For more than 50 years, neutron-based measurement methods have provided unique insights into material structure and properties that cannot be obtained through other techniques. Neutrons are highly sensitive to light elements, including hydrogen; they can penetrate deeply into many materials; and they possess a magnetic moment, enabling characterization of magnetic structures. These properties make neutron-based techniques powerful tools for understanding materials across multiple length scales and under realistic processing and operating conditions.

Despite these capabilities, industrial access to neutron-based measurement techniques remains limited due to barriers including specialized expertise requirements, limited facility familiarity, and challenges in translating neutron data into actionable manufacturing insights. The nMat Consortium is intended to address these challenges by establishing a collaborative framework through which participants (Consortium Members) may leverage NIST's neutron facilities and materials expertise to advance measurement science relevant to manufacturing.

The Consortium will focus on pre-competitive research and the development of measurement methods and best practices. Initial technical areas of interest may include, but are not limited to:

• Structural Characterization: Application of neutron scattering techniques to analyze material structure across multiple length scales.

• Interface Analysis: Investigation of surfaces, interfaces, and thin films in manufactured components.

• Stress and Defect Analysis: Measurement of internal stresses and identification of defects in materials.

• Process Monitoring: Development of methods to study materials during processing or under operating conditions.

• Magnetic Analysis: Characterization of magnetic materials and interfaces relevant to data storage, energy conversion, and emerging technologies.

Consortium activities may utilize capabilities including Small-Angle Neutron Scattering (SANS), neutron imaging, neutron diffraction, and neutron reflectometry, complemented by materials characterization expertise within MSED.

Consortium Members may, subject to NIST approval and appropriate amendment to their CRADA, propose additional targeted research activities that complement and enhance the core Consortium research plan.

Eligibility to participate in the Consortium will be determined by NIST based upon the information provided by prospective participants in response to this notice. Prospective participants should submit a letter of interest to the Consortium Manager via email or hardcopy (for reference, see ADDRESSES section above). Letters of interest must not include business proprietary information. NIST will not treat submissions in response to this notice as proprietary information.

Letters of interest should include:

1. A description of the organization's experience or expertise in materials manufacturing and characterization, particularly as related to neutron-based measurement techniques; and

2. Identification of anticipated project team members and a legal point of contact for CRADA execution.

NIST will evaluate submissions to determine eligibility to participate in the Consortium. Participation will require the execution of a CRADA or similar agreement. Participation may include financial and/or in-kind contributions consistent with the Consortium research plan. All participants legally eligible to enter into a CRADA will be bound by substantially similar terms and conditions.

NIST does not guarantee participation in the Consortium to any organization submitting a letter of interest.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 3710a; 15 U.S.C. 272(b) and (c).

The Committee was established pursuant to Section 11 of the NCST Act (Pub. L. 107-231, codified at 15 U.S.C. 7301 et seq. ). The Committee is currently composed of five members, appointed by the Director of NIST, who were selected on the basis of established records of distinguished service in their professional community and their knowledge of issues affecting the National Construction Safety Teams. The Committee advises the Director of NIST on carrying out the NCST Act; reviews the procedures developed for conducting investigations; and reviews the reports issued documenting investigations. Background information on the NCST Act and information on the NCST Advisory Committee is available at https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/national-construction-safety-team-ncst/advisory-committee.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., notice is hereby given that the NCST Advisory Committee will meet on Wednesday, September 23, 2026 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., and on Thursday September 24, 2026, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The meeting will be open to the public and will be held via web conference. Interested members of the public will be able to participate in the meeting from remote locations. The primary purposes of this meeting are to update the Committee on the progress of the NCST investigation focused on the impacts of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, progress of the NCST investigation focused on the Champlain Towers South partial building collapse that occurred in Surfside, Florida, and provide responses to the Committee's 2025 recommendations. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the NIST website at https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/national-construction-safety-team-ncst/advisory-committee-meetings.

This meeting will be recorded. Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to items on the Committee's agenda for this meeting are invited to request a place on the agenda. Approximately twenty minutes will be reserved for public comments and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. All those wishing to speak must do so by registering by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 16, 2026, at the link provided below, and selecting “yes” to the public comment question in the registration. Any member of the public is also permitted to file a written statement with the advisory committee; speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who wish to speak but cannot be accommodated on the agenda, and those who are unable to attend are invited to submit written statements electronically by email to disaster@nist.gov.

Anyone wishing to attend the National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee meeting via web conference must register by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 16, 2026, at: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/events/2026/09/national-construction-safety-team-advisory-committee-meeting-fall-2026. Once successfully registered, attendees will receive a link to join the meetings by September 22, 2026. Individuals requiring special accommodations to attend virtually should contact Judy.Bowie@nist.gov no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 16, 2026 so that NIST can make the appropriate arrangements.

On March 31, 2025, we received a petition from Save Long Beach Island, Inc., pursuant to the ESA and the Administrative Procedure Act requesting revision to the critical habitat designation for the North Atlantic right whale. This response reviews the petitioner's request to revise the designated critical habitat pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(D)(i) of the ESA and 50 CFR 424.14 to determine whether the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that a revision of the designated critical habitat may be warranted.

In 1970, right whales, Eubalaena spp., were listed as endangered (35 FR 18319, December 2, 1970). At that time, we considered the northern right whale species ( Eubalaena glacialis ) to consist of two populations: one occurring in the North Atlantic Ocean and the other in the North Pacific Ocean. In 1994, we designated critical habitat for the northern right whale population in the North Atlantic Ocean (59 FR 28805, June 3, 1994). This critical habitat designation included portions of Cape Cod Bay and Stellwagen Bank, the Great South Channel (each off the coast of Massachusetts), and waters adjacent to the coasts of Georgia and the east coast of Florida. These areas were determined to provide critical feeding, nursery, and calving habitat for the North Atlantic population of northern right whales. This critical habitat was revised in 2006 to include two foraging areas in the North Pacific Ocean—one in the Bering Sea and one in the Gulf of Alaska (71 FR 38277, July 6, 2006).

In 2006, we published a comprehensive right whale status review, which concluded that genetic data provided unequivocal support to distinguish three right whale lineages as separate phylogenetic species (Rosenbaum et al., 2000): (1) the North Atlantic right whale ( Eubalaena glacialis ), ranging in the North Atlantic Ocean; (2) the North Pacific right whale ( Eubalaena japonica ), ranging in the North Pacific Ocean; and (3) the southern right whale ( Eubalaena australis), historically ranging throughout the southern hemisphere's oceans. Based on these findings, we published proposed and final determinations listing right whales in the North Atlantic, North Pacific, and southern hemisphere as separate endangered species under the ESA (71 FR 77704, December 27, 2006; 73 FR 12024, March 6, 2008).

On October 1, 2009, we received a petition to revise the 1994 critical habitat designation for right whales in the North Atlantic (CBD et al., 2009). We found the revision was warranted (75 FR 61690, October 6, 2010) and, after thorough review of the best available information, proposed revisions to the designation (80 FR 9314, February 20, 2015). We published a final rule revising North Atlantic right whale critical habitat on January 27, 2016 (81 FR 4838), designating approximately 29,763 nm 2 (102,084 km 2 ) in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank region and off the Southeast U.S. Coast.

North Atlantic right whale critical habitat consists of two specific areas on which physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species are found and for which special management consideration or protection may be required. The first specific area, Unit 1, is a foraging habitat, while the second specific area, Unit 2, is a calving habitat.

The boundary of the critical habitat for Unit 1 is delineated generally by a line connecting the geographic coordinates and landmarks as follows: from the southern tip of Monomoy Island (Cape Cod) (41°38.39′ N, 69°57.32′ W) extending southeasterly to 40°50′ N, 69°12′ W (the Great South Channel), then east to 40°50′ N, 68°50′ W. From this point, the boundary extends northeasterly direction to 42°00′ N, 67°55′ W and then in an easterly direction to 42°00′ N, 67°30′ W. From this point, the boundary extends northeast along the northern edge of Georges Bank to the intersection of the U.S.-Canada maritime boundary at 42°10′ N, 67°09.38′ W. The boundary then follows the U.S.-Canada maritime boundary north to the intersection of 44°49.727′ N, 66°57.952′ W. From this point, moving southwest along the coast of Maine, the specific area is located seaward of the Maine exemption line developed as part of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan to the point (43°02.55′ N, 70°43.33′ W) on the coast of New Hampshire south of Portsmouth, NH. The boundary of the area then follows the coastline southward along the coasts of New Hampshire and Massachusetts along Cape Cod to Provincetown southward along the eastern edge of Cape Cod to the southern tip of Monomoy Island. The specific area includes the large embayments of Cape Cod Bay and Massachusetts Bay but does not include inshore areas, bays, harbors, and inlets. In addition, the specific area does not include waters landward of the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (72 COLREGS) lines (33 CFR part 80).

Unit 2 consists of all marine waters from Cape Fear, North Carolina, southward to approximately 27 nm below Cape Canaveral, Florida, within the area bounded on the west by the shoreline and the 72 COLREGS lines, and on the east by rhumb lines connecting specific points described in the 2016 final rule (81 FR 4838, January 27, 2016). This area comprises state and federal waters offshore of Brunswick County, North Carolina; Horry, Georgetown, Charleston, Colleton, Beaufort, and Jasper Counties, South Carolina; Chatham, Liberty, McIntosh, Glynn, and Camden Counties, Georgia; and Nassau, Duval, St. Johns, Flagler, Volusia, and Brevard Counties, Florida.

Physical and biological features that are part of the current designation and were previously identified during the 2016 Final Rule (81 FR 4838, January 27, 2016) include features that support foraging or calving functions. For the foraging habitat, a combination of the following biological and physical oceanographic features were identified: (1) the physical oceanographic conditions and structures of the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank region that combine to distribute and aggregate Calanus finmarchicus for right whale foraging, namely prevailing currents and circulation patterns, bathymetric features (basins, banks, and channels), oceanic fronts, density gradients, and temperature regimes; (2) low flow velocities in Jordan, Wilkinson, and Georges Basins that allow diapausing C. finmarchicus to aggregate passively below the convective layer so that the copepods are retained in the basins; (3) late stage C. finmarchicus in dense aggregations in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank region; and (4) diapausing C. finmarchicus in aggregations in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank region. Facilitating successful feeding by protecting these physical and biological features that characterize feeding habitat is a key conservation objective that is supported by designation of critical habitat for the species. For the second specific area, the calving habitat, the physical and biological features identified consisted of: (1) calm sea surface conditions of Force 4 or less on the Beaufort Wind Scale; (2) sea surface temperatures from a minimum of 7 degrees Celsius, and never more than 17 degrees Celsius; and (3) water depths of 6 to 28 meters (m), where these features simultaneously co-occur over contiguous areas of at least 231 nm 2 (792 km 2 ) of ocean waters during the months of November through April. When these features are available, they are selected by right whale cows and calves in dynamic combinations that are suitable for calving, nursing, and rearing, and which vary, within the ranges specified, depending on factors such as weather and age of the calves.

As part of the 2016 revision to the North Atlantic right whale critical habitat, we considered the best available scientific data to support the identification of physical or biological features and identification of migratory critical habitat between the calving and foraging areas but ultimately concluded that designation of migratory habitat was not possible at that time (80 FR 9314, February 20, 2015; 81 FR 4838, January 27, 2016). Specifically, we explored the possibility of using known occurrences of North Atlantic right whales in the mid-Atlantic to identify the specific areas used for migration and essential physical and biological features in those areas (NMFS 2015). We reviewed whale sighting data used to develop a North Atlantic right whale vessel speed rule (73 FR 60173, October 10, 2008), as well as several other published research studies that considered whether proximity to shore or shallow water depth may be features of migratory habitat, but found that sighting information and survey effort were positively biased nearshore, artificially favoring nearshore and shallow depths (Knowlton et al., 2002; Schick et al., 2009; Firestone et al., 2008; Garrison 2007). Specifically, survey efforts were disproportionately focused in the nearshore area (within 30 nm (55.5 km) of shore) for logistical reasons and consisted of opportunistic sightings. Meanwhile, limited satellite tagging data available at the time indicated that tagged whales can travel parallel and close to shore in the mid-Atlantic (Schick et al. 2009) or make broader, offshore movements (Mate et al. 1997). As we noted in response to comments on the proposed designation, in addition to depth and distance from shore, we also considered whether slope, temperature, or the features found in the calving area might help define migratory habitat (81 FR 4845, January 27, 2016). Despite further consideration, we stated that we were unable to find sufficient scientific information to identify any specific physical or biological features that facilitated migration or that would enable the designation of a migratory habitat as critical habitat (81 FR 4838, January 27, 2016). We concluded that while the presence of North Atlantic right whales in certain areas was confirmed, there was no basis for defining essential habitat characteristics that facilitate migration (81 FR 4838, January 27, 2016).

Pursuant to section 4(c)(2) of the ESA, we completed 5-year reviews of the species in 2017 and 2022. In the most recent review, we described new information that had become available since the 2017 review, including data that furthered our understanding of North Atlantic right whale distribution and behavior in the mid-Atlantic (NMFS 2022). In that review, we noted that passive acoustic monitoring suggested a shift to a year-round consistent presence of North Atlantic right whales in the mid-Atlantic post-2010, including year-round detections in the New York Bight with the highest presence between late February and mid-May in the shelf and nearshore zones (Davis et al., 2017; Estabrook et al., 2019; Muirhead et al., 2018; Zoidis et al., 2021). Studies also show that in recent years, North Atlantic right whales have been present in waters south of Martha's Vineyard year-round (O'Brien et al., 2022; Quintana-Rizzo et al., 2021), and there is some evidence that North Atlantic right whales forage, socialize, and migrate throughout areas of the mid-Atlantic (Leiter et al., 2017; Quintana-Rizzo et al., 2021; Rickard et al., 2022; Zoidis et al., 2021). Spatial density modeling by Roberts et al. (2016, 2024) predicts North Atlantic right whale habitat use across large swaths of the mid-Atlantic continental shelf north of Cape Hatteras, NC, especially during the cooler months of the year.

We continue to gain knowledge about North Atlantic right whale abundance, distribution, and behavior in the mid-Atlantic to better understand regional threats to the species, including sub-lethal impacts. However, long-term regional datasets are not yet widely available, and opportunistic data regarding species abundance, distribution, and behavior do not provide the high-capture probability necessary to reduce the likelihood of bias. Spatial density models can address some of these data shortcomings, but as stated above, the best available habitat model (Roberts et al. 2024) shows widespread habitat use throughout much of the mid-Atlantic region, not discrete migratory pathways. To guide our species monitoring and threat mitigation efforts, we have released several documents that harmonize the information needs expressed in the North Atlantic Right Whale Recovery Plan and 5-year reviews, including the Species in the Spotlight Action Plan (2021-2025), North Atlantic Right Whale Monitoring and Surveillance Report, North Atlantic Right Whale Road to Recovery, and the NMFS and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) North Atlantic Right Whales and Offshore Wind Development Strategy (NMFS 2021; NMFS 2025; NMFS & BOEM 2023; Oleson et al., 2020), which include goals to increase information from the mid-Atlantic. In the North Atlantic Right Whale Monitoring and Surveillance Report, which reported on the meeting of an expert working group on monitoring protocols, objectives of the workshop included determining an approach to identify distribution, occurrence, and habitat use in the mid-Atlantic and the migratory habitat and associated physical and biological features in the mid-Atlantic (Oleson et al., 2020). The working group recommended systematic, long-term, continuous monitoring throughout the migratory area to better inform distribution models and further study. Specifically, the report notes that systematic monitoring would reduce the number of assumptions being made about where the North Atlantic right whales are and let data inform the analyses of North Atlantic right whale distribution and its change through time. As noted above in reference to the mid-Atlantic, detection data from further across the species' range also points to ongoing distribution shifts due to shifting prey availability and distribution (Ganley et al., 2022; Meyer-Gutbrod et al., 2021; Pendleton et al., 2022; Record et al., 2019; Sorochan et al., 2019), and prey availability and distribution shifts may also lead to behavioral changes for the whales, including foraging further offshore and in deeper waters (Krumhansl et al., 2018; Sorochan et al., 2021). While we know that North Atlantic right whales are present in the mid-Atlantic and may use the region for various purposes, without dedicated systematic detection effort in the mid-Atlantic, it remains difficult to discern trends in regional species abundance, distribution, and behavior and understand how recent range wide distribution shifts may continue to change. However, as directed efforts to monitor this region progress, we expect to collect more data about regional habitat use patterns.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) defines critical habitat as: “(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed . . . on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed . . . upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species” (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)). Joint NMFS-Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regulations for designating critical habitat at 50 CFR 424.12(b)(1)(ii) state that the agencies will identify physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species at an appropriate level of specificity using the best available scientific data. A physical and biological feature essential to the conservation of the species may be a single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of characteristics, may include characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions, and may also be expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity (50 CFR 424.02). “Special management considerations or protection” means methods or procedures useful in protecting physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the listed species (50 CFR 424.02).

Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires us to designate, and make revisions to, critical habitat for listed species based on the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary of Commerce may exclude any particular area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species concerned.

The statute also provides for revision of critical habitat designated for a species. Section 4(b)(3)(D)(i) of the ESA requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 days of receipt of a petition to revise a critical habitat designation, the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that the petitioned revision may be warranted, and to promptly publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(D)(i)).

The ESA regulations issued jointly by NMFS and FWS (50 CFR 424.14(i)(1)(i)) state that “substantial scientific information” refers to credible scientific information that would lead a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review to conclude that the revision proposed in the petition may be warranted. In evaluating whether substantial scientific information is provided in a petition to revise critical habitat, we consider the degree to which the petition contains: (1) a description and map(s) of the areas that the current designation does not include that should be included, or includes that should no longer be included, and a description of the benefits of designating or not designating these specific areas of critical habitat; (2) a description of physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species and whether they may require special management considerations or protections; (3) information indicating that the specific areas petitioned to be added to critical habitat contain one or more of the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and may require special management considerations or protection; or (4) information indicating that areas designated as critical habitat do not contain the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species involved or do not require special management considerations or protection (50 CFR 424.14(e)(1-4)).

At the 90-day stage, we evaluate the petitioner's request based upon the information in the petition, including its references and the information readily available in our files. We also consider any supplemental information submitted prior to the initial finding and specified as part of the petition: we have received no supplemental information. We do not conduct additional research or solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us evaluate the petition. We will accept the petitioner's sources and characterizations of the information presented, if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles ( i.e., credible scientific information), unless we have specific information in our files that indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person would conclude that it supports the petitioner's assertions. Conclusions drawn in the petition without the support of credible scientific information will not be considered “substantial information.” If we find that a petition presents substantial information indicating that the revision may be warranted (a “positive 90-day finding”), within 12 months after receiving the petition, we are required to determine how we intend to proceed with the requested critical habitat revision and promptly publish notice of such intention in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(D)(ii)). Because the finding at the 12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the available information, as compared to the narrow scope at the 90-day stage, a “positive 90-day finding” would not prejudge the outcome of our review.

As noted above, this response addresses the petition's request to revise the critical habitat designation to include a migratory habitat for North Atlantic right whales that would connect the two specific areas designated as critical habitat in 2016 (81 FR 4838, January 27, 2016). The petition describes the area, that the current designation does not include, that they assert should be included in the designated critical habitat ( i.e., describes the areas requested for migration from Maine to Georgia) and provides information to indicate that these areas are regularly used by right whales. The petition does not clearly identify or describe the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that occur within the requested area. However, the petition suggests that depth, distance from shore, and temperature might play roles similar to that in the calving grounds in making this preferred habitat. The petition also notes other behaviors that occur in the requested area, as well as threats that right whales face in this area. In the sections below, we provide our analysis of whether the information provided in the petition, which is summarized here, indicates that the petitioned action may be warranted.

The petition asserts that there are two migratory corridors, an inner and an outer corridor, that stretch from Maine to Georgia that should be designated as critical habitat (see table 1 of the petition). The petition provides multiple references that indicate right whale presence and use of these areas (Salisbury et al., 2015; Stanistreet et al., 2016; BOEM Report #5586 1987, Davis et al., 2017; Estabrook et al., 2019; Gowan et al., 2019; Hodge et al., 2015; Leiter et al., 2017; Stern 2023; Meyer-Gutbrod et al., 2021; Muirhead et al., 2018; New Jersey Offshore Wind Strategic Plan 2020, O'Brien et al., 2022; Quintana-Rizzo et al., 2021; Roberts et al., 2024; whalemap.org; Zoidis et al., 2021, Meyer-Gutbrod et al., 2022, and Murray et al., 2022, Aschettino et al., 2023; Engelhaupt et al., 2023; cited as appendix I in the petition). These references provide ample documentation of the abundance and distribution of North Atlantic right whales in the region requested by the petition but do not provide indicators of physical and biological features that support migration in this region. Many of the references presented provide information on North Atlantic right whale presence in the mid-Atlantic region, the known migratory region for whales moving between the calving grounds in the Southeast and foraging grounds farther North. As noted in the Background (above), we acknowledged that North Atlantic right whales are present in the mid-Atlantic when considering areas that met the definition of occupied critical habitat during the 2016 revision (81 FR 4838, January 27, 2016). In the 2022 5-year review of the species, we stated that “passive acoustic monitoring suggested a shift to a year-round consistent presence of North Atlantic right whales in the mid-Atlantic post-2010, including year- round detections in the New York Bight” (NMFS 2022). Overall, information provided by the petition and in our files indicates that North Atlantic right whales are present in the mid-Atlantic, and that they use the region year-round and as they move between the calving grounds in the south and the foraging areas in the north of their range. Given that available data also indicate right whales used these areas at the time of listing, we considered whether the information provided in the petition and readily available in our files indicates whether this area may qualify as critical habitat under the first prong of the statutory definition of critical habitat ( i.e., occupied critical habitat; see ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions and Evaluation Framework above).

The petition asserts that right whales appear to prefer shallow, nearshore habitats during their migrations. In describing these habitat characteristics as important to migration, the petition suggests this preference may be influenced by the same factors that predispose them to seek shallow, coastal waters for calving areas in the Southeast. As noted in the Background section of this document, the calving area designated as critical habitat was identified based on a combination of features that are present in the South Atlantic Bight and support calving area functions, including relatively calm sea surface conditions, a narrow range of sea surface temperatures, and depths that are found relatively close to shore. The petition indicated that a water depth of 28 meters was a feature of migratory habitat and suggested that temperature and distance from shore may also play a role in facilitating migration, but provided no additional information related to the temperature range and distance from shore that is preferred in migratory areas. The petition refers to a depth of 28 meters based on conclusions found in Knowlton et al. (2002), Firestone et al. (2008), Garrison (2007), and Schick et al. (2009), all of which were examined when we considered designating a potential migratory critical habitat during the 2016 Final Rule (81 FR 4838, January 27, 2016), but provided no further evidence of a connection between water depth and North Atlantic right whale migration. Furthermore, while the petition stated a water depth feature of 28 meters, it requested a critical habitat designation extending out to as far as 75-94 miles (139-174 km) offshore, which would extend off the continental shelf and into water depths spanning from hundreds to thousands of meters. The corridor requested thus extends into waters much deeper than the requested feature and the petition provides no reasoning for why this would be necessary. Although the petition does not clearly articulate what features are essential to the conservation of the whales, we considered whether the information provided by the petition or in our files suggests that depth, distance from shore, and temperature may be important in supporting migration of North Atlantic right whales in the shallow, nearshore areas of the mid-Atlantic.

The petition cited Garrison (2007) to assert that water depth is important to migration in the mid-Atlantic region. Garrison (2007) examined the relationships between environmental characteristics and the spatial distribution of calving right whales in the southeast United States off Florida and Georgia, which was taken into account for the features found in the Southeast U.S. calving ground critical habitat designated in 2016 (see Background). This work found that peak North Atlantic right whale sighting rates and optimal habitats occur at water temperature ranges of 13-15 degrees Celsius and 10-20 meters of water depth in the waters off Florida and Georgia. Garrison (2007) noted that these optimal habitat conditions could also be found in waters off South Carolina and North Carolina where survey information was indicating frequent calving right whale habitat use. However, Garrison (2007) indicated the spatial relationship between these habitat characteristics is dramatically different north of Cape Hatteras, NC, along the coast to New York and thus not likely to be predictive of right whale presence in these areas. For example, north of Cape Hatteras, winter water temperatures were lower over the continental shelf (where depths are shallower and comparable to preferred calving habitat) and water temperatures in the optimal range of 13-15 degrees Celsius occur well offshore in deeper waters (Garrison 2007). Upon review, this reference does not support the petition's assertion that right whales appear to prefer shallow, nearshore habitats during their mid-Atlantic migrations for the same reasons they prefer these features in the calving areas.

The petition states that a water depth within 28 meters is a feature of potential critical habitat but provides no additional information that connects this depth to North Atlantic right whale migration patterns. In the last revision to critical habitat, depth was considered as a possible important physical feature to migratory habitat in light of the work of Schick et al. (2009), Firestone et al. (2008), and Knowlton et al. (2002) (see Background) (80 FR 9314, February 20, 2015; 81 FR 4838, January 27, 2016). At that time, we noted that since the sightings recorded in those studies were positively biased towards nearshore, the water depth analysis would be positively biased towards shallow water, and we were unable to determine if depth is a feature essential to migration. As monitoring in the mid-Atlantic has increased over the past decade since critical habitat was designated, North Atlantic right whale sightings have been verified in the region where water depths were both below and above 28 meters. For example, Muirhead et al. (2018) detected North Atlantic right whales where water depths ranged between 28-90 meters in the New York Bight, and Davis et al. (2017) detected whales out to the 250-meter contour line throughout the spring and summer seasons over a decade of acoustic data. At the present time and without additional information from the petition that presents a relationship between migration and water depth, we are unable to draw reasonable inferences about how a water depth of 28 meters or any other depths may be a physical feature essential to the conservation of the species, and we are not aware of any information that demonstrates such a relationship.

In support of the assertion that distance from shore in concert with water depth are important habitat features that facilitate migration, the petition also cites Firestone et al. (2008), Knowlton et al. (2002), and Schick et al. (2009). Firestone et al. (2008) modeled whale migration from the Southeast calving grounds up the coast and reported that their model suggested that the whales most often used nearshore shallow water to transit. Knowlton et al. (2002) provided evidence that 80 percent of observations occur in waters with depths of 27.4 meters or less, and 71 percent were in waters of 18.3 meters or less during this study. Similarly to Firestone et al. (2008), Knowlton et al. (2002) acknowledged that most of the whale sightings data in the mid-Atlantic that they used for their study were obtained opportunistically rather than as a result of systematic surveys, and the observations presented in these studies were likely biased toward nearshore and shallow water, where opportunistic effort was likely higher. Schick et al. (2009) found that, based on telemetry data for two tagged whales, peak habitat suitability occurred in the range of 17-108 nm (31-200 km) from shore for one tagged whale (a mother-calf pair), and for the other, peak suitability occurred in the range of 8-40 nm (15-74 km) from shore. The data presented in the scientific research studies listed above were all considered in detail in the 2016 critical habitat final rule (81 FR 4838, January 27, 2016). As noted in the 2016 critical habitat final rule, regardless of the distance from shore in which right whales have been documented along the mid-Atlantic, we found no evidence to support a conclusion that “distance from shore” is a physical or biological habitat feature essential to the conservation of right whales (81 FR 4838, January 27, 2016). In other words, we found no basis to suggest that right whales rely on distance from shore, or somehow use distance from shore and depth, to facilitate migration (70 FR 60173, October 10, 2008). We also find no evidence to suggest that mothers and calves require specific water depths in combination with distance from shore in the mid-Atlantic in order to reach the Northeast feeding ground (Firestone et al., 2008; Knowlton et al., 2002; and Schick et al., 2009).

