoming Gulf of Mexico Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (GoMMAPPS) and AMAPPS III cruises.” CBD-HSUS-WDC understand that limits on resources result in limits on updating stock information but assert up-to-date information is key to the proper management of fishery interactions with short-finned pilot whales to assure that fishery-related bycatch is not exceeding the PBR of a properly-defined stock. They recommend NMFS prioritize collection of information to assure the stock is properly defined and assessed.

Response: In planning discussions with BOEM and the U.S. Navy regarding GoMMAPPS and AMAPPS, we raised the need for additional data collection to evaluate short-finned and long-finned pilot whale stock structure and movement patterns. However, this was not identified as a priority for these programs. The GoMMAPPS project field work is complete as of the Fall of 2018, and the potential for AMAPPS III is currently under discussion. We will continue to identify pilot whale stock structure as an important information need in these discussions. In addition, the Southeast Fisheries Science Center is currently working to revisit short-finned pilot whale stock structure using previously collected samples and next generation genetic sequencing techniques.

Comment 48: CBD-HSUS-WDC note with concern that NMFS states in the short-finned pilot whale SAR that “The total annual human-caused mortality and serious injury for this stock during 2012-2016 is unknown” although it also states that there were 168 takes attributed to the longline fishery. They strongly encourage NMFS to improve its ability to “predict the species of origin (long-finned or short-finned pilot whale) for each bycaught whale” which it indicates in the SAR is hampering its ability to determine total anthropogenic mortality for both species.

Response: The total annual human-caused mortality and serious injury for this stock is unknown primarily because there was a self-reported take in the unobserved hook and line fishery in 2013, rendering the estimate of fishery-caused mortality an underestimate. While there remains some uncertainty in the assignment of some bycatch interactions to species, this is not a factor in describing total human-caused mortality and serious injury as “unknown.”

Comment 49: CBD-HSUS-WDC comment that given the similarities of fisheries in Canada to those in the northeast United States, it is troubling each year to read that there are no recent data regarding Canadian bycatch of white sided dolphin in its fisheries, though stranded animals are reported to evidence entanglements. They suggest it is important to work with the Canadian government to encourage better tracking of lethal bycatch.

Response: We agree with CBD-HSUS-WDC's concern and continue to engage with the Canadian government to receive data on the bycatch of white sided dolphin in Canadian fisheries.

Comment 50: CBD-HSUS-WDC point out the short beaked common dolphin abundance estimate is aging and needs to be updated, particularly as NMFS has used only the U.S. portion of this stock's range, “and a small portion in Canadian waters.” Given the range of this species well into Canada, and a key uncertainty in population estimates is the number of animals in Canadian waters, they suggest the United States should be working more closely with the Canadian government to facilitate cross-border collaboration in understanding trans-boundary movements and both abundance and risks on both sides of the border for this stock. They note during the 2018 meeting of the Atlantic SRG, there was discussion of notable bycatch of this species in the monkfish fishery in Canada and that does not appear to have been captured in the SAR which only provides a “pers. comm” reporting a Canadian take in 2012.

Response: We will include a new abundance estimate for this stock in the 2019 SAR, which will include any available Canadian data. Unfortunately, the Canadian fishery bycatch data are currently not available to us, and we are only receiving unpublished reports.

Comment 51: CBD-HSUS-WDC appreciate the substantial updates to the rough-toothed dolphin SAR. They note that the minimum population estimate of 67 (and a PBR of less than 1) was statistically derived from a single sighting during a survey that NMFS indicates covered only a portion of the stock's range, making this estimate highly uncertain. Though fishery-related mortality of rough-toothed dolphins during the time period of this SAR was said to be zero, NMFS acknowledges that longline fisheries that are similar to west coast fisheries ( e.g., in Hawaii) are known to interact with the species, as have various purse seine fisheries. CBD-HSUS-WDC are concerned that observer coverage on some of these similar east coast fisheries may be insufficient to capture mortality of animals of this species whose abundance remains poorly understood.

Response: Rough-toothed dolphins are very rarely seen during NMFS surveys in the Atlantic, creating a challenge for estimating abundance with confidence. The SAR is transparent about the estimate being highly uncertain. We acknowledge that observer coverage in the longline fishery is likely insufficient to reliably quantify interactions with rarely encountered species.

Comment 52: CBD-HSUS-WDC note the most recent estimate of abundance for harbor porpoise was derived from a 2011 partial range survey. NMFS acknowledges that not all the range was covered at the appropriate time of year nor did the extant estimate account for availability bias as animals along the trackline may be submerged. Though this results in a negative bias and bycatch is well below PBR, they urge NMFS to update abundance range-wide since the low bycatch rate appears to be a result of depressed gillnet effort due to quota restriction on groundfish and could rise if catch quotas are raised.

Response: We will include a new abundance estimate for this stock in the 2019 SAR. The new estimates will be based on both U.S. and Canadian surveys and will constitute a more complete coverage of harbor porpoise range in the Western North Atlantic. The new abundance estimates will account for availability bias for all species, including harbor porpoises.

Comment 53: The Commission comments that the 2018 draft SARs continue to lack reliable, up-to-date information on abundance, distribution, and movements between Canadian and U.S. waters for the western North Atlantic stocks of gray and harbor seals. They stress the need for such information is becoming more pressing, especially for gray seals as their numbers and reports of conflicts with fisheries increase. The Commission remains concerned that the outdated or incomplete abundance and bycatch estimates currently available hamper NMFS' ability to competently manage those stocks. Therefore, they recommend NMFS secure the necessary resources and strengthen existing collaborations to (1) plan and execute comprehensive aerial surveys, including collecting data necessary to estimate appropriate haul-out correction factors for both stocks, and (2) increase efforts to understand and reduce bycatch for gray seals in particular. Studies on seal diet, movement patterns and fisheries interactions will contribute additional information vital to successful management of these stocks.

Response: We agree with the Commission and note that we have been attempting to fill the information gaps as best as possible with the resources we have available. The 2018 SARs report a minimum estimate of gray seal abundance during the breeding season in U.S. waters, based on an extrapolation from pup counts obtained from aerial surveys. The multiplier used to extrapolate pup counts to total population size (4.3) is based on age-structured population models developed with known life history information from the same stock in Canadian waters. While use of the multiplier assumes these same life history parameters pertain to the U.S. portion of the stock, the 4.3 value does fall within the range of other adult to pup ratios suggested for pinniped populations, and uncertainties are noted in the SAR chapter.

We recognize that this approach does not take into account changes in abundance throughout the year as animals move between the United States and Canada. We have submitted several proposals to partners to tag gray seals but to date none have been accepted. Given limited resources and competing priorities, it has been difficult to secure these kinds of resources internally. Due to the high cost of studying seal movements via satellite tags, we have also explored studying movements via acoustic tags. We began a pilot study in 2017 under our previous research permit, but then were denied use of continuing the research when our permit was renewed, due to MMC concern about the impact of acoustic tags on the animals.

Despite the difficulty we are having in securing the necessary resources to fully investigate the abundance, distribution, and movements between Canadian and U.S. waters for the western North Atlantic stocks of gray and harbor seals, we are making some progress. In May 2018, we conducted an aerial survey of harbor seals which will be used to update the previous estimate reported in the SARs. We also conducted aerial surveys after the 2018 UME. We collaborated with a non-profit organization to study the movements of gray seal pups and successfully deployed 11 satellite tags in 2019. We also surveyed the gray seal pupping colonies in 2019. The results from this and other recent seal research will be incorporated into the SAR once the data have been reviewed and published.

With respect to bycatch reduction, we collaborated with our research partners to study pinniped depredation in the gillnet fishery in 2018 and have recently begun communications with another group to develop a proposal to study the effectiveness of pingers in reducing bycatch. We are investigating diet via hard parts in the stomachs of bycaught animals, and via fatty acids in blubber.

In summary, we believe the Commision's comment encapsulates the goals of our seal ecology and assessment group. We continue to try and secure resources to achieve these goals but get pushback in the face of competing conservation needs. Despite this, we continue to make small headway in studying the abundance, distribution, movements, diet, and bycatch of gray and harbor seals.

Comment 54: CBD-HSUS-WDC strongly urge NMFS to update pinniped SARs to better reflect current knowledge of the range of the species. In the harbor seal SAR, the section on Stock Definition and Range They recommend the “historic” data (often 20 or more years old) should be abbreviated and replaced with more recent information on regular habitat use well outside of the area outlined in the section on distribution, and the legend that explains the map shading, that the areas from New Jersey south represent only “stranding records” is outdated and incorrect. CBD-HSUS-WDC also note that internet posts by NOAA show the agency is tracking harbor seals regularly ranging well into the mid-Atlantic. The New Jersey Wildlife Foundation documents a major haul out in Great Bay, NJ, with over 120 harbor seals typically hauled out in the winter. The Virginian-Pilot reports dozens hauled out at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay each winter. Seals, including harbor seals, regularly strand in New Jersey and other parts of the mid-Atlantic, often as very small pups, indicating the possibility of pupping well south of New England. Thus, this SAR should be revised to more accurately reflect current distribution.

Response: We have updated the range map in the final 2018 harbor seal SAR to change the “stranding records only” portion to indicate “seasonal designation.” The period covered by the 2018 SARs is 2012-2016 so we will include the tagging work performed in 2018 in the appropriate future reports. We will update the text and references in the next SAR to reflect the seasonal presence of harbor seals in the mid-Atlantic.

Comment 55: CBD-HSUS-WDC recommend both the harbor seal and gray seal SARs be updated to include information about a long-closed UME for these stocks that ended in 2013, and an ongoing UME affecting these stocks which began prior to July 2018. This current UME has cost the lives of over 1,300 harbor and gray seals in the northeastern United States.

Response: We believe this comment pertains to the 2011 UME (see https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/active-and-closed-unusual-mortality-events ), and we have referenced this UME in the harbor seal and gray seal chapters. The period covered by the 2018 SARs is 2012-2016 so we will include the 2018 UME in the appropriate future reports.

Comment 56: CBD-HSUS-WDC recommend NMFS update the text and range map for gray seals and point out the map shows movement south of New Jersey as “stranding records only,” but there are popular press reports and photographs of animals hauled out near Chesapeake Bay during the winter. They also note that, though cited in the harbor seal SAR, the gray seal SAR lacks a citation to published work by Johnston et al., 2015, which contains useful information regarding strandings and bycatch of this species.

Response: We acknowledge this comment and have reviewed the gray seal range map. At this time we have not made any changes, as we do not have new peer-reviewed literature to include in the text which would support the extension of the range map. However, we will be discussing improvements to the SAR range maps in general at the SRG meetings and will revisit this issue at the time. As to Johnston et al. 2015, we do not feel that the paper adds new information that is not already stated or reported in the SARs; and, while much of the discussion points in that paper are interesting, they are speculations to explain patterns in the data.

Comment 57: CBD-HSUS-WDC point out that the hooded seal SAR lacks a range map. While they acknowledge that much of the distribution and greatest habitat use is outside of the United States, they suggest there is increasing documentation of hooded seals' perhaps extra-limital use of U.S. waters in the winter that may be helpful to include in a range map.

Response: A range map has not been included in this chapter due to the extra-limital presence of hooded seals in U.S. waters. However, we can revisit the possibility of adding in reported bycatch or sightings information when we discuss general improvements to the range maps at the upcoming SRG meetings.

Comment 58: The Commission comments the 2018 draft SARs for Bay, Sound, and Estuary bottlenose dolphin stocks include two new reports for the Terrebonne-Timbalier and West Bay stocks. Although the Commission is encouraged to see NMFS incorporating new data, it also is concerned about the references made to publications “in prep.” or “in review” to support some of the key information in the new SARs. The Commission supports the use of the best available science and does not wish to delay publication of new or updated SARs unnecessarily, but the information on which a draft SAR is based needs to be available to the public to enable informed review. Labelling a report as “in review” suggests that the underlying analysis has been completed and submitted for publication, while “in prep.” suggests that the analyses are still ongoing and could be changed prior to publication. As such, reliance on such information might be premature and generally should not be considered the best available science. Therefore, the Commission recommends that, unless exceptional circumstances warrant otherwise, NMFS refrain from publishing draft SARs for public comment that rely on reports or analyses that are still “in prep.” The Commission further recommends that NMFS carefully consider whether it should base draft revisions to the SARs being considered for public comment on analyses that are still “in review.” At a minimum, NMFS should make every attempt to make the underlying reports/publications available to the public during the comment period.

Response: We agree with the Commission that further standardization is needed with respect to finding a balance between providing new information for SARs and publication requirements. We strive to cite only peer reviewed literature in SARs, to the extent possible; occasionally we will include papers that are “in review” or “in press” in draft SARs with the expectation that the manuscripts will be published by the time the SAR is final. To that point, we have updated the Terrebonne-Timbalier Bay Estuarine System SAR with the final citation, and we have retracted the West Bay SAR in its entirety because one key document remains in peer-review and is not yet published.

Comment 59: CBD-HSUS-WDC note that NMFS provided redlining to illustrate changes made to most of the revised SARs, but the three stocks of bottlenose dolphins ( Tursiops truncatus ) in the Gulf of Mexico ( i.e., Terrebonne-Timbalier Bay Estuarine System stock, the West Bay stock and the Norther Gulf of Mexico Bay, Sound and Estuary stocks) lacked redlining to note changes from prior versions. They request for future iterations of all stocks, NMFS use redlining for all draft revised SARs as a courtesy for reviewers.

Response: We provide track changes for all revised draft SARs to make it easier for reviewers. The Terrebonne-Timbalier Bay Estuarine System SAR and the West Bay SAR were newly drafted with no prior versions. For the Northern Gulf of Mexico Bay, Sound and Estuary Stocks SAR, we did submit the revised SAR with changes tracked ( i.e., red-line version), and the version appears with changes tracked within the pdf draft that was posted online (U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Draft Marine Mammal Stock Assessment (PDF, 257 pages)) at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports.

Comment 60: CBD-HSUS-WDC express disappointment that NMFS did not include any text in the bottlenose dolphin stock assessments for a number of stocks currently affected by the ongoing UME declared by the agency. The elevated death toll, which began in 2017, has resulted in the mortality of over 100 dolphins in southwest Florida as a result of a red tide bloom (brevetoxin). Several resident stocks could have been affected, given the size of the area involved in the event since documented mortalities began and the affected has changed and/or grown. Since the information was public during the period of time in which SARs were being revised, the SARs for these stocks should have been revised on the basis of the availability of new information documenting adverse impacts on the stocks. CBD-HSUS-WDC also recommend the report be revised to include that the origins of the red tide are primarily human-related.

Response: Elevated dolphin mortalities did not begin until July 2018, which is outside the scope of the 2018 reports. We will include future updates on the UME event in the appropriate bottlenose dolphin SARs.

Comment 61: CBD-HSUS-WDC note in the common bottlenose dolphin Terrebonne-Timbalier Bay Estuarine System stock SAR that a cited reference “capture-recapture photo-ID surveys conducted during June 2016 (Litz and Garrison in prep)” is still not available and listed as “in prep” over two years later. They stress these data should have been analyzed with at least a NOAA Tech Memo, since this stock is one of those affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and tracking its abundance and vital rates should be a priority, as would providing the public with that information.

Response: The Terrebonne-Timbalier Bay Estuarine System Stock SAR was drafted specifically because this stock is a priority, and NMFS does not want to delay making the most up-to-date information available to the public. The publication describing the survey and abundance estimate is now published, and we have updated the final 2018 SAR with the citation.

Comment 62: CBD-HSUS-WDC are concerned that the common bottlenose dolphin Terrebonne-Timbalier Bay Estuarine System Stock stock may be interacting with the shrimp fishery at notable levels and recommends NMFS treat this stock as a “strategic stock” due to the high likelihood that their PBR is being exceeded. They further stress that NMFS must work expeditiously to stratify data in a way that allows for an understanding of the magnitude of impact to this stock, and should be updating the SAR annually until data can clearly show that it is not strategic.

Response: We acknowledge CBD-HSUS-WDC's concern and note this topic was discussed at length at the 2018 Atlantic SRG meeting. We requested the Atlantic SRG's advice on how to handle possible mortality from the shrimp trawl fishery given the limitations of available observer program data and the resulting text follows from the recommendation of the Atlantic SRG. Therefore, we revised the SAR based on the Atlantic SRG's recommendation. We believe it is unlikely all of the extrapolated bycatch from the state of Louisiana would occur within the boundaries of Terrebonne-Timbalier Bay. We are working to improve the analyses so that an extrapolated estimate specific to each bay/sound/estuary will be available in the future.

Regarding stock status, this stock does not meet the statutory definition of strategic ( i.e., ESA-listed, declining and likely to be listed as threatened in the forseeable future, or serious injury/mortality exceeds PBR). Thus, the stock is determined to be “not strategic.” However, we have indicated concern for the stock in the SAR.

Comment 63: CBD-HSUS-WDC comment the common bottlenose dolphin West Bay stock is another small stock (less than 50 members) in the Gulf of Mexico, occupying a small defined area within the Galveston Bay estuary and with a PBR of less than 1.0. Fishery-related mortality is stated to average 0.2 per year, or 20 percent of the PBR. However, NMFS acknowledges that all potentially interacting net and trawl fisheries are not observed by the federal observer program and stranding data indicating fishery-related interactions were not considered since, among other reasons, they cannot be attributed to a specific fishery. This stock is also within the operating range of the shrimp trawl fishery. Because the observer program does not extend into the Bay, Sound and Estuarine waters, and the inappropriate spatial resolution of data relative to this stock's distribution, NMFS could not provide an estimate of interactions and therefore legitimately provide a “zero” estimate. They believe that this small stock, with risk-prone fisheries operating in its range, should be considered strategic—with annual updates of its stock assessment—until such time as data show that it is not in fact sustaining mortality in excess of its PBR.

Response: The West Bay SAR has been retracted from the 2018 SARs because one document remains in peer-review (see response to Comment 58). We agree the West Bay Stock is a small stock, and this issue was discussed at the 2018 Atlantic SRG meeting. We must follow the statutory criteria for determining strategic status, and this stock does not meet the criteria to be designated as strategic. A lack of information on human-caused mortality is an insufficient basis for designation as strategic.

Comment 64: CBD-HSUS-WDC reiterate their comment from previous years that NMFS must make a better effort to provide individual SARs for the common bottlenose dolphin Northern Gulf of Mexico Bay, Sound and Estuary individual stocks. While they applaud progress made over the past few years, they stress more needs to be done to provide updated population and mortality estimates as well as assuring that the range of each stock is properly defined.

CBD-HSUS-WDC note that the St. Joseph Bay stock remains lumped with others in this region (identified as stock B-11). Moreover, there is a confusing/cryptic footnote for this stock in Table 1 in the SAR to “[p]lease see the individual stock assessment report for this stock.” Yet we see none for this stock on the NMFS site listing all marine mammal SARs that were not necessarily updated. They comment the reference should be corrected; or, if there is an individual SAR for this stock, it should be listed on the NMFS website at which the final SARs can be accessed.

Response: There is an independent SAR for the St. Joseph Bay Stock, which was first included in the 2011 SARs. The report is available on our website at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-species-stock.

Comment 65: CBD-HSUS-WDC comments that the overarching common bottlenose dolphin SAR for Bay, Sound and Estuarine stock was updated to provide estimates of “years to recover” (absent additional non-natural mortality) from the Deepwater Horizon event. For the Mississippi River Delta stock it was listed as 52 years and for the Mobile Bay/Bonsecour Bay stock as 31 years. However, according to Dr. Randy Wells (pers. comm.), there may also be additional estimates of “years to recovery” estimates for other stocks affected by the Deepwater Horizon spill, including the hard-hit Barataria Bay stock. If so, CBD-HSUS-WDC recommend these estimates for all stocks should be provided in the SAR.