The petition also noted temperature as an important co-variate for shallow water, stating that shallow waters are usually warmer, and thus preferred for mothers migrating with calves who have a limited blubber layer. A Rutgers University sea surface temperature website ( https://marine.rutgers.edu/cool/data/satellites/imagery/?product=sst ) was cited to support the assertion that shallow waters are generally warmer than waters further offshore. The website provides satellite imagery of sea surface temperature between the waters off Virginia and Maine for the most recent week of dates and allows users to modify the date range to search past imagery. The petition provided no additional detail linking temperature or a range of temperatures to shallow water habitat and/or migration in the mid-Atlantic. As noted above, Garrison (2007) indicated that the favorable combinations of habitat characteristics, including optimal temperatures, found in southeast calving areas were not maintained in shallow, nearshore waters north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, along the east coast to New York. With no further information provided about this habitat characteristic in the mid-Atlantic, the petition does not provide sufficient scientific evidence to support the claim that temperature is an important co-variate for shallow water preferred for migration in the mid-Atlantic.

The petition provides several sources to describe various behaviors recorded in the mid-Atlantic including foraging, mating, and socializing behaviors (Aschettino et al., 2023; Aschettino et al., 2024; BOEM & NMFS 2024; GeoMarine, Inc. 2010; Leiter et al., 2017; Murray et al., 2022; NMFS 2020; Quintana-Rizzo et al., 2021). However, the petition did not provide the physical and biological features of the mid-Atlantic habitat that support these behaviors. While these behaviors are important to life history functions, they have also been well documented as occurring elsewhere throughout the range (Davies 2019; Hudak et al., 2023; Mayo et al., 2018), and the petition was unable to show how behaviors occurring within the requested migratory habitat connect to specific physical or biological features essential to the conservation of North Atlantic right whales. Below we examined the information provided by the petitioner about these behaviors in the mid-Atlantic as well as the information in our files to consider whether it may point to physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of North Atlantic right whales and which may require special management considerations.

The petition refers to a number of references (Aschettino et al., 2024; BOEM & NMFS 2024; GeoMarine, Inc. 2010; Leiter et al., 2017; Murray et al., 2022; NMFS 2020; Quintana-Rizzo et al., 2021) to demonstrate foraging in the area under review. However, several references (BOEM & NMFS 2024; GeoMarine, Inc. 2010; Hayes 2022; Murray et al., 2022) are not primary sources of information on North Atlantic right whale foraging and rely on the other studies, which are discussed further in the following paragraphs. Information in our files suggests that North Atlantic right whale feeding occurs in the mid-Atlantic, but that all observations of feeding behavior in this area are not the same. For example, foraging trends seem to differ in the mid-Atlantic region versus the Southern New England region. These trends are explored in further detail below.

In some areas of the mid-Atlantic, feeding would best be described as opportunistic, meaning whales occasionally forage when suitable prey in sufficient densities is present, but this behavior is not repeatedly observed in these areas. For example, Zoidis et al. (2021) describes a single whale skim feeding in the New York Bight in May 2019, and Whitt et al. (2013) observed two juvenile individuals displaying skim feeding behavior offshore of Barnegat Bay, New Jersey, in January 2009. Aschettino et al. (2024), referenced by the petition, saw whales feeding via aerial survey on the continental shelf break offshore of Virginia in late May and early June of 2024. Although this information indicates opportunistic feeding may occur in these areas, this information does not provide consistent evidence documenting feeding nor provide information linking this behavior to a particular prey feature within the area requested for designation as a migratory critical habitat.

The petition also references a news article providing anecdotal knowledge of North Atlantic right whales foraging. An article by Oglesby (2024) alerted the public to two of NMFS' North Atlantic right whale Slow Zones, one east of Atlantic City, New Jersey, and one southwest of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts; the article suggested that foraging behavior was occurring in these areas. These two zones were established in July of 2024 by NMFS to alert mariners to aggregations of right whales that were feeding for several weeks in offshore areas (NMFS 2024; NMFS 2024). The Atlantic City, New Jersey, Slow Zone occurred 90 nm east of Atlantic City, near the Hudson Canyon, outside the area requested for designation, and the Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, Slow Zone occurred 69 nm (128 km) southwest of the Vineyard along the outer edge of the area requested (Cole 2024; NMFS 2024; NMFS 2024). Other studies included in the petition have documented North Atlantic right whales foraging south of Martha's Vineyard (Leiter et al., 2017; Stone et al., 2017; Quintana-Rizzo et al., 2021) throughout much of the year. Leiter et al. (2017) found that North Atlantic right whales were spending an increasing amount of time in Southern New England engaging in various behaviors that included foraging and socializing but noted that whales were rare in the region in the early 2000s and thus foraging patterns appeared to be changing in more recent years. Stone et al. (2017) and Quintana-Rizzo et al. (2021) found that North Atlantic right whales are lingering in this area to forage, and that this behavior is outside of the historical migratory behaviors described in the Southern New England area. However, information in our files shows that this behavior is due to fluctuations in local prey availability (Meyer-Gutbrod et al., 2021; Meyer-Gutbrod et al., 2022). Continued North Atlantic right whale presence in the Southern New England area is a response to reduced abundance of the copepod Calanus finmarchicus in the Gulf of Maine due to changes in the oceanographic conditions that provided a steady diet (Meyer-Gutbrod et al., 2022). Based on shifting oceanographic conditions (see Background), the abundance and composition of prey species is changing across the species range (Brennan et al., 2021; Hudak et al., 2023), and North Atlantic right whales have been forced to forage for less energetically efficient species (Evans et al., 2025). Evans et al. (2025) found that as ocean conditions continue to change in the short term, the latest foraging areas are equally sensitive to oceanographic shifts that lead to whales seeking out alternative areas. Ultimately, the information provided by the petition regarding foraging behavior and supplemented by our files indicates that foraging does occur to different degrees within the area requested for designation but provides no discernable pattern supporting the identification and description of physical or biological features that may support this varied foraging behavior.

The petition attempts to connect foraging behavior to a physical or biological feature by suggesting a link between the North Atlantic right whale migration route and regional prey availability. Kane and Prezioso (2007), a study focused on the distribution and abundance of the copepod species, Temora longicornis, in the U.S. Northeast shelf, is referenced to support an assertion that copepods are distributed in a migratory habitat used by North Atlantic right whales. However, information in our files indicates that T. longicornis is a negligible portion of the diet of North Atlantic right whales (Hudak et al., 2023; Lehoux et al., 2020). To determine whether a revision to critical habitat may be warranted based on a physical or biological feature related to foraging, we need substantial scientific information regarding the feature(s) that may occur in the requested area and how that feature or features may be essential to the conservation of the species. In addition, as discussed in the 2016 designation (see Background) physical oceanographic conditions and structures within North Atlantic right whale foraging habitat combine to distribute and aggregate prey species such that it supports foraging behavior. The 2015 proposed rule (80 FR 9314, February 20, 2015) additionally describes how dense aggregations of C. finmarchicus are essential to conservation of the species because, as a principal prey source with high lipid content, these dense aggregations provide energetically rich prey necessary to meet the metabolic and reproductive demands of the North Atlantic right whale. Considering the information provided and readily available in our files, we do not find there is substantial scientific information regarding what physical oceanographic conditions and/or structures may combine to distribute and aggregate a prey species at sufficient densities ( i.e., an essential prey feature) within the requested migratory habitat.

In regard to social and mating behavior, the petition again provides no description of a physical or biological feature linked to these behaviors. The information provided by the petition includes opportunistic observations of social behavior during directed aerial survey efforts in the mid-Atlantic (Aschettino et al., 2023; Leiter et al., 2017). Groups of whales seen actively socializing at the water's surface are known as surface-active groups (SAGs). Mating and socializing occur in SAGs, which are observed during all seasons and in all habitats. For example, information in our files shows that North Atlantic right whales have been documented in SAGs off the coast of the Southeast United States (Cusano et al., 2018), in Cape Cod Bay (Cusano et al., 2018; Mayo et al., 2018), in the mid-Atlantic (Rickard et al., 2022), and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Lonati et al., 2022). SAGs can be indicative of courtship and reproductive behavior, but not all SAGs are reproductive in nature (Kraus et al., 2007). In the 2015 proposed rule (80 FR 9314, February 20, 2015), we acknowledged that the estimated conception period suggests that the Gulf of Maine may be a mating ground for this species, but we were unable to describe any physical or biological features that facilitate or are necessary for breeding and reproduction. While we are gaining more behavioral data in the mid-Atlantic due to increased monitoring efforts, we are still limited in our ability to describe habitat features that support SAGs. As the petition provides no description of physical or biological features of habitat that support SAG behavior in the mid-Atlantic migratory habitat, there is insufficient scientific information to indicate the petitioned action may be warranted due to the observation of these behaviors in this area.

In summary, the petition and the studies presented to indicate foraging, mating, and socializing are occurring in the requested migratory habitat do not provide sufficient information to indicate what physical or biological habitat features may exist in these areas to support these behaviors or how the features may be essential to the conservation of North Atlantic right whales. Further, we are not aware of any information in our files that provides this information.

The petition identified several acoustic impacts to North Atlantic right whales such as hearing threshold shifts, communication masking, and other behavioral changes, due to anthropogenic ocean noise. The acoustic impacts identified by the petition do not relate to physical and biological features associated with possible critical habitat used by migrating whales. The protection of physical and biological features of critical habitat is distinct from the protection the individual animals themselves receive under the ESA (81 FR 4838, January 27, 2016). The potential acoustic impacts identified in the petition would be addressed through an effects analysis required under Section 7 of the ESA to inform determinations as to whether an action proposed to be funded, authorized or carried out by a Federal agency are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species.

While anthropogenic ocean noise was presented and discussed in the petition at length as a threat to individual North Atlantic right whales, the petition did not provide a specific physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of the species for us to consider as part of a potential critical habitat designation of the requested migratory area. As discussed in our response to comments for the proposed critical habitat revision in 2016, we considered whether information was available to describe the acoustic qualities that allow North Atlantic right whales to communicate efficiently and carry out other essential biological functions in any portion of their habitat. However, researchers were unable to provide details about when and how whales use calls to communicate, or the ranges over which communication occurs (Clark et al., 2009), and we determined that acoustic qualities or features were unknown at that time (81 FR 4838, January 27, 2016). The petition provides a New York Times article quoting Dr. Christopher Clark and the 2016 documentary Sonic Sea to assert that anthropogenic ocean noise is a threat to marine mammals ( https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/science/oceans-whales-noise-offshore-drilling.html; https://www.ifaw.org/uk/action/sonic-sea-feature-film ). To determine whether a revision to critical habitat may be warranted based on mid- Atlantic ocean noise, we need substantial scientific information regarding the acoustic environment that North Atlantic right whales may require to support their life-history needs in that area. In other words, we need to be able to describe what acoustic features may exist in the mid-Atlantic migratory habitat that are essential to the conservation of these whales and which may require special management consideration. The references presented in this petition and information included in our files do not provide descriptions of such features. We agree that anthropogenic ocean noise is a known threat to North Atlantic right whales, and that there is a need to increase scientific research on noise pollution to understand the potential effect on North Atlantic right whales and their habitat, and note this in several NMFS documents such as the 2022 5-Year Review, 2021-2025 Species in the Spotlight Action Plan, North Atlantic Right Whale Road to Recovery, and the NMFS and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management North Atlantic Right Whales and Offshore Wind Strategy (NMFS 2022; NMFS 2021; NMFS 2025; BOEM & NMFS 2024). As our understanding of how these whales use their environment increases, we may be better equipped to describe other features that support their life-history needs in different areas of their range.

After reviewing this petition, the list of references provided by the petitioner, and other literature and information readily available in our files, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific information indicating a revision to North Atlantic right whale critical habitat may be warranted. While the petition provided us with an area to consider based on the presence of North Atlantic right whales in that area, it did not provide substantial scientific information regarding the potential feature of water depth in the requested area. The petition also did not provide a clear set of identifiable physical or biological features that may be essential to the conservation of the species to consider outside of the water depth feature. The information provided in the petition, as well as what was readily available in our files, is substantially similar to the information we considered in the final rule to revise the North Atlantic right whale critical habitat on January 27, 2016 (81 FR 4838). In that rulemaking, we determined, based on the best available information, that we did not know the actual route or routes that right whales typically use to transit between other habitats, nor did we have data to identify the essential physical and biological features of a migratory route. The additional information provided in the petition and supplemented by information readily available in our files does not currently support a change in that determination.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).

Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).

The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) directs 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 proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed IHA is 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). If such findings are made, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking; 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 the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of the takings. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms used above are included in the relevant sections below (see also 16 U.S.C. 1362; 50 CFR 216.3, 216.103).

The 2004 NDAA (Pub. L. 108-136) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations indicated above and amended the definition of “harassment” as applied to a “military readiness activity.” The activity for which incidental take of marine mammals is being requested qualifies as a military readiness activity.

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 IHA) with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.

This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 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 preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

On June 4, 2026, NMFS received a request from ONR for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to ARA in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Following NMFS' review of the application, ONR submitted a revised version on June 18, 2026. The application was deemed adequate and complete on June 24, 2026. ONR's request is for take of beluga whales and ringed seals by Level B harassment only. Neither ONR nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

This proposed IHA would cover the ninth year of a larger project for which ONR obtained prior IHAs and renewal IHAs (83 FR 48799, September 27, 2018; 84 FR 50007, September 24, 2019; 85 FR 53333, August 28, 2020; 86 FR 54931, October 5, 2021; 87 FR 57458, September 20, 2022; 88 FR 65657, September 18, 2023; 89 FR 77089, September 14, 2024; 90 FR 43178, September 14, 2025). ONR has complied with all the requirements ( e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of the previous IHAs, and information regarding their monitoring results may be found in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section.

ONR proposes to conduct scientific experiments in support of ARA using active acoustic sources within the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Project activities involve acoustic testing and a multi-frequency navigation system concept test using left-behind active acoustic sources. The proposed experiments involve the deployment of moored, drifting, and ice-tethered active acoustic sources from the Research Vessel (R/V) Sikuliaq. Recovery of equipment may be from R/V Sikuliaq, U.S. Coast Guard Cutter (CGC) HEALY, or another vessel, and icebreaking may be required. Underwater sound from the active acoustic sources and noise from icebreaking may result in Level B harassment of marine mammals.

The proposed activity would occur from September 2026 through September 2027 and include up to two research cruises. Acoustic testing would take place during the cruises, with the first cruise beginning September 22, 2026, and a potential second cruise occurring in summer 2027, which may include up to 8 days of icebreaking activities. Acoustic sources would operate year-round and would be deployed and recovered during the research cruises.

The proposed activity would occur across the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, partially in the high seas north of Alaska, the global commons, and within a part of the Canadian EEZ (for which Navy would obtain the appropriate permits) (figure 1). The proposed activity would primarily occur in the Beaufort Sea but the analysis considers the drifting of active sources on buoys into the eastern portion of the Chukchi Sea. The closest point of the Study Area to the Alaska coast is 204 kilometers (km) (110 nautical miles). The proposed Study Area is approximately 639,237 square kilometers (km 2 ).

ONR's ARA include multiple scientific objectives that support the Arctic and Global Prediction Program, including Arctic Mobile Observing System (AMOS). The proposed activity constitutes the development of a new system under AMOS involving very-low-, low-, and mid-frequency (VLF, LF, and MF) transmissions (35 Hertz (Hz), 900 Hz, and 10 kilohertz (kHz)) (the former not applicable to Year 9), utilizing acoustic sources and receivers to provide a means of performing under- ice navigation for autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs), including gliders and unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs). This would allow for the possibility of year-round scientific observations of Arctic environmental phenomena. As an environment particularly affected by climate change, year-round observations under a variety of ice conditions are required to study the effects of this changing environment for military readiness, as well as the implications of environmental change to humans and animals. VLF technology is an important method of observing ocean warming, and the continued development of these types of acoustic sources would allow for characterization of larger areas. The technology also has the potential to allow for development and use of navigational systems that would not be heard by some marine mammal species and, therefore, would be less impactful.

Up to six moorings (fixed acoustic navigation sources transmitting at 900 Hz) and two drifting ice gateway buoys (IGBs) would be configured with active acoustic sources and would operate for a period of 1 year. ONR does not expect to use VLF sources (35 Hz) from September 2026 through September 2027 due to hardware availability. Further, no UUV use is planned during the September 2026 cruise but it may be included in future test plans during the period of the proposed IHA; however, NMFS has considered these sources herein to account for their potential use.

The proposed activity would utilize non-impulsive acoustic sources, although not all sources will cause take of marine mammals (tables 1, 2). Marine mammal takes would arise from the operation of non-impulsive active sources. Although not currently planned, icebreaking could occur as part of this proposed activity if a research vessel needs to return to the Study Area before the end of the IHA period to ensure scientific objectives are met. Underwater sound from the active acoustic sources and noise from icebreaking may result in take by Level B harassment of marine mammals.

Below are descriptions of the platforms and equipment that would be deployed at different times during the proposed activity.

The R/V Sikuliaq would perform the research cruise in September 2026 and conduct testing of acoustic sources during the cruise, as well as deploy leave behind sources to operate as a year-round navigation system observation. The vessel to be used in a potential 2027 cruise is yet to be determined but would likely be either the R/V Sikuliaq or the CGC HEALY.

The R/V Sikuliaq has a maximum speed of approximately 22.2 km per hour (km/hr) with a cruising speed of 20.4 km/hr. The R/V Sikuliaq is not an icebreaking ship but an ice strengthened ship, so it would not be icebreaking. Therefore, acoustic signatures of icebreaking for the R/V Sikuliaq are not relevant. CGC HEALY travels at a maximum speed of 31.5 km/hr with a cruising speed of 22.2 km/hr and a maximum speed of 5.6 km/hr when traveling through 1.07 m of sea ice. While no icebreaking cruise on the CGC HEALY is planned, this proposed IHA considers an icebreaking cruise in case the need arises. The R/V Sikuliaq, CGC HEALY, or any other vessel operating a research cruise associated with the proposed activity may perform the following activities during their research cruises:

• Deployment of moored and/or ice-tethered passive sensors (oceanographic measurement devices, acoustic receivers);

• Deployment of moored and/or ice-tethered active acoustic sources to transmit acoustic signals;

• Deployment of AUVs;

• Deployment of drifting buoys, with or without acoustic sources; or,

• Recovery of equipment.

Glider surveys are proposed for the research cruise. All gliders would be recovered; some may be recovered during the cruise, but the remainder would be recovered at a later date. Long-endurance, autonomous sea gliders are intended for use in extended missions in ice-covered waters. Gliders are buoyancy-driven, equipped with satellite modems providing two-way communication, and can transit to depths of up to 1,000 m. Gliders would collect data in the area of the shallow water sources and moored sources, moving at a speed of 0.25 meters per second, approximately 23 km per day. A combination of recent advances in sea glider technology would provide full-year endurance. When operating in ice-covered waters, gliders navigate by trilateration (the process of determining location by measurement of distances, using the geometry of circles, spheres, or triangles) from moored acoustic sound sources (or dead reckoning should navigation signals be unavailable). Hibernating gliders would continue to track their position, waking to reposition should they drift too far from their target region. Gliders measure temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, rates of dissipation of temperature variance (and vertical turbulent diffusivity), and multi-spectral down-welling irradiance.

During the September 2026 cruise, active acoustic sources would be lowered from the cruise vessel while stationary, deployed on AUVs, or deployed on fixed AMOS moorings for intermittent testing of the system components. The testing would take place in the vicinity of the source locations in figure 1. During this testing, 900 Hz, 10 kHz, and acoustic modems would be employed.

Up to six fixed acoustic navigation sources transmitting at 900 Hz would remain in place for 1 year. These moorings would be anchored on the seabed and held in the water column with subsurface buoys. All sources would be deployed by shipboard winches, which would lower sources and receivers in a controlled manner. Anchors would be steel “wagon wheels” typically used for this type of deployment. Two drifting IGBs would also be configured with active acoustic sources.

The following activities and sources are unlikely to result in take of marine mammals. These activities are described here but they are not discussed further in this notice. ONR characterizes de minimis sources as those with the following parameters: low source levels (SLs), narrow beams, downward directed transmission, short pulse lengths, frequencies outside known marine mammal hearing ranges, or some combination of these factors (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013). NMFS concurs with ONR's determination that the sources they have identified here as de minimis are unlikely to result in take of marine mammals. The following are some of the de minimis sources which would be used during the proposed activity: WHOI micromodem, Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCPs), ice profilers, and additional sources below 160 dB re 1 µPa used during towing operations. ADCPs may be used on moorings. Ice-profilers measure ice properties and roughness. The ADCPs and ice-profilers would all be above 200 kHz and therefore out of marine mammal hearing ranges, with the exception of the 75 kHz ADCP which has the characteristics and de minimis justification listed in table 2. They may be employed on moorings or AUVs.

A WHOI micromodem will also be employed during the leave behind period. During the leave behind period, this source is used for very intermittent communication with vehicles to communicate vehicle status for safety of navigation purposes. It is treated as de minimis while employed in this manner (in contrast with the WHOI micromodem usage described in table 1, which covers the use of the micromodem during research cruises).

Observations of ocean-ice interactions require the use of sensors that are moored and embedded in the ice. Icebreaking would not be required for these observations, as deployments can be performed in areas of low ice-coverage or free-floating ice. Sensors are deployed within a few dozen meters of each other on the same ice floe. Three types of sensors would be used: (1) autonomous ocean flux buoys; (2) Integrated Autonomous Drifters; and (3) and ice-tethered profilers. The autonomous ocean flux buoys measure oceanographic properties just below the ocean-ice interface with ADCPs and temperature chains to measure temperature, salinity, and other ocean parameters the top 6 m of the water column. Integrated Autonomous Drifters have a long temperate string extending down to 200 m depth and would incorporate meteorological sensors, and a temperature spring to estimate ice thickness. The ice-tethered profilers collect information on ocean temperature, salinity, and velocity down to 250 m depth.

Up to 20 Argo-type autonomous profiling floats may be deployed in the central Beaufort Sea. Argo floats drift at 1,500 m depth and collect profiles of temperature and salinity from 2,000 m to the sea surface once every 10 days.

Moored sensors capture a range of ice, ocean, and atmospheric conditions on a year-round basis via sub-surface moorings anchored to the seafloor measuring velocity, temperature, and salinity in the upper 500 m of the water column. The moorings also collect high-resolution acoustic measurements of the ice using the ice profilers described in table 2. Ice velocity and surface waves would be measured by 500 kHz multibeam sonars. The moored oceanographic sensors described above use only de minimis sources and are therefore not anticipated to have the potential for impacts on marine mammals or their habitat.

On-ice measurement systems would be used to collect weather data and include an Autonomous Weather Station and an Ice Mass Balance Buoy. The Autonomous Weather Station would be deployed on a tripod with insulated foot platforms that are frozen into the ice and consist of an anemometer, humidity sensor, and pressure sensor. It also includes an altimeter that is de minimis due to its very-high frequency (200 kHz). The Ice Mass Balance Buoy is a 6 m sensor string deployed through a 5 centimeter (cm) hole drilled into ice. The string is weighted by a 1 kilogram (kg) lead weight and is supported by a tripod. The buoy contains a de minimis 200 kHz altimeter and snow depth sensor. Autonomous Weather Stations and Ice Mass Balance Buoys would be deployed and drift with the ice, making measurements until their host ice floes melt, thus destroying the instruments (likely in summer, roughly 1 year after deployment). After the on-ice instruments are destroyed they cannot be recovered and would sink to the seafloor as their host ice floes melted.

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (see Proposed Mitigation section and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting section).

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. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' 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 3 lists all species or stocks for which take is likely and proposed to be authorized for this activity and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. 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 serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized here, PBR and annual mortality and serious injury (M/SI) from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks 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. Alaska SARs. All values presented in table 3 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments.

As indicated above, both species (with three managed stocks) in table 3 temporally and spatially co-occur with the specified activity to the degree that take is likely to occur. While bowhead whales ( Balaena mysticetus ), gray whales ( Eschrichtius robustus ), narwhals ( Monodon monoceros ), bearded seals ( Erignathus barbatus ), spotted seals ( Phoca largha ), and ribbon seals ( Histriophoca fasciata ) have been documented in the area, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of these species is such that take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further beyond the explanation provided here.

Due to the location of the Study Area ( i.e., northern offshore, deep water), there were no calculated exposures for the bowhead whale, gray whale, bearded seal, spotted seal, and ribbon seal from quantitative modeling of acoustic sources. Bowhead and gray whales are associated with the shallow waters of the continental shelf in the Beaufort Sea and are unlikely to be exposed to acoustic harassment from this activity (Carretta et al., 2024; Young et al., 2026). Gray whales feed primarily in the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, and Northwestern Bering Sea during the summer and fall, but migrate south to winter in Baja California lagoons (Carretta et al., 2024). Gray whales are primarily bottom feeders (Swartz et al., 2006) in water depths of less than 60 m (Pike, 1962). Therefore, on the rare occasion that a gray whale does overwinter in the Beaufort Sea (Stafford et al., 2007), we would expect an overwintering individual to remain in shallow water over the continental shelf where it could feed. Spotted seals tend to prefer pack ice areas with water depths less than 200 m during the spring and move to coastal habitats in the summer and fall, found as far north as 69-72 degrees N (Young et al., 2026). Although the Study Area includes some waters south of 72 degrees N, the acoustic sources with the potential to result in take of marine mammals are not found below that latitude and spotted seals are not expected to be exposed. Ribbon seals are found year-round in the Bering Sea but may seasonally range into the Chukchi Sea (Young et al., 2026). The proposed activity occurs primarily in the Beaufort Sea, outside of the core range of ribbon seals, thus ribbon seals are not expected to be behaviorally harassed. Narwhals are considered extralimital in the Study Area and are not expected to be encountered.

In addition, the polar bear ( Ursus maritimus ) and Pacific walrus ( Odobenus rosmarus ) may be found both on sea ice and/or in the water within the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea; however, both species are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are not considered further in this document.

Beluga whales are distributed throughout seasonally ice-covered arctic and subarctic waters of the Northern Hemisphere (Gurevich, 1980) and are closely associated with open leads and polynyas in ice-covered regions (Hazard, 1988). Belugas may be either migratory or residential (non-migratory), depending on the population. Seasonal distribution is affected by ice cover, tidal conditions, access to prey, temperature, and human interaction (Frost et al., 1985; Hauser et al., 2014). Two stocks, the Beaufort Sea and eastern Chukchi Sea stocks, have the potential to occur in the location of this proposed activity.

Migratory Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) for belugas in the eastern Chukchi and Alaskan Beaufort Sea overlap the southern and western portion of the Study Area (Clarke et al., 2023). A migration corridor for both stocks of beluga whale includes the eastern Chukchi Sea through the Beaufort Sea, with the Beaufort Sea stock utilizing the migratory BIA in April-May and the Eastern Chukchi Sea stock utilizing portions of the area in November. There are also feeding BIAs for both stocks throughout the Arctic region (Clarke et al., 2023). During the winter, they can be found foraging in offshore waters associated with pack ice. When the sea ice melts in summer, they move to warmer river estuaries and coastal areas for molting and calving (Young et al., 2026). Annual migrations can span over thousands of kilometers. The residential Beaufort Sea populations participate in short distance movements within their range throughout the year. Based on satellite tags (Suydam et al., 2001; Hauser et al., 2014), there is some overlap in distribution with the eastern Chukchi Sea beluga whale stock.

During the winter, eastern Chukchi Sea belugas occur in offshore waters associated with pack ice. In the spring, they migrate to warmer coastal estuaries, bays, and rivers where they may molt (Finley, 1982; Suydam, 2009), give birth to, and care for their calves (Sergeant and Brodie, 1969). Eastern Chukchi Sea belugas move into coastal areas, including Kasegaluk Lagoon (outside of the proposed project site), in late June and animals are sighted in the area until about mid-July (Frost and Lowry, 1990; Frost et al., 1993). Satellite tags attached to eastern Chukchi Sea belugas captured in Kasegaluk Lagoon during the summer showed these whales traveled 1,100 km north of the Alaska coastline, into the Canadian Beaufort Sea within three months (Suydam et al., 2001). Satellite telemetry data from 23 whales tagged during 1998-2007 suggest variation in movement patterns for different age and/or sex classes during July-September (Suydam et al., 2005). Adult males used deeper waters and remained there for the duration of the summer; all belugas that moved into the Arctic Ocean (north of 75 degrees N) were males, and males traveled through 90 percent pack ice cover to reach deeper waters in the Beaufort Sea and Arctic Ocean (79-80 degrees N) by late July/early August. Adult and immature female belugas remained at or near the shelf break in the south through the eastern Bering Strait into the northern Bering Sea, remaining north of Saint Lawrence Island over the winter.