Response: The information on the “years to recover” from the Deepwater Horizon event was included in the overarching Bay, Sound, and Estuary SAR for the Mississippi River Delta and Mobile Bay/Bonsecour Bay stocks because they currently do not have their own independent SARs. However, the Barataria Bay Estuarine System Stock has its own independent SAR, and extensive information regarding impacts of the DWH spill are included therein.

Comment 66: The Commission recognizes NMFS' responsiveness in addressing the recommendations it made on the 2017 draft SARs. In particular the Commission acknowledges the inclusion of 2018 draft SARs for blue and humpback whales, including up-to-date estimates of M/SI and commends the SAR author(s) for making those revisions in such a timely manner.

Response: We appreciate the Commission's comment. The revision schedule for SARs is sometimes delayed by unforeseen circumstances, and we strive to keep the SARs up-to-date with the most relevant information.

Comment 67: The Makah Tribe comments the draft 2018 SARs for large whales introduce a concept to NMFS' stock assessment process in which entanglements of unidentified large whales are assigned to a specific species utilizing a modeling exercise. As the SARs note, each year approximately 15 percent of large whale entanglement reports cannot be assigned to a species due to limitations such as the observer's knowledge of whale identification, sighting distance, weather conditions, and other factors. Carretta (2018) describes a machine learning approach that assigns entangled whales of unknown species to a species based on the location, timing, and other factors. However, NMFS appears to be taking the information from the entanglement reports at face value, without verifying that an entanglement was actually observed or that there are not multiple reports for the same entangled whale.

While NMFS should be applauded for developing a technique for classifying unknown species of entangled whales that assists in quantifying serious injuries and mortalities, the Makah Tribe is concerned that accepting every entanglement report of an unknown whale without scrutiny risks introducing bias into the use of this new tool. They recommend that NMFS be careful in deciding when to include reports of unknown whales in the injury and mortality report and when to apply the model. Specifically, NMFS should apply a stricter quality control methodology for reports where the species is unknown to ensure that they represent unique events and are not duplicative of other documented cases of serious injury and mortality.

Response: We review all entanglement records for reliability, taking into consideration factors as observers' distance from the whale, the experience of the reporting party, and the narrative associated with the entanglement report. Some entanglement reports are not necessarily verified if the evidence is equivocal. For example, there have been reports of whales described as possibly entangled or playing in nearshore kelp. Gray whales in particular will occur nearshore in kelp beds and a record involving that species with such an equivocal narrative may not be counted as an entanglement. We note that the species proration as applied to unidentified whale entanglements is conservative. This is because unidentified whale entanglement reports are opportunistic in nature and there is a large degree of negative-bias (underreporting) in accounting for all entanglement cases. Additionally, there are many cases of multiple documented whales being entangled in fairly close proximity, so the fact that an unidentified entanglement and known-species entanglement co-occur in the same time period and region does not alone support the notion that they are probably the same animal. Further, we evaluate available information including descriptions and photographs (if available) in an effort to identify re-sighted animals. While it is true that an occasional unidentified whale entanglement may match an identified entanglement case, this is likely only a small minority of cases. Many entanglement cases are followed up with vessels actively searching on the water to relocate whales to attempt gear removal operations. Many of these whales are never relocated, which highlights the low probability of observing an entangled whale in the first place.

Comment 68: Point Blue Conservation Science (PBCS) appreciates the inclusion and discussion of the humpback, blue, and fin whale ship strike results from their 2017 paper. They note this is an important step towards realistic treatment of ship strikes and their potential impact on west coast whale populations as compared to relying solely on confirmed strandings. PBCS also applauds the inclusion of methods and results that estimate the proportions of unidentified whale entanglements that likely belong to the various whale species. While both of these sources of information involve modeling with inherent uncertainties, the resulting mortality estimates are certainly more accurate than minimums derived from confirmed strike and entanglement events. Clearly, these better estimates will result in more appropriate management decisions for these species.

Response: We acknowledge the comment and are working to make the data in the SARs more representative of the anthropogenic risks to populations.

Comment 69: PBCS notes in all three SARs (humpback, blue and fin whale), the text states that “strike mortality was recently estimated . . . in the California Current,” and clarify their models covered the west coast's U.S. EEZ. This is an important distinction because all three species spend significant time outside this region, meaning that any strike deaths that occur outside the EEZ are not included in our estimates. PBCS points out this is particularly important when considering the implications for blue whales in the context of the Monnahan et al. 2015 conclusion that the Eastern North Pacific blue whale population is near carrying capacity and likely experiences little population-level effects from ship strikes.

Response: We appreciate this clarification and inadvertently equated the California Current with the U.S. EEZ in the humpback, blue, and fin whale SAR text. We have updated the text in the relevant SARs that the estimated vessel strikes do not include undetected events outside of the U.S. EEZ, where these stocks spend a considerable portion of the year.

Comment 70: PBCS notes Monnahan et al. 2015 is important research in which the authors conclude that Eastern North Pacific blue whales are nearing carrying capacity. In the blue whale SAR, Monnahan et al. 2015 plays a key role in explaining the observed population trend of blue whales. However, PBCS notes the analysis was based on: (1) A lower number of strikes than likely occurs, and (2) a faulty historical distribution of strike mortality. First, since the authors are modeling the entire population, it is important that their ship strike estimates represent total strike numbers, not just those that occur in U.S. waters. PBCS' estimates for July-November in U.S. waters only were 18-40 deaths. To approximate total population mortality, these would need to be extrapolated to include mortality in December-June and in areas outside the EEZ. The SAR states that Eastern North Pacific blue whales spend “approximately three quarters of their time outside the U.S. EEZ,” suggesting population-level ship strikes could be much higher than our EEZ estimates.

Response: We appreciate the attention to this point (see response to Comment 69) and have included text in the final SAR that better considers the risk, given the available data and estimates.

Comment 71: PBCS notes that Monnahan et al. 2015 assume that blue whale ship strike deaths are directly proportional to historical global vessel counts. However, they point out that: (1) U.S. west coast vessel numbers were not linearly related to the global fleet size through time, (2) vessel numbers are not directly proportional to distances traveled, (3) vessel sizes have changed significantly over their analysis period, and (4) vessel speeds, increased through time. These factors mean that strike mortality was likely distributed more recently in time than predicted by the Monnahan et al. 2015 ship model. Population-level mortality significantly higher than 35 deaths/yr (used as a high limit by Monnahan et al. 2015) and distributed differently in time may or may not change the results of their population model. PBCS suggests that given the significance of the analysis to Eastern North Pacific blue whale management, an improved and updated assessment would be very valuable.

Response: In response to this comment we have included text in the final SAR that better considers the risk, given the available data and estimates.

Comment 72: PBCS suggests that in the blue whale report, there should be clearer distinction between where discussion of EEZ mortality is relevant versus population mortality. They think that the comparison made between their higher 40 deaths/6-month estimate and the Monnahan et al. 2015 use of 35 deaths/year suggests a false equivalency and should either be clarified or removed. In addition, they note there is some evidence that blue whales may actually have behavioral responses to ships that elevate their collision risk ( i.e., the equivalent to negative avoidance). PBCS thinks the description of our 40 death/6-month estimate as a “worst-case estimate” is inaccurate.

Response: We acknowledge the comment and have revised the text in the final SAR as suggested.

Comment 73: CBD-HSUS-WDC comment that the increase in PBR level for the putative CA/OR/WA humpback whale stock is difficult to understand given that the California-Oregon feeding group as defined in this SAR includes nearly all of the Central American distinct population segment, which was estimated to include 411 whales. The MMPA defines the term “population stock” or “stock” as a “group of marine mammals of the same species . . . that interbreed when mature.” Because the Central American DPS does not interbreed, they assert it should be considered a separate stock. The PBR level should be calculated using a minimum abundance estimate for the Central American DPS, not a coast-wide abundance estimate, and a recovery factor for an endangered species with less than 500 animals.

Response: As noted in our response to Comment 4, we are currently in the process of reviewing stock structure under the MMPA for all humpback whales in U.S. waters, following the change in ESA listing for the species in 2016, to determine whether we can align the stocks with the DPSs under the ESA. Thus, we have not yet designated new stocks of humpback whales along the U.S. west coast, despite new information on DPSs that the commenter notes. Once we have completed our review, any changes in stock delineation or MMPA section 117 elements (such as PBR) will be reflected in future stock assessment reports. The noted increase in the PBR for the CA/OR/WA humpback whale stock resulted from a higher estimate of abundance compared with a previous version of the SAR and the continued aggregation of multiple DPSs into one recognized stock.

Comment 74: CBD-HSUS-WDC suggest NMFS provided insignificant justification in the CA/OR/WA humpback whale SAR in switching from using the Darroch model, which was used to estimate abundance in prior stock assessment reports, to the Chao model. In the report, NMFS states that the Chao “estimate is considered the best of those reported by Calambokidis et al. (2017a) because it accounts for individual capture heterogeneity,” but that does not explain why NMFS chose it this year and not others when it has been available over the same time period of the Darroch model. The Chao model accounted for individual capture heterogeneity in prior years too, when NMFS instead chose the Darroch model as the best estimate of abundance. Figure 2 in the SARs indicates that data used in both the Darroch and Chao models are from approximately the same time period. CBD-HSUS-WDC request NMFS explain why it was not until this year that it used the model that gives higher abundance estimates, per Calambokidis et al. (2017a). This is especially important in order to justify the increase by half in the minimum population estimate (a change from 1,876 animals to 2,784 animals).

Response: The Chao estimate from Calambokidis et al. (2017a) as stated, accounts for capture heterogeneity and results in an estimate of approximately 2,400 whales with a CV of 0.03. This is the most precise Chao estimate reported from Calambokidis et al. (2017a) and it has a CV closest to the most recent Darroch estimate (Table 3 of Calambokidis et al. 2017a). While the Darroch estimates generally have better precision, they do not account for capture heterogeneity, and this was considered in the most recent SAR. Given the nearly-equal CVs for the latest Chao and Darroch estimates (0.03 versus 0.01 respectively), the model with the best ability to account for capture heterogeneity was chosen for the 2018 revision. In the previous SAR, the model with the lowest CV was chosen, while capture heterogeneity was largely ignored. In retrospect, we acknowledge more consideration of the strength of the competing models, especially regarding capture heterogeneity, was warranted. When sufficient data are available from mark-recapture estimates, it is advisable to use models that account for capture heterogeneity and we reevaluated this in the 2018 SAR. We also note that estimates from the Chao model are more similar to independently-derived line transect estimates of approximately 3,000 humpback whales reported by Barlow (2016). The commenter may also note that a Chao model mark-recapture abundance estimate has been used in the SAR for the Eastern North Pacific blue whale since 2013. The use of Chao estimates for both humpback and blue whale stocks is now more logically-consistent.

Comment 75: CBD-HSUS-WDC suggest that the CA/OR/WA humpback whale report should at a minimum discuss what the PBR level might be if the stock were appropriately defined to be consistent with the DPS identified. As an example from elsewhere in the SARs, in the case of the Central North Pacific stock, the stock assessment report says “Just for information purposes, PBR calculations are completed here for the feeding aggregations.” It then continues by saying “If we calculated a PBR for the Southeast Alaska/northern British Columbia feeding aggregation, it would be . . .” CBD-HSUS-WDC note these hypotheticals are important for stakeholders, including managers, to understand the status and population abundances of humpbacks when appropriate DPSs are used. NMFS has declined to consider public comment on potential management actions that contain calculations of PBR that are not in the stock assessment reports. They maintain this makes it pressing for the stock assessment reports to give as much information as possible prior to a future stock revision.

Response: See response to Comments 4 and 73.

Comment 76: CBD-HSUS-WDC request that NMFS clarify and correct the calculations of humpback whale serious injury and mortality in the sablefish fishery. They suggest the stock assessment report should apportion some humpback whale serious injuries and mortality in unidentified gear to the sablefish fishery, as required by the biological opinion for the fishery. Specifically, the biological opinion requires that “a portion of unidentified whale and gear entanglements would be counted against these take limits . . . in addition to known humpback whale entanglements in gear of the proposed fishery.” It also says that data “used to pro-rate unidentified whale and gear entanglements will be updated each year.” CBD-HSUS-WDC urge NMFS to include these data and calculations in the stock assessment report.

Response: There is currently no model available for assigning unidentified fishery interactions to specific fisheries. There are ongoing analyses in progress to see if this will be possible; but, thus far, the results have not been promising due to lack of sufficient sample sizes of known-gear cases used for model construction.

Comment 77: CBD-HSUS-WDC points out that the stock assessment report's serious injury and mortality for humpback whales in the sablefish fishery are lower than the five-year average in the NMFS report “Marine Mammal Mortality in U.S. West Coast Groundfish Fisheries (2002-2016).” This report says that 4 humpback whales were entangled in sablefish fishery from 2012-2016, but the stock assessment report says that 2.5 were entangled. It is not clear why there is a discrepancy.

Response: We note that the draft humpback whale SAR was prepared months before the release of the cited report, and we have updated the final SAR with the estimates in the cited report.

Comment 78: CBD-HSUS-WDC recommend the CA/OR/WA humpback whale report should address the determination that NMFS made as to whether or not to convene a take reduction team for fisheries that are known to entangle humpback whales along the west coast. The draft report proposes to insert a sentence that discusses stakeholder processes in California, Oregon, and Washington. This does not indicate whether NMFS has evaluated the CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whales since 2015, when it was a lower priority compared to other marine mammal stocks and fisheries for establishing take reduction teams. NMFS should identify in the report when it most recently evaluated whether CA/OR/WA humpback whales were the highest priority for a take reduction team. This would address the Pacific SRG's recommendation that NMFS convene a TRT. Relying on an evaluation in 2015 ignores both the listing of the DPSs and the impact of most of the recent entanglements.

Response: SARs by definition include the best available science for assessing marine mammal stocks. Deciding whether to convene a TRT is a management determination that is outside the scope of a stock assessment and is therefore not included in a SAR.

Comment 79: The Makah Tribe comments that CA/OR/WA humpback whale stock does not represent a stock of humpback whales under the definition of a stock under the MMPA; the listing of humpback whales together from CA/OR/WA is for management purposes and is best characterized as a mixed-stock assemblage. The SAR should provide PBR estimates for each stock (Mexico DPS, Central America DPS, and Hawaii DPS) that occur in the management area. The SAR could also report a separate PBR for the two feeding groups within the management area (Washington-Southern British Columbia and Oregon-California) in order to better inform management decisions and assess localized impacts. The Makah Tribe notes these changes would allow a more thorough evaluation of how human impacts affect humpback whale stocks. If photo-identification allows separation of a whale to one or another stock, then that data should be used. If photo-identification is not available, then the mortality or serious injury should be proportionally assigned to the stocks based on the occurrence of those stocks within the feeding area.

Response: See response to Comments 4 and 73.

Comment 80: The Makah Tribe recommends the calculation for PBR needs to be changed for the CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whales. The PBR calculation used has 8 percent for Rmax. NMFS scientists published a paper in 2010 using life history tables to evaluate what the maximum rate of increase is for humpback whales. They concluded, “It is proposed that the upper 99 percent quantile of the resulting distribution of the rate of increase (ROI) for Approach B (11.8 percent/year) be established as the maximum plausible ROI for humpback whales and be used in population assessment of the species.” (Zerbini et al. 2010). It is unclear why NMFS has chosen to use 8 percent, which is rate that population has increased at, rather than using the Rmax for the population as is required in the PBR calculation. The observed rate of increase of 8 percent may be less than the true Rmax of the population because the population size was greater than abundance at which Rmax occurs.

Response: We agree with the comment that the observed ROI may be lower than the theoretical Rmax for this population. However, Zerbini et al. (2010) note that “we emphasize that such a high figure can be observed only with extreme and very optimistic lifehistory parameters.” The estimated Rmax reported by Zerbini et al. (2010) also includes life history data from other ocean basins where reported rates of increase were much higher, for example southern hemisphere populations that were recovering from intense whaling. The GAMMS (NMFS 2016) also states that “Default values should be used for Rmax in the absence of stock-specific measured values.” There is a stock-specific estimate of Rmax based on mark-recapture abundance estimates from a recovering population of humpback whales in the California Current and that estimate is 8 percent as outlined in the SAR. While we acknowledge that this area likely includes multiple stocks of humpback whales, 8 percent is currently the best estimate of humpback whale Rmax for this ocean region.

Comment 81: The Makah Tribe recommends NMFS reconsider the assumption about what proportion of time the CA/OR/WA humpback whale stock spends in U.S. waters. NMFS has assumed that whales of the CA/OR/WA stock only spend 50 percent of the year in U.S. waters without any justification. The Makah Tribe thinks the estimate should be increased for two reasons. First, many of the whales of the CA/OR/WA stock winter in Hawaii and thus only leave U.S. waters during the short period of the year when they are migrating between wintering and feeding grounds. Second, in Washington, humpback whales feed from late April through December, roughly 8 months. Some of the whales even appear to spend the entire winter in Washington rather than migrating to wintering grounds. They suggest the proportion of time spent in U.S. waters would be easiest to address using the assumption above of reporting separate PBRs for each of the stocks within the mixed-stock management area.

Response: The comment incorrectly implies that many of the humpback whales that feed off of the U.S. west coast winter in Hawaii. The 2018 SAR states: “Along the U.S. west coast, NMFS currently recognizes one humpback whale stock that includes two separate feeding groups: (1) A California and Oregon feeding group of whales that belong to the Central American and Mexican distinct population segments (DPSs) defined under the ESA (NOAA 2016a), and (2) a northern Washington and southern British Columbia feeding group that primarily includes whales from the Mexican DPS but also includes a small number of whales from the Hawaii and Central American DPSs (Calambokidis et al. 2008, Barlow et al. 2011, Wade et al. 2016).” NMFS agrees that further work is needed to refine estimates of time spent in U.S. waters by the various DPSs that utilize the California Current.

Comment 82: Oceana notes the best available information on entanglement, injury, and mortality of humpbacks off the U.S. west coast indicates that risks to the stock from entanglement in fishing gear have significantly increased and comment that recent information was not considered in the stock assessment report.

Response: The CA/OR/WA humpback whale SAR states in the Fishery Information section that “Pot and trap fisheries fishery entanglements are the most commonly documented source of serious injury and mortality of humpback whales in U.S. west coast waters (Carretta et al. 2013, 2015, 2016a, 2018a), and entanglement reports have increased considerably since 2014.”

Comment 83: Oceana suggests that as humpback whales in the U.S. west coast stock, a strategic stock under the MMPA due to its ESA listing, were recently split into two DPSs, it is imperative that the SARs assign serious injuries and mortalities to each DPS, and establish PBR levels accordingly. Oceana is concerned that aggregating the much more critically endangered Central American DPS along with a much more numerous Mexico DPS into a single PBR may obscure and underestimate impacts to the Central American DPS.

Response: See response to Comments 4 and 73.

Comment 84: Oceana expresses concern that NMFS is not taking sufficient action for the CA/OR/WA humpback whale stock to reduce whale entanglement levels to below PBR and ultimately to levels approaching zero. While they understand NMFS' approach has been to rely on state working groups to develop programs like California's Risk Assessment and Mitigation Program, to date, NMFS has not indicated to the state of California or the Dungeness Crab Fishing Gear Working Group what actions and outcomes are necessary to permit the fishery to operate under the MMPA or ESA.

Response: The States of California, Oregon, and Washington have indicated an intention to apply for an ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for their fisheries that entangle protected species. We will be working closely with those states on the development of their applications and associated Conservation Plans for that permitting process. A successful application for an ESA ITP requires that the applicant minimize the impact of their incidental take to the maximum extent practicable (among other requirements) and NMFS must make both a “not likely to jeopardize” finding under the ESA and a “negligible impact” finding under the MMPA in order to issue such permits. As a result, we expect that the development process for both permits would include discussions of the actions and outcomes necessary to permit the incidental take from the actions under the ESA and MMPA.

Comment 85: Oceana also notes that humpback whale entanglement data from NMFS indicates higher levels of entanglements in 2017 (31 confirmed) and 2018 (27 confirmed) than in 2012 and 2013, and suggest the 5-year average level of M/SI would be higher if the SAR used the most recent 5-year period. In addition, the estimates of human-caused M/SI for all whales do not account for unreported entanglements, which could result in a serious underestimation of total M/SI and the associated determination whether M/SI is above or below PBR. NMFS has scientifically reliable means of estimating potential total entanglement numbers. According to NMFS Tech Memo (Saez et al. 2013), the authors applied a 10 percent reporting rate for all whale species on the U.S. west coast to produce an estimate that “an average of 103 whale entanglements per year may be occurring, with 93 unobserved and undocumented with their ultimate fates unknown.” This is based on a study where “The number of reported entangled whales was estimated to be only 10 percent of the actual number of whales entangled (Robbins and Mattila, 2004).” However, in the SAR, the estimates of total fishing-induced M/SI only include reported entanglements for which M/SI was determined.

Response: We note the SARs utilize the most recent 5-years of data that have been analyzed and vetted when preparing the draft reports. We will include newer data in the appropriate future reports. Values for entanglement reporting rates cited (Saez et al. 2013) are taken from U.S. east coast studies and are not representative of U.S. west coast data. There currently are no estimates of the total number of undetected entanglements in this region.

Comment 86: Oceana comments the SAR estimates of whale entanglement are based on an incorrect assumption that zero M/SI events occur from entanglements that are not reported. They note NMFS acknowledges that the number of unreported entanglement events—and thus the number of M/SI events—is well above zero and has estimated that the actual number of entanglements is ten times the observed number. Oceana stresses the importance of incorporating some estimate of unobserved M/SI numbers for understanding the true level of risk to each stock. They request that NMFS provide an estimate of the reporting rate for whale entanglements, particularly for humpback, blue, fin, and gray whales and use the estimate to provide a total annual fishing mortality for these whales to reflect the best available science.

Response: See response to Comment 85.

Comment 87: Oceana requests NMFS take appropriate actions to reduce whale entanglements and ship strikes, as each of these human-threats is individually exceeding PBR, and the cumulative mortality is over double PBR.

Response: See response to Comment 84. We acknowledge the comment and note it is outside the scope of the SARs, but we are actively working on this topic with our partners, such as state agencies and marine shipping companies to reduce the ship strike risk in U.S. waters (see our web page at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/insight/understanding-vessel-strikes on the subject).

Comment 88: CBD-HSUS-WDC suggest the report for CA/OR/WA fin whales should be updated to reflect the 2015 interaction with the Hawaii shallow-set longline in the northeastern fishing area (namely, closer to the west coast EEZ) and specify whether this vessel was Hawaii or California-based.

Response: There are no estimates of fin whale abundance on the high seas outside of the Hawaii or U.S. west coast EEZs; thus, PBR and human-caused mortality is assessed for those records that occur within the U.S. EEZ. The GAMMS (NMFS 2016) note that “If estimates of mortality or abundance from outside the U.S. EEZ cannot be determined, PBR calculations should be based on abundance within the EEZ and compared to mortality within the EEZ.” The 2015 entanglement was determined to be a non-serious injury (Bradford 2018) and because it occurred outside the U.S. EEZ, it is not included in the stock assessment report for the CA/OR/WA stock of fin whales. The stock of fin whales for which this entanglement should be assigned to is unknown; but, based on the location, we have updated the text in the final 2018 CA/OR/WA fin whale SAR to better inform the reader of potential fishery risks to this particular stock.

Comment 89: CBD-HSUS-WDC comment that the Pacific SARs do not regularly include appendices with relevant and timely fisheries information. They note updated information on interactions in longline fisheries is important especially as the number of longline vessels has increased drastically since 2008 in California. Eighteen Hawaii-permitted vessels landed swordfish and tuna in California in 2016. Stakeholders, including federal fisheries managers, need the stock assessment reports to accurately represent marine mammal interactions occurring in the Hawaii longline fisheries in order to assess the risk to marine mammals in the California Current. Further, it is not easy to find information on interactions with the California-based shallow-set longline fishery in the Pacific or Alaska SARs and suggest the interaction rates of the California-based shallow-set longline fishery should be included in the appendices, if not directly in the SARs.

Response: We produce summaries of marine mammal interactions in the longline fisheries in the Pacific region ( e.g., Bradford 2018). Updating the fishery description appendices sometimes takes a lower priority in the SAR preparation process due to the increasing workload involved in SAR preparation. We will strive to produce more timely updates to these fishery description sections in future SARs.

Comment 90: CBD-HSUS-WDC encourage NMFS to investigate Risso's dolphin interactions in the California market squid fishery via electronic monitoring (video). They reference a video of a purse seine encircling marine mammals in Monterey Bay was published on YouTube on April 25, 2018, and suggest this type of interaction, which may not occur with observers on board and may not be self-reported, could be captured via electronic monitoring. CBD-HSUS-WDC suggest NMFS acknowledge in the stock assessment reports that interactions in this fishery do currently occur.

Response: This particular SAR was not revised in 2018, and we take note that interactions with this purse seine fishery should be updated the next time the SAR is revised. Past interactions with the squid purse seine fishery are detailed in the last revision of this SAR.

Comment 91: CBD-HSUS-WDC comment that although some updates were included on basic information about killer whale populations in the Eastern North Pacific, additional changes should be made to update terminology, distribution, and stock differentiation information in the southern resident killer whale (SRKW) report. They note that the tracked changes made in the introduction to the Eastern North Pacific Offshore killer whale SAR align with their requested changes for the SRKW SAR introduction, particularly the clarification of different types of killer whales as “ecotypes” instead of “pods” and updated genetic differentiation. For more recent background information and consistency among SARs, CBD-HSUS-WDC suggest that NMFS apply the same updates to the SRKW SAR. In addition, they suggest that NMFS update terminology referring to the three pods in the SRKW population from J1, K1, and L1 to J, K, and L, as the alphanumeric designations refer to individuals, not pods.

Response: We acknowledge the comment and have made the suggested changes in the final 2018 SRKW report.

Comment 92: CBD-HSUS-WDC comment while NMFS includes some updated information on the distribution of SRKWs outside the inland waters of Washington state and southern British Columbia (the Salish Sea), they disagree with the SAR's statement that the coastal habitat of SRKWs is still uncertain, when more recent recovery documents and status updates thoroughly describe how this population uses coastal habitat. They suggest NMFS use updated research from multiple tagging studies, passive acoustic recording, and monitoring from vessel cruises to update the the use of coastal habitat in the SRKW SAR. In addition, they comment that recent research published by Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans establishes SRKW presence off southern Vancouver Island, which resulted in expanded critical habitat in Canadian waters. They suggest this information should also be included in the SAR and used to update the information about coastal habitat use in Canada by the SRKWs.

Response: The SAR states “The complete winter range of this stock is uncertain.” While there has been substantial new information acquired in recent years on the occurrence of this population in coastal waters, the complete winter range of the population is still unknown. The SAR describes what is known of the range in the Stock Definition and Geographic Range section and the range map provides readers with information on the known range of the stock.

Comment 93: CBD-HSUS-WDC comment that the Center for Whale Research conducts the annual census for the SRKWs and typically provides updates on July 1st and December 31st of each year. They suggest this allows enough time for NMFS to reflect a more recent census report in the SRKW report using numbers reported on July 1st in the same year as the SAR. Using census numbers from July 1, 2017, reflects population abundance more than a year and a half out of date, which is unnecessary for a population as small and as closely monitored as the SRKWs. As of July 1, 2018, the SRKW population consisted of 75 individuals.

Response: The Center for Whale Research is under contract to NMFS and provides a population estimate on July 1st of each year. Since the beginning of the Center for Whale Research's study in 1976, July 1st was used as the date for the population estimate. Although additional effort in the fall months in recent years has occasionally allowed for a population estimate of December 31st, for some years sighting data of all three pods may not exist for most or all of the fall months. For the sake of consistency, we will continue to use the census data from July 1st. We do provide an update to the SRG at their annual meeting of any changes (births/deaths) since the SAR was filed.

Comment 94: CBD-HSUS-WDC recommend NMFS add a description in the SRKW report of the “current population trend, including a description of the information upon which [it is] based,” as required by the MMPA. The SAR describes the past trends and provides the 2017 number of animals (77) but does not specify the current trend. The population of SRKW has now dropped to 74 animals, its lowest point in 34 years, and it is continuing to decline. In 2014, a population viability study estimated that under status quo conditions, the SRKW growth rate was a 0.91 percent annual decline, meaning it would reach an expected population size of 75 in one generation (or by 2036). This abundance was reached in mid-2018. Its current growth rate is just half of the previous estimate described by a 2012 international panel review.

Response: The SAR states: “Following the peak census count of 99 animals in 1995, the population size has declined and currently stands at 77 animals as of the 2017 census.” This is the lowest number since 1995 and is based on data from the annual census, and is considered a declining trend. The inclusion of the 2018 census data, 74, does not change this trend. The SAR language as stated is sufficient to describe the current trend.

Comment 95: CBD-HSUS-WDC comment that growth rates and productivity in different Resident killer whale populations may be affected by variability in diet, environmental conditions, and habitat range. These different environmental conditions, including prey availability, pollution, and disturbance levels may impact their resulting annual growth rate. To better reflect the habitat conditions of SRKWs and the resulting maximum net productivity, CBD-HSUS-WDC suggest that NMFS use the same growth rates and estimated net productivity rates as are used for Northern Resident killer whales. They suggest this population is closer to SRKWs in prey availability and environmental conditions, and shares a similar history in exploitation for captive display. If NMFS does not make the change to maximum net productivity rate, we request that NMFS update the estimate for PBR to reflect the update to population size. With a population of 77 individuals and a calculated PBR of 0.13, NMFS should also update the estimate of “1 animal every 7 years” to “1 animal every 8 years.”

Response: We will evaluate other maximum rates of increase for killer whale populations and consult with the Pacific SRG regarding potential changes to the SAR moving forward. We will retain the currently-used Rmax value from the published study of Matkin et al. (2014) in the final 2018 SAR. The retention of the current Rmax value results in no appreciable difference in the calculated PBR compared with the Rmax value proposed by the commenter.

Comment 96: CBD-HSUS-WDC comment in the “Human-caused mortality and serious injury” secion of the SRKW SAR, NMFS notes a lack of fishery-related stranding information for killer whales in Canadian waters. However, a 2014 report of a juvenile Northern Resident killer whale (I103) being entangled in a gillnet is documented and included in Canada's updated Recovery Strategy for killer whales. Although the whale was quickly released from the net, he/she died the following winter. Given the biological similarities between Northern Resident killer whales and SRKWs, including a preference for Chinook salmon, a similar risk of interaction exists and CBD-HSUS-WDC recommends this example of a potential occurrence should be noted in the SAR.

Response: We have added this information to the final 2018 SAR.

Comment 97: CBD-HSUS-WDC disagree with NMFS that the total non-fishery human-caused mortality for the SRKW stock for the past five years (2012-2016 or 2013-2017) is zero. NMFS notes in this SAR the death of a young adult male, L95, from a fungal infection introduced by a satellite tag. While the infection was determined to be the cause of death for L95, they argue that human activity exacerbated this infection and contributed to the introduction of the fungus into L95's bloodstream, hastening his death. Additionally, CBD-HSUS-WDC recommend the death of J34, from blunt force trauma, should be included as another human-caused mortality and attributed as vessel strike mortality. For a population in a highly vulnerable state, deaths with a high likelihood of being caused by human activity should be noted as such.

Response: We acknowledge the uncertainty of such cases in the “Other Mortality” section of the SAR and include past documentation of a vessel strike death of a southern resident killer whale from 2006. We have added language to the SAR that acknowledges that undetected or unclassified human-related mortality and injury may occur in the population.

Comment 98: CBD-HSUS-WDC notes that the “Habitat Issues” section in the SARs is intended by the MMPA to cover “other factors that may be causing a decline or impeding recovery of the stock, including effects on marine mammal habitat and prey.” Thus, they request that NMFS reflect the level of research that has established the preference for Chinook salmon of SRKWs and remove the phrase “appears to be” in noting that SRKWs are Chinook salmon specialists. They also disagree with the inclusion of pink salmon in the list of other species in their diet, as the paper cited (Ford et al. 2016) finds that pink salmon are present in proportions of less than 0.01 in fecal samples from SRKWs. Additionally, CBD-HSUS-WDC recommend that NMFS elaborate on its note that “changes in Chinook abundance have affected this population,” to include updated information on the impact of human activity ( e.g., harvest, vessel disturbance, and habitat modification) on the availability of SRKW prey as well as the significant impact prey abundance has on SRKW body condition, nutritional stress, fecundity, and survival.

Response: We have elaborated on the published links between lower Chinook salmon availability and lower population fecundity of southern resident killer whales in the final SAR.

Comment 99: CBD-HSUS-WDC comment that with respect to harvest impacts, NMFS has acknowledged elsewhere that the harvest of salmon (in particular Chinook) can result in harm to SRKWs by “reducing prey availability, which may cause animals to forage for longer periods, travel to alternate locations, or abandon foraging efforts.” Ocean and inland fisheries harvest fish from priority stocks of Chinook salmon that the orcas target. Scientists have estimated that ocean fisheries alone reduce Chinook abundance by 18-25 percent. This is significant to the Southern Residents, as shown by Lacy et al. (2017), which projected that a “50 percent noise reduction plus a 15 percent increase in Chinook would allow the population to reach the 2.3 percent growth target” needed for recovery. They suggest that NMFS include updated information on toxic contamination and potential impacts in this section.

Response: See response to Comment 98 regarding Chinook prey availability. With regard to contaminants, we are analyzing data collected via biopsy samples, which will add to the body of knowledge on contaminants published by Krahn et al. (2007, 2009) which is currently cited in the SAR.

Comment 100: The Makah Tribe comments that the “Stock Definition and Geographic Range” section of the Eastern North Pacific (ENP) gray whale SAR should be updated to improve accuracy and clarity and to reflect current, best available science, particularly in the discussion about the Pacific Coast Feeding Group (PCFG). They recommend the SAR be changed to reflect the PCFG abundance estimate is “approximately 240,” as indicated in the Population Size and Minimum Population Estimate sections, rather than the outdated estimate from Calambokidis et al. (2014).

Response: We have updated the “Stock Definition and Geographic Range” section in the final SAR to omit the reference to the number of whales in the PCFG. Abundance estimates are addressed in the “Population Size” section and are limited to those animals within the IWC-defined region detailed in the SAR.

Comment 101: The Makah Tribe comments NMFS should not use a lower recovery factor for PCFG gray whales but should use the same recovery factor of 1.0 as used for ENP whales. They state the best available science, as developed by the IWC's range-wide review over an intensive five-year evaluation of stock structure hypotheses for all north Pacific gray whales, indicates that the PCFG is not separate from the ENP stock, and the recovery factor for PCFG whales should be 1.0 because they are ENP gray whales. Even if NMFS disagrees that PBR for the PCFG should be calculated based on a recovery factor of 1.0, the Makah Tribe suggests the recovery factor should at least be increased to 0.75 to reflect the continuing population growth of the PCFG as reflected in the most recent abundance estimate through 2015 (Calambokidis et al. 2017b). The Makah Tribe reiterates their comments on the 2014 draft SAR for ENP gray whales for increasing the recovery factor of the PCFG above the default value for stocks of unknown status due to a stable abundance trend and the already conservative effect of calculating PBR for a feeding aggregation.

Response: We have the flexibility to set recovery factors that reflect considerations other than population trends. The GAMMS state that “Recovery factors of 1.0 for stocks of unknown status should be reserved for cases where there is assurance that Nmin, Rmax, and the estimates of mortality and serious injury are unbiased and where the stock structure is unequivocal. ” (NMFS 2016). This PCFG is small in size and the estimated M/SI is based on minimum counts of observed cases. Thus, the M/SI is not unbiased, it is negatively-biased. This, in combination with the small size of the feeding group, warrants a smaller recovery factor until that time the population dynamics of the PCFG can unequivocably be determined. A goal of the MMPA is to maintain populations as functioning elements of their ecosystem, thus use of a more conservative recovery factor is consistent with a small feeding group that has a restricted geographic range.

Comment 102: The Makah Tribe suggests that the “Human-Caused Mortalities and Serious Injury” section of the ENP gray whale report, the PCFG mortalities and serious injuries should be added to the total for mortalities and serious injuries of the ENP stock to accurately report the total number of human-caused mortalities of the ENP gray whale stock. Currently, mortalities and serious injuries are treated as mortality to two separate stocks, although the SAR states that NMFS does not consider the PCFG a stock, but is included as a part of the ENP.

Response: We have revised the “Human-Caused Mortalities and Serious Injury” section of the ENP gray whale report to clarify that such estimates of anthropogenic impacts for PCFG whales are a component of the estimates for the overall ENP stock.

Comment 103: The Makah Tribe suggests that the section on “Subsistence/Native Harvest Information” be updated to reflect the IWC's approval of a new gray whale catch limit covering the period 2019 through 2025 at the 2018 biennial meeting. The new catch limit of up to 140 strikes annually is an overall increase; and, while it does not affect the number of whales potentially available to the Makah Tribe if its waiver request is approved, the important changes in the gray whale catch limit should be included in the new SAR. The Makah Tribe has concerns about the last sentence of this section, which reports on the total number of gray whales harvested in aboriginal subsistence hunts over a 32-year period from 1985 to 2016. They point out the SAR already includes values from aboriginal harvests for the relevant five-year period 2012-2016 and does not need the value reported from the longer period. The sentence should be removed because it serves no function in the SAR. If NMFS decides to retain the sentence, they suggest appropriate context should be added, including the abundance trend of ENP gray whales over the same time, the current abundance estimate for the stock, and representative PBR values over the period, which demonstrate that the average annual removals are a fraction of the calculated PBR and are thus sustainable.

Response: We have updated the aboriginal subsistence quota in the final SAR based on the 2018 IWC meeting. We disagree that historical subsistence takes of gray whales reported in the SAR are unnecessary to report. They serve to inform the public of the history of takes in recent decades, and the values implicitly support the assertion that aboriginal takes have been sustainable, in light of the population trend data shared in the SAR. We have added a sentence to this section noting that the size of the ENP population has grown during this same period.

Comment 104: The Makah Tribe comments the title for the Western North Pacific (WNP) gray whale SAR should be changed. The term “Western North Pacific” gray whale was previously used by NMFS for the continued listing under the ESA of an isolated gray whale population that both feeds and winters off the coast of Asia. The fact that a substantial percentage of the whales described in the “Western North Pacific” SAR migrate through U.S. waters, and not along the coast of Asia to wintering grounds off of Asia, shows that the whales represented in the SAR are a different group of whales than the isolated population previously considered to be “Western North Pacific” gray whales. The SAR makes it clear that the Sakhalin Island feeding area is made up of a mixed stock aggregation of whales that migrate to wintering grounds off Asia and whales that migrate through U.S. waters to wintering grounds off North America. The Makah tribe suggests that because only the former population represents the historic “Western North Pacific” stock, the title of the SAR should be changed to “Western Feeding Group Gray Whales” to reflect that the latter group of whales analyzed, i.e., those that migrate to U.S. waters and thus must be evaluated in a SAR under the MMPA, are members of a feeding group of eastern breeding animals but are unlikely to be the whales that historically existed only in Asian waters and which remain listed as endangered under the ESA.

Response: We responded to a similar comment on the 2014 version of this report (see 80 FR 20502, August 20, 2015). The current SAR notes that whales seen near Sakhalin may include a mixture of ENP animals feeding in this region, in addition to WNP whales. There is no evidence to indicate that the WNP stock of gray whales is extinct, as implied by the commenter (see Comment 105). Evidence continues to support an extant WNP population as reported in Brüniche-Olsen et al. 2018.