Ringed seals are the most common pinniped in the Study Area and have wide distribution in seasonally and permanently ice-covered waters of the Northern Hemisphere (North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, 2004). Throughout their range, ringed seals have an affinity for ice-covered waters and are well adapted to occupying both shore-fast and pack ice (Kelly, 1988). Ringed seals can be found further offshore than other pinnipeds since they can maintain breathing holes in ice thickness greater than 2 m (Smith and Stirling, 1975). The breathing holes are maintained by ringed seals using their sharp teeth and claws found on their fore flippers. They remain in contact with ice most of the year and use it as a platform for molting in late spring to early summer, for pupping and nursing in late winter to early spring, and for resting at other times of the year (Young et al., 2026).

Ringed seals have at least two distinct types of subnivean lairs: Haulout lairs and birthing lairs (Smith and Stirling, 1975). Haul-out lairs are typically single-chambered and offer protection from predators and cold weather. Birthing lairs are larger, multi-chambered areas that are used for pupping in addition to protection from predators. Ringed seals pup on both shore-fast ice as well as stable pack ice. Lentfer (1972) found that ringed seals north of Utqiaġvik, Alaska, build their subnivean lairs on the pack ice near pressure ridges. Since subnivean lairs were found north of Utqiaġvik, Alaska, in pack ice, they are also assumed to be found within the sea ice in the proposed project site. Ringed seals excavate subnivean lairs in drifts over their breathing holes in the ice, in which they rest, give birth, and nurse their pups for 5-9 weeks during late winter and spring (Chapskii, 1940; McLaren, 1958; Smith and Stirling, 1975). Ringed seals are born beginning in March but the majority of births occur in early April. About a month after parturition, mating begins in late April and early May.

In Alaskan waters, during winter and early spring when sea ice is at its maximum extent, ringed seals are abundant in the northern Bering Sea, Norton and Kotzebue Sounds, and throughout the Chukchi and Beaufort seas (Frost, 1985; Kelly, 1988). Passive acoustic monitoring of ringed seals from a high frequency recording package deployed at a depth of 240 m in the Chukchi Sea 120 km north-northwest of Utqiaġvik, Alaska detected ringed seals in the area between mid-December and late May over the 4-year study (Jones et al., 2014). In addition, ringed seals have been observed near and beyond the outer boundary of the U.S. EEZ (Beland and Ireland, 2010). During the spring and early summer, ringed seals may migrate north as the ice edge recedes and spend their summers in the open water period of the northern Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (Frost, 1985). Foraging-type movements have been recorded over the continental shelf and north of the continental shelf waters (Von Duyke et al., 2020). During this time, sub-adult ringed seals may also occur in the Arctic Ocean Basin (Hamilton et al., 2015; Hamilton et al., 2017).

With the onset of fall freeze, ringed seal movements become increasingly restricted and seals will either move west and south with the advancing ice pack with many seals dispersing throughout the Chukchi and Bering Seas, or remaining in the Beaufort Sea (Crawford et al., 2012; Frost and Lowry, 1984; Harwood et al., 2012). Kelly et al. (2010) tracked home ranges for ringed seals in the subnivean period (using shore-fast ice); the size of the home ranges varied from less than 1 up to 279 km 2 (median = 0.62 km 2 for adult males, 0.65 km 2 for adult females). Most (94 percent) of the home ranges were less than 3 km 2 during the subnivean period (Kelly et al., 2010). Near large polynyas, ringed seals maintain ranges, up to 7,000 km 2 during winter and 2,100 km 2 during spring (Born et al., 2004). Some adult ringed seals return to the same small home ranges they occupied during the previous winter (Kelly et al., 2010). The size of winter home ranges can vary by up to a factor of 10 depending on the amount of fast ice; seal movements were more restricted during winters with extensive fast ice and were much less restricted where fast ice did not form at high levels (Harwood et al., 2015).

Of the five recognized subspecies of ringed seals, the Arctic ringed seal occurs in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea and is the only stock that occurs in U.S. waters. NMFS listed the Arctic ringed seal subspecies as threatened under the ESA on December 28, 2012 (77 FR 76706), primarily due to anticipated loss of sea ice through the end of the 21st century.

Critical habitat for the ringed seal includes marine waters within one specific area in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas (87 FR 19232, April 1, 2022). Essential features established by NMFS for conservation of ringed seals are (1) snow-covered sea ice habitat suitable for the formation and maintenance of subnivean birth lairs used for sheltering pups during whelping and nursing, which is defined as waters 3 m or more in depth (relative to Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW)) containing areas of seasonal land-fast (shore-fast) ice or dense, stable pack ice, that have undergone deformation and contain snowdrifts of sufficient depth to form and maintain birth lairs (typically at least 54 cm (21.3 in) deep); (2) sea ice habitat suitable as a platform for basking and molting, which is defined as areas containing sea ice of 15 percent or more concentration in waters 3 m (9.8 ft) or more in depth (relative to MLLW); and (3) primary prey resources to support Arctic ringed seals, which are defined to be small, often schooling, fishes, in particular Arctic cod ( Boreogadus saida ), saffron cod ( Eleginus gracilis ), and rainbow smelt ( Osmerus dentex ); and small crustaceans, in particular, shrimps and amphipods.

The Study Area does not overlap with ringed seal critical habitat (87 FR 19232, April 1, 2022); however, as stated in NMFS' final rule for the Designation of Critical Habitat for the Arctic Subspecies of the Ringed Seal (87 FR 19232, April 1, 2022), the area excluded from the critical habitat contains one or more of the essential features of the Arctic ringed seal's critical habitat, therefore, even though this area is excluded from critical habitat designation, habitat with the physical and biological features essential for ringed seal conservation is still available to the species, although data are limited to inform NMFS' assessment of the relative value of this area to the conservation of the species; however, as described later and in more detail in the Potential Effects of Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and their Habitat section, we expect minimal impacts to marine mammal habitat as a result of ONR's ARA, including impacts to ringed seal sea ice habitat suitable as a platform for basking and molting and impacts on prey availability.

Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities ( e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) and Southall et al. (2019) recommended that marine mammals be divided into hearing groups based on directly measured (behavioral or auditory evoked potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response data, anatomical modeling, etc. ). Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 dB threshold from composite audiograms, previous analyses in NMFS (2018), and/or data from Southall et al. (2007) and Southall et al. (2019). We note that the names of two hearing groups and the generalized hearing ranges of all marine mammal hearing groups have been recently updated (NMFS, 2024) as reflected below in table 4.

For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2024) for a review of available information.

This section discusses how components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the content of this section, the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section, and the Proposed Mitigation section to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and whether those impacts are reasonably expected to, or reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

ONR has requested authorization to take marine mammals incidental to ARA in the Study Area. ONR analyzed potential impacts to marine mammals from acoustic sources in the application. Acoustic effects on marine mammals during the proposed activities can occur from active acoustics and icebreaking. The effects of underwater noise from ONR's proposed activities have the potential to result in take by Level B harassment of beluga whales and ringed seals in the Study Area.

The marine soundscape is composed of both ambient and anthropogenic sounds. Ambient sound is defined as the all-encompassing sound in a given place and is usually a composite of sound from many sources both near and far (American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1995). The sound level of an area is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated by known and unknown sources, which may include physical ( e.g., waves, wind, precipitation, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological ( e.g., sounds produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic sound ( e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction).

The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at any given location and time—which comprise “ambient” or “background” sound—depends not only on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor and is frequency dependent. As a result of the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is that, depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from the specified activity may be a negligible addition to the local environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect marine mammals.

Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad range of frequencies and sound levels and can have a range of highly variable impacts on marine life, from none or minor to potentially severe responses, depending on received levels, duration of exposure, behavioral context, and various other factors. The potential effects of underwater sound from active acoustic sources can possibly result in one or more of the following: temporary or permanent hearing impairment, other auditory injury, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, stress, and masking (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 2003; Götz et al., 2009; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2019; Erbe et al., 2025). The degree of effect is intrinsically related to the signal characteristics, received level, distance from the source, and duration of the sound exposure. In general, sudden, high-level sounds can cause auditory injury, as can longer exposures to lower-level sounds. Temporary or permanent loss of hearing can occur after exposure to noise and occurs almost exclusively for noise within an animal's hearing range.

Richardson et al. (1995) described zones of increasing intensity of effect that might be expected to occur, in relation to distance from a source and assuming that the signal is within an animal's hearing range. First is the area within which the acoustic signal would be audible (potentially perceived) to the animal, but not strong enough to elicit any overt behavioral or physiological response. The next zone corresponds with the area where the signal is audible to the animal and of sufficient intensity to elicit behavioral or physiological responsiveness. Third is a zone within which, for signals of high intensity, the received level is sufficient to potentially cause discomfort or tissue damage to auditory systems. Overlaying these zones to a certain extent is the area within which masking ( i.e., when a sound interferes with or masks the ability of an animal to detect a signal of interest that is above the absolute hearing threshold) may occur; the masking zone may be highly variable in size (see Masking section).

Underwater sounds fall into one of two general sound types: impulsive and non-impulsive (defined in the following paragraphs). The distinction between these two sound types is important because they have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing ( e.g., Ward (1997) in Southall et al. (2007)). Please see Southall et al. (2007) for an in-depth discussion of these concepts.

Impulsive sound sources ( e.g., explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief (typically considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal transients (ANSI, 1986; ANSI, 2005; Harris, 1998; National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 1998) and occur either as isolated events or repeated in some succession. Non-impulsive sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-impulsive sounds can be transient signals of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses ( e.g., rapid rise time). Examples of non-impulsive sounds include those produced by vessels, aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or dredging, vibratory pile driving, and active acoustic sources (such as those proposed for use by ONR as part of the proposed activities).

The likely or possible impacts of ONR's proposed activity on marine mammals involve both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. Potential non-acoustic stressors could result from the physical presence of vessels, equipment, and personnel ( e.g., icebreaking impacts, vessel and in-water vehicle strike, and seafloor disturbance); however, any impacts to marine mammals are expected to primarily be acoustic in nature ( e.g., non-impulsive acoustic sources, noise from icebreaking vessel (“icebreaking noise”), and vessel noise).

NMFS defines a noise-induced threshold shift (TS) as a change, usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018; NMFS, 2024). The amount of TS is customarily expressed in dB. A TS can be permanent or temporary. As described in NMFS (2018) and NMFS (2024), there are numerous factors to consider when examining the consequence of TS, including, but not limited to, the signal temporal pattern ( e.g., impulsive or non-impulsive), likelihood an individual would be exposed for a long enough duration or to a high enough level to induce a TS, the magnitude of the TS, time to recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to days), the frequency range of the exposure ( i.e., spectral content), the hearing frequency range of the exposed species relative to the signal's frequency spectrum ( i.e., how animal uses sound within the frequency band of the signal) ( e.g., Kastelein et al., 2014), and the overlap between the animal and the source ( e.g., spatial, temporal, and spectral).

NMFS defines AUD INJ as damage to the inner ear that can result in destruction of tissue, such as the loss of cochlear neuron synapses or auditory neuropathy (Finneran, 2024; Houser, 2021). AUD INJ may or may not result in PTS, which NMFS defines as a permanent, irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2024). PTS does not generally affect more than a limited frequency range, and an animal that has incurred PTS has incurred some level of hearing loss at the relevant frequencies; typically, animals with PTS are not functionally deaf (Au and Hastings, 2008; Finneran, 2016). Available data from humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40-dB threshold shift approximates PTS onset (see Ahroon et al., 1996; Henderson et al., 2008; Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974; Ward, 1960; Ward et al., 1958; Ward et al., 1959). AUD INJ criteria for marine mammals are estimates; with the exception of a single study unintentionally inducing PTS in a harbor seal ( Phoca vitulina ) (Reichmuth et al., 2019), there are no empirical data measuring PTS in marine mammals largely due to the fact that, for various ethical reasons, experiments involving anthropogenic noise exposure at levels inducing AUD INJ are not typically pursued or authorized (NMFS, 2024).

TTS is a temporary, reversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2024), and is not considered an AUD INJ. Based on data from marine mammal TTS measurements (Southall et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2019), a TTS of 6 dB is considered the minimum TS clearly larger than any day-to-day or session-to-session variation in a subject's normal hearing ability (Finneran et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2002; Schlundt et al., 2000). As described in Finneran (2015), marine mammal studies have shown the amount of TTS increases with cumulative sound exposure level (SEL 24h ) in an accelerating fashion: at low exposures with lower SEL 24h, the amount of TTS is typically small and the growth curves have shallow slopes. At exposures with higher SEL 24h , the growth curves become steeper and approach linear relationships with the noise SEL.

Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics and in interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration ( i.e., recovery time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious (similar to those discussed in the Masking section). For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that takes place during a time where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious impacts if it were in the same frequency band as the necessary vocalizations and of a severity that impeded communication. The fact that animals exposed to high levels of sound that would be expected to result in this physiological response would also be expected to have behavioral responses of a comparatively more severe or sustained nature is potentially more significant than the simple existence of a TTS. However, it is important to note that TTS could occur due to longer exposures to sound at lower levels so that a behavioral response may not be elicited.

Depending on the degree and frequency range, the effects of AUD INJ on an animal could also range in severity, although it is considered generally more serious than TTS because it is a permanent condition (Reichmuth et al., 2019). Of note, reduced hearing sensitivity as a simple function of aging has been observed in marine mammals, as well as humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 2007), so we can infer that strategies exist for coping with this condition to some degree, though likely not without some cost to the animal.

Many studies have examined noise-induced hearing loss in marine mammals (see Finneran (2015), Southall et al. (2019), and NMFS (2024) for summaries). TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to sound. While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, and a sound must be at a higher level in order to be heard. In terrestrial and marine mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of more severe TTS). In many cases, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends. For cetaceans, published data on the onset of TTS are limited to captive bottlenose dolphin ( Tursiops truncatus ), beluga whale, harbor porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena ), and Yangtze finless porpoise ( Neophocoena asiaeorientalis ) (Southall et al., 2019). For pinnipeds in water, measurements of TTS are limited to harbor seals, elephant seals ( Mirounga angustirostris ), bearded seals, and California sea lions ( Zalophus californianus ) (Kastak et al., 2007; Kastelein et al., 2019a; Kastelein et al., 2019c; Kastelein et al., 2021; Kastelein et al., 2022a; Kastelein et al., 2022b; Reichmuth et al., 2019; Sills et al., 2020). TTS was not observed in spotted and ringed seals exposed to single airgun impulse sounds at levels matching previous predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth et al., 2016). These studies examine hearing thresholds measured in marine mammals before and after exposure to intense or long-duration sound exposures. The difference between the pre-exposure and post-exposure thresholds can be used to determine the amount of threshold shift at various post-exposure times.

The amount and onset of TTS depends on the exposure frequency. Sounds at low frequencies, well below the region of best sensitivity for a species or hearing group, are less hazardous than those at higher frequencies, near the region of best sensitivity (Finneran and Schlundt, 2013). At low frequencies, onset-TTS exposure levels are higher compared to those in the region of best sensitivity ( i.e., a low frequency noise would need to be louder to cause TTS onset when TTS exposure level is higher), as shown for harbor porpoises and harbor seals (Kastelein et al., 2019a; Kastelein et al., 2019b), Note that in general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises have a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species (Finneran, 2015; Southall et al., 2019). In addition, TTS can accumulate across multiple exposures, but the resulting TTS will be less than the TTS from a single, continuous exposure with the same SEL 24h (Finneran et al., 2010; Kastelein et al., 2014; Mooney et al., 2009). This means that TTS predictions based on the total, cumulative SEL 24h will overestimate the amount of TTS from intermittent exposures, such as sonars and impulsive sources. Nachtigall et al. (2018) describe measurements of hearing sensitivity of multiple odontocete species (bottlenose dolphin, harbor porpoise, beluga, and false killer whale ( Pseudorca crassidens )) when a relatively loud sound was preceded by a warning sound. These captive animals were shown to reduce hearing sensitivity when warned of an impending intense sound. Based on these experimental observations of captive animals, the authors suggest that wild animals may dampen their hearing during prolonged exposures or if conditioned to anticipate intense sounds. Another study showed that echolocating animals (including odontocetes) might have anatomical specializations that might allow for conditioned hearing reduction and filtering of low-frequency ambient noise, including increased stiffness and control of middle ear structures and placement of inner ear structures (Ketten et al., 2021). Data available on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes are currently lacking. Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited number of individuals within these species.

Relationships between TTS and AUD INJ thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals, and there are no PTS data for cetaceans, but such relationships are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. AUD INJ typically occurs at exposure levels at least several decibels above that inducing mild TTS ( e.g., a 40-dB threshold shift approximates PTS onset (Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974), while a 6-dB threshold shift approximates TTS onset (Southall et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2019)). Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary assumption is that the AUD INJ thresholds for impulsive sounds (such as impact pile driving) are at least 6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on a peak sound pressure level basis and AUD INJ SEL 24h thresholds are 15 to 20 dB higher than TTS SEL 24h thresholds (Southall et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2019). Given the higher level of sound or longer exposure duration necessary to cause AUD INJ as compared with TTS, it is considerably less likely that AUD INJ could occur.

Exposure to noise also has the potential to behaviorally disturb marine mammals to a level that qualifies as harassment under the MMPA. Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific (Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2019). Many different variables can influence an animal's perception of and response to (nature and magnitude) an acoustic event. An animal's prior experience with a sound or sound source affects whether it is less likely (habituation, self-mitigation) or more likely (sensitization) to respond to certain sounds in the future (animals can also be innately predisposed to respond to certain sounds in certain ways) (Finneran, 2018; Finneran et al., 2024; Nachtigall and Supin, 2013; Nachtigall and Supin, 2014; Nachtigall and Supin, 2015; Nachtigall et al., 2016a; Nachtigall et al., 2016b; Southall et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2016). Related to the sound itself, the perceived proximity of the sound, bearing of the sound (approaching vs. retreating), the similarity of a sound to biologically relevant sounds in the animal's environment ( i.e., calls of predators, prey, or conspecifics), familiarity of the sound, and navigational constraints may affect the way an animal responds to the sound (DeRuiter et al., 2013a; Ellison et al., 2012; Southall et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2021; Wartzok et al., 2003). Individuals (of different age, gender, reproductive status, etc. ) among most populations will have variable hearing capabilities, and differing behavioral sensitivities to sounds that will be affected by prior conditioning, experience, and current activities of those individuals. Southall et al. (2007) and Southall et al. (2021) have developed and subsequently refined methods developed to categorize and assess the severity of acute behavioral responses, considering impacts to individuals that may consequently impact populations. Often, specific acoustic features of the sound and contextual variables ( i.e., proximity, duration, or recurrence of the sound or the current behavior that the marine mammal is engaged in or its prior experience), as well as entirely separate factors such as the physical presence of a nearby vessel, may be more relevant to the animal's response than the received level alone.

Studies by DeRuiter et al. (2013a) indicate that variability of responses to acoustic stimuli depends not only on the species receiving the sound and the sound source, but also on the social, behavioral, or environmental contexts of exposure. Another study by DeRuiter et al. (2013b) examined behavioral responses of goose-beaked whales to MF sonar and found that whales responded strongly at low received levels (89-127 dB re 1 µPa) by ceasing normal fluking and echolocation, swimming rapidly away, and extending both dive duration and subsequent non-foraging intervals when the sound source was 3.4-9.5 km away. Importantly, this study also showed that whales exposed to a similar range of received levels (78-106 dB re 1 µPa) from distant sonar exercises 118 km away did not elicit such responses, suggesting that context may moderate responses.

Ellison et al. (2012) outlined an approach to assessing the effects of sound on marine mammals that incorporates contextual-based factors. The authors recommend considering not just the received level of sound, but also the activity the animal is engaged in at the time the sound is received, the nature and novelty of the sound ( i.e., whether this is a new sound from the animal's perspective), and the distance between the sound source and the animal. They submit that this “exposure context,” as described, greatly influences the type of behavioral response exhibited by the animal. Forney et al. (2017) also point out that an apparent lack of response ( e.g., no displacement or avoidance of a sound source) may not necessarily mean there is no cost to the individual or population, as some resources or habitats may be of such high value that animals may choose to stay, even when experiencing stress or hearing loss. Forney et al. (2017) recommend considering both the costs of remaining in an area of noise exposure such as TTS, PTS, or masking, which could lead to an increased risk of predation or other threats or a decreased capability to forage, and the costs of displacement, including potential increased risk of vessel strike, increased risks of predation or competition for resources, or decreased habitat suitable for foraging, resting, or socializing. This sort of contextual information is challenging to predict with accuracy for ongoing activities that occur over large spatial and temporal expanses.

Friedlaender et al. (2016) provided the first integration of direct measures of prey distribution and density variables incorporated into across-individual analyses of behavior responses of blue whales to sonar and demonstrated a five-fold increase in the ability to quantify variability in blue whale diving behavior. These results illustrate that responses evaluated without such measurements for foraging animals may be misleading, which again illustrates the context-dependent nature of the probability of response.

Exposure of marine mammals to sound sources can result in, but is not limited to, no response or any of the following observable responses: increased alertness; orientation or attraction to a sound source; vocal modifications; cessation of feeding; cessation of social interaction; alteration of movement or diving behavior; habitat abandonment (temporary or permanent); and, in severe cases, panic, flight, stampede, or stranding, potentially resulting in death (Southall et al., 2007). A review of marine mammal responses to anthropogenic sound was first conducted by Richardson et al. (1995). More recent reviews (Nowacek et al., 2007; DeRuiter et al., 2013a; DeRuiter et al., 2013b; Ellison et al., 2012; Gomez et al., 2016) address studies conducted since 1995 and focused on observations where the received sound level of the exposed marine mammal(s) was known or could be estimated. Gomez et al. (2016) conducted a review of the literature considering the contextual information of exposure in addition to received level and found that higher received levels were not always associated with more severe behavioral responses and vice versa. Southall et al. (2016) states that results demonstrate that some individuals of different species display clear yet varied responses, some of which have negative implications, while others appear to tolerate high levels, and that responses may not be fully predictable with simple acoustic exposure metrics ( e.g., received sound level). Rather, the authors state that differences among species and individuals along with contextual aspects of exposure ( e.g., behavioral state) appear to affect response probability (Southall et al., 2019). The following parts provide examples of behavioral responses to stressors that provide an idea of the variability in responses that would be expected given the differential sensitivities of marine mammal species to sound and the wide range of potential acoustic sources to which a marine mammal may be exposed. Behavioral responses that could occur for a given sound exposure should be determined from the literature that is available for each species or extrapolated from closely related species when no information exists, along with contextual factors.

For non-impulsive sounds ( i.e., similar to the sources used during the proposed specified activity), data suggest that exposures of pinnipeds to received levels between 90 and 140 dB re 1 μPa do not elicit strong behavioral responses; no data were available for exposures at higher received levels for Southall et al. (2007) to include in the severity scale analysis. Reactions of harbor seals were the only available data for which the responses could be ranked on the severity scale. For reactions that were recorded, the majority (17 of 18 individuals/groups) were ranked on the severity scale as a 4 (defined as moderate change in movement, brief shift in group distribution, or moderate change in vocal behavior) or lower; the remaining response was ranked as a 6 (defined as minor or moderate avoidance of the sound source). Additional data on hooded seals ( Cystophora cristata ) indicate avoidance responses to signals above 160-170 dB re 1 μPa (Kvadsheim et al., 2010), and data on gray seals ( Halichoerus grypus ) and harbor seals indicate avoidance response at received levels of 135-144 dB re 1 μPa (Götz et al., 2010). In each instance where food was available, which provided the seals motivation to remain near the source, habituation to the signals occurred rapidly. In the same study, it was noted that habituation was not apparent in wild seals where no food source was available (Götz et al., 2010). This implies that the motivation of the animal is necessary to consider in determining the potential for a reaction. In one study that aimed to investigate the under-ice movements and sensory cues associated with under-ice navigation of ice seals, acoustic transmitters (60-69 kHz at 159 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m) were attached to ringed seals (Wartzok et al., 1992a; Wartzok et al., 1992b). An acoustic tracking system then was installed in the ice to receive the acoustic signals and provide real-time tracking of ice seal movements. Although the frequencies used in this study are at the upper limit of ringed seal hearing, the ringed seals appeared unaffected by the acoustic transmissions, as they were able to maintain normal behaviors ( e.g., finding breathing holes).

Ringed seals on pack ice showed various behaviors when approached by an icebreaking vessel. A majority of seals dove underwater when the ship was within 0.93 km while others remained on the ice. However, as icebreaking vessels came closer to the seals, most dove underwater. Ringed seals have also been observed foraging in the wake of an icebreaking vessel (Richardson et al., 1995) and may have preferentially established breathing holes in the ship tracks after the icebreaker moved through the area. Previous observations and studies using icebreaking ships provide a greater understanding in how seal behavior may be affected by a vessel transiting through the area.

Adult ringed seals spend up to 20 percent of the time in subnivean lairs during the winter season (Kelly et al., 2010). Ringed seal pups spend about 50 percent of their time in the lair during the nursing period (Lydersen and Hammill, 1993). During the warm season ringed seals haul out on the ice. In a study of ringed seal haul out activity by Born et al. (2002), ringed seals spent 25-57 percent of their time hauled out in June, which is during their molting season. Ringed seal lairs are typically used by individual seals (haulout lairs) or by a mother with a pup (birthing lairs); large lairs used by many seals for hauling out are rare (Smith and Stirling, 1975). If the non-impulsive acoustic transmissions are heard and are perceived as a threat, ringed seals within subnivean lairs could react to the sound in a similar fashion to their reaction to other threats, such as polar bears (their primary predators), although the type of sound would be novel to them. Responses of ringed seals to a variety of human-induced sounds ( e.g., helicopter noise, snowmobiles, dogs, people, and seismic activity) have been variable; some seals entered the water and some seals remained in the lair. However, in all instances in which observed seals departed lairs in response to noise disturbance, they subsequently reoccupied the lair (Kelly, 1988).

Ringed seal mothers have a strong bond with their pups and may physically move their pups from the birth lair to an alternate lair to avoid predation, sometimes risking their lives to defend their pups from potential predators. If a ringed seal mother perceives the proposed acoustic sources as a threat, the network of multiple birth and haulout lairs allows the mother and pup to move to a new lair (Smith and Stirling, 1975; Smith and Hammill, 1981). The acoustic sources proposed for use during this activity are not likely to impede a ringed seal from finding a breathing hole or lair, as captive seals have been found to primarily use vision to locate breathing holes and no effect to ringed seal vision would occur from the acoustic disturbance (Elsner et al., 1989; Wartzok et al., 1992). It is anticipated that a ringed seal would be able to relocate to a different breathing hole relatively easily without impacting their normal behavior patterns.

Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or interfering with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, interpret, or discriminate between acoustic signals of interest ( e.g., those used for intraspecific communication and social interactions, prey detection, predator avoidance, or navigation) (Branstetter and Sills, 2022; Clark et al., 2009; Erbe and Farmer, 2000; Erbe et al., 2016; Richardson et al., 1995; Tyack, 2000). Masking occurs when the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another coincident sound at similar frequencies and at similar or higher intensity and may occur whether the coincident sound is natural ( e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves, precipitation) or anthropogenic ( e.g., shipping, sonar, seismic exploration) in origin.

The ability of a noise source to mask biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of both the noise source and the signal of interest ( e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, temporal variability, direction), in relation to each other and to an animal's hearing abilities ( e.g., sensitivity, frequency range, critical ratios, frequency discrimination, directional discrimination, age, or TTS hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation conditions. Masking these acoustic signals can disturb the behavior of individual animals, groups of animals, or entire populations. Masking can lead to behavioral changes including vocal changes ( e.g., Lombard effect, increasing amplitude, or changing frequency), cessation of foraging, and leaving an area, to both signalers and receivers, in an attempt to compensate for noise levels (Erbe et al., 2016).