Comment 105: The Makah Tribe comments the WNP gray whale SAR should include a description of Cooke (2015), which provided a quantitative estimate of the percentage of whales that feed off Sakhalin Island and migrate to wintering grounds off North America. The results of Cooke's analysis—that whales representing 37 to 100 percent of Sakhalin feeding whales could be migrating to North America—is essential to the context for this SAR. That a high percentage of—and possibly all—Sakhalin whales may in fact migrate to North America rather than solely along the Asian coast raises significant questions about the identity of those whales migrating east rather than south, the potential that the historic “Western North Pacific” stock is extinct, and the stock status and ESA-listing status of the Sakhalin whales that do migrate to North America as separate from the historic “Western North Pacific” stock. Citation to Cooke (2015) is also appropriate because the SAR identifies the proportion of the stock that uses U.S. EEZ waters in the Potential Biological Removal section. Cooke (2015) is clearly relevant to that determination and should be discussed.

Response: The Cooke (2015) paper is discussed in this context in the “Stock Definition and Geographic Range” section of the SAR.

Comment 106: The Makah Tribe comments the IWC's range-wide review represents the most recent and best available scientific information on questions of gray whale stock structure. While the SAR mentions the five-year review process, it would be much more informative if it were to discuss the stock structure hypotheses currently considered by the IWC to be most plausible for gray whales. It is notable that in the two hypotheses considered most plausible by the IWC (3a and 5a), the whales migrating to North American wintering grounds from feeding grounds in the Okhotsk Sea are considered the Western Feeding Group of the ENP gray whale stock. In only one hypothesis (6b), which was considered to have lower plausibility by the IWC, would whales from the Sakhalin Island feeding area include Western Breeding Stock ( i.e., the historic “Western North Pacific” stock) animals that utilize wintering grounds in North America without fidelity to wintering grounds in either North America or Asia. The Makah Tribe suggests adding a detailed discussion and analysis of the IWC range-wide workshop's stock structure hypotheses.

Response: We have added text to the final SAR to reflect the two most plausible hypotheses put forward by the IWC. It is important to note that these represent hypotheses, which do not equate to best available science used in a SAR. Genetic studies of gray whales in the North Pacific provide the best available science for the conclusion that the Western North Pacific population of gray whales is extant, though likely very small.

Comment 107: The Makah Tribe recommends the WNP gray whale SAR should more accurately reflect the conclusion of Cooke et al. (2017) regarding whether the combined Sakhalin-Kamchatka feeding aggregation is a closed population.

Response: We have updated the final SAR with text taken directly from Cooke et al. (2017) that better addresses the uncertainty and conclusions: “We conclude that the Sakhalin feeding aggregation is probably not genetically closed but that the Sakhalin and Kamchatka feeding aggregations, taken together, may be genetically closed. However, genetic data from Kamchatka would be required to confirm this.”

Comment 108: One commenter pointed out that the California harbor seal SAR was not updated in 2018 though well overdue.

Response: This comment deals with a SAR that was not revised in 2018. The most recent abundance estimate for this stock is based on data collected in 2012, and the SAR was revised in 2014. No new information on the population size of this stock is currently available that warrants a revision of the report.

Comment 109: The Hawaii Longline Association notes that NMFS has proposed no revisions to the 2018 SAR for the Hawaii false killer whale stocks and asks NMFS to provide an explanation in its responses to comments.

Response: We reviewed available data for all three Hawaii false killer whale stocks, and there was no new information that would change the status of any of the three stocks discussed within the SAR. Therefore, we did not update the False killer whale Hawaiian Islands Stock Complex SAR in 2018.

This notice solicits comments on the collections of information mandated by Commission regulations 23.201 through 23.205 (Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Daily Trading Records Requirements For Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants).

Title: Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Daily Trading Records Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants (OMB Control Nos. 3038-0087). This is a request for an extension of currently approved information collection.

Abstract: On April 3, 2012, the Commission adopted Commission regulations 23.201 through 23.205 (Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Daily Trading Records Requirements For Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants)  2 pursuant to sections 4s(f)  3 and 4s(g)  4 of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”). 5 Commission regulations 23.201 through 23.205 require, among other things, swap dealers (“SD”)  6 and major swap participants (“MSP”)  7 to maintain transaction and position records of their swaps (including daily trading records) and to maintain specified business records (including records related to the governance and financial status of the swap dealer or major swap participant, complaints received by such SD or MSP and such SD or MSP's marketing and sales materials). They also require SDs and MSPs to report certain swap transaction data to swap data repositories, to satisfy certain real time public reporting requirements, and to maintain records of information reported to swap data depositories and for real time reporting purposes. 8 The Commission believes that the information collection obligations imposed by Commission regulations 23.201 through 23.205 are necessary to implement sections 4s(f) and 4s(g) of the CEA, including ensuring that each SD and MSP maintains the required records of their business activities and an audit trail sufficient to conduct comprehensive and accurate trade reconstruction. On April 12, 2019, the Commission published in the Federal Register notice of the proposed extension of this information collection and provided 60 days for public comment on the proposed extension, 84 FR 14921 (“60-Day Notice”). The Commission did not receive any comments on the 60-Day Notice.

Burden Statement: The Commission is revising its estimate of the burden for this collection to reflect the current number of respondents and estimated burden hours. The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to be as follows:

Number of Registrants: 103.

Estimated Average Burden Hours per Registrant: 2,096.

Estimated Aggregate Burden Hours: 215,888.

Frequency of Recordkeeping: As applicable.

There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on April 12, 2019 (84 FR 14922).

Title: Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements: Pre-Enactment and Transition Swaps (OMB Control No. 3038-0089). This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The collection of information is needed to ensure that the CFTC and other regulators have access to data regarding pre-enactment and transition swaps, as required by the Commodity Exchange Act as amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”). The Dodd-Frank Act directed the CFTC to adopt rules providing for the reporting of data relating to swaps entered into before the date of enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, the terms of which had not expired as of the date of enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act (“pre-enactment swaps”) and data relating to swaps entered into on or after the date of enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act and prior to the compliance date specified in the the CFTC's final swap data reporting rules (“transition swaps”). On June 12, 2012, the CFTC adopted regulation 46, which imposes recordkeeping and reporting requirements relating to pre-enactment and historical swaps.

Burden Statement: Provisions of CFTC Regulations 46.2, 46.3, 46.4, 46.8, 46.10, and 46.11 result in information collection requirements within the meaning of the PRA. With respect to the ongoing reporting and recordkeeping burdens associated with pre-enactment and transition swaps, the CFTC believes that SDs, MSPs, and non-SD/MSP counterparties incur an annual time-burden of 17,328 hours. This time-burden represents a proportion of the burden responents incur to operate and maintain their swap data recordkeeping and reporting systems.

17 CFR 45 imposes swap recordkeeping and reporting requirements on respondents related to swaps that are not pre-enactment or transition swaps. The CFTC believes that respondents use the same recordkeeping and reporting systems to compy with both parts 45 and 46. The CFTC has computed the estimated burden for 17 CFR 46 by estimating the burden incurred by respondents to operate and maintain their swap data recordkeeping and reporting systems and then estimating the percentage of that burden associated with pre-enactment and transition swaps. Since the enactment of 17 CFR 45, the vast majority of pre-enactment and transition swaps have been terminated by the parties to the swaps or are otherwise no longer in existence. As 17 CFR 46 only requires respondents to make ongoing reports regarding pre-enactment and transition swaps that continue to be in existence, the number of reports being made pursuant to 17 CFR 46 has declined significantly over time. As the volume of reports made pursuant to 17 CFR 46 is estimated to be very small releative to the estimated volume of reports made pursuant to 17 CFR 45, the Commission's burden estimate has allocated the vast majority of the estimated burden to operate and maintain respondents' swap data recordkeeping and reporting systems to the burden estimate associated with 17 CFR 45.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Swap Dealers, Major Swap Participants, and other counterparties to a swap transaction ( i.e., end-user, non-SD/non-MSP counterparties).

Estimated Number of Respondents: 30,125.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 17,328 hours.

Frequency of Collection: Ongoing.

There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions;

• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the Federal Register on 2/26/2019 at Vol. 84, No. 38, p. 6136-6137. This comment period ended 4/29/2019. Two (2) public comments were received from this Notice. In response to the first comment, CNCS changed “100%” to “the level required by policy” per the commentor's suggestion. In response to the second comment, CNCS will explore potential future revisions to the member exit form or exit survey to accommodate additional member-focused indicators.

Title of Collection: Grantee Progress Report (GPR) Data Collection.

OMB Control Number: 3045-0175.

Type of Review: Renewal.

Respondents/Affected Public: Businesses and Organizations; State, Local or Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 300 total respondents for AmeriCorps State and National. 52 respondents each for Commission Support Grants and Commission Investment Funds. 20 respondents for Volunteer Generation Fund.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 4,540.

Abstract: CNCS uses information collected via the Grantee Progress Reports to assess grantee progress toward meeting approved objectives; to identify areas of challenge and opportunity; to guide the allocation of training and technical assistance resources; and to compile portfolio-wide data to report to external stakeholders. CNCS seeks to continue using the currently approved information collection until the revised information collection is approved by OMB. The currently approved information collection is due to expire on April 30, 2020.

This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.

Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is for ASB members to review, deliberate, and vote on the findings and recommendations presented for five Fiscal Year 2019 (FY19) ASB studies.

Agenda: The ASB will present findings and recommendations for deliberation on the following FY19 studies: “Reforming Talent Management in the Army”, “Battlefield Uses of Artificial Intelligence”, “Army Futures Command”, and “An Independent Assessment of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) Effectiveness in Delivering the Nation's Civil Works Program”. The open portion of the meeting is scheduled for July 17, 2019 from 7:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and will be accessible to the public and press. The study “An Independent Assessment of the Next Generation Anti-Armor Strategy” is classified and will be presented in a closed meeting at 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the Department of the Army has determined that the 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. portion of the meeting shall be closed to the public. Specifically, consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army, in consultation with the Office of the Army General Counsel, has determined in writing that the public interest requires that the 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. portion of the committee's meeting will be closed to the public because the meeting is likely to disclose matters that are (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order.

Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and § 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the ASB about its mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting of the ASB. All written statements must be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at the address listed above, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Written statements not received at least 10 calendar days prior to the meeting may not be considered by the ASB prior to its scheduled meeting. After reviewing written comments, the DFO may choose to invite the submitter of the comments to orally present their issue during a future open meeting.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: SDDC Transportation Financial Management System (TFMS) Access Request; SDDC Form 417; OMB Control Number 0704-XXXX.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to establish Human Resource (HR) accounts within the Transportation Financial Management System (TFMS) for the Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC). The HR account is linked to the supplier module for payment of entitlements (Defense Travel System (DTS)). The information is also linked to the Defense Civilian Pay system (DCPS) for payment of civilian personnel for entitlements. The information is also used to establish and control user accounts in TFMS.

Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Annual Burden Hours: 164.

Number of Respondents: 984.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 984.

Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

Frequency: As required.

Respondents are new employees that will be paid through DCPS, travelers that will be reimbursed using the SDDC line of accounting, or anyone requiring access to the accounting system to enter data or query exiting data. They are responding to the information collection to ensure they receive pay and benefits or to gain access to the accounting system as part of their assigned duties.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Spouse Education and Career Opportunities Program (SECO); OMB Control Number 0704-0556.

Needs and Uses: This information collection requirement is necessary to allow eligible military spouses to access educational and employment resources. The DoD Spouse Education and Career Opportunities (SECO) Program is the primary source of education, career and employment counseling for all military spouses who are seeking post-secondary education, training, licenses and credentials needed for portable career employment. The SECO system delivers the resources and tools necessary to assist spouses of service members with career exploration/discovery, career education and training, employment readiness, and career connections at any point within the spouse career lifecycle.

Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Annual Burden Hours: 19,500.

Number of Respondents: 26,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 26,000.

Average Burden per Response: 45 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 19-06 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

(i) Prospective Purchaser : Government of Bahrain

(ii) Total Estimated Value :

(iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase :

Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

Non-MDE :

Also included is communications equipment, tools and test equipment, range and test programs, support equipment, prime movers, generators, publications and technical documentation, training equipment, spare and repair parts, personnel training, Technical Assistance Field Team (TAFT), U.S. Government and contractor technical, engineering, and logistics support services, Systems Integration and Checkout (SICO), field office support, and other related elements of logistics and program support.

(iv) Military Department : Army (BA-B-UKY)

(v) Prior Related Cases, if any : None

(vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid : None

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold : See Attached Annex.

(viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress : May 3, 2019

* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

The Government of Bahrain has requested to buy sixty (60) Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) missiles, thirty-six (36) Patriot MIM-104E Guidance Enhanced Missiles (GEM-T) missiles with canisters, nine (9) M903 Launching Stations (LS), five (5) Antenna Mast Groups (AMG), three (3) Electrical Power Plants (EPP) III, two (2) AN/MPQ-65 Radar Sets (RS), and two (2) AN/MSQ-132 Engagement Control Stations (ECS). Also included is communications equipment, tools and test equipment, range and test programs, support equipment, prime movers, generators, publications and technical documentation, training equipment, spare and repair parts, personnel training, Technical Assistance Field Team (TAFT), U.S. Government and contractor technical, engineering, and logistics support services, Systems Integration and Checkout (SICO), field office support, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $2.478 billion.

This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of a Major Non-NATO ally which is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East. This sale is consistent with U.S. initiatives to provide key allies in the region with modern systems that will enhance interoperability with U.S. forces and increase security.

The proposed sale will enhance Bahrain's interoperability with the United States. Bahrain will use Patriot to improve its missile defense capability, defend its territorial integrity, and deter regional threats. Bahrain will have no difficulty absorbing this system into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of these missiles will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The prime contractor for the PAC-3 Missile is Lockheed-Martin in Dallas, Texas. The prime contractor for the GEM-T missile is Raytheon Company in Andover, Massachusetts. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

Implementation of this proposed sale will require approximately 25 U.S. Government and 40 contractor representatives to travel to Bahrain for an extended period for equipment de-processing/fielding, system checkout, training, and technical and logistics support.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology :

1. The Patriot Air Defense System contains classified CONFIDENTIAL hardware components, SECRET tactical software and critical/sensitive technology. Patriot ground support equipment and Patriot missile hardware contain CONFIDENTIAL components and the associated launcher hardware is UNCLASSIFIED. The items requested represent significant technological advances for Bahrain. The Patriot Air Defense System continues to hold a significant technology lead over other surface-to-air missile systems in the world.

2. The Patriot sensitive/critical technology is primarily in the area of design and production know-how and primarily inherent in the design, development and/or manufacturing data related to certain components. The list of components is classified CONFIDENTIAL.

3. Information on system performance capabilities, effectiveness, survivability, missile seeker capabilities, select software/software documentation and test data are classified up to and including SECRET.

4. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems which might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

5. A determination has been made that the Government of Bahrain can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

6. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Bahrain.

On October 2, 2014, the Deputy Secretary of Defense signed Memorandum OSD010147, directing the transfer of the Defense Travel System (DTS) and the Defense Information System for Security (DISS) programs from DLA to the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), a component of the Defense Human Resources Agency (DHRA). On July 27, 2015, DHRA and DLA signed a Memorandum of Agreement transferring operational and budgetary responsibility from DLA to DHRA. On June 15, 2016, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD, published a new system of records, DMDC 24 DoD, Defense Information System for Security (DISS) (81 FR 39032). The DISS system of records is comprised of the Case Adjudication Tracking System (CATS) and the Joint Verification System (JVS). The DLA CATS system of records has been subsumed within the DISS system of records and all records previously covered by the DLA CATS system of records are now covered by the DISS system of records. The Defense Logistics Agency systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties and Transparency Division website at http://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/SORNs/.

The proposed systems reports, as required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, were submitted on January 15, 2019, to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and on February 5, 2019, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to Section 6 to OMB Circular No. A-108, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act,” revised December 23, 2016 (December 23, 2016, 81 FR 94424).

Introduction. The Tritium Facilities at the Savannah River Site (SRS) consist of several defense nuclear facilities, including the 217-H Vault, Buildings 233-H and 234-H, and the Tritium Extraction Facility, used for processing and storing tritium. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) is concerned about adequate protection of the public health and safety in the event of an energetic accident at the Tritium Facilities.

The facilities' approved Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) and the November 2018 revision to the DSA awaiting approval by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) of the Department of Energy (DOE) both have analyzed several credible accidents that could result in very high doses, creating the potential for acute radiation sickness or fatality  1 in a significant number of individuals. These energetic accidents include building-wide fires due to a variety of initiating events, crane drops, and explosions with the potential to release large quantities of tritium.

The probability of such an event within the lifetime of the facility is not negligible. Assuming a 50-year lifetime for the facilities, the probability that an unlikely event could occur within that time period ranges from 0.5 percent to about 40 percent. Such an event could lead to a significant number of potentially exposed individuals, posing a significant challenge to both SRS's emergency management system and to local emergency and medical facilities.

The current situation at the Tritium Facilities does not adequately address either DOE's standards of care or standards of practice as defined by its own requirements. Consequently, adequate protection is not assured. The Board has concluded that DOE needs to take actions to improve the safety of the Tritium Facilities, upgrades to safety management programs and the implementation of robust controls to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety. 2

Recommendations. The Board recommends that DOE:

1. Identify and implement near-term compensatory measures at SRS to mitigate the potential for high radiological consequences to individuals who would be impacted by a release from the Tritium Facilities. (For example, potential near-term compensatory measures could include, but are not limited to reducing the material at risk (MAR) and/or limiting the number of potentially exposed individuals or other physical or administrative controls.)

2. Identify and implement long-term actions and controls to prevent or mitigate the hazards that pose significant radiological consequences to acceptably low values consistent with the requirements of DOE directives.

3. In parallel with the above recommendations, evaluate the adequacy of the following safety management programs and upgrade them as necessary to ensure that SRS can effectively respond to energetic accidents at the Tritium Facilities, and that it can quickly identify and properly treat potential victims:

a. The staffing and training requirements for individuals expected to take specific actions in response to alarms, abnormal operations, and emergencies;

b. The adequacy of the Emergency Preparedness programs in H-Area to account for all individuals in the vicinity and ensure that all potentially affected individuals understand their responsibilities and required actions in the event of a large tritium release from the Tritium Facilities and are prepared to implement them;

c. The ability of the site's Fire Department to respond to fires, explosions, and other accidents at the Tritium Facilities that could lead to a large tritium release;

d. The capability of the site-wide radiological protection and occupational medicine programs to respond to an accident and monitor a large number of people with potentially serious uptakes of tritiated water vapor; and

e. The ability and preparedness of community emergency and medical resources to support the site in such situations.

Effects of Tritium Release: Much of the in-process tritium at the Tritium Facilities may be in the form of gas, and material in storage is either in pressure vessels or deposited on hydride beds. Exposure to tritium gas does not result in significant doses to individuals, as the gas is not retained by the human body after inhalation. However, any significant release of tritium gas during an energetic accident or upset condition has a high potential of resulting in a fire, even if a fire did not initiate the release. In the energetic accidents of concern to the Board, tritium, an isotope of hydrogen, may be ignited, converted into water by oxidation, and then dispersed as a vapor.

Tritiated water vapor represents a significant risk to those exposed to it, as its dose consequence to an exposed individual is 15,000 to 20,000 times higher than that for an equivalent amount of tritium gas. 3 As with normal water vapor, tritiated water vapor is quickly absorbed into the lungs and through the skin, and rapidly mixes with the water in the body. The target organ for the exposure is the whole body, with a biological half-life  4 of 10 days [1]. The combination of a rapid intake and a short biological half-life means a large fraction of the radiological dose is acutely delivered within hours to days rather than chronically delivered over many months to years. Tritium's chemical and radiological characteristics also create difficult challenges that complicate the approaches to responding to such accidents and providing medical assistance to exposed individuals. A tritium release becomes even more challenging when considering that hundreds of workers in the SRS H-Area occupy the defense nuclear facilities and other administrative and training buildings surrounding the Tritium Facilities. 5

Emergency Preparedness: Since 2011 the Tritium Facilities have conducted several seismic and/or multi-facility drills and exercises. The Board's staff have observed these drills and exercises and found that they have improved communications and coordination among the tritium facilities, as well as coordination of protective actions with other nuclear facilities within the H-Area. However, neither DOE nor the site contractor, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS), has conducted exercises involving the evacuation of large numbers of individuals from an area due to a large tritium release, nor have they planned for the related logistical issues or for monitoring large numbers of individuals to identify those who might be at risk of a significant tritium intake and would require immediate medical intervention. While reliance on the Emergency Preparedness programs is not a long-term solution, this program will be essential in mitigating the consequences of a significant tritium release until an adequate control set can be implemented.

Past Communication: During a June 16, 2011, public hearing in Augusta, Georgia, the Board raised concerns regarding high consequences due to a potential fire in the Tritium Facilities. The Board further communicated this concern to NNSA in an August 19, 2011, Board correspondence in which it identified a shift in the safety philosophy applied to the Tritium Facilities at SRS. The Board noted that downgrading of safety related controls at the Tritium Facilities has “weakened the safety posture, reduced the safety margin, and increased the potential for both the workers and the public to be exposed to higher consequences.”

The Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs replied to the Board's concerns on November 14, 2011, stating that NNSA would develop new analytical models to better understand the risk posed by the Tritium Facilities' operations, and at the same time NNSA would pursue “additional interim safety controls for Tritium Facilities, such as MAR segregation” to reduce the consequences of a potential accident. The attachment to the NNSA letter identified a series of analytical and administrative activities that SRNS would conduct and stated that, “A review of the control selection for the design basis events considering the new analysis will be performed. Emphasis will be placed on utilizing existing passive and active engineered controls vice administrative controls. Any changes to controls will be reflected in a future update to the Documented Safety Analysis.”

A letter from SRNS to NNSA dated July 12, 2018 [2], indicates that SRNS is considering a number of engineering controls, but the Board is not aware of any formal actions or implementation of any near-term compensatory measures based on this strategy. SRNS's proposed strategy mainly consists of performing analyses. These analyses may result in SRNS proposing revisions to the Tritium Facilities DSA to credit existing engineered controls or may lead SRNS to pursue installation of new engineered controls. Any physical modifications or additions would likely take years to implement under SRNS's proposed strategy. Furthermore, the Board is not aware of any commitments made by NNSA to implement engineered controls based on the contractor's strategy.

Conclusion. The Board has concluded that adequate protection of public health and safety currently is not assured, should an accident, such as an earthquake or large fire, occur at these facilities and there continues to be a risk of exposure to significant radiological consequences in case of an energetic event at these facilities.

In making its recommendations to the Secretary of Energy and in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 2286a.(b)(5), the Board shall consider, and specifically assess risk (whenever sufficient data exists). Risk is generally defined as the quantitative or qualitative expression of possible loss that considers both the likelihood that an event will occur and the consequences of that event. For Recommendation 2019-2, Safety of the Savannah River Site Tritium Facilities, sufficient data does not exist to precisely determine the likelihood that an event will occur and the consequences of that event. However, the Board can use information from the Tritium Facilities' DSAs to develop a qualitative risk assessment.

The Tritium Facilities' DSAs use risk binning to estimate the frequencies of several of the energetic accidents discussed in the Recommendation to be Unlikely, which DOE Standard 3009, Preparation Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analyses, assigns a frequency range of 10 −2 to 10 −4 per year. Assuming a 50-year lifetime for the facility, and given the broad frequency range, the probability that an event could occur within that time period ranges from 0.5 percent to about 40 percent.

The large-scale release of tritium postulated for these accidents has a significant potential to result in acute injuries or fatalities. Such an event could lead to a significant number of potentially exposed individuals, resulting in a mass casualty situation that would pose a significant challenge both to the Savannah River Site's emergency management system and to local emergency and medical facilities.

Therefore, the Board has determined the qualitative risk at the Savannah River Site's Tritium Facilities is significant enough to require the Department of Energy to take action.

Introduction— In December 1991, Congress amended the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's (Board) enabling legislation, expanding its jurisdiction into defense nuclear facilities and activities involved in the assembly, disassembly, and testing of nuclear weapons. According to the Board's 1992 Annual Report to Congress [1]:

As part of these additional technical activities, in 1992 the Board and its staff began to review safety basis documents for Building 233-H (known at the time as the Replacement Tritium Facility, RTF) [2-9]. At that time the facility had been built but had not commenced operations. Later, the Board reviewed the design and safety basis of the Tritium Extraction Facility from the conceptual design stage to its final startup. In both cases, the Board identified safety issues that were remediated by design modifications or administration of operational limits to ensure that the public and the workers were adequately protected.

Since the Board's initial interactions with the Tritium Facilities in 1992, the Board's concerns over the potential for energetic accidents with very high dose consequences have been frequently communicated to the Department of Energy (DOE). A listing of those communications is provided in the Attachment. These communications and the DOE responses to them illustrate a pattern that, in itself, is a concern to the Board. The Board's early involvement in the safety of the Tritium Facilities prompted DOE to implement a range of safety improvements; however, those improvements either were downgraded or were found to be ineffective by 1999. After the Board's interactions with DOE in 1999, improvements were again identified and implemented. By 2011, those improvements had been downgraded and the Board found it necessary to raise the subject again. Today, the Board has determined that its concerns are such that a formal Recommendation is needed to ensure prompt action is taken and sustained.

As noted, in 2011 the Board identified a degradation in the facilities' safety posture that appears to have begun in the period between 1999 and 2011. The Board initially communicated those concerns in 2011, and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) responded on November 14, 2011, with a series of commitments that included updating the methodology and assumptions to meet current DOE requirements and expectations for conservative analyses, as reflected in Subpart B to 10 CFR 830 and its safe harbor methodology in DOE Standard 3009-94. NNSA also stated that “A review of the control selection for the design basis events considering the new analysis will be performed. Emphasis will be placed on utilizing existing passive and active engineered controls vice administrative controls. Any changes to controls will be reflected in a future update to the Documented Safety Analysis (DSA).” The current Savannah River Site (SRS) contractor, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions LLC (SRNS), submitted that DSA update to NNSA's Savannah River Field Office (SRFO) in July 2017. SRFO requested and the contractor submitted a revised version of that DSA on November 2018, and it is currently undergoing DOE's review and approval process. Consequently, the currently approved safety bases still contain many of the weaknesses that concerned the Board in 2011.

The following discussions briefly describe some of the original activities and the controls applied to for Building 233-H. This building contains the majority of the process tritium inventory and poses the most unmitigated risk in case of an energetic accident.

Building 233-H's Past Safety Basis— The Board and DOE worked through several issues with the hazards analysis and control set in the original Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)  6 [2-9] during the early 1990s, prior to startup of Building 233-H. The fire event analyzed in the FSAR was based on 0.1 percent oxidation of the tritium released during the accident. The site contractor at the time, Westinghouse Savannah River Company  7 (WSRC) performed a conservatively bounding analysis assuming that 100 percent of the tritium would be oxidized in a facility fire and documented this analysis in an addendum to the FSAR. Furthermore, WSRC performed a seismic analysis that indicated that a stack would collapse on top of the tritium reservoir storage vault. DOE and WSRC designed and constructed more than a dozen safes known as HIVES (Highly Invulnerable Encased Safes) to protect the storage reservoirs from the impact load of a stack and vault roof collapse. The bounding scenario conservatively calculated the consequences of a seismic event that triggers a fire involving the entire inventory from the reservoirs and the process systems [9]. The maximum individual dose at the site boundary for a two hour exposure was estimated to be about 5.1 rem total effective dose equivalent (TEDE, 8 an ionizing radiation dose unit in use at the time). The corresponding value for onsite dose was 328 rem TEDE. [This value was calculated prior to the issuance of DOE Standard 3009; the 1993 calculation used an older methodology and different assumptions than those currently accepted for safety analyses. Consequently the results cannot be compared to the values in the current safety bases.]

The FSAR control set ultimately established by WSRC was a mixture of administrative operational limits and engineered controls. An administrative control limited the total amount of tritium in the facility, including the reservoirs in the seismically qualified areas. Four limiting conditions for operations (LCO) limited the system pressure for the relief tanks, contaminated nitrogen tanks, and the Z-bed recovery tanks to sub-atmospheric conditions to protect their inventory from a system rupture. An additional three LCOs limited the inventory of the mix tanks, deuterium storage beds, and the tritium reservoirs, which were stored in non-seismically qualified areas [7]. WSRC classified the HIVES as safety related  9 to protect the reservoirs in the vault from impacts. Finally, WSRC used a tritium storage seismic detection and isolation system to further reduce the amount of tritium released during a seismic event. Over the years though, many of the above controls were eliminated or downgraded for various reasons. It is useful to review previously implemented controls for ideas on how the Board's current concerns might be addressed.

During a June 16, 2011, public hearing in Augusta, Georgia, the Board raised concerns regarding high consequences to co-located workers due to a potential fire in the Tritium Facilities. The Board further communicated this concern to NNSA in a Board correspondence dated August 19, 2011, in which the Board identified a shift in the safety philosophy applied to the Tritium Facilities at SRS. The Board noted that the downgrading of safety related controls at the Tritium Facilities has “weakened the safety posture, reduced the safety margin, and increased the potential for both the workers and the public to be exposed to higher consequences.”

NNSA's Deputy Administrator for Defense Program sent a letter to the Board on November 14, 2011, that relayed the Tritium Facilities commitments to the Board for improving safety posture of those facilities. In the attachment to that letter, the field office manager stated that, “A review of the control selection for the design basis events considering the new analysis will be performed. Emphasis will be placed on utilizing existing passive and active engineered controls vice administrative controls. Any changes to controls will be reflected in a future update to the Documented Safety Analysis (DSA).” SRNS submitted that DSA update to SRFO in July 2017. As previously noted, correspondence between SRFO and the SRNS led to a revised DSA submitted in November 2018, which is currently in DOE's review and approval process.

Tritium Facilities' Current Safety Basis —The current safety basis of the Tritium Facilities is comprised of a DSA [10] and technical safety requirements (TSR) [11] that are derived from the DSA. 10 The DSA and TSR documents contain a set of controls that SRNS commits to maintain to assure adequate protection. The DSA is supported by a comprehensive hazard analysis documented in the Consolidated Hazards Analysis Process (CHAP) [12], which is not subject to NNSA's review and approval. The CHAP concluded that “[f]or some events, the mitigated consequences remained in the B1 or B region [consequence categories that require safety class controls for the public or safety significant controls for workers] because available controls either did not exist and/or were insufficient” to reduce the unmitigated dose consequences to the co-located workers for several high consequence accidents.

The calculated dose consequences supporting the current DSA were based on calculations performed in 2008. Those calculated dose consequences for the energetic accidents of concern in this Recommendation ranged up to 6,300 rem total effective dose (TED) to the co-located workers and about 2 to 13 rem TED to the offsite public [13-17]. While those calculations were based on methods and assumptions accepted at the time, they do not meet current DOE expectations for safety basis calculations. More recent analysis, completed by SRNS in 2013, concluded that, using current methodology and assumptions, the calculated dose consequences would increase by a bounding factor of 7.42 for the co-located worker and a bounding factor of 3.45 for the offsite public [18]. It should be noted that NNSA reduced the limit on the total amount of tritium that can be present within the Tritium Facilities by about half in 2011, as discussed in the November 14, 2011, letter to the Board, but that reduction has not been included in the bounding factors given above. These factors are bounding values because there will be some variation in the parameters specific to each accident scenario.

Feasible solutions to address concerns could consist of several controls, each providing layers of protection. Furthermore, solutions may require pursuing controls that dramatically reduce the probability of an initiator, but may not fully prevent an accident. For example, a seismic power cut off system may eliminate many, but not all, ignition sources present in a facility following a seismic event because some systems may be required to continue to function or may have stored energy. Similarly, the reliability of systems like fire suppression systems may be improved through upgrades and modifications or performance of additional surveillances and maintenance, but they may not be able to be fully qualified to protect individuals after all seismic events.

Mitigative controls, such as minimizing the number of non-essential personnel in close proximity to the Tritium Facilities; using readily available technologies to minimize humidity in the air of buildings used for sheltering in place; and having pre-approved plans for decreasing the biological half-life of tritium, could potentially reduce both the number of individuals with intakes and the severity of those intakes. The development of near- and long-term solutions may involve an integrated approach using multiple forms of controls.

The attachment to the NNSA letter dated November 14, 2011, described improvements that would be made to the site Emergency Preparedness program to respond to a significant event at the Tritium Facilities. The Tritium Facilities conducted several seismic and/or multi-facility drills and exercises in subsequent years. The Board's staff observed these drills and exercises and the planned improvements. The drills and exercises improved communications and coordination among the Tritium Facilities and helped improve coordination of protective actions with other nuclear facilities within H-Area. The Tritium Facilities also have made emergency preparedness drill and exercise scenarios more challenging by including deflagrations and stack collapses, and have tested their ability to respond to accidents during night shifts, when staffing is lower.

However, the Tritium Facilities Emergency Preparedness program has not prepared responses to the full range of credible accidents in the DSA and the Emergency Planning Hazards Assessments (EPHA). The DSA includes credible scenarios with co-located worker doses reaching calculated dose consequences in the thousands of rem. The radiological consequences in the EPHAs [19, 20] are usually lower because of differences in the analytical methodologies and assumptions, but still range up to 700 rem TED for co-located workers and 62 rem TED for workers at the nearby central training facility (which also includes a cafeteria). However, the dose consequences to workers in the most challenging drills and exercises [21, 22] were less than 5 rem TED.

The default protective actions for the Tritium Facilities' Emergency Action Levels are to evacuate the immediate area, and for all others to remain indoors (as well as close all doors and windows, and turn off ventilation to the building) [23, 24]. During tritium drills and exercises, this usually involves having workers evacuate the affected process area and/or evacuate from the affected building to another nearby building within the Tritium Facilities. However, the EPHA has scenarios where the maximum distance for the Threshold for Early Lethality may extend up to 320 meters, beyond the Tritium Facilities fence line.

Part of the reason for the lower radiological consequences in the drills and exercises is that the assumed releases are much smaller because the Seismic Tritium Confinement System is assumed to function and confine the inventory during a seismic event. However, the DSA does not qualify this system to be credited during a seismic event. Additionally, the drills and exercises often limit explosions and fires to one room, rather than involving the entire building, as the DSA and EPHA assume. Because the radiological consequences in the drill and exercise scenarios are much lower than those in the DSA and EPHA, the drill and exercise scenarios assume that Tritium Facilities personnel can remain safely indoors indefinitely, that operators can perform their assumed response actions with little impact from the release, that those workers evacuating to another building within the Tritium Facilities do so without any adverse effects, and that the medical response is usually limited to injured workers with relatively minor contamination or intakes.

Using radiological consequences from the severe accidents in the DSA or EPHA, however, might drive the need to evacuate personnel at the Tritium Facilities, and possibly other nearby areas, to a safer location to avoid a significant intake. SRS does not have any procedural guidance or criteria for when workers should evacuate the Tritium Facilities area, and possibly other nearby areas, rather than remain indoors, due to the potential for acute radiological consequences [23-26]. Furthermore, SRS has not conducted exercises involving evacuation of a large number of workers from an area due to a radiological release, nor has the site planned for the related logistical issues such as evacuating or monitoring a large number of workers to determine which ones may be at risk of a significant tritium uptake and may require medical intervention.

The calculated dose consequences supporting the current DSA were based on calculations performed in 2008. Those calculated dose consequences for the energetic accidents of concern in this Recommendation ranged up to 6,300 rem total effective dose (TED)  11 to the co-located workers and about 2 to 13 rem TED to the offsite public [1-5]. Those calculations were based on methods and assumptions accepted at the time. More recent analysis, completed by the SRS contractor in 2013, concluded that using current methodology and assumptions would increase the calculated dose consequences by a bounding factor of 7.42 for the co-located worker and a bounding factor of 3.45 for the offsite public [6]. 12 It should be noted that SRS lowered the limit on the total amount of tritium that can be present within the Tritium Facilities by about a factor of two in 2011, but that reduction has not been included in the bounding factors given above. These factors are bounding values because there will be some variation in the parameters specific to each accident scenario. The calculations supporting the revised DSA indicate that calculated dose consequences for the co-located worker could exceed 18,000 rem TED for some scenarios. [7]

According to the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP), the threshold dose for a 1 percent incidence rate of fatality in an exposed population is 100 rad, 13 and the threshold for a 50 percent incidence of fatality in an exposed population is 300 to 500 rad, assuming no medical intervention [8]. The onset of radiation-induced sickness generally coincides with the 1 percent fatality threshold. These thresholds are for acute exposures that are the result of external radiation sources at very high dose rates, such as those that occur during a criticality accident.

However, high protracted exposures that occur over periods of days to weeks can also result in injury or fatality, but with somewhat higher thresholds. ICRP reports that for exposures where the dose rate is about 20 rad/hour the thresholds may increase by about 50 percent, and if the dose is delivered over the period of a month the thresholds may double [8]. This increase in thresholds is due to the fact that for lower dose rates, the body has more opportunity to repair the damage, thus reducing the likelihood of injury or fatality. Therefore, protracted doses are evaluated by looking at both the accumulated dose and the rate at which the dose accumulates.

For internal exposures such as the situations addressed in this Recommendation, the dose to an exposed individual is cited as the committed effective dose, which is the total dose that has accumulated in the body until the radioactive material has either decayed away or been eliminated through biological processes. The accumulation time is dependent on the specific radioactive material and its chemical form. Some materials such as tritium gas are not retained in the body for any significant amount of time; other materials, such as plutonium oxide, will be retained in the body for many years.

Dose Consequences to Workers and Co-Located Workers: The behavior of tritiated water in the body can be modelled in a straightforward manner. For the doses evaluated here, it is assumed that the exposures occur within a 3-minute or 20-minute time period in accordance with the specific DSA scenarios, and that the biological half-life of tritiated water in the body is 10 days [9]. Although the intake is of a short duration, the rate at which the radiation from the decay of the tritium deposited in the body is determined by the biological half-life. Therefore, the doses from tritiated water in the body tend to be protracted doses, and must be compared against the ICRP's protracted dose thresholds. Given these conditions, the total dose and dose rates associated with an intake of tritiated water are inherently related to each other such that one can predict either parameter if the other parameter is known. This relationship allows one to directly determine the specific total dose and dose rate associated with each of the ICRP mortality thresholds discussed above.

Table 1 shows that a postulated total dose of about 18,000 rem TED will exceed the dose threshold for radiation-induced sickness within the first two hours, and a postulated dose of about 3,500 rem TED will exceed the onset of radiation-induced sickness within the first fifteen hours (the onset of radiation-induced sickness generally coincides with the 1 percent fatality threshold). Once the absorbed doses exceed the injury threshold, the onset of symptoms of radiation-induced sickness likely will occur within hours to a day. When these symptoms are observed, medical personnel would begin more aggressive life-saving interventions on those individuals.