Most research on auditory masking is focused on energetic masking, or the ability of the receiver ( i.e., listener) to detect a signal in noise. However, from a fitness perspective, both signal detection and signal interpretation are necessary for success. This type of masking is called informational masking and occurs when a signal is detected by an animal but the meaning of that signal has been lost. Few data exist on informational masking in marine mammals but studies have shown that some recognition of predator cues might be missed by species that are preyed upon by killer whales if killer whale vocalizations are masked (Curé et al., 2015; Curé et al., 2016; Deecke et al., 2002; Isojunno et al., 2016; Visser et al., 2016). von Benda-Beckmann et al. (2021) modeled the effect of pulsed and continuous active sonars on sperm whale ( Physeter macrocephalus ) echolocation and found that sonar sounds could reduce the ability of sperm whales to find prey under certain conditions.

Under certain circumstances, marine mammals experiencing significant masking could also be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in survival and reproduction. Therefore, when the coincident ( i.e., masking) sound is human-made, it may be considered harassment when disrupting natural behavioral patterns to the point where the behavior is abandoned or significantly altered. It is important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which only occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not considered a physiological effect, but rather a potential behavioral effect (though not necessarily one that would be associated with harassment).

The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species. The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals ( e.g., Clark et al., 2009,; Matthews et al., 2016) and may result in energetic or other costs as animals change their vocalization behavior ( e.g., Di Iorio and Clark, 2010; Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2009; Miller et al., 2000; Parks et al., 2007). Masking can be reduced in situations where the signal and noise come from different directions (Richardson et al., 1995), through amplitude modulation of the signal, or through other compensatory behaviors (Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can be tested directly in captive species, but in wild populations it must be either modeled or inferred from evidence of masking compensation. There are few studies addressing real-world masking sounds likely to be experienced by marine mammals in the wild ( e.g., Branstetter et al., 2024; Branstetter and Sills, 2022, Cholewiak et al., 2018).

Marine mammals within or near the Study Area may be exposed to anthropogenic noise which may be a source of masking. Vocalization changes may result from a need to compete with an increase in background noise and include increasing the source level, modifying the frequency, increasing the call repetition rate of vocalizations, or ceasing to vocalize in the presence of increased noise (Hotchkin and Parks, 2013). For example, in response to loud noise, beluga whales may shift the frequency of their echolocation clicks to prevent masking by anthropogenic noise (Eickmeier and Vallarta, 2023).

Masking is more likely to occur in the presence of broadband, relatively continuous noise sources such as vibratory pile driving. Energy distribution of pile driving covers a broad frequency spectrum, and sound from pile driving would be within the audible range of pinnipeds and cetaceans present in the Study Area. While icebreaking during ONR's proposed activity may mask some acoustic signals that are relevant to the daily behavior of marine mammals, the short-term duration (up to 8 days) and limited areas affected make it very unlikely that the fitness of individual marine mammals would be impacted.

Physiological stress is a natural and adaptive process that helps an animal survive changing conditions. When an animal perceives a potential threat, whether or not the stimulus actually poses a threat, a stress response is triggered (Moberg, 2000; Sapolsky, 2005; Selye, 1950). Once an animal's central nervous system perceives a threat, it mounts a biological response or defense that consists of a combination of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses, neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses.

The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and distress is the biotic cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other biotic functions. For example, when a stress response diverts energy away from growth in young animals, those animals may experience stunted growth. When a stress response diverts energy from a fetus, an animal's reproductive success and its fitness will suffer. In these cases, the animals will have entered a pre-pathological or pathological state which is called “distress” (Selye, 1950) or “allostatic loading” (McEwen and Wingfield, 2003). This pathological state of distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves sufficiently to restore normal function.

According to Moberg (2000), in the case of many stressors, an animal's first and sometimes most economical (in terms of biotic costs) response is behavioral avoidance of the potential stressor or avoidance of continued exposure to a stressor. An animal's second line of defense to stressors involves the sympathetic part of the autonomic nervous system and the classical “fight or flight” response, which includes the cardiovascular system, the gastrointestinal system, the exocrine glands, and the adrenal medulla to produce changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal activity that humans commonly associate with “stress.” These responses have a relatively short duration and may or may not have significant long-term effect on an animal's welfare.

An animal's third line of defense to stressors involves its neuroendocrine systems or sympathetic nervous systems; the system that has received the most study has been the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) system (also known as the HPA axis in mammals or the hypothalamus-pituitary-interrenal axis in fish and some reptiles). Unlike stress responses associated with the autonomic nervous system, virtually all neuro-endocrine functions that are affected by stress, including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior, are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction (Moberg, 1987; Rivier and Rivest, 1991), altered metabolism (Elsasser et al., 2000), reduced immune competence (Blecha, 2000), and behavioral disturbance (Blecha, 2000, Moberg, 1987). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticosteroids (cortisol, corticosterone, and aldosterone in marine mammals; see Romano et al. (2004)) have been equated with stress for many years.

Marine mammals naturally experience stressors within their environment and as part of their life histories. Changing weather and ocean conditions, exposure to disease and naturally occurring toxins, lack of prey availability, and interactions with predators all contribute to the stress a marine mammal experiences (Atkinson et al., 2015). Breeding cycles, periods of fasting, social interactions with members of the same species, and molting (for pinnipeds) are also stressors, although they are natural components of an animal's life history. Anthropogenic activities have the potential to provide additional stressors beyond those that occur naturally ( e.g., fishery interactions, pollution, tourism, ocean noise) (Fair et al., 2014; Meissner et al., 2015; Rolland et al., 2012).

Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through controlled experiments for both laboratory and free-ranging animals ( e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005; Reneerkens et al., 2002; Thompson and Hamer, 2000). Relatively little information exists on the linkage between anthropogenic sound exposure and stress in marine mammals, and even less information exists on the ultimate consequences of sound-induced stress responses (either acute or chronic). The ability to make predictions from stress hormones about impacts on individuals and populations exposed to various forms of natural and anthropogenic stressors relies on understanding the linkages between changes in stress hormones and resulting physiological impacts. Currently, the sound characteristics that correlate with specific stress responses in marine mammals are poorly understood, as are the ultimate consequences of these changes. Several research efforts have improved the understanding of, and the ability to predict, how stressors ultimately affect marine mammal populations ( e.g., King et al., 2015; New et al., 2013; Pirotta et al., 2015; Pirotta et al., 2022). This includes determining how and to what degree various types of anthropogenic sound cause stress in marine mammals and understanding what factors may mitigate those physiological stress responses. Factors potentially affecting an animal's response to a stressor include life history, sex, age, reproductive status, overall physiological and behavioral adaptability, and whether they are naïve or experienced with the sound ( e.g., prior experience with a stressor may result in a reduced response due to habituation) (Finneran and Branstetter, 2013; St. Aubin and Dierauf, 2001). Because there are many unknowns regarding the occurrence of acoustically induced stress responses in marine mammals, any physiological response ( e.g., hearing loss or injury) or significant behavioral response is assumed to be associated with a stress response. Any animal experiencing TTS would likely also experience stress responses, however, distress is an unlikely result of the proposed activity based on observations of marine mammals during previous, similar projects in the region.

ONR's proposed activities could have localized, temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat, including prey, by increasing in-water SPLs. Increased noise levels may affect acoustic habitat and adversely affect marine mammal prey within the Study Area.

Marine mammal species in the Study Area feed on marine invertebrates and fish. Although most species of marine invertebrates are found within the benthic zone, they can be found in all zones (sympagic (within the sea ice), pelagic (open ocean), or benthic (bottom dwelling)) of the Beaufort Sea (Josefson et al., 2013). The diverse range of species include oysters, crabs, worms, ghost shrimp, snails, sponges, sea fans, isopods, and stony corals (Chess, 1997; Dugan et al., 2000; Proctor, 1981).

Hearing capabilities of invertebrates are largely unknown (Lovell et al., 2005; Popper and Schilt, 2008). Outside of studies conducted to test the sensitivity of invertebrates to vibrations, very little is known about the effects of anthropogenic underwater noise on invertebrates (Edmonds et al., 2016). While data are limited, research suggests that some of the major cephalopods and decapods may have limited hearing capabilities (Hanlon, 1987; Offutt, 1970) and may hear only low-frequency (less than 1 kHz) sources (Offutt, 1970), which is most likely within the frequency band of biological signals (Hill, 2009). Acoustic signals produced by crustaceans range from low frequency rumbles (20-60 Hz) to high frequency signals (20-55 kHz) (Henninger and Watson III, 2005; Patek and Caldwell, 2006; Staaterman et al., 2011). Aquatic invertebrates that can sense local water movements with ciliated cells include cnidarians, flatworms, segmented worms, urochordates (tunicates), mollusks, and arthropods (Budelmann, 1992a; Budelmann, 1992b; Popper et al., 2001). Some aquatic invertebrates have specialized organs called statocysts for determination of equilibrium and, in some cases, linear or angular acceleration. Statocysts allow an animal to sense movement and may enable some species, such as cephalopods and crustaceans, to be sensitive to water particle movements associated with sound (Goodall et al., 1990; Hu et al., 2009; Kaifu et al., 2008; Montgomery et al., 2006; Popper et al., 2001; Roberts and Breithaupt, 2016; Salmon, 1971). Because any acoustic sensory capabilities, if present at all, are limited to detecting water motion, and water particle motion near a sound source falls off rapidly with distance, aquatic invertebrates are probably limited to detecting nearby sound sources rather than sound caused by pressure waves from distant sources.

Studies of sound energy effects on invertebrates are few and identify only behavioral responses. Non-auditory injury, AUD INJ, TTS, and masking studies have not been conducted for invertebrates. Both behavioral and auditory brainstem response studies suggest that crustaceans may sense frequencies up to 3 kHz, but best sensitivity is likely below 200 Hz (Goodall et al., 1990; Lovell et al., 2005; Lovell et al., 2006). Most cephalopods likely sense low-frequency sound below 1 kHz, with best sensitivities at lower frequencies (Budelmann, 2010; Mooney et al., 2010; Offutt, 1970). A few cephalopods may sense higher frequencies up to 1,500 Hz (Hu et al., 2009).

Although acoustic sources used during the proposed activities may briefly impact individuals, intermittent exposures to non-impulsive acoustic sources are not expected to impact survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of widespread marine invertebrate populations.

The fish species located in the Study Area include those that are closely associated with the deep ocean habitat of the Beaufort Sea. Nearly 250 marine fish species have been described in the Arctic, excluding the larger parts of the sub-Arctic Bering, Barents, and Norwegian Seas (Mecklenburg et al., 2011). However, only about 30 are known to occur in the Arctic waters of the Beaufort Sea (Christiansen and Reist, 2013). Largely because of the difficulty of sampling in remote, ice-covered seas, many high-Arctic fish species are known only from rare or geographically patchy records (Mecklenburg et al., 2011). Aquatic systems of the Arctic undergo extended seasonal periods of ice cover and other harsh environmental conditions. Fish inhabiting such systems must be biologically and ecologically adapted to surviving such conditions. Important environmental factors that Arctic fish must contend with include reduced light, seasonal darkness, ice cover, low biodiversity, and low seasonal productivity.

All fish have two sensory systems to detect sound in the water: the inner ear, which functions very much like the inner ear in other vertebrates, and the lateral line, which consists of a series of receptors along the fish's body (Popper and Fay, 2010; Popper et al., 2014). The inner ear generally detects relatively higher-frequency sounds, while the lateral line detects water motion at low frequencies (below a few hundred Hz) (Hastings and Popper, 2005). Lateral line receptors respond to the relative motion between the body surface and surrounding water; this relative motion; however, only takes place very close to sound sources, and most fish are unable to detect this motion at more than one to two body lengths distance away (Popper et al., 2014). Although hearing capability data only exist for fewer than 100 of the approximately 32,000 fish species known to exist, current data suggest that most species of fish detect sounds from 50 to 1,000 Hz, with few fish hearing sounds above 4 kHz (Popper, 2008). It is believed that most fish have their best hearing sensitivity from 100 to 400 Hz (Popper, 2003). Permanent hearing loss has not been documented in fish. A study by Halvorsen et al. (2012) found that for temporary hearing loss or similar negative impacts to occur, the noise needed to be within the fish's individual hearing frequency range; external factors, such as developmental history of the fish or environmental factors, may result in differing impacts to sound exposure in fish of the same species. The sensory hair cells of the inner ear in fish can regenerate after they are damaged, unlike in mammals where sensory hair cells loss is permanent (Lombarte et al., 1993; Smith et al., 2006). As a consequence, any hearing loss in fish may be as temporary as the timeframe required to repair or replace the sensory cells that were damaged or destroyed (Smith et al., 2006), and no permanent loss of hearing in fish would result from exposure to sound.

Fish species in the Study Area are expected to hear the low-frequency sources associated with the proposed activities, but most are not expected to detect sound from the mid-frequency sounds. These effects are expected to be transient, and long-term consequences for the population are not expected. Human-generated sound could alter the behavior of a fish in a manner that would affect its way of living, such as where it tries to locate food or how well it can locate a potential mate; behavioral responses to loud noise could include a startle response, such as the fish swimming away from the source, the fish “freezing” and staying in place, or scattering (Popper, 2003). Auditory masking could also interfere with a fish's ability to hear biologically relevant sounds, inhibiting the ability to detect both predators and prey, and impacting schooling, mating, and navigating (Popper, 2003). If an individual fish encounters low-frequency acoustic transmissions and is able to perceive the transmissions, they are expected to exhibit short-term behavioral reactions, when initially exposed to acoustic transmissions, which would not significantly alter breeding, foraging, or populations. Overall effects to fish from active acoustic sources would be localized, temporary, and infrequent.

Ringed seals haul out on pack ice during the spring and summer to molt (Reeves et al., 2002; Born et al., 2002). Acoustic transmissions also would have no structural impact to subnivean lairs in the ice. Furthermore, since ice dampens acoustic transmissions (Richardson et al., 1995), the level of sound energy that reaches the interior of a subnivean lair would be less than that ensonifying water under surrounding ice. Some studies suggested that ringed seals might preferentially establish breathing holes in ship tracks after vessels move through the area (Alliston, 1980; Alliston, 1981). The amount of ice habitat disturbed by activities is small relative to the amount of overall habitat available and there will be no permanent or longer-term loss or modification of physical ice habitat used by ringed seals. Vessel movement would have minimal effect on physical beluga habitat as beluga habitat is solely within the water column. Furthermore, the deployed acoustic sources that would remain in use after the vessels have left the Study Area have low duty cycles and lower source levels, and any impacts to the acoustic habitat of marine mammals would be minimal. For these reasons, it is unlikely that ONR's acoustic activities in the Study Area would have any effect on marine mammal habitat.

This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through the IHA, which will inform NMFS' consideration of the negligible impact determinations and impacts on subsistence uses.

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 the behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B harassment).

Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of behavioral reactions and/or TTS for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to active acoustic sources and noise from icebreaking. Based on the nature of the activity, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.

As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the proposed take numbers are estimated.

For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) acoustic criteria above which NMFS believes there is some reasonable potential for marine mammals to be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of AUD INJ; (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) the number of days of activities. We note that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of potential 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 proposed take estimates.

NMFS recommends the use of acoustic criteria 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 AUD INJ of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). We note that the criteria for AUD INJ, as well as the names of two hearing groups, were updated in 2024 (NMFS, 2024) as reflected below in the Level A Harassment section.

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 or exposure context ( e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle, duration of the exposure, signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the source), the environment ( e.g., bathymetry, other noises in the area, predators in the area), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, life stage, depth) and can be difficult to predict ( e.g., Southall et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2021; Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to use a threshold based on a metric that is both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS typically uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS generally predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner considered to be Level B harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above root-mean-square sound pressure levels (RMS SPL) of 120 dB re 1 μPa for continuous ( e.g., vibratory pile driving, drilling, icebreaking) and above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 μPa for non-explosive impulsive ( e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent ( e.g., scientific sonar) sources. Generally speaking, Level B harassment take estimates based on these behavioral harassment thresholds are expected to include any likely takes by TTS as, in most cases, the likelihood of TTS occurs at distances from the source less than those at which behavioral harassment is likely. TTS of a sufficient degree can manifest as behavioral harassment, as reduced hearing sensitivity and the potential reduced opportunities to detect important signals (conspecific communication, predators, prey) may result in changes in behavior patterns that would not otherwise occur.

In coordination with NMFS, the Navy developed behavioral criteria to support environmental analyses for the Navy's training and testing activities utilizing active tactical sonar sources. These behavioral harassment thresholds are used herein to evaluate the potential effects of the active acoustic components of the proposed activities. As with other sound sources, exposure to sonar is difficult to predict and is dependent on received level and other factors such as exposure context, the environment, and characteristics of the receiving animal.

The Navy updated its behavioral criteria for tactical sonar in 2025 (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2025) for Phase IV of its at-sea training and testing environmental compliance. However, ONR relied upon the Phase III criteria and thresholds (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017) for the analysis of active acoustic sources in its application. (Note that it applied the 120 dB re 1 μPa threshold for icebreaking.) The Phase IV behavioral response function (BRF) analyses differ from Phase III due to the addition of new data and the separation of some species groups. Figure 10 in the Phase IV Criteria and Thresholds Technical Report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2025) indicates the changes in BRFs from Phase III to Phase IV, and NMFS has summarized the odontocete and pinniped changes here. The Phase IV odontocete BRF is less sensitive overall due to additional behavioral response research ( e.g., the 50 percent point of BRF increased by 11 dB from Phase III to Phase IV). Relying upon the Phase III BRF results in a higher number of behavioral responses than relying on the Phase IV BRF for the same event, and it also suggests higher avoidance of auditory effects. The Phase IV pinniped (in-water) BRF is more sensitive due to the inclusion of additional captive pinniped data (only three behavioral studies using captive pinnipeds were available for the derivation of the BRF) ( e.g., the 50 percent of the BRF decreased by 10 dB from Phase III to Phase IV). Behavioral studies of captive animals can be difficult to extrapolate to wild animals due to several factors ( e.g., use of trained subjects). With captive studies, behavioral responses are often correlated with received level, but other factors that may also contribute to responses ( i.e., exposure context, the environment, and characteristics of the receiving animal) typically cannot be as well controlled or accounted for. While studies using captive animals may provide greater control over certain aspects of noise exposure scenarios and observations, Southall et al. (2021) derived separate behavioral severity scales to address the fundamental differences between studies involving captive versus free-ranging animals ( e.g., severity scale for captive marine mammals, unlike for wild marine mammals, does not account for fitness-related consequences to survival, foraging, and reproduction, since population-level effects in captive studies are less measurable and relevant). This means the Phase IV pinniped BRF likely overestimates effects compared to observed responses of wild pinnipeds to sound and anthropogenic activity. Therefore, while Phase IV BRFs are available, NMFS concurs that use of the Phase III BRFs adequately estimates the potential impacts to marine mammals from acoustic sources.

The Navy's tactical sonar BRFs are not applicable to icebreaking and, therefore, NMFS proposes to adopt ONR's approach of using the 120 dB re 1 μPa threshold to estimate take of all marine mammals by Level B harassment from icebreaking.

For beluga whale, the ONR's take analysis applies cutoff distances, beyond which the potential of significant behavioral responses (and therefore Level B harassment) is considered to be unlikely (table 5). These cutoff distances are consistent with the Phase III cutoffs and include different cutoff distances for fixed sources (10 km) and moving/drifting sources (20 km). Fixed sources are treated as individual sources in ONR's modeling given that the distance between them is significantly greater than the range to which environmental effects could occur, while some of the on-site drifting sources could come closer together. The Phase IV criteria estimate a 15 km cutoff for odontocetes for both fixed and moving sources. Therefore, the cutoff distance applied herein for fixed sources would result in a lower take estimate for beluga whales in comparison to application of the Phase IV cutoffs, while the cutoff distances for drifting sources would result in a higher beluga whale take estimate compared to Phase IV cutoffs. The estimated distance to the Level B harassment isopleth associated with icebreaking noise is under 5 km for beluga whales and a cutoff distance was not applied. ONR also did not apply cutoff distances to ringed seal Level B harassment estimates for any source given the methodology used to estimate take (described below), and NMFS concurs they are not warranted.

NMFS' Updated Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 3.0) (2024 Updated Technical Guidance) (NMFS, 2024) identifies dual criteria to assess AUD INJ (Level A harassment) to five different underwater marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). ONR's proposed activity only includes the use of non-impulsive (active acoustic and icebreaking) sources.

The 2024 Updated Technical Guidance criteria include both updated thresholds and updated weighting functions for each hearing group. The thresholds are provided in the table below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the criteria are described in NMFS' 2024 Updated Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance-other-acoustic-tools.

To compare NMFS (2024) weighting functions and TTS/AUD INJ SEL thresholds to NMFS (2018), which were used to predict TTS and AUD INJ in previous ARA IHAs (83 FR 48799, September 27, 2018; 84 FR 50007, September 24, 2019; 85 FR 53333, August 28, 2020; 86 FR 54931, October 5, 2021; 87 FR 57458, September 20, 2022; 88 FR 65657, September 18, 2023; 89 FR 77089, September 20, 2024; 90 FR 43178, September 14, 2025)), both the weighting function shape and the weighted threshold values were considered; the thresholds (table 6) by themselves indicate the TTS/AUD INJ threshold at only the most susceptible frequency (based on the relevant weighting function).

The most significant differences between NMFS (2018) criteria used in this and previous ARA analyses and NMFS (2024) criteria that are applicable to beluga whales and ringed seals are: (1) for the HF group (formerly MF group in NMFS (2018)), NMFS (2024) onset TTS/AUD INJ thresholds overall are 3 dB higher compared to NMFS (2018) but the NMFS (2024) weighting function indicates increased susceptibility to noise-induced hearing loss at frequencies below approximately 10 kHz, compared to NMFS (2018) which is a result of new TTS onset data for dolphins at low frequencies (Finneran et al., 2023); and (2) for the PCW group, new TTS data for harbor seals (Kastelein et al., 2020a; Kastelein et al., 2020b) resulted in overall 6 dB lower TTS/AUD INJ thresholds for NMFS (2024), with the NMFS (2024) weighting function only resulting in slight changes compared to NMFS (2018).

In this section we provide information about the occurrence of marine mammals, including density or other relevant information which will inform the take calculations. We also describe how the information provided above is synthesized to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably likely to occur and proposed for authorization.

The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate the number of marine mammals likely to be exposed to underwater acoustic transmissions above the previously described threshold criteria during the proposed activity.

ONR employed a sophisticated model known as the Navy Acoustic Effects Model (NAEMO) to assess the estimated impacts of underwater sound and estimate take of beluga whales.

Inputs to the quantitative analysis included beluga whale density estimates obtained from the Kaschner et al. (2006) habitat suitability model and Cañadas et al. (2020), depth occurrence (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017b), oceanographic and mammal hearing data, and criteria and thresholds for levels of potential effects. The quantitative analysis consists of computer modeled estimates and a post-model analysis to determine the number of potential animal exposures. The model calculates sound energy propagation from the proposed sources, the sound received by animat (virtual animal) dosimeters representing marine mammals distributed in the area around the modeled activity, and whether the sound received by animats exceeds the thresholds for effects.

The Navy developed a set of software tools and compiled data for estimating acoustic effects on marine mammals without consideration of behavioral avoidance or mitigation. These tools and data sets serve as integral components of NAEMO. In NAEMO, animats are distributed non-uniformly based on species-specific density, depth distribution, and group size information and animats record energy received at their location in the water column. A fully three-dimensional environment is used for calculating sound propagation and animat exposure in NAEMO. Site-specific bathymetry, sound speed profiles, wind speed, and bottom properties are incorporated into the propagation modeling process. NAEMO calculates the likely propagation for various levels of energy (sound or pressure) resulting from each source used during the event.

NAEMO then records the energy received by each animat within the energy footprint of the event and calculates the number of animats having received levels of energy exposures that fall within defined impact thresholds. Predicted effects on the animats within a scenario are then tallied and the highest order effect (based on severity of criteria) predicted for a given animat is assumed. Each scenario, or each 24-hour period for scenarios lasting greater than 24 hours is independent of all others, and therefore, the same individual marine mammal (as represented by an animat in the model environment) could be impacted during each independent scenario or 24-hour period. In few instances, although the activities themselves all occur within the proposed study location, sound may propagate beyond the boundary of the Study Area. Any exposures occurring outside the boundary of the Study Area are counted as if they occurred within the Study Area boundary. NAEMO provides the initial estimated impacts on marine species with a static horizontal distribution ( i.e., animats in the model environment do not move horizontally but do move vertically within the water column).

There are limitations to the data used in the acoustic effects model, and the results must be interpreted within this context. While the best available data and appropriate input assumptions have been used in the modeling, when there is a lack of definitive data to support an aspect of the modeling, conservative modeling assumptions have been chosen ( i.e., assumptions that may result in an overestimate of acoustic exposures):

• Animats are modeled as facing the source and therefore always predicted to receive the maximum potential sound level at a given location ( i.e., no porpoising or pinnipeds' heads above water);

• Animats do not move horizontally (but change their position vertically within the water column), which may overestimate physiological effects such as hearing loss, especially for slow moving or stationary sound sources in the model;

• Animats are stationary horizontally and therefore do not avoid the sound source, unlike in the wild where animals would most often avoid exposures at higher sound levels, especially those exposures that may result in AUD INJ (including PTS);

• Multiple exposures within any 24-hour period are accumulated as one continuous exposure for the purposes of calculating potential threshold shifts, because there are not sufficient data to estimate a hearing recovery function for the time between intermittent exposures; and

• Mitigation measures were not considered in the model. In reality, sound-producing activities would be reduced, stopped, or delayed if marine mammals are detected by visual monitoring.

Due to these inherent model limitations and simplifications, model-estimated results should be further analyzed, considering such factors as the range to specific effects, avoidance, and the likelihood of successfully implementing mitigation measures. This analysis uses a number of factors in addition to the acoustic model results to predict acoustic effects on marine mammals.

The beluga whale density numbers utilized for quantitative acoustic modeling are from the Navy Marine Species Density Database (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2014), as more recent densities in the Arctic are not yet available. Where available ( i.e., June through 15 October over the continental shelf primarily), ONR used density estimates from Duke density modeling based upon line-transect surveys (Cañadas et al., 2020). The remaining seasons and geographic area were based on the habitat-based modeling by Kaschner (2004) and Kaschner et al. (2006). Beluga whale density in the Study Area varies geographically and monthly, with densities during September ranging from 0.000506 to 0.5176 animals/km 2 and densities during the cold season ranging from 0.002277 to 0.009109 animals/km 2 . Because density estimates for beluga whales were not distinguished by stock in the Arctic (Kaschner, 2004; Kaschner et al., 2006), ONR utilized the density range for the month of September (the month the first research cruise is proposed to begin in Year 9) and assumed the density of each stock is the same (0.000506 to 0.5176 animals/km 2 ). The ranges of the Beaufort Sea stock and Eastern Chukchi Sea stock of beluga whales vary within the Study Area throughout the year (Hauser et al., 2014). Based upon the limited information available regarding the expected spatial distributions of each stock within the Study Area, NMFS has assumed all takes of beluga whale could occur to either stock. In addition, in NAEMO, animats do not move horizontally or react in any way to avoid sound, therefore, the current model may overestimate non-impulsive acoustic impacts.

ONR reported sightings of beluga whales during previous years of ARA, though all sightings have occurred during transit and outside of icebreaking and research activities ( i.e., AUV recovery and deployment, mooring recovery and deployment).

The model-estimated take by Level B harassment from active acoustic sources is listed in table 8. Of note, the Phase IV BRF for the odontocete behavioral group shows that the 50 percent probability of response is at a higher received level (168 dB re 1 uPa) than in Phase III (157 dB re 1 uPa), thus, application of the Phase IV BRF would have resulted in a lower number of estimated takes by Level B harassment than what ONR modeled and NMFS is proposing to authorize.

Modeling did not predict, and ONR did not request, take by Level A harassment. While beluga whale take was modeled using NMFS (2018) and the NMFS (2024) onset TTS/AUD INJ thresholds are overall 3 dB higher with the updated weighting function indicating greater susceptivity to noise-induced hearing loss at frequencies below approximately 10 kHz, NMFS does not anticipate that application of NMFS (2024) would have resulted in take by Level A harassment either, given that the acoustic sources are continuous with a low duty cycle and relatively short ping duration (4-30 seconds). Therefore, NMFS concurs and is not proposing to authorize take of beluga whale by Level A harassment from active acoustic sources.