Prior to the onset of radiation-induced sickness, early medical intervention for tritiated water intakes could be taken by aggressively increasing fluid exchange in the patient. This could reduce the biological half-life to as little as three days [10]. Such intervention would reduce the total dose by up to about 60 percent, but would have no impact on the dose already accumulated in the individual prior to the onset of treatment. However, tritium's chemical and radiological characteristics create difficult challenges that complicate the approaches to responding to such accidents and providing medical assistance to exposed individuals. For example, detection of tritium contamination in the field and assessment of potential intakes require specialized equipment, expertise, and most importantly, timely response. 14

It must also be recognized that the dose to co-located workers is calculated at 100 meters from the release point or at the point of plume touchdown, whichever results in a higher dose. Doses within that first 100 meters could be much higher, depending on the release mechanism and plume travel path. However, current models cannot accurately estimate doses to individuals nearer than 100 meters, as the doses are very sensitive to the specifics of each release mechanism, the effects of building wakes, the location of the individual, and a variety of other parameters. Consequently, radiation-induced sickness or fatalities within the facility workers should be anticipated for all accidents where the 100-meter dose is above 100 rem TED.

Dose Consequences to the Offsite Public: While the facilities' DSAs estimate that the calculated dose consequences to individuals beyond the site boundary from these accidents are low enough to avoid immediate acute health effects, they do represent the potential for an increased likelihood of latent cancer fatalities in the exposed population [8]. In addition, the calculated dose consequences challenge DOE's evaluation guideline of 25 rem TED for safety-class controls. (The evaluation guideline is not to be viewed as an acceptable dose; it is a tool for determining the need for safety class controls.) However, the currently approved DSAs do not provide an adequate set of controls to prevent or mitigate some of these accidents.

It is no coincidence that the calculated dose consequences to the offsite public approach the evaluation guideline for the same accident scenarios that result in very high calculated dose consequences to facility workers and co-located workers. As discussed in the Board's Technical Report, Protection of Collocated Workers at the Department of Energy's Defense Nuclear Facilities and Sites [DNFSB/Tech-20, 1999], protection of the offsite public rests heavily on measures taken to protect co-located workers, and protection of co-located workers rests heavily on measures taken to protect the immediate facility workers. In other words, protection of the public begins with the protection of the workers.

Dear Chairman Hamilton:

The Department of Energy (DOE) received the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Draft Recommendation 2019-1, Safety of the Savannah River Site Tritium Facilities, on February 11, 2019, and is currently coordinating its review among relevant offices. In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 2286d(a)(2), the Department requests a 30-day extension to provide comments. DOE's Under Secretary for Nuclear Security, Lisa E. Gordon-Hagerty, will provide the response to the DNFSB by April 12, 2019.

DOE is committed to the safe operations at the Savannah River Site Tritium Facilities. As you may be aware, DOE has already taken actions to address concerns identified in the Draft Recommendation. A 30-day extension will afford DOE sufficient time to assess the Draft Recommendation's findings, supporting data, and analyses.

If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Nicole Nelson-Jean, Manager of the Savannah River Field Office, at (803) 208-3689.

Dear Secretary Perry:

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board is in receipt of your March 12, 2019, letter requesting a 30-day extension to provide comments on the Board's Draft Recommendation 2019-01, Safety of the Savannah River Site Tritium Facilities.

In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 2286d(a)(2), the Board is granting the extension for an additional 30 days.

Dear Chairman Hamilton:

The Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/NNSA) appreciates the opportunity to review the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Draft Recommendation 2019-1, Safety of the Savannah River Site Tritium Facilities. DOE/NNSA is fully committed to ensuring continued safe operations of all our facilities and providing assurance of adequate protection of our workers, the environment, and the public. DOE/NNSA believes that ongoing actions at the Tritium Facilities at the Savannah River Site (SRS) adequately address DNFSB concerns outlined in your Draft Recommendation, and make the need for additional actions in response to a DNFSB Recommendation unnecessary. The commitment to safety in the Tritium Facilities has not wavered, and there has been no change in the safety philosophy in the Tritium Facilities.

As noted in the Draft Recommendation, DOE/NNSA committed in 2011 to develop a new analytical model for dose consequences for SRS. In 2011, DOE/NNSA outlined a plan to update the atmospheric dispersion model, which was completed in 2014. Implementation of that new analysis began shortly thereafter and included a review of the safety controls selection and hierarchy. DOE/NNSA decided to combine all of the Tritium Facilities' safety bases and to conduct a holistic revision to the Documented Safety Analysis (DSA). The new analysis placed additional emphasis on passive and engineered controls over administrative and programmatic controls. The new combined DSA was submitted to DOE/NNSA in July 2017. After an exhaustive review, significant changes were identified, including development of a formal strategy that will continue to strengthen the controls available to protect collocated workers from large energetic events postulated by the safety analysis. The DOE/NNSA DSA review also generated hundreds of additional comments to be addressed in the DSA resubmittal, which was delivered to DOE/NNSA in November 2018. Subject matter experts from across DOE and NNSA are completing a review of the resubmitted DSA and have generated a number of additional items requiring further action. The new analysis continues to conservatively demonstrate that, even for a full facility release, the dose consequences to the public remain below the evaluation guideline. Action items addressed in the collocated worker risk reduction strategy have been placed in a commitment schedule submitted to DOE/NNSA and are being actively managed.

The Department believes that actions contained in the Draft Recommendation 2019-1 are already in place or in development to continue the improvements to provide adequate protection of Tritium Facilities workers, the environment, and the public. The current Tritium Facilities DSA contains appropriate safety significant controls and the new analysis, when implemented, will only strengthen that safety posture. Considering the on-going work, the Draft Recommendation would not drive the need for any additional actions. Additionally, resources needed to respond to a DNFSB recommendation would divert those critical resources that are needed to continue the improvements underway to ensure safety of the collocated workers and/or the public.

We appreciate the Board's perspectives and look forward to continued positive interactions with you and your staff. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Nicole Nelson-Jean, Manager of the Savannah River Field Office, at (803) 208-3689.

Over the past several years, the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/NNSA) and the Savannah River Site (SRS) Management and Operating contractor, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS), have taken actions to improve the Tritium Facilities safety posture. A new hazards analysis has been conducted along with a revision to the Documented Safety Analysis (DSA). This new analysis has further emphasized identifying passive and engineered controls over administrative and programmatic controls. The Board's technical staff was recently provided a draft of the new DSA. DOE/NNSA has reviewed the documents and provided the contractor with comments along with comments from a separate review team from the DOE's Office of Enterprise Assessments. After the review teams' comments are resolved, the new DSA will be approved, which is anticipated to occur in 2019.

As noted in the Draft Recommendation, the new DSA includes updated dose consequence calculations. The calculations use a bounding Material at Risk (MAR) and default to extremely conservative factors, such as 100 percent tritium oxide conversion, a ground plume release, and structural failures during a seismic event. Although MAR reductions have been implemented, further reductions listed in the DSA would raise the security classification of the documents. However, even with the extreme conservatism in the parameters selected, including a simultaneous release of all the tritium, from all the multiple facilities within 20 minutes as a ground plume; the postulated consequences to the public remain below the Evaluation Guideline of DOE-STD-3009-94, Preparation Guide for US. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analyses. In addition, the modeling does not account for any Emergency Response actions, personnel self-protection actions, nor any subsequent response actions to mitigate the consequences. Based on the current DSA, and the new DSA in review, the risk to the public remains low.

The new DSA postulates a small set of energetic events that rely on credited Specific Administrative Controls (SAC) that perform preventive functions. Seismic events in the Tritium Facilities present another challenge as some legacy buildings remain in service while the Tritium Finishing Facility capital line item project establishes a modem, safe, and secure replacement to the H-Area Old Manufacturing Facility. The new DSA includes a number of new credited features, for example:

• The 217-H Vault walls and fire damper have been upgraded and are now designated as Safety Class (SC) features that prevent a release of MAR from the building. Other passive fire barriers are also credited.

• New SACs for fire water tank volume verification and other new Fire Suppression Surveillances have been added.

• All current Programmatic Controls have been replaced by at least one SAC.

• Additional analyses are planned for other buildings and Systems, Structures, and Components (SSCs) to determine suitability for upgrading the functional classification.

• In 2018, DOE/NNSA requested and received from SRNS, a strategy for risk reduction to the collocated worker (U-ESR-H-00163, Rev.0). This strategy describes the SRNS plans for additional structural analyses and control development for the remaining facilities during a potential seismic event. It also includes analytical analysis for dose reduction ( e.g. tritium oxidation conversion rates and plume rise phenomena). In the aggregate, the plan includes 19 commitments that are being pursued and managed (SRNS-T0000-2018-00227, Transmittal of the Schedule for Implementing the Strategy for Risk Reduction to the Co-Located Worker in Tritium Facilities).

• Longer term plans include the Tritium Finishing Facility capital line item project, to replace the H-Area Old Manufacturing (HAOM) facility with a seismically qualified facility with a dedicated SC fire suppression system.

As noted in the Draft Recommendation, SRS has worked hard to improve its Emergency Preparedness (EP) program. The current EP program provides the appropriate training required for individuals to respond to alarms, abnormal operations, and emergencies across SRS. The Tritium Facilities EP program maintains a fully qualified team that performs approximately 50 drills per year to train and validate the organization's ability to respond to various scenarios, from weather induced incidents to large energetic events. DOE/NNSA is confident that appropriate drills are conducted for events as required by DOE.

The Draft Recommendation discusses the control set from the 1990s as being eliminated or downgraded and this result is a perceived shift in safety philosophy in managing the Tritium Facilities safety posture. DOE/NNSA assures the DNFSB that there has not been a shift in the safety philosophy, but rather changes in operations and new hazards analysis techniques have driven a change in the control strategy. Larger and more complex full facility events are now postulated in the safety analysis that rendered previous administrative individual tank Limiting Condition for Operations of the past less effective. Operational events have an adequate set of controls identified, whether SSCs or administrative. Several other controls mentioned in the draft recommendation include the Highly Invulnerable Encased Safes (HIVES), ventilation systems, and the seismic detection and isolation system. The HIVES continue to be credited as safety significant to protect reservoirs in a seismic event and the ventilation systems and seismic confinement system are designated as formal Defense-in-Depth/Important to Safety (DID/ITS). DID/ITS systems are listed in the current DSA with a safety function, are controlled by the Unreviewed Safety Question (USQ) process and cannot be eliminated without DOE/NNSA approval. It was determined that these systems currently cannot be qualified as safety significant without further analysis and upgrade. Part of the risk reduction strategy is to analyze various buildings and SSCs for seismic qualification, with the goal of determining the effort needed to upgrade the seismic detection and isolation system and ventilation system to safety significant controls if necessary. The plan will also evaluate the need for installing seismic detection and isolation systems on additional equipment in H-Area New Manufacturing (HANM) facility and the Tritium Extraction Facility (TEF).

The Savannah River Field Office (SRFO) is routinely involved in the development and review of documents supporting the basis of the DSA. SRFO safety engineers attend and provide comment on a number of development safety programs, such as the Consolidated Hazards Analysis Process, Facility Operations Safety Committee, and DSA/Technical Safety Requirements (TSR) development meetings.

The hazards analysis for the new DSA has a small number of scenarios that rely on credited SACs that perform preventive functions. These scenarios can be categorized into four groups:

• Process explosion—There are two events in HANM and two in TEF that conservatively involve one or two process tanks. This would be caused by an inadvertent introduction of oxygen into the system or inadvertent movement of tritium. Although many SSCs provide a defense in depth function ( e.g., inerted gas glovebox confinement, ventilation, tritium air monitors, etc.), the hazard analysis team did not feel these SSCs would fully mitigate or prevent the events. Therefore, specific administrative controls are specified to prevent the event.

• Firearms discharge—There is an inadvertent firearms discharge scenario. Tritium air monitors are credited to alert personnel of a release if an inadvertent firearm discharge were to cause a confinement breech. DOE/NNSA requires security personnel to routinely access the facilities and they are trained on proper response.

• External impacts—These events include vehicle crashes, crane drops, and airplane crashes. Events for the vehicle crashes and crane drops have specific administrative controls credited to minimize the potential for these events.

• Seismic event—These events may also include fires. The 217-H vault walls, fire damper and other fire barriers are new SC controls that will be added in the DSA update. DOE/NNSA recognizes that additional controls are desired for these events and are currently working through similar DSA review team comments with SRNS. Additionally, the risk reduction strategy places emphasis on qualifying and developing controls for seismic events. The strategy takes a multi prong approach to include evaluating the feasibility of upgrading current DID/ITS controls and evaluating an alternate fire suppression system.

SRS EP support organizations, like the SRS Fire Department, are trained and routinely evaluated to ensure that they can properly respond to an event in any facility across the site. For example, during the 2018 Site Exercise, the SRS emergency response team responded to a complex multi-facility and multi-contractor event that included H-Area, Tritium, and H-Tank Farm. Site level evaluated exercises routinely involve multiple local, county, state, and federal agencies in the response efforts. In a trend to further challenge all organizations, the 2018 exercise tested the site's Emergency Response Organization (ERO) ability to manage a complex event with potential off-site consequences, the Area Emergency Coordinators ability to manage multiple issues within an impacted area, and the ERO's ability to manage these issues along with the balance of the site to protect onsite employees and the public. SRS has addressed several opportunities for improvement identified in the exercise that included logistical challenges in the movement of personnel from impacted areas and conducting appropriately scoped drills to validate the emergency response effectiveness. DOE/NNSA believes that drills conducted by SRNS are properly scoped and use valid assumptions pertaining to the facility processes and safety systems.

As noted, the SRS and Tritium Facilities EP programs have made significant improvements over the past several years. The EP programs are adequate to continue protecting the SRS workers and the surrounding public.

Attachment B of the DNFSB Draft Recommendation 2019-1 discusses the postulated high worker doses documented in the DSA and the corresponding potential health consequences. DOE standards require that nuclear facilities perform conservative accident analyses. The tritium analysis is very conservative and uses many bounding assumptions (e.g.; MAR, 100 percent oxide conversion, ground level release, and others). Per DOE-STD-3009-94, this conservative analysis is used to quantify the “theoretical” dose consequences to (1) determine if any SC SSC is required and (2) provide insight for selecting the appropriate SC SSC(s) for each design basis accident scenario. This analysis was never intended to calculate predicted or expected accident consequences for collocated workers or members of the public. Doses of this magnitude are not expected for any event. In fact, a best estimate determination by SRNS for a full tritium fire event conservatively indicates a postulated exposure reduction factor of over 25 from what is listed in the DSA (S-ESR-H-00031, Rev. 0). This best estimate used the bounding MAR and did not factor in the effects of plume rise that would exist from a large fire. Additionally, the MAR in the Tritium Facilities is spread out over multiple facilities and mostly contained in various storage vessels (some robust) in gas form and on hydride beds. It would not be expected that 100 percent of the MAR would be released in any event and all within a 20-minute timeframe. The Savannah River Emergency Protection Program is well prepared to protect the workers in the very unlikely occurrence of a large-scale event at the Tritium Facilities.

Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

Purpose of Program: The SLDS program awards grants to SEAs to design, develop, and implement statewide longitudinal data systems to efficiently and accurately manage, analyze, disaggregate, and use individual student data. The Department's long-term goal in operating the program is to help all States create comprehensive P-20W (early learning through workforce) systems that foster the generation and use of accurate and timely data, support analysis and informed decision-making at all levels of the education system, increase the efficiency with which data may be analyzed to support the continuous improvement of education services and outcomes, facilitate research to improve student academic achievement and close achievement gaps, support education accountability systems, and simplify the processes used by SEAs to make education data transparent through Federal and public reporting.

Under previous competitions, IES awarded SLDS grants to 47 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. These funds supported SLDS grantees in the design, development, and implementation of statewide longitudinal kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) data systems, or to expand their K-12 systems to include early childhood data and/or postsecondary and workforce data. Grants awarded also supported the development and implementation of systems that link individual student data across time and across databases, including the matching of teachers to students; promoting interoperability across institutions, agencies, and States; and protecting student and individual privacy consistent with applicable privacy protection laws.

Priorities: Because States have been engaged in the process of developing these longitudinal data systems for a number of years, two of the priorities of this competition focus on using data that have already been linked or managed in State data systems. However, recognizing that infrastructure conceived more than a decade ago may be increasingly obsolete, States may also apply for infrastructure grants in this round.

Applicants may apply for funds to carry out projects to address one of the following priorities for development and use of an SLDS:

(1) Infrastructure;

(2) Education Choice; or

(3) Equity.

Under any of these priorities, States should consider how their proposals would enhance their ability to use their SLDS to address the needs of at-risk students, including children and youth who are or have been homeless or in the child welfare or juvenile justice systems. All applicants may also apply for funds to assist the Department in testing a proposed school-level poverty measure that is based on student addresses instead of participation in free and reduced-price meals. States participating in this activity would always be in control of the geocoded student address directory that they create, and no individual student data will be shared with the Department.

SEAs for each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each of the outlying areas are eligible to apply for funding under this competition. Grants will not be made available to support ongoing maintenance of current data systems, but they may be used to improve existing systems to make more effective use of the data contained in these statewide systems, or to create a system where none previously existed, or a linkage that did not already exist.

Exemption from Rulemaking: Under section 191 of the Education Sciences Reform Act, 20 U.S.C. 9581 IES is not subject to section 43(d) of the General Education Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C 1232(d), and is therefore not required to offer interested parties the opportunity to comment on priorities, selection criteria, definitions, and requirements.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 9607.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 77, 82, 84, 97, 98, and 99. (b) 34 CFR part 75, except for the provisions in 34 CFR 75.100, 75.101(b), 75.102, 75.103, 75.105, 75.109(a), 75.200, 75.201, 75.209, 75.210, 75.211, 75.217(a)-(c), 75.219, 75.220, 75.221, 75.222, and 75.230. (c) The OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485.

Type of Award: Cooperative agreements.

Estimated Available Funds: $26,132,000 to support the first year of grant funding.

Estimated Range of Awards: $3,250,000 to $3,500,000 for the entire project period of 48 months.

Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $3,250,000 for the entire project period of 48 months to address one of the priorities. States that agree to participate in the School-Level Poverty project may request an additional $250,000 for costs associated with the school-level poverty measure development and test work for a project period of no more than 48 months.

Note: The Director of IES may change the maximum award through a notice published in the Federal Register .

Estimated Number of Awards: We estimate making approximately 30 awards. The number of awards made under this competition will depend upon the quality of the applications received and the level of funding requested.

Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

Project Period: Up to 48 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: Eligible applicants are limited to SEAs. An SEA is the agency primarily responsible for the State supervision of elementary schools and secondary schools. See 20 U.S.C. 9601 (which incorporates by reference the definition of SEA set out in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), 20 U.S.C. 7801). The SEAs of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are eligible.

2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This competition does not require cost sharing or matching.

b. Supplement-Not-Supplant: The Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002 requires that funds made available under this grant program be used to supplement, and not supplant, other State or local funds used for developing or using State data systems.

3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities described in its application.

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2019, and available at www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.

Additional information regarding program requirements for this competition will be contained in the Request for Applications (RFA), which will be available on June 19, 2019, on the IES website at: https://ies.ed.gov/funding/.

2. Submission of Proprietary Information: Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the SLDS grant program, your application may include business information that you consider proprietary. In 34 CFR 5.11 we define “business information” and describe the process we use in determining whether any of that information is proprietary and, thus, protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended).

Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.

Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).

3. Intergovernmental Review: This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

4. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

5. Notice of Intent to Apply: We ask potential applicants to submit a letter of intent, indicating the priority under which the State intends to apply for funding. We use the information in the letters of intent to identify the expertise needed for the scientific review panels and to secure a sufficient number of reviewers. For this reason, letters of intent are optional but strongly encouraged. We request that letters of intent be submitted using the link at: https://iesreview.ed.gov/. Applicants that do not submit a notice of intent to apply may still apply for funding; applicants that do submit a notice of intent to apply are not bound to apply or bound by the information provided.