Since ice conditions cannot be predicted more than a few weeks in advance, ONR cannot predict whether icebreaking would be needed to deploy or retrieve the sources after 1 year of transmitting. Therefore, ONR analyzed the potential for an icebreaking cruise on CGC HEALY in its application to avoid underestimating potential impacts. As the R/V Sikuliaq is not capable of icebreaking, noise created by icebreaking is only modeled for the CGC HEALY. ONR assumed icebreaking would occur for 8 days and used NAEMO modeling to estimate takes of beluga whales associated from icebreaking activities using the density range 0.000506 to 0.5176 animals/km 2 .

Roth et al. (2013) characterized the underwater radiated noise signature for icebreaking in the central Arctic Ocean by CGC HEALY during different types of ice-cover. The radiated noise signatures were characterized for various fractions of ice cover. ONR used the 8/10 and 3/10 ice cover for modeling. Each modeled day of icebreaking consisted of 16 hours of 8/10 ice cover and 8 hours of 3/10 ice cover. The sound signature of the 5/10 icebreaking activities, which would correspond to half-power icebreaking, was not reported in Roth et al. (2013); therefore, ONR used the full-power signature as a proxy for the half-power signature.

Figures 5a and 5b in Roth et al. (2013) depict the source spectrum level versus frequency for 8/10 and 3/10 ice cover, respectively. The sound signature of each of the ice coverage levels was broken into single-octave bins (table 7). In the model, each bin was included as a separate source on the modeled vessel. When these independent sources are active concurrently, they simulate the sound signature of CGC HEALY. The modeled broadband source level summed across these bins was 196.2 dB for the 8/10 signature and 189.3 dB for the 3/10 ice signature. These modeled broadband source levels are a good approximation of the icebreaker's observed source level (provided in figure 4b of Roth et al. (2013)). Each frequency and source level was modeled as an independent source and applied simultaneously to all of the animats within NAEMO. Each second was summed across frequency to estimate the RMS SPL. Any animat exposed to sound levels greater than 120 dB was considered taken by Level B harassment. For AUD INJ (including PTS) and TTS determinations, sound exposure levels were summed over the duration of the test and the transit to the deep water deployment area.

Table 8 shows the takes by Level B harassment that NMFS proposes to authorize for both beluga whale stocks. Take by Level A harassment from icebreaking activities is neither anticipated nor proposed for authorization for either stock. Modeling for all previous years of ARA icebreaking activities did not result in any estimated take by Level A harassment of marine mammals. Given the proposed icebreaking activities have not changed, and that icebreaking is a continuous noise source, neither ONR nor NMFS expect the icebreaking activities during Year 9 would result in Level A harassment of beluga whales, even if the Phase IV criteria had been applied. Therefore, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed for authorization.

The most recent density estimates for ringed seals are based on the habitat suitability modeling by Kaschner (2004) and Kaschner et al. (2006). Given the lack of recent density estimates for the Study Area to estimate impacts from active acoustic sources, ONR, and subsequently NMFS, relied, in part, upon historical sightings registered in the Ocean Biodiversity Information System Spatial Ecological Analysis of Megavertebrate Populations (OBIS-SEAMAP) database (Halpin et al., 2009) in the Study Area. Of these sightings, nearly all (99 percent) occurred in summer and fall seasons. However, it is unclear whether this is because ringed seals move out of the Study Area during the cold season, or if the lack of sightings is due to the harsh environment and ringed seal behavior being prohibitive factors for cold season surveying.

OBIS-SEAMAP reports 542 animals sighted over 150 records in the Study Area across all years and seasons. The average of 542 animals in 150 records (approximately 3.6 animals per record) aligns with survey data from previous ARA cruises that show up to three ringed seals (or small, unidentified pinnipeds assumed to be ringed seals) sighted per day in the Study Area. To account for potential unsighted animals, ONR rounded that number up to 4. Assuming that four animals would be present in the Study Area, ONR estimated a rough density using the overall Study Area size:

ONR reported sightings of ringed seals during previous years of ARA, though most sightings have occurred during transit and outside of icebreaking and research activities ( i.e., AUV recovery and deployment, mooring recovery and deployment). ONR reported that during all previous years of ARA, the only mitigations enacted during research activities (with active acoustic source use) that required the source to be shut down were during: (1) deployment of a REMUS UUV in Year 4; and (2) deployment of an AMOS mooring in Year 4 (both shutdowns due to presence of a seal). Other mitigations to halt activities have occurred during icebreaking and research activities in previous ARA but no shutdowns of active acoustic sources have been required outside of those in Year 4.

The Level B harassment zone surrounding each moored active acoustic source would be 78.5 km 2 , and the Level B harassment zone surrounding each drifting active acoustic source would be 314 km 2 . The total Level B harassment zone area from acoustic sources on any given day would be 1,099 km 2 . Using that area, and the density calculated above, ONR estimates the number of ringed seals that could be taken daily:

ONR assumed that one ringed seal would be exposed to acoustic transmissions above the threshold for Level B harassment, and that each would be exposed each day of the proposed activity (365 days total). Although there are two additional acoustic sources proposed for use during Year 9, the number of daily takes of ringed seals is still expected to be less than one (rounded up to one per day). Therefore, NMFS anticipates 365 takes by Level B harassment of ringed seal from active acoustic sources (table 8).

This take estimation method used here does not support ONR or NMFS differentiating takes by Level B harassment between direct behavioral disturbance and TTS; however, NMFS does not anticipate TTS of ringed seals from active acoustic sources. Since potentially impactful source levels from acoustic sources would not exceed 185 dB by system design limits, sound exposure levels would remain relatively low. Accounting for source level, spherical spreading, and a 30-sec pulse length (table 1), a ringed seal would need to be in very close range of a single ping of an acoustic source to risk exposure at or above the TTS threshold, an unlikely scenario given the low density of ringed seals in the Study Area. Given the exceedingly low potential for TTS, AUD INJ is not anticipated either. Therefore, ONR did not request, and NMFS is not proposing to authorize, take of ringed seal by Level A harassment from active acoustic sources.

For icebreaking activities, NMFS assumes that each ringed seal in the Study Area could be taken by Level B harassment on each day of icebreaking. Therefore, NMFS is proposing to authorize 32 takes by Level B harassment (4 animals × 8 days) of ringed seal from icebreaking activities. Table 8 shows the takes by Level B harassment that NMFS proposes to authorize for ringed seal.

Take by Level A harassment from icebreaking activities is neither anticipated nor proposed for authorization. Modeling for all previous years of ARA icebreaking activities did not result in any estimated take by Level A harassment of marine mammals. Given the proposed icebreaking activities have not changed, and that icebreaking is a continuous noise source, neither ONR nor NMFS expect the icebreaking activities during Year 9 would result in Level A harassment, even if the Phase IV criteria had been applied. Therefore, Level A harassment of ringed seals from icebreaking is neither anticipated nor proposed for authorization.

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 the activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses. 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 the 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 2004 NDAA 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, NMFS considers 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, as well as subsistence uses. 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.

The mitigation requirements described in the following were proposed by ONR in its adequate and complete application or are the result of subsequent coordination between NMFS and ONR. ONR has agreed that all of the mitigation measures are practicable. NMFS has fully reviewed the specified activity and the mitigation measures to determine if the mitigation measures would result in the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammals and their habitat, as required by the MMPA, and has determined the proposed measures are appropriate. NMFS describes these below as proposed mitigation requirements, and has included them in the proposed IHA.

The following measures are proposed for this IHA:

• All vessels operated by or for the Navy must have personnel assigned to stand watch at all times while underway. Watch personnel must employ visual search techniques using binoculars. While underway and while using active acoustic sources/towed in-water devices, at least one person with access to binoculars is required to be on watch at all times.

• Vessel captains and vessel personnel must remain alert at all times, proceed with extreme caution, and operate at a safe speed so that the vessel can take proper and effective action to avoid vessel strike of marine mammals.

• During moored and drifting acoustic source deployment and recovery, ONR must implement a mitigation zone of 55 m around the deployed source. Deployment and recovery must cease if a marine mammal is visually detected within the mitigation zone. Deployment and recovery may recommence if any one of the following conditions are met:

○ A watch stander observes the animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone;

○ A watch stander concludes that the animal has exited the mitigation zone based on its observed course, speed, and movement relative to the mitigation zone; and

○ A watch stander affirms the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 15 minutes for pinnipeds and 30 minutes for cetaceans.

• Vessels must avoid approaching marine mammals head-on and must maneuver to maintain a mitigation zone of 457 m around all observed cetaceans and 183 m around all other observed marine mammals, provided it is safe to do so.

• Activities must cease if a marine mammal species for which take was not authorized, or a species for which authorization was granted but the authorized number of takes have been met, is observed approaching or within the mitigation zone (table 9). Activities must not resume until the animal is confirmed to have left the area.

• Vessel captains must maintain at-sea communication with subsistence hunters to avoid conflict of vessel transit with hunting activity.

NMFS conducted an independent evaluation of the proposed measures, and has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for subsistence uses.

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 while conducting the activities. 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 activity; 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 monitoring and reporting requirements described in the following were proposed by ONR in its adequate and complete application or are the result of subsequent coordination between NMFS and ONR. ONR has agreed to the requirements. NMFS describes these below as requirements and has included them in the proposed IHA.

The initial structure for the U.S. Navy's marine species monitoring efforts was developed in 2009 with the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program (ICMP). The intent of the ICMP was to provide an overarching framework for coordination of the Navy's monitoring efforts during the early years of the program's establishment. A Strategic Planning Process (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013) was subsequently developed and together with the ICMP framework serves as a planning tool to focus marine species monitoring priorities defined by ESA and MMPA requirements, and to coordinate monitoring efforts across regions based on a set of common objectives. Using an underlying conceptual framework incorporating a progression of knowledge from occurrence to exposure/response, and ultimately consequences, the Strategic Planning Process was developed as a tool to help guide the investment of resources to address top level objectives and goals of the monitoring program most efficiently. The Strategic Planning Process identifies Intermediate Scientific Objectives (see https://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/about/strategic-planning-process/ ), which form the basis of evaluating, prioritizing, and selecting new monitoring projects or investment topics and serve as the basis for developing and executing new monitoring projects across the Navy's training and testing ranges (both Atlantic and Pacific).

A Research and Monitoring Summit was held in early 2023 to evaluate the current state of the Marine Species Monitoring Program in terms of progress, objectives, priorities, and needs, and to solicit valuable input from meeting participants including NMFS, Marine Mammal Commission, Navy, and scientific experts. The overarching goal of the summit was to facilitate updating the ICMP framework for guiding marine species research and monitoring investments, and to identify data gaps and priorities to be addressed over the next 5-10 years across a range of basic research through applied monitoring. One of the outcomes of this summit meeting is a refreshed strategic framework effectively replacing the ICMP which will provide increased coordination and synergy across the Navy's protected marine species investment programs. This will contribute to the collective goal of supporting improved assessment of effects from training and testing activities through development of first in class science and data.

Navy marine species monitoring is generally focused on Navy training and testing ranges where the majority of Navy activities occur regularly as those areas have the greatest potential for being impacted. ONR's ARA are comparatively less intensive with little human activity in the Arctic. Human presence is limited to the deployment of sources that would take place over several weeks. Additionally, due to the location and nature of the testing, vessels and personnel would not be within the Study Area for an extended period of time. As such, more extensive monitoring requirements beyond the collection of basic information during source deployment would not be feasible as it would require additional personnel and equipment in the Arctic during a period of time beyond what is planned for source deployment; however, ONR will conduct monitoring when personnel are at sea for source deployment or retrieval, as described below.

Marine mammal monitoring must be conducted in accordance with the Navy's strategic monitoring framework and the proposed IHA:

• While underway, all vessels must have at least one person trained through the U.S. Navy Marine Species Awareness Training Program on watch during all activities;

• Watch personnel must use standardized data collection forms, whether hard copy or electronic. Watch personnel must distinguish between sightings that occur during transit or during deployment or recovery of acoustic sources. Data must be recorded on all days of activities, even if marine mammals are not sighted;

• At minimum, the following information must be recorded: vessel name; watch personnel names and affiliation; effort type ( i.e., transit, deployment, recovery); and environmental conditions (at the beginning of watch stander shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including Beaufort Sea State (BSS) and any other relevant weather conditions, including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon.

• Upon visual observation of any marine mammal, the following information must be recorded: date/time of sighting; identification of animal ( e.g., genus/species, lowest possible taxonomic level, or unidentified) and the composition of the group if there is a mix of species; location (latitude/longitude) of sighting; estimated number of animals (high/low/best); description (as many distinguishing features as possible of each individual seen, including length, shape, color, pattern, scars or markings, shape and size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and blow characteristics); detailed behavior observations ( e.g., number of blows/breaths, number of surfaces, breaching, spyhopping, diving, feeding, traveling; as explicit and detailed as possible; length of time observed in the mitigation zone, note any observed changes in behavior); distance from vessel to animal; direction of animal's travel relative to the vessel; platform activity at time of sighting ( i.e., transit, deployment, recovery); and weather conditions ( i.e., BSS, cloud cover).

• During icebreaking, the following information must be recorded: start and end time of icebreaking; and ice cover conditions.

This 36(b) 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 the attached Transmittal 26-39 and Policy Justification.

(i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Vietnam

(ii) Total Estimated Value:

Funding Source: Foreign Military Financing

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

(iv) Military Department: Air Force (VM-D-BAA)

(v) Prior Related Cases, if any: None

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

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: None

(viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: June 3, 2026

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

The Government of Vietnam has requested to buy engine propellers; aircraft components, parts, and accessories; ground handling equipment; spare parts, consumables and accessories, and repair and return support; training aids, devices, and spare parts; unclassified software; unclassified publications; studies and surveys; transportation support; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $100 million.

This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a key partner that is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Indo-Pacific region.

The proposed sale will improve Vietnam's capability to meet current and future threats by ensuring the operational readiness of its C-130 aircraft fleet. The aircraft provides strategic airlift capabilities that directly support U.S. and coalition operations around the world. Vietnam will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The principal contractor will be RTX Corporation, located in Arlington, VA. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.

Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Vietnam.

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

This 36(b) 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 the attached Transmittal 26-74, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

(i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Kuwait

(ii) Total Estimated Value:

Funding Source: National Funds

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

(iv) Implementing Agency: Army (KU-B-ULR)

(v) Prior Related Cases, if any: None

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

(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: June 5, 2026

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

The Government of Kuwait has requested to buy counter-unmanned aerial systems platforms. The following non-major defense equipment items will be included: counter-unmanned aerial systems platforms Roadrunner-Munition and Anvil-Kinetic; launch boxes; lattice command and control; Long Range Sentry Tower with Fire Control; Long Range Sentry Tower-82 Mobile; Extended Range Sentry Towers; Maritime Sentry Towers; pulsar electromagnetic warfare; menace tactical operations centers; generators; publications; personnel training; software development; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $1.98 billion.

This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a major non-NATO ally that has been an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.

The proposed sale will improve Kuwait's capability to meet current and future threats by providing electronic and kinetic defeat capabilities against unmanned aerial systems. Kuwait will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its military police forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The principal contractor will be Anduril, located in Costa Mesa, CA. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.

Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Kuwait.

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

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

1. The Roadrunner system is a twinjet, vertical takeoff and landing, high explosive interceptor that is capable of subsonic flight to deliver hard kill effects on Group 3 (mid-sized) threat aircraft.

2. Pulsar is a counter multi-mission electromagnetic warfare system, capable of wide area coverage using networked Pulsar systems for autonomous spectrum monitoring, detection, tracking, and coordinated effects against small-unmanned aircraft systems (s-UAS) threats. It provides signal disruption and jamming of position, timing, navigation, command link, and video downlink signals to/from the ground control station.

3. The Long-Range Sentry Tower with Fire Control combines a fire control radar and Mid-Wave Infrared (MWIR) thermal optic on a continuous pan-tilt unit (PTU), providing sensor measurements enabling a single-track for a Roadrunner engagement to defeat s-UAS Groups 1-3 (small to mid-sized).

4. The Anvil-Kinetic (Anvil-K) is a kinetic, drone-on-drone engagement interceptor that utilizes a Millimeter Wave onboard radar for terminal guidance. It is cued by a Sentry Tower and does not require operator input for guidance. Anvil-K uses speed and a hardened fuselage to defeat Group 1 s-UAS at lower cost per engagement.

5. The Menace-I is a fully integrated, mobile command, control, communications, and computing solution. Menace is a complete roll-on/roll-off transportable, Intelligence Community Directive 705 compliant solution for processing up to classified information with a TEMPEST compliant computing rack. Menace is equipped with built-in Proliferated Low Earth Orbit, Geostationary Orbit, cellular, high-frequency, ultra-high frequency, very-high frequency, and Tactical Data Link communications. The system is self-sustaining with an onboard 60kW multi-fuel generator.

6. The Long-Range Sentry Tower 82 combines long-range radar, MWIR thermal optic on a continuous PTU, and a computer system with enclosure to enable detection of s-UAS Groups 1-3.

7. The Long-Range Sentry Tower-82 Mobile is a trailer mounted capability that combines a long-range radar, MWIR thermal optic on a continuous PTU, and provides sensor measurements enabling a single-track for a Roadrunner engagement to defeat s-UAS Groups 1-3.

8. Extended Range Sentry Tower combines solar-powered, MWIR thermal optic on a continuous PTU capable of autonomously detecting people and vehicles at ranges of over 10 km with no human intervention.

9. Maritime Sentry Tower combines solar-powered maritime radar with MWIR thermal optic on a continuous PTU capable of autonomous detection of maritime vessels at ranges of over 20 km with no human intervention.

10. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.

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

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

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

As authorized by 10 United States Code (U.S.C.) 4121, the Secretary of Defense may carry out personnel demonstration projects at DoD laboratories designated as DoD STRL. Through the USD(R&E), the Secretary exercises the authorities granted to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) under 5 U.S.C. 4703 to conduct personnel demonstration projects at DoD laboratories designated as STRLs. All STRLs authorized pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 4121 may adopt the provisions described in this FRN. STRLs implementing these flexibilities must have an approved personnel demonstration project plan published in an FRN. SEC will establish internal operating procedures (IOP) as appropriate.

In 2001, CECOM published a FRN that established an STRL personnel demonstration project (STRL Demo) for CECOM research, development and engineering (RDE) organizations (CECOM RDE). CECOM RDE was comprised of CECOM RDE Center (now known as DEVCOM C5ISR) and CECOM SEC. CECOM SEC intends to continue to operate under the same provisions with minor modifications. The demonstration project currently includes supervisor and team leader personnel, and employees who were non-bargaining personnel outside Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, and other duty stations where there was no bargaining unit representation. CECOM SEC intends to seek the inclusion of all eligible SEC government personnel in the demonstration project, including those who were previously in bargaining units.

Currently, CECOM SEC operates two different personnel demonstration projects. CECOM SEC intends to convert all employees participating in the Acq Demo project to the STRL Demo project. CECOM SEC leadership believes that having the entire workforce under the STRL Demo will result in a contemporary, flexible personnel management system that attracts, motivates, trains, and retains a top-performing Science and Technology (S&T) modernized workforce.

The CECOM SEC STRL personnel demonstration project plan will include:

(1) Additional employees who are currently under the Acq Demo project pay plan;

(2) Expansion of appointment authorities and hiring practices;

(3) Updated pay banding by including certain Information Technology (IT) Management (IT Specialist), Job series 2210, positions within the DB pay band that contribute to highly technical and/or scientific programs that generally reside in the RDE domains;

(4) Sabbaticals;

(5) Academic degree, certificate, and critical skills training;

(6) Senior Scientific Technical Manager (SSTM) positions;

(7) Changes to workforce shaping rules, such as Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) and Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (VSIP); and

(8) Improved incentives and opportunities.

Many aspects of a demonstration project are experimental and/or flexible. In accordance with (IAW) the provisions of DoD Instruction (DoDI) 3201.05, Management of Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratory Personnel Demonstration Projects, modifications may be made from time to time as additional experience is gained, results are analyzed, and conclusions are reached on how the system works.

The CECOM SEC STRL will adopt and expand upon the flexibilities implemented by CECOM RDE, 66 FR 54872, October 30, 2001. Adoption of the STRL Personnel Demo project flexibilities will enable CECOM SEC to achieve a modernized and future-ready workforce by adjusting the workforce for change, improving workforce quality, and allowing for the acquisition and retention of a dynamic, avant-garde, highly trained, and educated workforce. The purpose of the project is to demonstrate that DoD organizations can improve efficiencies through a highly responsive and flexible personnel system.

Flexibilities published in this FRN will be available for use by DoD laboratories designated as STRLs pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 4121, including any newly designated STRLs, if they wish to adopt them.

CECOM SEC is one of the U.S. Army's leading software providers. SEC is responsible for executing and overseeing all software work performed across CECOM and for delivering life-cycle software solutions that ensure warfighting superiority and information dominance, and support decisive decision making through superior, innovative, and cost-effective software engineering services. This is accomplished by providing software engineering expertise to include developing, providing, integrating, and maintaining Army C5ISR, Logistics and Business software. SEC is dedicated to delivering full Life Cycle Software Engineering Support to aid the Warfighter. From supporting Project Managers, to maintaining existing software, to developing customer software from the ground up, SEC will tailor its support to meet the needs of its customers for any systems, on any platform, anywhere in the world.

CECOM SEC has an urgent need for a high-quality, contemporary, flexible personnel management system to attract, motivate, train, and retain a top-performing science, technology, and modernization workforce. To fulfill these requirements SEC intends to remain an STRL and establish its own FRN to operate independently from other Army commands. The STRL Demo will equip SEC to be a more modernized, competitive, premier employer with growth opportunities, competitive pay, and management flexibilities to take care of both employees and the mission. The STRL Demo features pay banding, performance-based compensation, flexible hiring, and a modern approach to career progression and assignments.

This project will enhance and expand opportunities available to CECOM SEC employees by allowing for greater managerial control over personnel functions through a more responsive and flexible personnel system. A top-tier workforce is essential to the efforts of CECOM SEC towards achieving technological innovation and modernization for the U.S. Army. Currently, CECOM SEC operates two different personnel demonstration projects. This FRN provides that CECOM SEC will establish one contemporary STRL personnel demonstration project for all eligible CECOM SEC personnel. These responsive personnel management flexibilities are designed to enable CECOM SEC leadership to be more agile and competitive in attracting, motivating, training, and retaining a top-performing, modernized S&T workforce. Also, this project will ensure that CECOM SEC is a premiere employer with growth opportunities, appropriate pay, and management flexibility to take care of both employees and assigned mission sets.

In 2018, the majority of CECOM SEC workforce transitioned from the General Schedule (GS) system to the Acq Demo Personnel Demo project. In 2022, CECOM SEC discovered that IAW 10 U.S.C. 4121, that the organization was not authorized to operate a non-STRL Personnel Demo project.

Therefore, CECOM SEC was required to choose between moving the entire workforce to the Acq Demo Personnel Demo project and losing the STRL designation or moving the entire workforce to the STRL Personnel Demo project to maintain the STRL designation. The CECOM SEC Operations Directorate personnel coordinated with CECOM G8, Resource Management team to conduct an in-depth analysis of the impact of the entire CECOM SEC workforce transitioning into the STRL Demo pay plan with particular emphasis on three factors: (1) people, (2) mission, and (3) cost. It was determined that STRL Demo pay plan positively outweighed alternate pay plans due to STRL Demo program entitlements that enhanced workforce benefits, and it better allowed the ability of organizational leadership to meet modernization requirements.

CECOM SEC leadership believes that having the entire workforce under the STRL Demo will result in a contemporary, flexible personnel management system that attracts, motivates, trains, and retains a top-performing S&T modernized workforce.

The STRL Personnel Demo project plan will allow for greater workforce satisfaction through a responsive and effective personnel management system. There are some of the CECOM SEC workforce that are currently covered by the provisions of the STRL Personnel Demo project. This FRN will validate that the application of the STRL Personnel Demo project flexibilities to the CECOM SEC workforce and demonstrate the benefits of flexible personnel management system tailored to mission the goals, can result in an innovative and modernized workforce pool to include scientists, engineers, and technical personnel. This project will facilitate the following benefits:

(1) More effective, efficient, and adaptable organizational systems;

(2) Improved timeliness of key personnel processes;

(3) Increased retention of excellent performers;

(4) Increased success in recruitment of personnel with critical skills;

(5) Increased information exchange between CECOM SEC and industry;

(6) Increased permeability between Civil Service and industry; and

(7) Increased workforce satisfaction and engagement.

The STRL flexibilities and organizational modifications established by this FRN are:

(1) An expanded DE-III pay band to include GS-14, Step 10 for designated non-supervisory, technical champions, supervisory, and team leader positions;

(2) Certain positions included under the IT Management (IT Specialist), Job series 2210, are authorized under occupational Family I., Engineering & Science, with pay band and salary growth opportunities for designated positions that are commensurate with the positions previously available to engineers and scientists under the Demonstration Project;

(3) Utilization of the SSTM pay band as DB-V;

(4) Annual pay-for-performance (PFP) payouts shall be made effective within 120 days after the end of the rating cycle and in conjunction with pay period dates;

(5) The funding amount within a Pay Pool used for base pay increases will be set at no less than 2.0 percent of total salary annually. The funds available to be used for bonus payouts are funded separately and set no less than 1.0 percent of total salary annually;

(6) Base pay is capped when an employee reaches the maximum rate of the pay band, the mid-point rule or significant accomplishment rule applies (see below), or subject to a salary control point;

(7) The significant accomplishment rule will apply only to non-supervisory employees, in Engineers and Scientists (E&S) Band III of the STRL Personnel Demo project pay banding table, whose base salary falls within the top 15 percent of that band;

(8) Employees permanently or temporarily reassigned may receive a higher rate of pay that does not exceed the maximum rate of the pay band;

(9) Details to a position in a higher pay band for up to one year may be made non-competitively. Beyond one year requires competitive procedures are required.

The STRL Demo project will apply to all CECOM SEC civilian employees with the occupational series listed in Appendix A. CECOM SEC currently has employees located in fifteen U.S. states, the Republic of Korea, and Germany. Approximately sixty-eight percent are located at APG, MD, and twenty-three percent are located at duty stations in New Jersey and Virginia. The remaining employees are located across twelve states: Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, and Washington. CECOM SEC may add more employees, locations, and other occupations after implementation of the STRL Demo project. The addition of new occupational series will be documented in an IOP and will identify the proper designation of occupational family and career path. The project plan does not cover members of the Senior Executive Service (SES), Senior Level (SL) employees, Scientific and Professional (ST) employees, and employees presently covered by the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System.

CECOM SEC personnel interfaced with other DoD laboratories and the U.S. Army Civilian Human Resources Agency (CHRA) to identify the best practices and available initiatives to implement the most effective CECOM SEC STRL Demo project plan. The CECOM SEC Operations Directorate, Human Resources and Planning Team Personnel, conducted a comprehensive review of personnel flexibilities used within existing DoD laboratories and within other government agencies. The organization conducted internal analysis and review comparing the STRL Demo and the Acq Demo to evaluate the opportunities and benefits of each project plan. This analysis concluded that the CECOM SEC STRL Demo project plan should the expanded to include all eligible SEC personnel. The resulting Demo project plan will be overseen by the CECOM SEC Executive Director/CECOM SEC STRL Director, implemented through a STRL Demo Personnel Management Board (PMB), and documented in an IOP. Hereafter, the title CECOM SEC Executive Director/CECOM SEC STRL Director shall be referred to as the SEC Director. A review of the IOP will be conducted by the servicing legal office during approval routing coordination. Additional information on the delegated authorities and project structure is included in Section III of this FRN.