1. Selection Criteria: For all of its grant competitions, IES uses selection criteria based on a peer-review process that has been approved by the National Board for Education Sciences. The Peer Review Procedures for Grant Applications can be found on the IES website at: https://ies.ed.gov/director/sro/peer_review/application_review.asp. For this competition, peer reviewers will be asked to evaluate the substantial need for the project; the quality and feasibility of its measurable outcomes, activities, and timelines; the effectiveness of its management and governance plan; the quality of its data security and privacy protections; the qualifications and experience of the personnel; and the resources of the applicant to support the proposed activities. These criteria are described in greater detail in the RFA.

2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

3. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under this program the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. Additionally, a grantee or subgrantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR 3474.20.

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

5. Performance Measures: To evaluate the overall success of this program, the Department has established three performance measures that assess progress toward our strategic goal of ensuring that data are available to inform education decisions by supporting States' development and implementation of statewide longitudinal data systems. The Department measures: (1) The number of States that link K-12 data with early childhood data; (2) the number of States that link K-12 data with postsecondary data; and (3) the number of States that link K-12 and postsecondary data with workforce data. In addition, grantees will be expected to report in their annual and final performance reports on their progress in achieving the project objectives proposed in their grant applications and on the status of their development and implementation of a statewide longitudinal data system.

6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format ( e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

Purpose of Program: The Strengthening Institutions Program (SIP) provides grants to eligible institutions of higher education (IHEs) to help them become self-sufficient and expand their capacity to serve low-income students by providing funds to improve and strengthen the institution's academic quality, institutional management, and fiscal stability.

Priorities: This notice contains two competitive preference priorities and one invitational priority. The competitive preference priorities are from the Secretary's Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs (83 FR 9096) (Supplemental Priorities), which were published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2018.

Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2019 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award up to an additional six points to an application that meets these priorities.

These priorities are:

Competitive Preference Priority 1—Fostering Flexible and Affordable Paths to Obtaining Knowledge and Skills (4 points).

Projects that are designed to address providing work-based learning experiences (such as internships, apprenticeships, and fellowships) that align with in-demand industry sectors or occupations (as defined in section 3(23) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014).

Competitive Preference Priority 2—Fostering Knowledge and Promoting the Development of Skills that Prepare Students to be Informed, Thoughtful, and Productive Individuals and Citizens (2 points).

Projects that are designed to address supporting instruction in personal financial literacy, knowledge of markets and economics, knowledge of higher education financing and repayment ( e.g., college savings and student loans), or other skills aimed at building personal financial understanding and responsibility.

Invitational Priority: For FY 2019 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an invitational priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1) we do not give an application that meets this invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications.

This priority is:

Invitational Priority—Spurring Investment in Opportunity Zones.

Under this priority, an applicant may address one or both of the following priority areas:

(1) Propose to serve children or students who reside, or attend elementary or secondary schools or institutions of higher education, in a qualified opportunity zone as designated by the Secretary of the Treasury under section 1400Z-1 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 115-97). In addressing this priority, an applicant must provide the census tract number of the qualified opportunity zone for which it proposes to serve children or students. A list of qualified opportunity zones, with census tract numbers, is available at www.cdfifund.gov/Pages/Opportunity-Zones.aspx.

(2) Provide evidence in its application that it has received or will receive financial assistance from a qualified opportunity fund under section 1400Z-2 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, for a purpose directly related to its proposed project. In addressing this priority, an applicant must identify the qualified opportunity fund from which it has received or will receive financial assistance.

Definitions: These definitions apply to the priorities and the selection criteria for this competition and are from section 3(23) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 and from 34 CFR 77.1.

Demonstrates a rationale means a key project component included in the project's logic model is informed by research or evaluation findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve relevant outcomes.

In-demand industry sector or occupation means—

(a) In General. — (i) An industry sector that has a substantial current or potential impact (including through jobs that lead to economic self-sufficiency and opportunities for advancement) on the State, regional, or local economy, as appropriate, and that contributes to the growth or stability of other supporting businesses, or the growth of other industry sectors; or

(ii) An occupation that currently has or is projected to have a number of positions (including positions that lead to economic self-sufficiency and opportunities for advancement) in an industry sector so as to have a significant impact on the State, regional, or local economy, as appropriate.

(B) Determination. The determination of whether an industry sector or occupation is in-demand under this paragraph shall be made by the State board or local board, as appropriate, using State and regional business and labor market projections, including the use of labor market information.

Logic model (also referred to as theory of action) means a framework that identifies key project components of the proposed project ( i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the theoretical and operational relationships among the key project components and relevant outcomes.

Note: In developing logic models, applicants may want to use resources such as the Regional Educational Laboratory Program's (REL Pacific) Education Logic Model Application, available at https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/pacific/elm.asp, to help design their logic models. Other sources include: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/pacific/pdf/REL_2014025.pdf, https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/pacific/pdf/REL_2014007.pdf, and https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northeast/pdf/REL_2015057.pdf.

Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention, process, product, practice, or policy included in a project. Evidence may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of project components ( e.g., training teachers on instructional practices for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers).

Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s) the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the specific goals of the program.

Note: In 2008, the HEA was amended by the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA), Public Law 110-315. The HEOA made a number of technical and substantive revisions to SIP. Please note that the regulations for SIP in 34 CFR part 607 have not been updated to reflect these statutory changes.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The regulations for this program in 34 CFR part 607. (e) The Supplemental Priorities.

Type of Award: Discretionary grants. Five-year Individual Development Grants and Cooperative Arrangement Development Grants will be awarded in FY 2019.

Estimated Available Funds: Approximately $26,300,000 is available for new awards in the program competition.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Individual Development Grants:

Estimated Range of Awards: $400,000-$450,000 per year.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $425,000 per year.

Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $450,000 for a single budget period of 12 months.

Estimated Number of Awards: 31.

Cooperative Arrangement Development Grants:

Estimated Range of Awards: $500,000-$550,000 per year.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $525,000 per year.

Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $550,000 for a single budget period of 12 months.

Estimated Number of Awards: 25.

Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

Project Period: Up to 60 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: This program is authorized by title III, part A, of the HEA. To qualify as an eligible institution under any title III, part A program, an institution must—

(a) Be accredited or preaccredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association that the Secretary has determined to be a reliable authority as to the quality of education or training offered;

(b) Be legally authorized by the State in which it is located to be a junior or community college or to provide an educational program for which it awards a bachelor's degree;

(c) Be designated as an “eligible institution” by demonstrating that it: (1) Has an enrollment of needy students as described in 34 CFR 607.3; and (2) has low average educational and general expenditures per full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate student as described in 34 CFR 607.4.

Note: The notice announcing the FY 2019 process for designation of eligible institutions, and inviting applications for waiver of eligibility requirements, was published in the Federal Register on January 29, 2019 (84 FR 451). Only institutions that the Department determines are eligible, or are granted a waiver under the process described in that notice, may apply for a grant in this program.

A grantee under the HSI program, which is authorized under title V of the HEA, may not receive a grant under any HEA, title III, part A program. The title III, part A programs are: SIP; the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities program; the Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions program; the Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions program; and the Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions program. Furthermore, a current HSI program grantee may not give up its HSI grant to receive a grant under SIP or any title III, Part A program as described in 34 CFR 607.2(g)(1).

An eligible HSI that is not a current grantee under the HSI program may apply for a FY 2019 grant under all title III, part A programs for which it is eligible, as well as receive consideration for a grant under the HSI program. However, a successful applicant may receive only one grant as described in 34 CFR 607.2(g)(1).

2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching unless the grantee uses a portion of its grant for establishing or improving an endowment fund. If a grantee uses a portion of its grant for endowment fund purposes, it must match those grant funds with non-Federal funds (20 U.S.C. 1057(d)-(2)).

b. Supplement-Not-Supplant: This program involves supplement-not-supplant funding requirements. Grant funds must be used so that they supplement and, to the extent practical, increase the funds that would otherwise be available for the activities to be carried out under the grant and in no case supplant those funds (34 CFR 607.30(b)).

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.

2. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. However, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental review in order to make awards by the end of FY 2019.

3. Funding Restrictions: We specify unallowable costs in 34 CFR 607.10(c). We reference additional regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you limit the application narrative to no more than 50 pages for Individual Development Grants and no more than 65 pages for Cooperative Arrangement Development Grants. If you are addressing the invitational priority and/or either or both competitive preference priorities, you will have an additional seven pages total to respond to all three priorities. To address the invitational priority, you will have an additional two pages; for competitive preference priority one, you will have three additional pages; and for competitive preference priority two, you will have two additional pages. If you address all three priorities, you should limit the application narrative (Part III) to no more than 57 pages for the Individual Development Grant application and 72 pages for the Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant application. Please include a separate heading when responding to the invitational priority and one or both competitive preference priorities. You may only use the additional seven pages to address the invitational or the competitive preference priorities. The additional seven pages are not for an extended response to the selection criteria. If you are not addressing the invitational priority or the competitive preference priorities, you should limit your application narrative to no more than 50 pages for the Individual Development Grant or 65 pages for the Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant. We also recommend that you use the following standards:

• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, excluding titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.

• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, and no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).

• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract and the bibliography. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.

Note: The Budget Information-Non-Construction Programs Form (ED 524) Sections A-C are not the same as the narrative response to the Budget section of the selection criteria.

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this program are from 34 CFR 607.22(a) through (g), and from 34 CFR 75.210. Applicants should address each of the following selection criteria separately for each proposed activity. The selection criteria are worth a total of 100 points; the maximum score for each criterion is noted in parentheses.

(a) Quality of the Applicant's Comprehensive Development Plan. (Maximum 20 Points) The extent to which—

(1) The strengths, weaknesses, and significant problems of the institution's academic programs, institutional management, and fiscal stability are clearly and comprehensively analyzed and result from a process that involved major constituencies of the institution;

(2) The goals for the institution's academic programs, institutional management, and fiscal stability are realistic and based on comprehensive analysis;

(3) The objectives stated in the plan are measurable, related to institutional goals, and, if achieved, will contribute to the growth and self-sufficiency of the institution; and

(4) The plan clearly and comprehensively describes the methods and resources the institution will use to institutionalize practice and improvements developed under the proposed project, including, in particular, how operational costs for personnel, maintenance, and upgrades of equipment will be paid with institutional resources.

(b) Quality of the Project Design. (Maximum 10 Points) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale (as defined in this notice).

(c) Quality of Activity Objectives. (Maximum 15 Points) The extent to which the objectives for each activity are—

(1) Realistic and defined in terms of measurable results; and

(2) Directly related to the problems to be solved and to the goals of the comprehensive development plan.

(d) Quality of Implementation Strategy. (Maximum 15 Points) The extent to which—

(1) The implementation strategy for each activity is comprehensive;

(2) The rationale for the implementation strategy for each activity is clearly described and is supported by the results of relevant studies or projects; and

(3) The timetable for each activity is realistic and likely to be attained.

(e) Quality of Key Personnel. (Maximum 8 Points) The extent to which—

(1) The past experience and training of key professional personnel are directly related to the stated activity objectives; and

(2) The time commitment of key personnel is realistic.

(f) Quality of Project Management Plan. (Maximum 10 Points) The extent to which—

(1) Procedures for managing the project are likely to ensure efficient and effective project implementation; and

(2) The project coordinator and activity directors have sufficient authority to conduct the project effectively, including access to the president or chief executive officer.

(g) Quality of Evaluation Plan. (Maximum 15 Points) The extent to which—

(1) The data elements and the data collection procedures are clearly described and appropriate to measure the attainment of activity objectives and to measure the success of the project in achieving the goals of the comprehensive development plan; and

(2) The data analysis procedures are clearly described and are likely to produce formative and summative results on attaining activity objectives and measuring the success of the project on achieving the goals of the comprehensive development plan.

(h) Budget. (Maximum 7 Points) The extent to which the proposed costs are necessary and reasonable in relation to the project's objectives and scope.

2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

A panel of three non-Federal reviewers will review and score each application in accordance with the selection criteria listed in this notice from 34 CFR 607.22(a) through (g) and 34 CFR 75.210. A rank order funding slate will be made from this review. Awards will be made in rank order according to the average score received from the peer review and from the two competitive preference priorities.

Tie-breaker for Development Grants. In tie-breaking situations for development grants, in accordance with 20 U.S.C. 1057(b), we award one additional point to an application from an IHE that has an endowment fund of which the current market value, per FTE enrolled student, is less than the average current market value of the endowment funds, per FTE enrolled student, at comparable type institutions that offer similar instruction. We award one additional point to an application from an IHE that has expenditures for library materials per FTE enrolled student that are less than the average expenditure for library materials per FTE enrolled student at similar type institutions. We also add one additional point to an application from an IHE that proposes to carry out one or more of the following activities—

(1) Faculty development;

(2) Funds and administrative management;

(3) Development and improvement of academic programs;

(4) Acquisition of equipment for use in strengthening management and academic programs;

(5) Joint use of facilities such as libraries and laboratories; and

(6) Student services, including services that will assist in the education of special populations.

For the purpose of these funding considerations, we use 2017-2018 data.

If a tie remains after applying the tie-breaker mechanism above, priority will be given to applicants that have the lowest endowment values per FTE enrolled student.

3. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under this program the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. Additionally, a grantee or subgrantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR 3474.20.

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

5. Performance Measures: The Secretary has established the following key performance measures for assessing the effectiveness of SIP:

(a) The percentage change, over the five-year period, of the number of full-time degree-seeking undergraduates enrolled at SIP institutions. Note that this is a long-term measure that will be used to periodically gauge performance.

(b) The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students at four-year SIP institutions who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same SIP institution.

(c) The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students at two-year SIP institutions who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same SIP institution.

(d) The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at four-year SIP institutions graduating within six years of enrollment.

(e) The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at two-year SIP institutions graduating within three years of enrollment.

6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format ( e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to one of the persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations via the Federal Digital System at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

Purpose of Program: In awarding these grants, the Institute of Education Sciences (Institute) intends to provide national leadership in expanding knowledge and understanding of (1) developmental and school readiness outcomes for infants and toddlers with or at risk for a disability, (2) education outcomes for all learners from early childhood education through postsecondary and adult education, and (3) employment and wage outcomes when relevant (such as for those engaged in career and technical, postsecondary, or adult education). The Institute's research grant programs are designed to provide interested individuals and the general public with reliable and valid information about education practices that support learning and improve academic achievement and access to education opportunities for all learners. These interested individuals include parents, educators, learners, researchers, and policymakers. In carrying out its grant programs, the Institute provides support for programs of research in areas of demonstrated national need.

Competitions in This Notice: The Institute will conduct eight research competitions in FY 2020 through two of its centers:

The Institute's National Center for Education Research (NCER) will hold a total of five competitions—one competition in each of the following areas: Education research; education research training; education research and development centers; statistical and research methodology in education; and systematic replication in education.

The Institute's National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) will hold a total of three competitions—one competition in each of the following areas: Special education research; special education research training, and systematic replication in special education.

The Education Research Competition. Under this competition, NCER will consider only applications that address one of the following topics:

• Career and Technical Education.

• Cognition and Student Learning.

• Early Learning Programs and Policies.

• Education Technology.

• Effective Instruction.

• English Learners.

• Improving Education Systems.

• Postsecondary and Adult Education.

• Reading and Writing.

• Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education.

• Social and Behavioral Context for Academic Learning.

The Research Training Programs in the Education Sciences Competition. Under this competition, NCER will consider only applications that address one of the following topics:

• Predoctoral Interdisciplinary Research Training Program in the Education Sciences.

• Postdoctoral Research Training Program in the Education Sciences.

• Methods Training for Education Researchers.

The Education Research and Development Centers Competition. Under this competition, NCER will consider only applications that address one of the following topics:

• Improving Opportunities and Achievement for English Learners in Secondary School Settings.

• Improving Teaching and Learning in Postsecondary Institutions.

• Improving Access, Instruction, and Outcomes in Gifted Education.

The Statistical and Research Methodology in Education Competition. Under this competition, NCER will consider only applications that address one of the following topics:

• Statistical and Research Methodology Grants.

• Early Career Statistical and Research Methodology Grants.

Research Grants Focused on Systematic Replication. Under this competition, NCER will consider only applications that address identifying what works in education through systematic replication. The list of interventions identified for replication is available on the IES website at: https://ies.ed.gov/director/remarks/4-15-2019.asp.

The Special Education Research Competition. Under this competition, NCSER will consider only applications that address one of the following topics:

• Autism Spectrum Disorders.

• Cognition and Student Learning in Special Education.

• Early Intervention and Early Learning in Special Education.

• Families of Children with Disabilities.

• Professional Development for Educators and School-Based Service Providers.

• Reading, Writing, and Language Development.

• Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education.

• Social and Behavioral Outcomes to Support Learning.

• Special Education Policy, Finance, and Systems.

• Technology for Special Education.

• Transition Outcomes for Secondary Students with Disabilities.

• Special Topics, which include—

• Career and Technical Education for Students with Disabilities.

• English Learners with Disabilities.

• Systems-Involved Students with Disabilities.

The Research Training Programs in Special Education Competition. Under this competition, NCSER will consider only applications that address one of the following three topics:

• Postdoctoral Research Training Program in Special Education and Early Intervention.

• Early Career Development and Mentoring.

• Methods Training Using Single Case Designs.

Research Grants Focused on Systematic Replication. Under this competition, NCSER will consider only applications that address identifying what works in special education through systematic replication. The list of interventions identified for replication is available on the IES website at: https://ies.ed.gov/director/remarks/4-15-2019.asp.

Exemption from Proposed Rulemaking: Under section 191 of the Education Sciences Reform Act, 20 U.S.C. 9581, IES is not subject to section 437(d) of the General Education Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d), and is therefore not required to offer interested parties the opportunity to comment on priorities, selection criteria, definitions, and requirements.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 77, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. In addition, the regulations in 34 CFR part 75 are applicable, except for the provisions in 34 CFR 75.100, 75.101(b), 75.102, 75.103, 75.105, 75.109(a), 75.200, 75.201, 75.209, 75.210, 75.211, 75.217(a)-(c), 75.219, 75.220, 75.221, 75.222, 75.230, and 75.708. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474.

Types of Awards: Discretionary grants and cooperative agreements.

Fiscal Information: Although Congress has not yet enacted an appropriation for FY 2020, the Institute is inviting applications for these competitions now so that applicants can have adequate time to prepare their applications. The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. The Department may announce additional competitions later in 2019. The actual award of grants will depend on the availability of funds.

The Education Research and Development Center for Improving Access, Instruction and Outcomes in Gifted Education would be supported with funding authorized through the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act. The Administration's budget request for FY 2020 does not include funds for the Javits program. However, we are inviting applications to allow enough time to complete the grant process if Congress appropriates funds for this program.

Estimated Range of Awards: See chart at the end of this notice.

Estimated Size and Number of Awards: The size of the awards will depend on the scope of the projects proposed. The number of awards made under each competition will depend on the quality of the applications received for that competition, the availability of funds, and the following limits on awards for specific competitions and topics set by the Institute. See the chart at the end of this notice for additional information.

The Institute may waive any of the following limits on awards for a specific competition or topic in the special case that the peer review process results in a tie between two or more grant applications, making it impossible to adhere to the limits without funding only some of the equally ranked applications. In that case, the Institute may make a larger number of awards to include all applications of the same rank.

For NCER's Education Research and Development Center competition, we intend to fund one grant under each of the three topics.

For NCER's Research Training Programs in the Education Sciences competition, we intend to fund five grants under the Predoctoral Interdisciplinary Research Training Program in the Education Sciences topic. However, should funding be available, we may consider making additional awards to high-quality applications that remain unfunded after five awards are made.

For NCSER's Research Training Programs in Special Education competition, we intend to fund no more than one grant for Methods Training Using Single Case Designs.

Contingent on the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2021 from the list of highly-rated unfunded applications from the FY 2020 competitions.

Project Period: See chart at the end of this notice.

1. Eligible Applicants: Applicants that have the ability and capacity to conduct scientifically valid research are eligible to apply. Eligible applicants include, but are not limited to, nonprofit and for-profit organizations and public and private agencies and institutions of higher education, such as colleges and universities.