CECOM SEC will use a PMB to oversee and monitor the fair and equitable implementation of the provisions of the Demo project, to include the establishment of internal controls and accountability. The PMB membership will consist of the SEC Director (acts as the PMB Chair), the SEC Deputy Executive Director, and the CECOM SEC Associate Directors from each CECOM SEC Directorate. The PMB Chair may delegate add, remove, or change the membership of the PMB. As the STRL Demo project evolves, the PMB may also include subject matter experts (SMEs) from CECOM SEC Operations Directorate HR, Resource Management, or other relevant areas. Based on guidance from the PMB Chair and any applicable IOP, the PMB will:

(1) Oversee the implementation guidance and procedures in all aspects of the Demo project plan IAW with the direction given by the SEC Director;

(2) Issue top-level guidelines for the CECOM SEC STRL regarding established and implemented pay pools;

(3) Review pay pool results for equity and conformance, on an annual basis;

(4) Resolve administrative pay pool disputes that are not resolved through other means;

(5) Establish guidelines for the use of retention counteroffers;

(6) Review and approve the assignment of new occupational series to a pay band, if necessary;

(7) Apply established guidelines for exceptions to base pay increases, such as Extraordinary Achievement Rewards and Distinguished Contribution Allowances;

(8) Establish guidelines for the Voluntary Expert Program;

(9) Modify the Standard Performance Elements, as needed;

(10) Execute guidelines for the use of SME Qualifications for exceptional experience;

(11) Approve any performance-based rules created and administered by the CECOM SEC STRL, prior to their implementation;

(12) Assess the need for changes to Demo project procedures and policies and provide CECOM SEC leadership for efforts to modify this FRN;

(13) Promote collaboration and best practices within the CECOM SEC STRL;

(14) Review CECOM SEC STRL Demo Project IOP's for equity and conformance;

(15) Track personnel cost changes and recommend adjustments, if required;

(16) Conduct formative evaluations of the project, including those directed by DoD;

(17) Ensure that all employees are treated in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with all policies, regulations and guidelines covering this demonstration project;

(18) Ensure in-house budget discipline;

(19) Review procedures for pay setting and pay adjustments and provide recommendations for changes to the SEC Director; and

In executing these duties and responsibilities, the PMB will maintain close contact and consultation with the SEC Director to ensure that policies and procedures are executed consistently throughout CECOM SEC and that they are aligned with CECOM SEC STRL strategic objectives.

To optimize the effectiveness and efficiency of the CECOM SEC STRL during the adoption of the expanded use of this Personnel Demo program plan, the SEC Director will review and realign the organization structure, as necessary, to best meet mission needs and requirements. Realignment may include removing limitations in terms of supervisory ratios consistent with 10 U.S.C. 4121, and the alignment and organization of the workforce required to accomplish the mission of the CECOM SEC STRL. In general, the SEC Director will manage the CECOM SEC STRL's workforce strength, structure, positions, and compensation without regard to any limitation on appointments, positions, or funding in a manner consistent with the budget available in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 4091.

The following role terminology is used throughout this FRN to refer to management and other officials in the CECOM SEC STRL.

(1) CECOM SEC STRL Director. This term refers to the SEC Director.

(2) PMB. This term refers to the group of supervisors/managers who oversee and monitor the fair, equitable, and consistent implementation of the demonstration project to include establishment of internal controls and accountability in performance ratings, resolve any rating issues, and make final decisions on ratings and payouts in each pay pool.

(3) Pay Pool Reconciliation. A process that provides for a structured group review of initial scores by raters within the organization. Employee preliminary scores are compared, and through discussion and consensus building, ratings are reconciled.

(4) Pay Pool Manager. This term refers to designated individuals from the CECOM SEC senior leadership who lead the pay pool panel meetings and make final decisions on scores and payouts for those employees within the assigned pay pool; CECOM SEC has several pay pools and pay pool managers. The Pay Pool Manager is responsible for reviewing the scores of employees in their pay pool for consistency and fairness and resolving any scoring issues.

(5) Senior Professionals. A term used to define positions classified in the IV pay band that plan, organize, and direct extensive development efforts for broad programs of applied research and development (R&D). Assignments are of fundamental significance in establishing overall agency R&D goals and missions; they develop and convey strategic vision and organizational policies.

(6) Technical Champions. A term used to define positions classified in the III, Category 2 (CAT-2), pay band that plan, develop, manage, and implement broad, critical, and complex projects. They serve as expert advisors and consultants in assigned functional areas.

Pay banding is a type of pay scale used in a Demo project designed to provide more flexibility regarding how much employees are paid. It groups GS pay grades into fewer bands to allow for progression based on performance. The goal of pay banding is to give the CECOM SEC STRL the ability to reward based on performance level. The new CECOM SEC STRL pay banding structure encompasses the existing pay band structure for the STRL Demo positions and includes expansion for the DE III pay band to include two categories: Category 1 (CAT-1) and CAT-2. The CAT-1 designation remains the same as the existing pay band structure and includes GS-12, step 1 through GS-13, step 10 for business and technical journeyman and non-team leader/non-supervisory positions. The CAT-2 designation expands the CAT-1 pay band to include GS-12, step 1 through GS-14, step 10 for team leader, supervisor (Branch Chief) and designated technical champion positions. DE III position descriptions will clearly indicate which category the position is classified, and this will be further clarified in IOPs. An equivalency table displaying the CECOM SEC STRL Personnel Demo project pay plans and career paths compared to the GS grades is provided in Figure 1.

Further, an equivalency chart displaying the CECOM SEC Acq Demo project pay plans and career paths compared to GS grades is provided in Figure 2.

As provided in Figures 1 and 2, the CECOM SEC STRL Demo and CECOM SEC Acq Demo projects have differing pay band structures. The Acq Demo project pay bands reflect the structure within the Acquisition Demonstration Project Federal Register . Currently, CECOM SEC personnel who were previously included in a BU are included within the CECOM SEC Acq Demo project pay band plan, whereas supervisors, team leaders and employees located at duty stations that were not represented by BU's are covered under the CECOM SEC STRL Demo project pay band plan. The CECOM SEC Acq Demo pay band structure contains control points for certain positions, limiting pay at a specific grade/step, whereas the CECOM SEC STRL Demo pay band structure uses specific pay tables that contain pay rates to limit the maximum pay for the band at either the GS-13 or GS-14 step 10 equivalency and it remains consistent with GS step 10 as the highest performance level. The Acq Demo NH-04 band control point limits the non-supervisory positions to the GS-14, step 10 pay and grade equivalency. The NH-03 band includes GS-12 and GS-13 journeyman level positions and has a control point limiting certain positions to the GS-13, step 5 pay level, whereas other positions within the NH-03 band, provide a higher control point that is extended to the GS-13, step 10 pay level. This expanded control point level is determined by the level of responsibility for the position and is documented accordingly in the Position Requirements Document.

The Acq Demo (NH) pay bands include both the E&S and Business and Technology (B&T) occupational families. The STRL Demo separates these occupational families between the DE and DB bands. In the CECOM SEC STRL Demo, occupations with similar characteristics will be grouped together into one of three occupational families that are also referred to as career paths with pay bands designed to facilitate pay progression. Each career path will be composed of pay bands corresponding to recognized advancement and career progression expected within the occupations. Each career path will be divided into three to five pay bands with each pay band covering the same pay range now covered by one or more GS grades. The upper and lower pay rate for base pay of each pay band is defined by the minimum and maximum GS rate for the grade, except for Level V of the Engineering & Science career path. A comparison to the GS grades is used to set the upper and lower base pay dollar limits of the pay bands and is referred as “GS grade equivalency” in this FRN.

The occupational series provided in Appendix A serve as guidelines in the development of the following three career paths: E&S (Pay Plan DB), B&T (Pay Plan DE), and General Support (GEN) (Pay Plan DK).

This career path includes technical professional positions, such as computer engineers, computer scientists, data scientists, and IT specialists identified as professional occupational family. Specific coursework or educational degrees are required for these occupations (except IT). Historically, the IT specialist position aligns with the B&T (DE), however CECOM SEC has evaluated that certain 2210 series capabilities may be classified and suitable for the E&S career path (DB) when contributing to highly technical and/or scientific programs that generally reside in the RDE domains. The IT specialist positions included in this pay band will be reserved for unique positions requiring the level of expertise, knowledge, and competencies possessed by the requisite engineering or scientific degrees and coursework to qualify for any professional series that is currently resident within the Occupational Family I, E&S.

CECOM SEC has established five pay bands for the E&S career path:

(a) Pay band I is a student trainee track covering GS-1, step 1 through GS-4, step 10;

(b) Pay band II is a developmental track covering GS-5, step 1 through GS- 11, step 10;

(c) Pay band III includes GS-12, step 1 through GS-14, step 10;

(d) Pay band IV includes GS-14, step 1 through GS-15, step 10; and

(e) Pay band V covers SSTM positions.

Currently, within the E&S occupational family, pay bands III and IV overlap with the GS-14 level. The GS-14 level positions fall into either III or IV pay band depending on the level of responsibility required for the position. The III pay band is comprised of CECOM SEC professionals, SMEs at the journeyman and technical champion levels, Team Leads, and Branch Chiefs. The IV pay band is comprised of CECOM SEC Associate Directors, Deputy Associate Directors, Division Chiefs, Senior Professionals, Chief Engineers, and Chief Data Officers. The Senior Professional position involves work efforts that plan, organize, and support direct development efforts that are of fundamental significance in establishing overall agency research and development goals and missions.

This career path includes such positions as IT specialist, acquisition and business manager, and program and management analyst. Employees in these positions do not require specific course work or educational degrees.

CECOM SEC has established four pay bands for the B&T career path:

(a) Pay band I is a student trainee track covering GS-1, step 1 through GS-4, step 10;

(b) Pay band II includes developmental and full performance employees GS-5, step 1 through GS-11, step 10;

(c) Pay band III, CAT-1, includes GS-12, step 1 through GS-13, step 10 for business and technical journeyman and non-team leader/non-supervisory positions. The CAT-2 positions include GS-12, step 1 through GS-14 Step 10 for designated CECOM SEC Technical Champions, Team Leads, and Branch Chief positions. Technical Champions are personnel who are expert advisors/consultants in their assigned functional areas and identified as GS-14 equivalency upon conversion into the STRL Demo or in a position that is classified at the GS-14 level after conversion. These positions will be converted into STRL Demo at the DE III CAT-2 pay band on the same pay table as Team Leads and Branch Chiefs where the top of the pay band is the GS-14, step 10; and

(d) Pay band IV includes GS-14, step 1 through GS-15, step 10 for CECOM SEC Associate Directors, Deputy Associate Directors, Division Chiefs, and Senior Professional designated-positions.

There is an overlap at the start and end points for pay bands III and IV. The DE III, CAT-2 pay band extends up to the GS-14, step 10 at the top performance level for CECOM SEC Branch Chiefs, Team Leads, and Technical Champions that are considered a SME at the action officer level and meet the other requirements of a Technical Champion designated position. The IV pay band starts with GS-14, step 1 and extends to the GS-15, step 10 for SEC Director/Executive-level leadership positions, Division Chiefs, and Senior Professional designated positions. An assignment to the III or IV band is contingent on the level of responsibility of the position and is not subject to exception. Position descriptions clearly define the levels of responsibility for each position and the position is assigned to the III or IV pay band.

This career path consists of clerical and assistant positions for which specific course work or educational degrees are not required. Clerical work usually involves the processing and maintenance of records. Assistant work requires knowledge of methods and procedures within a specific administrative area. CECOM SEC has established three pay bands for the General Support career path:

(a) Pay band I includes entry-level positions covering GS-1, step 1 through GS-4, step 10.

(b) Pay band II includes full-performance positions covering GS-5, step 1 through GS-8, step 10.

(c) Pay band III includes senior technicians/assistants/secretaries covering GS-9, step 1 through GS-10, step 10.

The STRL Demo includes a category of SSTM positions that are defined as Senior Professional Scientific and Technical Positions classified above the GS-15 level of the GS. The SSTM Program will be managed and administered by the SEC Director IAW 10 U.S.C. 4091 and 79 FR 43722, as amended. E&S pay band V will apply exclusively to SSTM designated positions. The SSTM positions are managed separately from the SES, ST, and SL positions. The primary functions of an SSTM position are to engage in modernization and sustainment, within the technical management, computer science functions or another field, that is closely related to the mission of the STRL. The SSTM role also carries out technical supervisory responsibilities. This category is expected to provide an opportunity for career development and expansion of a pool of experienced, prominent technical candidates that meet the levels of proficiency and leadership essential to creating and maintaining state-of-the-art scientific, engineering, and technological capabilities within the DoD.

Control points may be used as a compensation strategy when leadership determines that a position does not warrant unconstrained salary progression throughout the entire pay band. If used, the control points will be documented on the classified position description. The consideration to increase an employee's salary beyond the control point, if established or used, will require a review of both the position and the performance of the employee. Advancement across a control point may not occur without the approval of the SEC Director or their authorized designee. Any additional guidance will be included in the CECOM SEC STRL Demo project IOPs.

The GS classification system has over 400 occupational series, which are divided into 23 occupational groupings. As detailed in Appendix A, CECOM SEC currently has positions in 14 occupational series. Additional occupational series may be added to the CECOM SEC STRL Demo project as needed.

SEC will utilize OPM classification standards for the identification of proper series and occupational titles of positions within the Demo project. The grading criteria in those standards will be used as a framework to develop new, simplified, and equitable standards for the purpose of pay band determinations. The objective is to include in the position description the essential criteria for each pay band within each career path by stating the characteristics of the work, the responsibilities of the position, and the competencies required.

The classification standard for each career path and pay band will serve as an important component to update existing position descriptions, which will include position-specific information, and provide data element information pertinent to the job. The Fully Automated System for Classification (or similar designated classification system) will be used to produce information necessary for any new position descriptions. The use of this system will make new position descriptions easier to prepare, minimize the amount of writing time, and make the position description a more useful and accurate tool for other personnel management functions. Specialty work and/or competency codes, with corresponding narrative descriptions, will be used within position descriptions to further differentiate work types and the competencies required for positions within each career path and pay band. Each code represents a specialization or type of work within the occupation.

FLSA exemption and non-exemption determinations will be consistent with criteria within 5 CFR part 551. All employees are covered by the FLSA unless their position meets the criteria for exemption. The duties and responsibilities outlined in the classification standards for each pay band will be compared to the FLSA criteria. As detailed in Figure 3, the table displays that the FLSA status can be matched to mostly any career path and pay band. For note, although a typical exemption status under the various pay bands is shown in table, actual FLSA exemption determinations are made on a case-by-case basis. An example for the application of the FLSA exemption and non-exemption determination is that positions classified in pay band I of the E&S career path are typically non-exempt, meaning they are covered by the overtime entitlements prescribed by the FLSA. An exception to this rule would include supervisors/managers at pay band I or II whose primary duties meet the definitions outlined in the OPM GS Supervisory Guide; these employees are exempt from the FLSA.

The CECOM SEC STRL Demo project classification authorities will make the determinations on a case-by-case basis by comparing assigned duties and responsibilities to the classification standards for each career path and the FSLA criteria provided in 5 CFR part 551. In addition, the advice and assistance of the servicing personnel office will be obtained when making determinations. The position descriptions will not be the sole basis for the final determination. The basis for exemption will be documentation and attached to each position description. Exemption criteria will be narrowly construed and applied only to those employees who clearly meet the spirit of the exemption. Changes will be documented and provided to the servicing personnel office.

The SEC Director will have classification authority and may, in turn, delegate this authority in writing to appropriate levels. Any individual with delegated classification authority must complete the required training and only classify positions that they supervise. Delegated classification authority can be used to develop position descriptions, otherwise, CECOM SEC will continue to engage with the U.S. Army CHRA for the development of position descriptions.

CECOM SEC classification authorities will identify the career path, job series, functional code, specialty work and/or competency code, pay band, and other critical information. The CECOM SEC Operations Directorate, HR personnel, will provide on-going consultation and guidance to managers and supervisors throughout the classification process. These decisions will be documented in the position description.

The evaluation of all classification appeals under this Demo project is based upon the project classification criteria. All case files will be forwarded for action through the servicing personnel office and will include copies of appropriate demonstration project criteria. Classification appeals under this Demo project will be processed using the following procedures:

(a) An employee may appeal the determination of career path, occupational series, position title, and pay band of the position at any time.

(b) An employee must formally raise the area of concern to supervisors in the immediate chain of command, in writing.

(c) If the employee is not satisfied with the supervisory response, the employee may then appeal to their SEC Associate Director, and if still not satisfied, the employee may appeal to the SEC Director.

(d) If the employee is not satisfied with the response from the SEC Director, a final appeal may be made to the CECOM Deputy to the Commanding General. The classification determination appeal process will be defined in a CECOM SEC STRL Demo project IOP.

(e) Classification appeals are not accepted on positions which exceed the equivalent of a GS-15 level. Time periods apply for cases processed under 5 CFR part 511.

The purpose of the PFP management system is to provide an effective, efficient, and flexible method for assessing, compensating, and managing the CECOM SEC workforce. It is essential for the development of a high performing workforce and to provide management at the lowest practical level, the authority, control, and flexibility needed to achieve a quality organization that can meet mission requirements. The PFP management system allows for more employee involvement in the assessment process, strives to increase communication between the supervisor and employee, promotes a clear accountability of performance, facilitates employee career progression, and provides an understandable and rational basis for salary changes by linking pay and performance.

The PFP management system uses annual performance payouts that are based on the total performance score of the employee rather than within-grade increases, quality step increases, and performance awards. The normal rating period will be one year. The minimum rating period will be 90 days. Annual PFP management system payouts shall be made effective within 120 days after the end of the rating cycle and in conjunction with pay period dates. The PFP management system payouts can be in the form of increases to base pay and/or bonuses that are not added to base salary, but rather, are given as a lump sum payment, and/or a time-off award. The CECOM SEC STRL Demo project PFP management system by the CECOM SEC STRL Demo PMB, if necessary and as more experience is gained under the project.

Performance elements define common performance characteristics that will be used to evaluate the success of the employee in accomplishing performance objectives. The use of common characteristics for scoring purposes helps to ensure comparable scores are assigned while accommodating diverse individual objectives. The PFP management system will utilize and rate employees on the critical performance elements provided in Appendix B. A critical performance element is defined as an attribute of job performance that is of sufficient importance that performance below the minimally acceptable level requires remedial action and may be the basis for removing an employee from their position. Each of the performance elements will be assigned a two-digit weight between 0 and 1 rounding two significant digits, which reflects its importance in accomplishing the performance objectives of that employee. A minimum weight is set for each performance element with the sum weight for all the elements being 100.

A single set of performance elements will be used for evaluating the annual performance of all employees covered by this Demo project plan. This set of performance elements may evolve over time based on experience gained during each rating cycle. This evolution is essential to capture the critical characteristics that the organization encourages in its workforce and toward meeting individual and organizational objectives. This is particularly true in an environment where technology and work processes are changing at an increasingly rapid pace. The CECOM SEC STRL Demo PMB will annually review the set of performance elements and set the criteria for the entire organization before the beginning of the rating period. The following is an initial set of performance elements along with the minimum weight:

(a) Technical Competence (Minimum Weight: 15%)

(b) Interpersonal Skills (Minimum Weight: 10%)

(c) Management of Time and Resources (Minimum Weight: 15%)

(d) Customer Satisfaction (Minimum Weight: 10%)

(e) Team/Project Leadership (Minimum Weight: 15%)

(f) Supervision/EEO (Minimum Weight: 25%)

All employees will be rated against the first four performance elements. In addition, the Team/Project Leadership performance element is mandatory for Team Leads. The Supervision/EEO performance element is mandatory for all managers/supervisors. At the beginning of the rating period, the Pay Pool Manager will review the objectives and weights assigned to employees within the pay pool, to verify consistency and appropriateness.

Performance objectives define a target level of activity, expressed as a tangible, measurable objective, against which actual achievement can be compared. These objectives will specifically identify what is expected of the employee during the rating period and will typically consist of three to ten results-oriented statements. The employee and the supervisor will jointly develop the performance objectives for the employee at the beginning of the rating period. If there is a disagreement between the employee and supervisor concerning the performance objectives, the supervisor of the employee will render the final resolution concerning the assigned performance objectives. The objectives are to be reflective of the duties/responsibilities of that employee within their assigned pay band and be consistent with organizational goals, priorities, and mission.

Objectives will be reviewed annually and may be revised if salary changes occur reflecting increased responsibilities commensurate with a salary increase. Performance objectives are intended to define the specific responsibilities and accomplishments of an employee. In contrast, performance elements will identify common performance characteristics, against which the accomplishment of the objectives will be measured. As a part of this Demo project, training focused on overall organizational objectives and the development of performance objectives will be held for both supervisors and employees. Performance objectives may be jointly modified, changed, or deleted as appropriate during the rating cycle. Generally, performance objectives should only be changed when circumstances outside the control of the employee prevent or hamper the accomplishment of the original objectives. It is also appropriate to change objectives when mission or workload shifts occur.

The most effective means of communication is a person-to-person discussion between supervisors and employees concerning the requirements, performance goals, and desired results. Employees and supervisors are expected to actively participate in these discussions for optimum clarity regarding expectations and identify potential obstacles to meeting objectives. In addition, employees should explain (to the best extent possible) what they need from the supervisor to support objective accomplishment. The timing of these discussions will vary, based on the nature of work performed, but will occur at least at the midpoint and end of the rating period. The supervisor and employee will discuss job performance and accomplishments in relation to the performance objectives and elements. At least one review, normally the midpoint review, will be documented as a formal progress review. There may be more frequent task specific discussions, as appropriate, during the rating period. In cases where work is accomplished by a team, team discussions regarding goals and expectations may be appropriate.

The employee will provide a written list of accomplishments to the supervisor at both the midpoint and end of the rating period. An employee may elect to provide self-ratings on the performance elements and/or solicit accomplishment input from team members, customers, peers, supervisors in other units, subordinates, and other sources which will permit the supervisor to fully evaluate accomplishments during the rating period.

At the end of the rating period, following a review of the employees' accomplishments, the supervisor will rate each of the performance elements by assigning a score between 0 and 50. Benchmark performance standards have been developed, which describe the level of performance associated with a score. Using these benchmark performance standards, the supervisor decides where on the performance element score scale (at any point on a scale of 0 to 50) the performance of the employee fits and assigns the employee the appropriate score. It should be noted that these scores are not discussed with the employee or considered final until all scores are reconciled and approved by the Pay Pool Manager. The element scores will then be multiplied by the element-weighting factor to determine the final weighted score expressed to two decimal points. The weighted scores for each element will then be totaled to determine the overall appraisal score for the employee (rounded to a whole number) as follows:

(a) If the digit to the right of the decimal is between five and nine, it should be rounded to the next higher whole number; or

(b) If the digit to the right of the decimal is between one and four, it should be dropped.

A total score of 10 or above will result in a rating of acceptable. A total score of 9 or below, or a score of 9 or below in a single element, will result in a rating of unacceptable will require the employee be placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), as soon as feasible, or that other appropriate administrative action is taken, such as an adverse action under 5 U.S.C. chapter 75.

Informal employee performance reviews will be a continuous process so that corrective action, to include placing an employee on a PIP, may be taken at any time during the rating cycle. When a supervisor recognizes the performance of the employee is unacceptable in one or more performance elements, the supervisor should immediately discuss the concerns with the employee. All efforts will be made to identify the possible reasons for the unacceptable performance and how to improve the performance; a structured PIP may be used to improve performance. The supervisor will identify the items/actions that need to be corrected or improved, outline required timeframes (no less than 30 days) for such improvement and provide the employee with any available assistance as appropriate.

During the PIP period, the performance of the employee will be monitored, and all supervisor/employee counseling sessions will be documented. If the employee's performance is acceptable at the conclusion of the PIP, the improvement is noted in the documentation provided to the employee and no further action is necessary.

If the employee fails to improve during the PIP period, the employee will be given documented notice of proposed and appropriate action. This action can include removal from Federal service, placement in a lower pay band with a corresponding reduction in pay (demotion), reduction in pay within the same pay band, or change in position or occupational family. The majority of employees with an unacceptable rating will not be permitted to remain at their current salary and may be reduced in pay band. Reductions in salary within the same pay band or changes to a lower pay band will be accomplished with a minimum of a five-percent decrease in the base pay of the employee. For note, no guidance in this subsection will preclude action under 5 U.S.C. 75, as appropriate. All actions taken to address the unacceptable performance will be documented to include actions concerning the reduction in pay or removal from Federal service. The documentation should be made available to the employee and/or their designated representative. At a minimum, the documentation record will consist of a copy of the notice of proposed personnel action, the employee's written reply, if provided, or a written summary of the oral reply from the employee. Additionally, the record will contain the written notice of decision, the reasons for the decision, and supporting material for the decision including any documentation regarding the opportunity afforded the employee to demonstrate improved performance.

If the employee's performance continues to deteriorate to an unacceptable level for the same performance element(s), within two years from the start date of a PIP period, additional actions may be initiated with no additional further opportunity for the employee to improve performance. If the performance of the employee is at an acceptable level for two years from the beginning of the PIP period for the same performance elements(s) and performance once again declines to an unacceptable level, the employee will be given an additional opportunity to improve before leadership proposes additional action.

At the end of the rating cycle and following the initial scoring of each employee by the supervisor, the rating officials along with the employee's next level of supervisor within the organization, will meet to ensure consistency and equity of the ratings. Each employee's performance objectives, accomplishments, preliminary scores, and current salaries are compared. Through discussion and consensus building, consistent and equitable ratings and/or shares are reached. There will not be a prescribed distribution of total scores. The Pay Pool Manager will chair a final review with the rating officials who report directly to them to validate the ratings and resolve any scoring issues. If there are disputes or concerns during the ratings process, the Pay Pool Manager is considered the final decision authority. After the reconciliation process is complete, scores are finalized. The final employee payout will proceed according to the final score and current salary of the employee. Upon approval of this Demo project plan, a CECOM SEC STRL Demo IOP will be created to document this process for employees and supervisors.

Employees within the CECOM SEC STRL Demo project will be placed into pay pools. Pay pools are combinations of organizational elements ( e.g., Directorates, Divisions, Branches, and Offices) that are defined for the purpose of determining performance payouts under the PFP management system. As an exception, the Pay Pool Manager may deviate from the guidelines if there is a compelling need to do so, and the supporting rationale is approved by the SEC Director. This exception and approval will be documented in writing.

Typically, pay pools will have between 35 and 300 employees. A pay pool should be large enough to encompass a reasonable distribution of ratings, but not so large, as to compromise rating consistency. Supervisory personnel will be placed in a pay pool separate from subordinate, non-supervisory personnel. Team Leads classified by the GS Leader Grade-Evaluation Guide will be included in a supervisory pay pool. Neither the Pay Pool Manager nor supervisors within a pay pool will recommend or set their own individual pay.

All decisions regarding the performance payout amount are based on the established payout calculations. Annual pay pool limits for base pay increases and bonuses, also referred to as payout factors, will be established by the CECOM SEC STRL Demo PMB. The funds for performance payouts are divided into two components: base pay increases and bonuses. The funds used for base pay increases are those that would have been available from the GS within-grade increases, quality step increases, and promotions. This payout amount will be defined based on historical data and set at no less than 2.0 percent of total salary annually. The funds available to be used for bonus payouts are funded separately within the constraints of the organization's overall award budget. The payout amount will be defined based on historical data and set no less than 1.0 percent of total salary annually. The sum of the two fund performance payout components is referred to as the Pay Pool Percentage Factor. On an annual basis, the CECOM SEC STRL Demo PMB will review the pay pool funding formulas and recommend adjustments to ensure cost discipline over the life of the STRL Demo project. The CECOM SEC STRL Demo PMB allocates the amount of funds assigned to each pay pool as necessary to ensure equity and to meet unusual circumstances.

The performance payout that an employee will receive is based on the total performance score from the pay-for-performance assessment process. An employee will receive a performance payout as a percentage of their current salary. This percentage is based on the number of shares that equate to their final appraisal score. Shares will be awarded on a continuum as shown in Figure 3. An example is that a score of 38 would equate to 1.8 shares and a score of 44 would equate to 2.4 shares. Fractional shares will be awarded for employee scores that fall between the score values listed in the table. Any score below 9 will require further administrative action.

The value of a share cannot be exactly determined until the rating and reconciliation process is completed and all scores are finalized. The share value is expressed as a percentage. The formula that computes the value of each share is based on (1) the value of pay pool, (2) the employee's pay, (3) the number of shares awarded to each employee in the pay pool, and (4) the total number of shares awarded in the pay pool. This formula assures that each employee within the pool receives a share amount equal to all others in the same pool who are at the same rate of basic pay and receiving the same score. The formula is shown in figure 4.

A Pay Pool Manager is accountable for staying within pay pool limits. The Pay Pool Manager makes the final decisions on pay increases and/or bonuses to individuals based on recommendations from personnel ratings, the final score, the pay pool funds available, and the employee's current salary. A Pay Pool Manager may request approval from the CECOM SEC STRL Demo PMB to grant an additional pay increase or performance bonus to an employee that is higher than the one generated by the compensation formula for that employee. An example of the employees who might warrant such consideration are those employees making extraordinary achievements or for a local intern to provide them with accelerated compensation.

In addition, the designated Pay Pool Manager may nominate employees for Extraordinary Achievement Recognition. This recognition grants a base pay increase and/or bonus to an employee that is higher than the one generated by the traditional compensation formula. The funds available for Extraordinary Achievement Recognition are separately funded within the constraints of the organization's budget.

The shares that the employee earns will be paid out as a base pay increase, a bonus, or a combination of both. To ensure continued cost discipline and performance incentive, base pay increases may be limited or capped. There are certain employees that cannot receive base pay increases due to base pay caps. Base pay is capped when an employee reaches the maximum rate of pay in an assigned pay band or when a performance-based rule applies. The employees affected by base pay caps and those receiving retained pay will receive the entire performance payout in the form of a bonus.

If there are unexpended base cap pay funds for capped employees, the CECOM SEC STRL Demo PMB may deem it appropriate to re-allocate a portion (up to the maximum possible amount) of the funds to uncapped employees. Any dollar increase in an employee's projected base pay will be offset, dollar for dollar, by an accompanying reduction in the employee's projected bonus payment. Thus, the employee's total performance payout is unchanged. All PFP management system bonuses and salary increases must be effective within 120 days of the end of the appraisal cycle.

Base pay is capped when an employee reaches the maximum rate of pay in an assigned pay band, when the mid-point rule applies or when the significant accomplishment rule applies, or otherwise subject to a salary control point as established by the SEC Director.

As a compensation management tool, CECOM SEC may establish performance-based rules to manage pay progression by career path, pay band, or any other grouping. If established, such performance-based rules must be approved by the CECOM SEC STRL Demo PMB and be published to the workforce prior to implementation. In addition, the process for obtaining a rule exception will be documented in a CECOM SEC STRL Demo IOP. Once established, performance-based rules may be used in the pay pool process to manage performance salary increases.

To provide added performance incentives as an employee progresses through a pay band, a mid-point rule will be used to determine base pay increases. The mid-point rule dictates that any employee must receive a score of 30 or higher for their base pay to cross the salary midpoint of their pay band. Also, once the base pay of the employee exceeds the salary midpoint of their band, the employee must receive a score of 30 or higher to receive any additional base pay increases. If there is any amount of the performance payout not paid in the form of a base pay increase because of the mid-point rule, the payout will instead be paid as a bonus. This rule effectively raises the standard of performance expected of an employee once the salary midpoint of a band is crossed. This applies to all employees in every occupational family and pay band.

The purpose of this rule is to maintain cost discipline while ensuring that employee payouts are in consonance with accomplishments and levels of responsibility. This rule will apply only to non-supervisory employees in E&S Band III and B&T Band III Category 2 whose base salary falls within the top 15 percent of the band. For employees meeting this criterion, the following provisions will apply:

(1) If an employee's score falls in the top third of scores received in his/her pay pool, he/she will receive the full allowable base pay increase portion of the performance payout. The balance of the payout will be paid as a lump sum bonus;

(2) If an employee's score falls in the middle third of scores received in his/her pay pool, the base pay increase portion will not exceed 1% of base salary. The balance of the payout will be paid as a lump sum bonus; and

(3) If an employee's appraisal score falls in the bottom third of scores received in his/her pay pool, the full payout will be paid as a lump sum bonus.

To provide additional flexibility in motivating and rewarding individuals and groups, some portion of the performance award budget may be reserved for special acts and other categories as they occur. Awards may include, but are not limited to special acts, patents, suggestions, on-the-spot, and time-off. The funds available to be used for awards are separately funded within the constraints of the organization's overall award budget. While not directly linked to the PFP management system, this additional flexibility is important to encourage outstanding accomplishments and innovation in accomplishing the diverse modernization missions that CECOM SEC intends to accomplish through participating in STRL Personnel Demo project. Additionally, to foster and encourage teamwork among its employees, CECOM SEC may give group awards. The SEC Director will have the authority to grant special act awards to covered employees of up to $25,000 IAW the criteria of Army Regulation 672-20, Incentive Awards.

When the rates of the GS are increased due to general pay increases, the minimum and maximum salaries of the pay band levels will also increase. All employees will receive the GPI as the increases are approved except for employees in pay band V and employees with unacceptable performance. The maximum basic rate with locality for Pay band V is Level III of the executive schedule (EX-III). Employees, who are on a PIP due to unacceptable performance and/or receive a Level 1 rating of record at the time that pay determinations are made, may be denied performance payouts or the GPI.

When the employee has performed at an acceptable level for at least 90 days, the GPI will not be retroactive but will be granted at the beginning of the next pay period after the supervisor authorizes its payment. These actions may result in a base salary that is identified in a lower pay band. This occurs because the minimum rate of basic pay in a pay band increases as the result of the GPI pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5303. This situation (a reduction in pay band with no reduction in pay) will not be considered an adverse action, nor will any pay band retention provisions apply. After 90 days of acceptable performance, the employee is granted GPI, and the employee will be returned to their previous pay band.

An employee has the right to grieve the performance rating/score received under the PFP management system. Employees who choose to pursue a grievance must do so in accordance with the established administrative grievance procedures outlined in the IOP. Except, where specifically waived or modified in the CECOM SEC STRL Demo plan, adverse action procedures under 5 CFR part 752 remain unchanged.

Competitive service positions will be filled through Merit Staffing, direct-hire authority, competitive examining/delegated examining, or other non-competitive hiring authorities. Direct-hire authority will be exercised IAW the requirements of the delegation of authority.

The qualifications required for placement into a position within a pay band and within an occupational family are determined using the OPM GS Qualification Operating Manual. As the pay bands are anchored to the GS grade levels, the minimum qualification requirements for a position will be the minimum requirements that corresponding to the lowest GS grade incorporated into that pay band. For example, for a position in the E&S occupational family, pay band II individuals must meet the basic requirements for a GS-5 as specified in the qualification standard for Professional and Scientific Positions. Selective placement factors can be established IAW the OPM GS Qualification Operating Manual, when judged to be critical to successful job performance. These factors will be communicated to all candidates for position vacancies and must be met for basic eligibility.

Competitive service positions within the CECOM SEC STRL Demo project may be filled through Delegated Examining. The CECOM SEC STRL Demo project positions will follow category rating when recruiting under competitive examining. When there are no more than 15 qualified applicants and no preference eligibles, all eligible applicants are immediately referred to the selecting official without rating and ranking. Rating and ranking will be required only when the number of qualified candidates exceeds 15 or there is a mix of preference and non- preference applicants. Statutes and regulations covering veterans' preference will be observed in the selection process and when rating and ranking are required. Veterans will be placed ahead of non-veterans within the same category. The procedures within the OPM Delegated Examining Operations Handbook will be followed.

In addition to direct hire authorities authorized by OPM or granted within various National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAAs), CECOM SEC will use the direct hire authorities authorized by 10 U.S.C. 4091 and published in 79 FR 43722 and 82 FR 29280, 85 FR 78829, and 88 FR 10874, as amended and appropriate, to appoint the following:

(a) Candidates with bachelor's and/or advanced degrees to scientific and engineering positions;

(b) Veteran candidates to scientific, technical, engineering, and mathematics positions (STEM), including technicians;

(c) Student candidates enrolled in a program of instruction leading to a bachelor or advanced degree in a STEM discipline;

(d) Candidates for any position:

(1) involving 51 percent or more of time in direct support of SEC mission;

(2) identified as hard to fill; having a history of high turnover; or

(3) requiring a unique, laboratory-related skillset.

(e) Candidates for students and recent graduates for occupations which do not require expertise in STEM.

Direct hire appointments may be made on a permanent, term, or temporary basis. Requirements for qualifying positions for the usage of the direct hire authorities will be documented in a CECOM SEC STRL Demo IOP. In addition, other direct hire authorities, documented in FRNs that are available to all DoD STRL laboratories, may be utilized, once requested and adopted, as appropriate.

IAW paragraph 4.g. of the OPM GS Qualification Operating Manual, CECOM SEC may consider any demonstrated, exceptional experience or a combination of experience and education in lieu of the candidate meeting OPM individual occupational qualification requirements for E&S positions by using 85 FR 78829, as amended, to implement this consideration criteria.

CECOM SEC will comply with 85 FR 78829, as amended, to waive the requirement to have official transcripts prior to establishing an entrance-on-duty (EOD).

CECOM SEC will have authority to determine when to utilize USAJobs flyers to solicit for CECOM SEC STRL Demo project positions in compliance with 85 FR 57842, as amended, for implementation.

CECOM SEC has the authority to appoint individuals to Critical-Sensitive and Special-Sensitive (SS) positions prior to a final favorable eligibility determination at the Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI)-level using 85 FR 78829, as amended for implementation.

CECOM SEC may use the FLRTTA workforce shaping tool to appoint qualified candidates to any STEM positions, including technicians who are not currently DoD civilian employees or are currently DoD term employees, for a period of more than one year but not more than six years. CECOM SEC will use 82 FR 43339, as amended for implementation.

CECOM SEC may use FLRTA to appoint qualified candidates whose positions involve 51 percent or more of time spent in direct support of STRL activities, for a period of more than one year but not more than six years, as provided in 85 FR 78839, and 82 FR 43339, as amended, for implementation. The guidance that follows is applicable to both FLRTTA and FLRTA qualified candidates unless stated otherwise.

The probationary period for all newly hired permanent career-conditional employees and trial periods for term appointments will be three years. The purpose of a three-year probationary or trial period is to allow supervisors adequate time to fully evaluate an employee's ability to complete cycles of work and to fully assess an employee's contribution and conduct. All other features of the current probationary or trial period are retained to include the requirements for determining creditable service and the potential to terminate an employee, without providing the full substantive and procedural rights afforded to a non-probationary employee, when the employee fails to demonstrate proper conduct, competency, and/or adequate contribution during the probationary period.

If a probationary employee's performance is determined to be satisfactory at a point prior to the end of the three-year probationary period, a supervisor has the option of ending the probationary period at an earlier date, but not before the employee has completed at least one year of continuous service. If the probationary period is terminated before the end of the three-year period, the supervisor will provide written reasons for the decision to the next level of supervision for concurrence prior to implementing the action.

When terminating probationary or trial employees, supervisors must work with their management employee relations (MER) point of contact (POC) within the U.S. Army CHRA to ensure that all documentation supports the termination and follows required guidelines for termination of employment.

When a supervisor decides to terminate an employee during the probationary or trial period, the supervisor shall terminate the employee, in writing, stating the reasons for termination and the effective date of the action.

New supervisors will be required to complete a supervisory probationary period for initial appointment to a supervisory position. The probationary period for supervisory employees is one year but may be extended to up to two years, at the discretion of the SEC Director, when further review is needed to evaluate the level of successful performance. If, during this supervisory probationary period, the decision is made to return the employee to a non-supervisory position for reasons related to supervisory performance, the employee will be returned to a position comparable in pay and job duties to the position from which they were originally promoted or re-assigned. The return to a non-supervisory position will result in a return to salary that the employee received immediately prior to the appointment to a supervisory position. Supervisors must coordinate with their MER POC within the U.S. Army CHRA to ensure that all documentation supports the re-assignment/modification back to a non-supervisory position.

CECOM SEC will use the authorities provided by 82 FR 43339, as amended, to appoint reemployed annuitants, as applicable and appropriate.

CECOM SEC may provide student loan repayment options, as authorized in 85 FR 78829, as amended, that are in line with current tuition costs and the amount may be adjusted based on inflation without higher-level command approval. The SEC Director can authorize the increase, as appropriate and applicable. This decision-authority provides the ability for CECOM SEC to repay all, or part of, an outstanding and qualifying student loan or loans that were previously assumed by the employee or candidate prior to employment with CECOM SEC.

The CECOM SEC STRL Demo project will have the authority to offer voluntary assignments to former Federal employees who have retired or separated from the Federal service and U.S. citizens who are retired, separated, or on sabbatical from private or public sector organizations.

Volunteer emeritus will ensure continued quality research while reducing the overall salary line by allowing higher paid individuals to accept retirement incentives with the opportunity to retain a presence in the scientific community. Volunteer experts will bring commercial sector or public sector knowledge and experience to the CECOM SEC STRL Demo project. The volunteers will not be used to replace any Government personnel or interfere with their career opportunities. Volunteers may not be used to replace or substitute for work performed by Government personnel occupying positions required to perform the CECOM SEC STRL Demo project mission requirements. Volunteer assignments are not considered “employment” by the Federal Government with some noted exceptions.

To be accepted as a volunteer, an individual must be a U.S. citizen and must be recommended by a CECOM SEC manager to the CECOM SEC approval authority. There is no assumed entitlement to participate in the program and an application to the program does not guarantee acceptance into the program. CECOM SEC will clearly document the decision process/rationale for each volunteer application received regardless of whether the applicant is accepted or rejected from the program. The application, support documentation sent for consideration with the application, CECOM SEC decision process/rational, and the decision adjudication documentation must be retained throughout the assignment; one year for accepted applicants and two years for rejected applicants.

Volunteer participants will not be permitted to perform any Inherently Governmental Functions or to participate in any contracts or solicitations for which the participant may have a conflict of interest. Volunteer participants are not permitted to participate in contract source selections, nor are they, permitted to have access to contractor bid, proposal information, source selection information, or to data/information that is protected by the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1905, without a written agreement between the volunteer and the owner of the data or that information.

To ensure success and encourage participation in the volunteer emeritus part of the VEP, the volunteer's Federal retirement pay (whether military or civilian) will not be affected while serving in a volunteer capacity under the VEP. Retired or separated Federal employees may accept a volunteer emeritus position without a break or mandatory waiting period. An agreement will be established between the volunteer and CECOM SEC, and the agreement will be reviewed by the servicing legal office.

The agreement must be finalized prior to the assumption of any duties under the VEP. The agreement will include:

(a) A statement that the voluntary assignment does not constitute an appointment in the civil service and is without compensation, and that all claims against the Government (because of the voluntary assignment), are waived by the volunteer;

(b) A statement that the volunteer will be considered a federal employee solely for the purpose of and under the authorities of:

(1) 18 U.S.C. 201, 203, 205, 207, 208, 209, 603, 606, 607, 643, 654, 1905, and 1913;

(2) 31 U.S.C. 1343, 1344, and 1349(b);

(3) 5 U.S.C. chapters 73 and 81;

(4) The Ethics in Government Act of 1978;

(5) 41 U.S.C. chapter 21;

(6) 28 U.S.C. chapter 171 (tort claims procedure), and any other Federal tort liability statute; and

(7) 5 U.S.C. 552a (records maintained on individuals)

(c) The volunteer's work schedule;

(d) The length of the agreement (defined by length of project or time defined by weeks, months, or years)

(e) The support to be provided by SEC (travel, administrative, office space, supplies);

(f) The volunteer's duties;

(g) A provision allowing either party to void the agreement with at least two working days' written notice;

(h) A provision that states no additional time will be added to a volunteer's service credit for such purposes as retirement, severance pay, or leave as a result of participating in the VEP;

(i) The level of security access required (any security clearance required by the assignment will be managed by CECOM SEC while the participant is a member of the VEP);

(j) A provision that any written products prepared for publication that are related to VEP participation will be submitted to CECOM SEC for pre-publication review and approval;

(k) A statement that the volunteer accepts accountability for loss or damage of any assigned Government property occasioned by the volunteer's negligence or willful action;

(l) A statement that the activities of the volunteer on the premises will conform to the regulations and requirements of the organization;

(m) A statement that the volunteer will not improperly use or disclose any non-public information, to include any pre-decisional or draft deliberative information related to DoD programming, budgeting, resourcing, acquisition, procurement, or any other matter for the benefit or advantage of the volunteer or any non-Federal entities. Volunteers will handle all non-public information in a manner that reduces the possibility of improper disclosure;

(n) A statement that the volunteer agrees to disclose any inventions made in the course of work performed for CECOM SEC, and CECOM SEC will have the option to obtain title to any such invention on behalf of the U.S. Government.

Should the SEC Director elect not to take title, CECOM SEC will retain a non-exclusive, irrevocable, paid up, royalty-free license to practice or have practiced the invention worldwide on behalf of the U.S. Government;

(o) A statement that the volunteer must complete either a confidential or public Financial Disclosure Report, whichever applies; a disqualification statement prohibiting the volunteer from working on matters related to their former employer; and ethics training IAW Office of Government Ethics regulations prior to implementation of the written agreement; and

(p) A statement that the volunteer must receive post-Government employment advice from a DoD Ethics counselor at the conclusion of program participation. Volunteers are deemed Federal employees for purposes of post-Government employment restrictions.

A written Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between CECOM SEC and the volunteer is required and must include all items above, regardless of format used. The use and wording of the MOA will be provided in a CECOM SEC STRL Demo IOP.

A promotion is the movement of an employee to a higher pay band in the same occupational family or to another pay band in a different occupational family, wherein the band in the new family has a higher maximum salary than the band from which the employee is moving. When filled, positions with known promotion potential to a specific band within an occupational family will be identified; not all positions in an occupational family will have promotion potential to the same band. The movement from one career path to another will depend upon individual competencies, qualifications, and the needs of the organization. Salary progression within a pay band is not considered a promotion and not subject to the provisions of this section with some noted exceptions.

Promotions will be processed under competitive procedures IAW Merit System Principles and requirements of the local merit promotion plan. For an employee to be promoted competitively or non-competitively from one band to the next, the employee must meet the minimum qualifications for the job and have a current performance rating of “acceptable” with a score of 30 or better (or equivalent) in their current assigned performance appraisal system. If an employee does not have a current performance rating, the employee will be treated the same as an employee with an “acceptable” rating if there is no documented evidence of unacceptable performance. The following actions are exceptions from competitive procedures:

(a) Re-promotion to a position which is in the same pay band or GS equivalency and occupational family that the employee previously held on a permanent basis within the competitive service;

(b) Promotion, reassignment, demotion, transfer, or reinstatement to a position having promotion potential no greater than the potential of a position an employee currently holds or previously held on a permanent basis in the competitive service;

(c) A position change permitted by reduction in force procedures;

(d) Promotion without current competition when the employee was appointed through competitive procedures to a position with a documented career ladder;

(e) A temporary promotion, or detail to a position in a higher pay band, of one year or less;

(f) A promotion due to the reclassification of positions based on accretion (addition) of duties;

(g) A promotion resulting from the correction of an initial classification error or the issuance of a new classification standard;

(h) Consideration of a candidate who did not receive proper consideration in a competitive promotion action; and

(i) Impact of person in the job and Factor IV process (application of the Research Grade-Evaluation Guide, Equipment Development Grade-Evaluation Guide, Part III, or similar guides) promotions.

A reassignment is the movement of an employee from one position to a different position within the same career path and pay band or to another career path and pay band wherein, the pay band in the new career path has the same maximum base pay. The employee must meet the qualification requirements for the career path and pay band.

An employee may be placed in a lower pay band within the same career path or placement into a pay band in a different career path with a lower maximum base pay. This change may be voluntary based on a request from the employee or involuntary, for cause (performance or conduct), or for reasons other than cause ( e.g., erosion of duties, reclassification of duties to a lower pay band, or placement actions resulting from Reduction in Force (RIF) procedures). Involuntary actions will be executed using the applicable procedures in 5 U.S.C. 43 and 5 U.S.C. 75.

Employees may be detailed (an assignment requiring a different level of expertise and qualifications) to a position in the same pay band, lower pay band, or higher pay band. An initial detail will not exceed six months but may be extended up to one year. The time spent in one or more detail assignment may not exceed one year out of a two-year period where the time served is calculated from the effective date of the initial action. Details may be done competitively or non-competitively without a change in pay.

Temporary promotions (movement to a position in a pay band with a higher maximum salary) may be done non-competitively up to one year; beyond one year requires competitive procedures. Temporary promotions are generally assignments not to exceed one year but may be extended for up to two years. Circumstances allowing an extension beyond one-year will be identified in a CECOM SEC STRL Demo IOP. Employees selected for temporary promotions may only be permitted to serve a maximum of two years out of a three-year period from the effective date of the initial action. Competitive and non-competitive temporary promotions are eligible for a pay adjustment up to six percent of the current base salary or the minimum salary of the next higher band to which they will be promoted.

Pay administration policies will be established by the CECOM SEC STRL Demo PMB. These policies will be exempt from Army Regulations or local pay setting policies. The SEC Director shall have delegated authority to make full use of recruitment, retention, and relocation payments as currently provided for by OPM.

Under a Demo project, the total monetary compensation paid in a calendar year for an employee cannot exceed the base pay of Level I of the Executive Schedule consistent with 5 U.S.C. 5307 and 5 CFR part 530, subpart B, except for employees placed in an SSTM position. Further, each pay band will have its own pay ceiling, just as grades do in the GS system. Base pay rates for the various pay bands will be directly tied to the GS rates, except for E&S Level V (SSTMs). Other than where a retained rate applies, base pay will be limited to the maximum base pay that is payable. The minimum basic pay for SSTM positions is 115 percent of the minimum rate of basic pay for GS-15. The maximum SSTM basic pay with locality pay is limited to Executive Level III (EX-III), and the maximum salary without locality pay may not exceed EX-IV.

For initial appointments to Federal service, the individual's pay may be set at the lowest base pay in the pay band or anywhere within the pay band consistent with the special qualifications of the individual, specific organizational requirements, the unique requirements of the position, or other compelling reasons. These special qualifications may be in the form of education, training, experience, or any combination thereof that is pertinent to the position in which the employee is being placed. Guidance on pay setting for new hires will be documented in a CECOM SEC STRL Demo IOP.

The minimum base pay increase upon promotion will be six percent or the minimum base pay rate of the new pay band, whichever is greater. The maximum amount of a pay increase for a promotion may be up to the top of the pay band consistent with the special qualifications of the individual, specific organizational requirements, the unique requirements of the position, or other compelling reasons. Any additional criteria will be specified in a CECOM SEC STRL Demo IOP.

For employees assigned to occupational categories and geographic areas covered by special salary rates, the minimum base pay is the minimum rate in the pay band or the corresponding special salary rate or locality rate, whichever is greater. The maximum base pay is the maximum rate in the pay band, or the top of the special salary rate pay table. When a temporary promotion is terminated, the employee's pay entitlements will be re-determined based on the employee's position of record, with appropriate adjustments, to reflect pay events during the temporary promotion and it is subject to the specific policies and rules established in IOP to cover this procedure. The resulting salary may not exceed the maximum rate of the pay band.

A reassignment may be made without a change in the employee's base pay. Where a re-assignment, whether competitive or non-competitive, significantly increases the complexity, responsibility, authority, or for other compelling reasons, an Associate Director or above may grant up to a six percent base pay increase. For pay increases that are six percent or more, these actions must be approved by the SEC Director. The resulting salary may not exceed the maximum rate of the pay band. Specific guidance will be established in the CECOM SEC STRL Demo IOP.

Employees subject to an involuntary change to the lower pay band for cause (performance or conduct) or voluntary change to lower pay band (request or selection to new position) are not entitled to pay retention and may receive a decrease in base pay. Employees subject to an involuntary change to a lower pay band for reasons other than cause ( e.g., erosion of duties, reclassification of duties to a lower pay band, or placement actions resulting from RIF procedures) may be entitled to pay retention IAW the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 5363 and 5 CFR part 536, except as waived or modified within this CECOM SEC STRL Personnel Demo project plan.

An employee may volunteer for a change to a lower band for his or her own convenience or benefit, which may be in the same or different career path, and results in reduction to a lower pay band. The salary cannot be set above the maximum for the new band or above the employee's salary immediately prior to the change. Any form of rate retention is terminated.

Supervisory and Team Lead pay adjustments and differentials are incentive payments that differ from increases to base pay. These adjustments and differentials can be used to further compensate supervisors, and team leads in situations where salary inequities may exist and/or exemplary supervisory or team leader performance has been demonstrated and warrants additional compensation.

Adjustments and differentials differ in that adjustments are paid as an increase to base pay, while differentials are paid in the form of a bi-weekly bonus. Neither, an adjustment or differential, is automatic by virtue of holding a supervisory or team leader position. Supervisors and team leads are recognized with the word supervisory or lead in their position description title which means they spend at least 25% of their time carrying out supervisory or team lead responsibilities.

Neither adjustments or differentials are funded by pay pool dollars. Pay Adjustments do not apply to employees in pay band V of the E&S Occupational Family. These incentives may be approved by the SEC Director based on the recommendation of the CECOM SEC STRL Demo PMB to compensate employees with supervisory or team lead responsibilities. Any further Criteria and/or additional guidance will be established in a CECOM SEC STRL Demo IOP.

The ACDP process will be used to recognize the development of job-related competencies of employees in training programs, internships, or other developmental capacities. The use of ACDP's may be provided to employees in positions that cross bands within a career path (formally known as career ladder positions) or developmental positions within a band. All CECOM SEC supervisors, at the GS-15 equivalency, may authorize a basic pay increase for employees participating in a program that's supported by the ACDP process. Any additional guidance will be established in a CECOM SEC STRL Demo IOP.

The SEC Director may establish supplemental pay rates based on market conditions to help attract, recruit, and retain a high-caliber workforce. CECOM SEC will use the supplemental pay rate provisions described in 87 FR 72462, as amended, for implementation.

The SEC Director will comply with 89 FR 44648, as amended, to offer a retention counter offer for the retention of high performing employees in scientific, technical, or administrative positions, in any career field who present credible evidence of an alternative employment opportunity (Federal or non-Federal organizations) with higher compensation. Employees must sign a service agreement prior to receiving any retention incentive payments authorized under this FRN. Pay retention will follow current law and regulations at 5 U.S.C. 5363, and 5 CFR part 536, except as waived or modified, in Section IX of this plan.

Degree training is an essential component of an organization that requires continuous acquisition of advanced and specialized knowledge. Degree training in the academic environment of laboratories is also a critical tool for recruiting and retaining employees with critical skills. Constraints, under current law and regulations, limit degree payments to occupations that are considered limited to shortage occupations. In addition, current Government-wide regulations authorize payment for degrees based only on recruitment or retention needs. Degree payment is currently not permitted for non-shortage occupations involving critical skills.

CECOM SEC may expand the authority to provide degree training for purposes of meeting critical skill requirements, to ensure continuous acquisition of advanced and specialized knowledge essential to the organization, or to recruit and retain personnel critical to the present and future requirements of the organization. It is expected that the degree payment authority will be used primarily for attainment of advanced degrees. CECOM SEC will document guidelines for using this authority in a CECOM SEC STRL Demo IOP.

CECOM SEC may grant paid sabbaticals to career employees to permit them to engage in study or uncompensated work experience that will contribute to their development and effectiveness. Each sabbatical should benefit CECOM SEC, as well as increase the employee's individual effectiveness. An example would be advanced academic teaching, study, or research; self-directed (independent) or guided study; or on-the-job work experience with a public, private, or nonprofit organization. Each recipient of a sabbatical must sign a continued service agreement and agree to serve a period equal to at least three times the length of the sabbatical. Any additional guidance will be established in a CECOM SEC STRL Demo IOP.

The Expanded Developmental Opportunities Program will be available to all Demo project employees. These expanded developmental opportunities will complement existing developmental opportunities such as long-term training, rotational job assignments, developmental assignments within DoD, and self-directed study via correspondence courses and local colleges and universities.