2. Cost Sharing or Matching: These programs do not require cost sharing or matching.

3. Subgrantees: Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c) a grantee under this competition may award subgrants—to directly carry out project activities described in its application—to the following types of entities: Nonprofit and for-profit organizations and public and private agencies and institutions of higher education. The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application.

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768) and available at www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.

2. Other Information: Information regarding program and application requirements for the competitions will be contained in the NCER and NCSER RFAs, which will be available on or before June 24, 2019, on the Institute's website at: https://ies.ed.gov/funding/. The dates on which the application packages for these competitions will be available are indicated in the chart at the end of this notice.

3. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content of an application are contained in the RFA for the specific competition. The forms that must be submitted are in the application package for the specific competition.

4. Submission Dates and Times: The deadline date for transmittal of applications for each competition is indicated in the chart at the end of this notice and in the RFAs for the competitions.

We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.

5. Intergovernmental Review: These competitions are not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

6. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

1. Selection Criteria: For all of its grant competitions, the Institute uses selection criteria based on a peer-review process that has been approved by the National Board for Education Sciences. The Peer Review Procedures for Grant Applications can be found on the Institute's website at https://ies.ed.gov/director/sro/peer_review/application_review.asp.

For the 84.305A, 84.305D, 84.324A, 84.305R, and 84.324R competitions, peer reviewers will be asked to evaluate the significance of the application, the quality of the research plan, the qualifications and experience of the personnel, and the resources of the applicant to support the proposed activities. These criteria are described in greater detail in the RFAs.

For the 84.305B and 84.324B competitions, peer reviewers for the predoctoral, postdoctoral, and methods training programs will be asked to evaluate the significance of the application, the quality of the research training plan, the qualifications and experience of the personnel, and the resources of the applicant to support the proposed activities. Peer reviewers for the early career development and mentoring program will be asked to evaluate the significance of the application, the quality of the research plan, the quality of the career development plan, the qualifications and experience of the personnel, and the resources of the applicant to support the proposed activities. These criteria are described in greater detail in the RFA.

For the 84.305C competition, peer reviewers will be asked to evaluate the significance of the application, the quality of the research plan for the focused program of research, the quality of the plans for other center activities, the quality of the management and institutional resources, and the qualifications and experience of the personnel. These criteria are described in greater detail in the RFA.

For all of the Institute's competitions, applications should include budgets no higher than the relevant maximum award as set out in the relevant RFA. The Institute will not make an award exceeding the maximum award amount as set out in the relevant RFA.

2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Institute may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Institute may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Institute also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

3. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under these competitions, the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Institute may impose specific conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

3. Grant Administration: Applicants should budget for an annual two-day meeting for project directors to be held in Washington, DC.

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under one of the competitions announced in this notice, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Institute. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Institute under 34 CFR 75.118. The Institute may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

5. Performance Measures: To evaluate the overall success of its education research and special education research grant programs, the Institute annually assesses the percentage of projects that result in peer-reviewed publications and the number of Institute-supported interventions with evidence of efficacy in improving learner education outcomes. In addition, NCSER annually assesses the number of newly developed or modified interventions with evidence of promise for improving learner education outcomes. School readiness outcomes include pre-reading, reading, pre-writing, early mathematics, early science, and social-emotional skills that prepare young children for school. Student academic outcomes include learning and achievement in academic content areas, such as reading, writing, math, and science, as well as outcomes that reflect students' successful progression through the education system, such as course and grade completion; high school graduation; and postsecondary enrollment, progress, and completion. Social and behavioral competencies include social and emotional skills, attitudes, and behaviors that are important to academic and post-academic success. Additional education outcomes for students with or at risk of a disability (as defined in the relevant RFA) include developmental outcomes for infants and toddlers (birth to age three) pertaining to cognitive, communicative, linguistic, social, emotional, adaptive, functional, or physical development; and developmental and functional outcomes that improve education outcomes, transition to employment, independent living, and postsecondary education for students with disabilities.

6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Institute considers, among other things: Whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Institute has established performance measurement requirements, whether the grantee has met the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

In making a continuation award, the Institute also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the RFA in an accessible format ( e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the appropriate program contact person listed in the chart at the end of this notice.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Purpose of Program: The MSEIP is designed to effect long-range improvement in science and engineering education at predominantly minority institutions and to increase the flow of underrepresented ethnic minorities, particularly minority women, into scientific and technological careers, consistent with nondiscrimination requirements contained in the U.S. Constitution and Federal civil rights laws.

Priorities: This notice contains two competitive preference priorities and one invitational priority. The competitive preference priorities are from the Secretary's Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2018 (83 FR 9096) (Supplemental Priorities).

Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2019, and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award an additional two points to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 1 or Competitive Preference Priority 2, for a maximum of four additional points.

These priorities are:

Competitive Preference Priority 1— Promoting Innovation and Efficiency, Streamlining Education With an Increased Focus on Improving Student Outcomes, and Providing Increased Value to Students and Taxpayers (2 points).

Projects that are designed to address the following priority area:

Supporting innovative strategies or research that have the potential to lead to significant and wide-reaching improvements in the delivery of educational services or other significant and tangible educational benefits to students, educators, or other Department stakeholders.

Competitive Preference Priority 2—Fostering Knowledge and Promoting the Development of Skills That Prepare Students To Be Informed, Thoughtful, and Productive Individuals and Citizens (2 points).

Projects that are designed to address the following priority area:

Supporting instruction in personal financial literacy, knowledge of markets and economics, and knowledge of higher education financing and repayment ( e.g., college savings and student loans) or other skills aimed at building personal financial understanding and responsibility.

Invitational Priority: For FY 2019 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an invitational priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we do not give an application that meets this invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications.

This priority is:

Invitational Priority—Projects that are Designed to Establish, Improve, or Expand Professional Science Master's (PSM) Degree Programs.

Under this priority, we are particularly interested in projects that are designed to establish, improve, or expand PSM degree programs, which combine traditional academic training with specialized knowledge and skills that: (a) Closely align with the expectations and needs of business and industry and (b) prepare students for direct entry into a variety of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) career options in business and industry, Federal government, or non-profit organizations.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The regulations for this program in 34 CFR part 637. (e) The Supplemental Priorities.

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds: $5,964,726.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Estimated Range of Awards:

Institutional Project Grants: $200,000-$250,000.

Special Project Grants: $200,000-$250,000.

Cooperative Project Grants: $275,000-$300,000.

Estimated Average Size of Awards:

Institutional Project Grants: $240,000.

Special Project Grants: $249,000.

Cooperative Project Grants: $300,000.

Maximum Awards:

Institutional Project Grants: $250,000.

Special Project Grants: $250,000.

Cooperative Project Grants: $300,000.

Estimated Number of Awards:

Institutional Project Grants: 19.

Special Project Grants: 2.

Cooperative Project Grants: 2.

Project Period: Up to 36 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: The eligibility of an applicant is dependent on the type of MSEIP grant the applicant seeks. There are four types of MSEIP grants: Institutional project, special project, cooperative project, and design project.

Institutional project grants are grants that support the implementation of a comprehensive science improvement plan, which may include any combination of activities for improving the preparation of minority students for careers in science.

There are two types of special project grants. First, there are special project grants for which only minority institutions are eligible. These special project grants support activities that: (1) Improve quality training in science and engineering at minority institutions; or (2) enhance the minority institutions' general scientific research capabilities. There also are special project grants for which all applicants are eligible. These special project grants support activities that: (1) Provide a needed service to a group of eligible minority institutions; or (2) provide in-service training for project directors, scientists, and engineers from eligible minority institutions.

Cooperative project grants assist groups of nonprofit accredited colleges and universities to work together to conduct a science improvement program.

Design project grants assist minority institutions that do not have their own appropriate resources or personnel to plan and develop long-range science improvement programs. We will not award design project grants in the FY 2019 competition.

(a) For institutional project grants, eligible applicants are limited to—

(1) Public and private nonprofit institutions of higher education that: (i) Award baccalaureate degrees; and (ii) are minority institutions;

(2) Public or private nonprofit institutions of higher education that: (i) Award associate degrees; and (ii) are minority institutions that (A) have a curriculum that includes science or engineering subjects; and (B) enter into a partnership with public or private nonprofit institutions of higher education that award baccalaureate degrees in science and engineering.

(b) For special project grants for which only minority institutions are eligible, eligible applicants are described in paragraph (a).

(c) For special project grants for which all applicants are eligible, eligible applicants include those described in paragraph (a), and—

(1) Nonprofit science-oriented organizations, professional scientific societies, and institutions of higher education that award baccalaureate degrees that: (i) Provide a needed service to a group of minority institutions; or (ii) provide in-service training to project directors, scientists, and engineers from minority institutions; or

(2) A consortia of organizations that provide needed services to one or more minority institutions, the membership of which may include: (i) Institutions of higher education which have a curriculum in science or engineering; (ii) institutions of higher education that have a graduate or professional program in science or engineering; (iii) research laboratories of, or under contract with, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, or the National Institutes of Health; (iv) relevant offices of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, and National Institute of Standards and Technology; (v) quasi-governmental entities that have a significant scientific or engineering mission; or (vi) institutions of higher education that have State-sponsored centers for research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

(d) For cooperative project grants, eligible applicants are groups of nonprofit accredited colleges and universities whose primary fiscal agent is an eligible minority institution as defined in 34 CFR 637.4(b).

2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.

b. Supplement-Not-Supplant: This program involves supplement-not-supplant funding requirements.

3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities described in its application.

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.

2. Submission of Proprietary Information: Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the MSEIP grant competition, your application may include business information that you consider proprietary. In 34 CFR 5.11 we define “business information” and describe the process we use in determining whether any of that information is proprietary and, thus, protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended).

Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.

Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).

3. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. However, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental review in order to make awards by the end of FY 2019.

4. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

5. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 50 pages and (2) use the following standards:

• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, except titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions.

• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).

• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurance and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the biography, or letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all the application narrative.

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this program are from 34 CFR 637.32. Applicants should address each of the selection criteria. The points assigned to each criterion are indicated in the parentheses next to the criterion. An applicant may earn up to a total of 100 points based on the selection criteria. All applications will be evaluated based on the selection criteria as follows:

(a) Identification of need for the project (Total 5 points).

(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows the identification of need for the project.

(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—

(i) An adequate needs assessment;

(ii) An identification of specific needs in science; and

(iii) Involvement of appropriate individuals, especially science faculty, in identifying the institutional needs.

(b) Plan of operation (Total 20 points).

(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows the quality of the plan of operation for the project.

(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—

(i) Higher quality in the design of the project;

(ii) An effective plan of management that insures proper and efficient administration of the project;

(iii) A clear description of how the objectives of the project relate to the purpose of the program;

(iv) The way the applicant plans to use its resources and personnel to achieve each objective; and

(v) Methods of coordination. (See 34 CFR 75.580)

(c) Quality of key personnel (Total 10 points).

(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows the quality of the key personnel the applicant plans to use on the project.

(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—

(i) The qualifications of the project director (if one is to be used);

(ii) The qualifications of each of the other key personnel to be used in the project;

(iii) The time that each person referred to in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section plans to commit to the project; and

(iv) The extent to which the applicant, as part of its nondiscriminatory employment practices, encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have been traditionally underrepresented, such as members of a racial or ethnic minority group, women, handicapped persons, and the elderly.

(3) To determine the qualifications of a person, the Secretary considers evidence of past experience and training, in fields related to the objectives of the project, as well as other information that the applicant provides.

(d) Budget and cost effectiveness (Total 10 points).

(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows that the project has an adequate budget and is cost effective.

(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—

(i) The budget for the project is adequate to support the project activities; and

(ii) Costs are reasonable in relation to the objective of the project.

(e) Evaluation plan (Total 15 points).

(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows the quality of the evaluation plan for the project. (See 34 CFR 75.590)

(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows methods of evaluation that are appropriate for the project and, to the extent possible, are objective and produce data that are quantifiable.

(f) Adequacy of resources (Total 5 points).

(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows that the applicant plans to devote adequate resources to the project.

(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—

(i) The facilities that the applicant plans to use are adequate; and

(ii) The equipment and supplies that the applicant plans to use are adequate.

(g) Potential institutional impact of the project (Total 10 points).

(1) The Secretary reviews each application to determine the extent to which the proposed project gives evidence of potential for enhancing the institution's capacity for improving and maintaining quality science education for its minority students, particularly minority women.

(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—

(i) For an institutional or cooperative project, the extent to which both the established science education program(s) and the proposed project will expand or strengthen the established program(s) in relation to the identified needs; or

(ii) For a special project, the extent to which it addresses needs that have not been adequately addressed by an existing institutional science program or takes a particularly new and exemplary approach that has not been taken by any existing institutional science program.

(h) Institutional commitment to the project (Total 5 points).

(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows that the applicant plans to continue the project activities when funding ceases.

(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—

(i) Adequate institutional commitment to absorb any after-the-grant burden initiated by the project;

(ii) Adequate plans for continuation of project activities when funding ceases;

(iii) Clear evidence of past institutional commitment to the provision of quality science programs for its minority students; and

(iv) A local review statement signed by the chief executive officer of the institution endorsing the project and indicating how the project will accelerate the attainment of the institutional goals in science.

(i) Expected outcomes (Total 10 points).

(1) The Secretary reviews each application to determine the extent to which minority students, particularly minority women, will benefit from the project.

(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—

(i) Expected outcomes likely to result in the accomplishment of the program goal;

(ii) Educational value for science students; and

(iii) Possibility of long-term benefits to minority students, faculty, or the institution.

(j) Scientific and educational value of the proposed project (Total 10 points).

(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows its potential for contributions to science education.

(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—

(i) The relationship of the proposed project to the present state of science education;

(ii) The use or development of effective techniques and approaches in science education; and

(iii) Potential use of some aspects of the project at other institutions.

2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

3. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under this competition, the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. Additionally, a grantee or subgrantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR 3474.20.

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

5. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance and Results Act, the Department will use the following performance measures to evaluate the success of the MSEIP grants: (1) The percentage of change in the number of full-time, degree-seeking minority undergraduate students at the grantee's institution enrolled in the fields of engineering or physical or biological sciences, compared to the average minority enrollment in the same fields in the three-year period immediately prior to the beginning of the current grant; (2) the percentage of minority students enrolled at four-year minority institutions in the fields of engineering or physical or biological sciences who graduate within six years of enrollment. Please see the application package for details of data collection and reporting requirements for these measures.

6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format ( e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) 2019-20 through 2021-22.

OMB Control Number: 1850-0582.

Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 67,785.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 791,721.

Abstract: The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) seeks authorization from OMB to make a change to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data collection. Current authorization expires February 29, 2020 (OMB# 1850-0582 v.20-23). NCES is requesting a new clearance for the 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22 data collections to enable us to make a change to six of the IPEDS data collection components, clarify definitions and instructions throughout the components, and to continue the IPEDS collection of postsecondary data over the next three years. IPEDS is a web-based data collection system designed to collect basic data from all postsecondary institutions in the United States and the other jurisdictions. IPEDS enables NCES to report on key dimensions of postsecondary education such as enrollments, degrees and other awards earned, tuition and fees, average net price, student financial aid, graduation rates, student outcomes, revenues and expenditures, faculty salaries, and staff employed. The IPEDS web-based data collection system was implemented in 2000-01. In 2017-18, IPEDS collected data from 6,642 postsecondary institutions in the United States and the other jurisdictions that are eligible to participate in Title IV Federal financial aid programs. All Title IV institutions are required to respond to IPEDS (Section 490 of the Higher Education Amendments of 1992 [Pub. L. 102-325]). IPEDS allows other (non-title IV) institutions to participate on a voluntary basis; approximately 200 non-title IV institutions elect to respond each year. IPEDS data are available to the public through the College Navigator and IPEDS Data Center websites. This clearance package includes a number of proposed changes to the data collection. As part of the public comment period review, NCES requests that IPEDS data submitters and other stakeholders respond to the directed questions found in Appendix D of this submission.

Freeport LNG's current blanket authorization to export previously imported LNG, granted in DOE/FE Order No. 4054, began on July 19, 2017, and extends through July 18, 2019. In requesting this authorization, Freeport LNG states that it does not seek to export any domestically produced natural gas or LNG. DOE/FE notes that Freeport LNG currently holds a blanket authorization to import LNG from various international sources by vessel in an amount up to the equivalent of 30 Bcf of natural gas. Freeport LNG is requesting this authorization on its own behalf and as agent for other parties who hold title to the LNG at the time of export.

The Application will be reviewed pursuant to section 3 of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. 717b. In reviewing this Application, DOE will consider domestic need for the natural gas, as well as any other issues determined to be appropriate, including whether the arrangement is consistent with DOE's policy of promoting competition in the marketplace by allowing commercial parties to freely negotiate their own trade arrangements. Parties that may oppose this application should comment in their responses on these issues.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., requires DOE to give appropriate consideration to the environmental effects of its proposed decisions. No final decision will be issued in this proceeding until DOE has met its NEPA responsibilities.

In response to this Notice, any person may file a protest, comments, or a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. Interested parties will be provided 30 days from the date of publication of this Notice in which to submit comments, protests, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention.

Any person wishing to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. The filing of comments or a protest with respect to the Application will not serve to make the commenter or protestant a party to the proceeding, although protests and comments received from persons who are not parties will be considered in determining the appropriate action to be taken on the Application. All protests, comments, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention must meet the requirements specified by the regulations in 10 CFR part 590.

Filings may be submitted using one of the following methods: (1) Emailing the filing to fergas@hq.doe.go v, with FE Docket No. 19-61-LNG in the title line; (2) mailing an original and three paper copies of the filing to the Office of Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement at the address listed in ADDRESSES ; or (3) hand delivering an original and three paper copies of the filing to the Office of Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement at the address listed in ADDRESSES . All filings must include a reference to FE Docket No. 19-61-LNG. PLEASE NOTE: If submitting a filing via email, please include all related documents and attachments ( e.g., exhibits) in the original email correspondence. Please do not include any active hyperlinks or password protection in any of the documents or attachments related to the filing. All electronic filings submitted to DOE must follow these guidelines to ensure that all documents are filed in a timely manner. Any hardcopy filing submitted greater in length than 50 pages must also include, at the time of the filing, a digital copy on disk of the entire submission.

A decisional record on the Application will be developed through responses to this notice by parties, including the parties' written comments and replies thereto. Additional procedures will be used as necessary to achieve a complete understanding of the facts and issues. If an additional procedure is scheduled, notice will be provided to all parties. If no party requests additional procedures, a final Opinion and Order may be issued based on the official record, including the Application and responses filed by parties pursuant to this notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 590.316.

The Application is available for inspection and copying in the Office of Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement docket room, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. The docket room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Application and any filed protests, motions to intervene or notice of interventions, and comments will also be available electronically by going to the following DOE/FE Web address: http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/gasregulation/index.html.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

1. File Symbol: 85797-U. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0067. Applicant: TDA Research, Inc., 12345 West 52nd Ave., Wheat Ridge, CO 80033. Product name: ElimiMold. Active ingredient: Light activator—Erythrosine at 0.001%. Proposed use: Antimicrobial/algaecide.

2. File Symbol: 87978-I. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0265. Applicant: AgBiTech Pty Ltd., 8 Rocla Ct., Glenvale, Queensland 4350, Australia (c/o V.A. Forster Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 4097, Wilmington, DE 19807). Product name: Surtivo Ultra. Active ingredients: Insecticide— Autographa californica MNPV strain R3 at 8.6%, Helicoverpa armigera Nucleopolyhedrovirus ABA-NPV-U at 8.6%, Chrysodeixis includens Nucleopolyhedrovirus isolate #460 at 8.6%, and Spodoptera frugiperda MNPV strain 3AP2 at 8.6%. Proposed use: Field and greenhouse.