Each developmental opportunity must result in a product, service, report or study that will benefit CECOM SEC or customer organization as well as increase the employees' individual effectiveness. The developmental opportunity period will not result in loss of (or reduction) in basic pay, leave to which the employee is otherwise entitled, or credit for service time. The developmental opportunity will be documented with the gaining organization, within a memorandum of understanding, to include expected assignments the positions of employees on expanded developmental opportunities may be backfilled i.e., with temporary assignment, detailed or promoted employees, or with term employees. The position must be made available to the employee upon return from the developmental period. When the position of record is no longer available, the employee will be placed in an equivalent position with the same salary, pay band, and similar responsibilities to the positions they held prior to their developmental opportunity. Any additional guidance will be established in a CECOM SEC STRL Demo IOP. The IOP will include written guidance for employees on application procedures and develop a process that will be used to review and evaluate applicants for development opportunities.

CECOM SEC will follow 82 FR 43339, as amended, and all the authorities authorized by section 1109 of the fiscal year 2016 NDAA to offer VERA and VSIP, as appropriate, whenever such incentives will help to shape the laboratory workforce to better fulfill mission requirements and achieve the optimum workforce balance.

VERA/VSIP incentives may be offered to the entire CECOM SEC STRL Demo workforce pursuant to the legislation and waivers in 82 FR 43339.

The initial entry of CECOM SEC employees into the CECOM SEC STRL Demo project from the CECOM SEC Acq Demo project will be accomplished through a full employee protection approach that ensures no loss in pay band status based on GS grade equivalency and no loss of pay and/or earning potential.

The conversion process will include the determination of the GS equivalency of each employee within the current Acq Demo pay band and using the GS step 4 representative rate rule to identify the appropriate pay band for placement into the CECOM SEC STRL Demo project. The employee's current salary is compared to the GS step 4 rate in the pay band with the highest applicable GS rate range. When the salary equals or exceeds the applicable step 4 rate of the highest GS grade in the band, the employee is converted to that grade. When the salary is lower than the applicable step 4 rate of the highest grade, the adjusted rate is compared with the step 4 rate of the second highest grade in the employee's pay band. If the salary equals or exceeds the step 4 rate of the second highest grade, the employee is converted to that grade. This process is repeated for each successively lower grade in the band until a grade is found in which the salary equals or exceeds the applicable step 4 rate of the grade.

The NH-04 pay banded employees will convert to the DE-III, CAT-2 and DB-III pay bands to remain consistent with the intent for their current pay to extend to the GS-14, step 10 full potential. Only those employees whose salary exceeds the GS-15 step 4 grade will convert to the DE or DB-IV pay bands. Backfilling of these positions will be accomplished at the DE-III, CAT-2 or DB-III pay bands, unless the position is restructured, to a position with higher responsibility at the Division Chief, Director, Chief Engineer/Data Officer or Senior Professional level.

The CECOM SEC Acq Personnel Demo project pay bands include both E&S and B&T career paths in one path and these will be separated into different paths upon conversion into the CECOM SEC STRL Personnel Demo project. Employees are placed in a career path ( i.e., DB, DE, DK) based upon their occupational series and into a pay band that includes their current GS grade equivalency. Employees in Computer Science (1550), Data Science (1560), Computer Engineering (0854), or Electronics Engineering (0855) positions will convert into the E&S (Pay Plan DB). The employees in the Information Technology (2210), Security Administration (0080), Administration (0301, 0340, 0343, 0346), General Arts and Information (1101) and Supply (2001 and 2003) positions will convert into B&T (Pay Plan DE). Employees in the Secretarial (0318) positions will convert into GEN (Pay Plan DK).

Under the DE-III pay band there are two full performance levels defined as: (1) CAT-1 including equivalent GS grades 12 and 13 with a full performance level GS-13 step 10, and (2) CAT-2 including equivalent GS grades 12 through 14 with a full performance level at the GS-14 step 10. The DE-III, CAT-2 pay band includes Branch Chiefs, Team Leads and incorporates Technical Champions including those converting from Acq Demo at the NH-04 band with a control point and grade equivalency at the GS-14 level and full performance level of GS-14 step 10 who have a current salary less than the GS-15 step 4 rate. The placement of a GS-14 equivalent position into pay band III is not considered placement in a lower-graded position when converting from an NH-04 position, as the DE III CAT-2 comes with the same grade equivalency and salary potential. Any additional guidance will be established in a CECOM SEC STRL Demo IOP. The conversion operations will be overseen by the CECOM SEC STRL Demo PMB.

All future DE III, CAT-2 Technical Champion positions may be filled, based on mission requirements for this level of expertise and proper classification of job duties. Each employee's initial total salary under the CECOM SEC STRL Demo project will be equal to the total salary received under the CECOM SEC Acq Demo project, prior to conversion. Pay retention will be provided to employees whose pay exceeds their assigned pay band in the CECOM SEC STRL Demo project.

Employees serving under temporary promotions will be returned to their position of record prior to conversion into CECOM SEC STRL Demo project. Once converted into Demo, the employee will be placed back into the temporary position using the initial established NTE date.

Employees serving under temporary and term appointments will be converted and placed on a new appointment under the temporary and term guidance identified in this FRN to continue their temporary and term appointments up to their established, current NTE date. After conversions, extensions of temporary appointments will be made under the new appointment identified in this FRN while using the initial appointment dates to calculate the timeframe of the extended appointment.

Conversion rules will apply to employees who are involuntarily reassigned to the CECOM SEC STRL Demo project. When employees converting into the CECOM SEC STRL Demo project from the GS pay plan or when the conversion into the Demo is accompanied by a geographic move, the employee's equivalent GS pay entitlements to include the within grade increase (often referred to as the WIGI buy-in) and/or the new geographic area must be determined before performing the pay conversion. Grade retention provisions under 5 U.S.C. 5362 and 5 CFR part 536 will not be applicable to the CECOM SEC STRL Demo project, as employees are converted into pay bands with the same grade equivalency as the pay plan from which they were converted. For purposes of actions within the CECOM SEC STRL Demo project that provide entitlement to pay retention, the standard provisions of pay retention under 5 U.S.C. 5363, 5 CFR part 536, and applicable DoD Instructions will apply, except as waived or modified, under this FRN. Wherever the term “grade” is used in the law or regulation, the term “pay band” will be substituted. The CECOM SEC STRL Demo project may grant pay retention to employees who meet general eligibility requirements, but does not have specific entitlement by law, provided the employees are not specifically excluded. The CECOM SEC STRL Demo will allow SSTMs to receive pay retention as described in 79 FR 43727, as amended.

Employees who have completed an initial probationary period prior to conversion will not be required to serve a new or extended initial probationary period. Employees who are serving an initial probationary period upon conversion will serve the time remaining on the probationary period for their current position/assignment. Employees who have completed a supervisory probationary period prior to conversion will not be required to serve a new or extended supervisory probationary period while in their current position. Upon conversion, employees who are currently serving on a supervisory probationary period will serve the time remaining on their supervisory probationary period.

If the CECOM SEC STRL Demo project ends and employees move back to the GS system, the following procedures will be used to convert the employees' Demo career path and pay band to a GS equivalent grade, and the employees' Demo rate of pay to the GS equivalent rate of pay.

(1) The converted GS grade and GS rate of pay must be determined before movement or conversion out of the Demo project and any accompanying geographic movement, promotion, or other simultaneous action;

(2) For conversions upon the termination of the Demo project and for lateral reassignments, the converted GS grade and rate will become the employee's actual GS grade and rate;

(3) For employee movement from within DoD (transfers), promotions, and other actions, the converted GS grade and rate will be used in applying any GS pay administration rules that are applicable, in connection with, the employee's movement out of the Demo project ( e.g., promotion rules, highest previous rate rules, and pay retention rules) as if the GS converted grade and rate were in effect immediately before the employee left the Demo project.

An employee in a pay band corresponding to a single GS grade is converted to that grade. An employee in a pay band corresponding to two or more grades is converted to one of those grades according to the following criterion:

(a) The employee's adjusted rate of basic pay under the Demo project (including any locality payment) is compared with step 4 rates on the highest applicable GS rate range. (For this purpose, a “GS rate range” includes a rate in (1) the GS base schedule, (2) the locality rate schedule for the locality pay area in which the position is located, or (3) the appropriate special salary rate schedule for the employee's occupational series, as applicable.) If the series is a two-grade interval series, odd- numbered grades are considered below GS-11.

(b) If the employee's adjusted project rate equals or exceeds the applicable step 4 rate of the highest GS grade in the band, the employee is converted to that grade.

(c) If the employee's adjusted project rate is lower than the applicable step 4 rate of the highest grade, the adjusted rate is compared with the step 4 rate of the second highest grade in the employee's pay band. If the employee's adjusted rate equals or exceeds step 4 rate of the second highest grade, the employee is converted to that grade.

(d) This process is repeated for each successively lower grade in the pay band until a grade is found in which the employee's adjusted project rate equals or exceeds the applicable step 4 rate of the grade. The employee is then converted at that grade. If the employee's adjusted rate is below the step 4 rate of the lowest grade in the pay band, the employee is converted to the lowest grade.

(e) A point of exception is when an employee will not be converted to a lower grade than the grade held immediately preceding a conversion, lateral reassignment, or upon transfer from within DoD into the Demo project, unless since that time the employee has undergone a reduction in pay band or accepted a lower pay band position.

If an employee is retaining a rate under the Demo project, the employee's GS-equivalent grade is the highest grade encompassed in the employees' pay band.

Any service under the CECOM SEC STRL Demo project is creditable for within-grade increase (WGI) purposes upon conversion back to the GS pay system. Performance pay increases (including a zero increase) under the Demo project are equivalent increases for the purpose of determining the commencement of a WGI waiting period under 5 CFR 531.405(b).

If the employees' coverage under the CECOM SEC STRL Demo project pay plan is terminated, employees move with their position to another applicable and appropriate system within CECOM SEC. The grade or pay band of their position in the new system will be based upon the position classification criteria of the gaining system. Employees may be eligible for pay retention under 5 CFR part 536 when converted to their position under the new system, if applicable. All personnel laws, regulations, and guidelines, not waived by the Demo project plan or new system, will remain in effect. Basic employee rights will be safeguarded, and Merit System Principles will be maintained. An employee in Level V of the E&S occupational family will convert out of the Demo project at the GS-15 level. Procedures will be documented in an organizational IOP to ensure that employees entering Level V understand that if they leave the Demo project and their adjusted base pay under the Demo project exceeds the highest applicable GS-15, step 10 rate, they are entitled to retained pay but not retained grade.

Critical to the success of the CECOM SEC STRL Demo project is the training developed to promote understanding of the broad concepts and finer details needed to implement and successfully execute the Demo project. Training will be tailored to address employee concerns and to encourage comprehensive understanding of the demonstration project. Training will be required both prior to implementation and at various times during the life of the demonstration project. A training program will begin prior to implementation and will include modules tailored for employees, supervisors, and administrative staff. Typical modules would be:

(1) An overview of the demonstration project personnel system

(2) How employees are converted into and out of the system

(3) Career paths and pay banding

(4) The PFP system

(5) Defining performance objectives

(6) How to assign weights to performance elements

(7) Assessing performance and giving feedback

(8) New position descriptions

(9) Demonstration project administration and formal evaluation.

Various types of training are being considered, including instructor led in person training, videos, teleconference tutorials, and train-the-trainer concepts. To the extent possible, materials developed by other STRLs will be utilized when appropriate to reduce implementation cost and to maintain consistency in application of similar procedures across laboratories.

Many aspects of a Demo project are experimental. Minor modifications to CECOM SEC STRL Demo project may be made from time to time as experience is gained, results are analyzed, and conclusions are reached on how the system works. Flexibilities published in this FRN shall be available for use by all DoD STRLs, if they wish to adopt them.

Title 5 U.S.C. chapter 47 requires that an evaluation be performed to measure the effectiveness of the Demo project and its impact on improving public management. In 1995, a joint OPM/DoD Evaluation Committee conducted a comprehensive evaluation plan for the entire STRL demonstration program. This plan was submitted to the Office of Defense Research & Engineering (now renamed Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering) and was subsequently approved. The main purpose of the evaluation is to determine whether the waivers granted result in a more effective personnel system and improvements in ultimate outcomes ( i.e., organizational effectiveness, mission accomplishment, and customer satisfaction).

The plan, while useful, is dated and does not fully afford the DoD Laboratories the ability to evaluate all aspects of the Demo project in a way that fully facilitates assessment and effective modification based on actionable data. Therefore, in conducting the evaluation, CECOM SEC will ensure that the evaluation plan requirements are applied, along with knowledge gained from the other DoD Laboratories and their evaluations to ensure a timely and effective evaluation of the CECOM SEC STRL Demo project.

The evaluation model for the CECOM SEC STRL Demo project will identify elements critical to an evaluation of the effectiveness of the flexibilities. However, the focus of the evaluation will be on intermediate outcomes, i.e., the results of specific personnel system changes which are expected to improve human resources management. The ultimate outcomes are defined as improved organizational effectiveness, mission accomplishment, CECOM SEC customer satisfaction, and increased employee retention.

Data from a variety of different sources will be used in the evaluation. Information from existing management information systems, supplemented with perceptual survey data from employees, will be used to assess variables related to effectiveness. Multiple methods provide more than one perspective on how the CECOM SEC STRL Demo project is working. Information gathered through one method will be used to validate information gathered through another method. The confidence in the findings will increase as they are substantiated by the different collection and validation methods. The following types of qualitative and/or quantitative data may be collected as part of the evaluation:

(1) Workforce data;

(2) Personnel office data;

(3) Employee attitudes and feedback using surveys, structured interviews, and focus groups;

(4) Local activity histories; and/or

(5) Core measures of laboratory effectiveness.

An objective of the Demo project is to ensure in-house cost discipline. A baseline will be established at the start of the project and labor expenditures will be tracked yearly. Implementation costs (including project development, automation costs, step buy-in costs, and evaluation costs) are considered one-time costs and will not be included in the cost discipline. The CECOM SEC STRL Demo PMB will track personnel cost changes and recommend adjustments, if required, to achieve the objective of cost discipline.

Costs associated with the development of the Demo project include software automation, training, and project evaluation. All funding will be provided through the organization's budget. The Demo project evaluation costs are not expected to continue beyond the first five years unless the results warrant further evaluation. Additional costs may be incurred as a part of the implementation and operation of the project.

The following waivers and adaptations of certain title 5 U.S.C. and title 5 CFR provisions are required only to the extent that these statutory provisions limit or are inconsistent with the actions contemplated under this demonstration project. Nothing in this plan is intended to preclude the Demo project from adopting or incorporating any law or regulation enacted, adopted, or amended after the effective date of this demonstration project.

(1) Chapter 31, section 3104. Employment of Specially Qualified Scientific and Professional Personnel. Waived to allow SSTM authority;

(2) Chapter 31, section 3132. The Senior Executive Service: Definitions and exclusions. Waived as necessary to allow for the Level V SSTM authority of the E&S pay band;

(3) Chapter 33, subchapter I. Examination, Certification, and Appointment. Waived except for sections 3302, 3321, and 3328 to the extent necessary to allow direct hire authority for qualified candidates whose positions involve 51 percent or more of time spent in direct support of SEC activities, are identified by STRLs as hard to fill, have a history of high turnover, or require unique, laboratory-related skillsets; and to the extent necessary to allow employees appointed on flexible-length and renewable-term appointments to apply for Federal positions as status candidates;

(4) Chapter 33, section 3321: Competitive Service; Probationary Period. This section is waived only to the extent necessary to replace “grade” with “pay band” and to allow for probationary periods of three years for newly hired permanent career-conditional employees and trial periods for term appointments; the probationary period for supervisory employees may be extended up to two years.

(5) Chapter 33, section 3324-3325: Appointments to Scientific and Professional Positions. Waived in its entirety to fully allow for positions above GS-15 and allow SSTMs.

(6) Chapter 33, section 3341: Waived, to extent to allow the time limits for details as described in this FRN.

(7) Chapter 35, section 3522: Agency VSIP Plans; Approval. Waived to remove the requirement to submit a plan to OPM prior to obligating any resources for voluntary separation incentive payments.

(8) Chapter 35, section 3523(b)(3): Related to voluntary separation incentive payments. Waived to the extent necessary to utilize the authorities authorized in this FRN.

(9) Chapter 41, section 4107(a)(1), (2), (b)(1), and (3): Pay for Degrees. Waived to the extent required to allow SEC to pay for all courses related to a degree program approved by the STRLs.

(10) Chapter 41, section 4108(a)-(c): Employee agreements; service after training. Waived to the extent necessary to require the employee to continue in the service of SEC for the period of the required service and to the extent necessary to permit the STRL to waive in whole or in part a right of recovery.

(11) Chapter 43, section 4301-4305: Related to performance appraisal. These sections are waived to the extent necessary to allow provisions of the performance management system as described in this FRN.

(12) Chapter 51, section 5101-5112: Classification. Waived as necessary to allow for the demonstration project pay banding system.

(13) Chapter 53, section 5301-5307: Related to Pay Comparability System, Special Pay Authority, and General Schedule Pay Rates. Waived to the extent necessary to allow demonstration project employees, including SSTM employees, to be treated as GS employees, and to allow base rates of pay under the demonstration project to be treated as scheduled rates of pay. SSTM pay will not exceed EX-IV and locality adjusted SSTM rates will not exceed EX III.

(14) Chapter 53, section 5331-5336: General Schedule Pay Rates. Waived to the extent necessary to allow for the demonstration project's pay banding system and pay provisions as described in this FRN.

(15) Chapter 53, section 5361-5366: Pay retention. Waived to the extent necessary to allow pay retention provisions described in this FRN and to allow SSTMs to receive pay retention as described in 79 FR 43722 as amended.

(16) Chapter 53, section 5379(a)(1)(A) and (b)(2): Student Loan Repayment. Waived to the extent necessary to define agency as STRL and to allow provisions of the student loan repayment authority as described in this FRN.

(17) Chapter 55, section 5545(d): Hazardous duty differential. Waived to the extent necessary to allow demonstration project employees to be treated as GS employees. This waiver does not apply to employees in Level V of the E&S pay band.

(18) Chapter 57, section 5753-5755: Recruitment and relocation, bonuses, retention allowances, and supervisory differentials. Waived to the extent necessary to allow: (a) provisions of supervisory differentials as described in this FRN, (b) employees in Level V of the E&S pay band to be treated as ST employees, (c) provisions of the retention counteroffer and incentives as described in this FRN, and (d) to allow SSTMs to receive supervisory pay differentials as described in 79 FR 43722 as amended.

(19) Chapter 75, Adverse Actions, sections 7501(1)—Waived to the extent necessary to apply probationary and trial period requirements described in this FRN.

(20) Chapter 75, Adverse Actions, 7511(a)(1)(A)(ii), (a)(1)(B) and (a)(1)(C)(ii)—Waived to the extent necessary to apply probationary and trial period requirements described in this FRN.

(21) Chapter 75, section 7512(3): Adverse actions. Waived to the extent necessary to replace “grade” with “pay band.”

(22) Chapter 75, section 7512(4): Adverse actions. Waived to the extent necessary to provide that adverse action provisions do not apply to (1) reductions in pay due to the removal of a supervisory or team leader pay adjustment/differential upon voluntary movement to a non-supervisory or non-team leader position or (2) decreases in the amount of a supervisory or team leader pay adjustment/differential during the annual review process.

(23) Chapter 99, section 9902(f): Related to Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments. Waived to the extent necessary to allow the provisions in this FRN.

(1) Part 11 Probationary and Trial Periods, parts 11.2, 11.3 and 11.4—Waived to the extent necessary to apply probationary and trial period requirements described in this FRN.

(2) Part 212, section 212.301: Competitive Status Defined. Waived to the extent necessary to allow individuals on flexible-length and renewable term appointments to be considered status candidates as defined in this FRN.

(3) Part 300-330: Employment (General). Other than Subpart G of 300. Waived to the extent necessary to allow provisions of the direct hire authorities as described in 79 FR 43722, 82 FR 29280, and 85 FR 78829 as amended; direct hire authority for qualified candidates whose positions involve 51 percent or more of time spent in direct support of STRL activities, are identified by the STRLs as hard to fill, have a history of high turnover, or require unique, laboratory-related skillsets.

(4) Part 300, section 300.601-300.605: Time-in-Grade Restrictions. Waived to eliminate time-in-grade restrictions in the demonstration project.

(5) Part 316, section 316.301: Term employment. Waived to the extent necessary to allow modified term appointments and FLRTA/FLRTTA as described in this FRN.

(6) Part 330, section 330.104: Requirements for Vacancy Announcements. Waived to the extent necessary to allow an STRL to utilize a USAJobs flyer as published in this FRN.

(7) Part 332 and 335: Related to competitive examination and agency promotion programs. Waived to the extent necessary to allow no rating and ranking when there are 15 or fewer qualified applicants and no preference eligible candidates; allow the hiring and appointment authorities as described in this FRN; to extend the length of details and temporary promotions without requiring competitive procedures as described in 85 FR 78829 as amended and this FRN.

(8) Part 335, section 335.103: Agency Promotion Programs. Waived to the extent necessary to extend the length of details and temporary promotions without requiring competitive procedures

(9) Part 337, section 337.101(a): Rating applicants. Waived to the extent necessary to allow referral without rating when there are 15 or fewer qualified candidates and no qualified preference eligible candidates.

(10) Part 338, section 338.301: Competitive Service Appointment. Waived to the extent necessary to allow demonstrated exceptional experience or a combination of experience and education in lieu of meeting OPM individual occupational qualification requirements for E&S positions as described in 85 FR 78829 as amended and this FRN.

(11) Part 340, Subparts A-C: Other than full-time career employment. These subparts are waived to the extent necessary to allow a Voluntary Expert Program.

(12) Part 351, Subparts B, D, E, F, and G: Waived to the extent necessary to allow the provisions of RIF.

(13) Part 359, section 359.705: Related to SES Pay. Waived to allow demonstration project rules governing pay retention to apply to a former SES or ST placed on an SSTM position or Level IV position.

(14) Part 410, section 410.308(a-e): Training to obtain an academic degree. Waived to the extent necessary to allow provisions described in this FRN.

(15) Part 410, section 410.309: Agreements to Continue in Service. Waived to the extent necessary to allow the SEC Director to determine continued service requirements related to continued service agreements, to waive repayment of such requirements and to the extent that the service obligation is to SEC. This also includes continued service agreements applicable to employees under the Student Educational Employment Program who have received tuition assistance.

(16) Part 430, Subpart B: Performance appraisal for GS, prevailing rate, and certain other employees. Waived to the extent necessary to be consistent with the demonstration project's pay-for-performance system.

(17) Part 432, section 432.102-432.106: Performance based reduction in grade and removal actions. Waived to the extent necessary to allow provisions described in the FRN.

(18) Part 511: Classification under the general schedule. Waived to the extent necessary to allow classification provisions outlined in this FR to include the list of issues that are neither appealable nor reviewable, the assignment of series under the project plan to appropriate career paths; and to allow appeals to be decided by the SEC Director.

(19) Part 531, Subparts B, D, and E: Determining the Rate of Basic Pay. Waived to the extent necessary to allow for pay setting and pay-for-performance under the provisions of the demonstration project. Within-Grade Increases and Quality Step Increases. Waived in its entirety.

(20) Part 531, Subpart F: Locality-based comparability payments. Waived to the extent necessary to allow (1) demonstration project employees, except employees in Level V of the E&S pay band, to be treated as GS employees; and (2) base rates of pay under the demonstration project to be treated as scheduled annual rates of pay.

(21) Part 536: Grade and pay retention. Waived to the extent necessary to Replace “grade” with “pay band;” Provide that pay retention provisions do not apply to conversions from GS special salary rates to demonstration project pay, as long as total pay is not reduced, and to reductions in pay due solely to the removal of a supervisory pay adjustment upon voluntarily leaving a supervisory position; Provide that pay retention provisions do not apply to movements to a lower pay band as a result of not receiving the general increase due to an annual performance rating of record of unacceptable; and

(22) Part 536, section 536.306(a): Limitation on retained rates. Waived to the extent necessary (1) to allow SSTMs to receive pay retention as described in 79 FR 43727 as amended. (2) where the salary and grade equivalency will be maintained by employees converting from another pay plan into STRL Demo who exceed the top of the STRL Demo pay band salary.

(23) Part 537: Repayment of Student Loans. Waived to the extent necessary to define agency as STRL and to allow provisions of the student loan repayment authority as described in this FRN.

(24) Part 550, section 550.902: Definitions. Waived to the extent necessary to allow demonstration project employees to be treated as GS employees. This waiver does not apply to employees in Level V of the E&S pay band.

(25) Part 575, Subparts A-D: Recruitment incentives, relocation incentives, retention incentives, and supervisory differentials. Waived to the extent necessary to allow: (1) Employees and positions under the demonstration project covered by pay banding to be treated as described in this FRN, (2) To allow SSTMs to receive supervisory pay differentials as described in 73 FR 43727 as amended, and (3) To allow the Director to pay an offer up to 50 percent of base pay of either a base pay and/or a cash payment to retain quality employees; and to the extent necessary to allow SSTMs to receive supervisory pay differentials. Criteria for retention determination and preparing written service agreements will be as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 5754 and as waived herein.

(26) Part 591, Subpart B: Cost-of-Living Allowances and Post Differential-Non-Foreign Areas. Waived to the extent necessary to allow demonstration project employees covered by broad banding to be treated as employees under the GS.

(27) Part 752, section 752.101, 752.201, 752.301, and 752.401: Principal statutory requirements and coverage. Waived to the extent necessary to (1) Allow for up to a three-year probationary period and two-year probationary period for supervisory positions; (2) Permit termination during the extended probationary period without using adverse action procedures for those employees serving a probationary period under an initial appointment except for those with veterans' preference; (3) Allow for supervisory probationary periods and to permit reassignment during the supervisory probationary period without use of adverse action procedures; (4) Replace “grade” with “pay band;” (5) Provide that a reduction in pay band is not an adverse action if it results from the employee's rate of base pay being exceeded by the minimum rate of base pay for that pay band. Waived to the extent necessary to provide that adverse action provisions do not apply to (1) conversions from GS special salary rates to demonstration project pay, as long as total pay is not reduced, and (2) reductions in pay due to the removal of a supervisory or team leader pay adjustment/differential upon voluntary movement to a non-supervisory or non-team leader position or decreases in the amount of a supervisory or team leader pay adjustment based on the annual review.

(28) Part 1400, section 1400.202(a)(2): Waivers and Exceptions to Pre-appointment Investigative Requirements. (1) To the extent necessary, waive the pre-employment investigative requirements thereby enabling a final job offer and establishing an EOD prior to a favorable eligibility determination at the Top Secret/SCI level. (2) For positions designated as Top Secret/Special-Sensitive and Critical-Sensitive apply the same waiver requirements for pre-appointment investigations IAW 5 CFR 1400.202(a)(2)(ii) for Critical-Sensitive positions with the following changes:

(1) An emergency or a national interest necessitating a pre-employment investigation waiver would include an STRL's inability to meet mission requirements.

(2) An agency or agency head would be defined as an STRL to allow for the provisions regarding security eligibility as described in 85 FR 78829 as amended.

Each critical performance element is assigned a minimum percentage weight. The total weight of all elements in a performance plan is 100. IAW the assigned duties/responsibility objectives assigned to the employee and the mission and goals of the organization, the supervisor assigns a percentage of the total weight percentage of 100. All employees will be rated against the first four critical performance elements listed below. In addition, those employees whose duties require Team Lead responsibilities will also be rated on element five. All managers/supervisors will be rated on element six, in addition to the first four performance elements. The critical performance elements are as follows:

(1) Technical Competence —Minimum Weight: 15%. As defined in the employee's individual performance objectives:

(a) Exhibits and maintains knowledge, skills, abilities and initiative to produce quality work;

(b) Assignments are completed in a timely manner with an appropriate level of supervision;

(c) The quality and quantity of work meets expectations;

(d) Makes prompt, technically sound decisions and recommendations that get the desired results; and

(e) Where appropriate, seeks and accepts developmental and/or special assignments.

(2) Interpersonal Skills —Minimum Weight: 10%. As defined in the employee's individual performance objectives:

(a) Provides or exchanges oral/written ideas and information in a manner that is timely, accurate and easily understood;

(b) Listens effectively so that resultant actions show complete comprehension;

(c) Coordinates actions appropriately so that others are included in, and informed of, decisions and actions;

(d) Is an effective team player;

(e) Accepts personal responsibility for assigned tasks;

(f) Is considerate of differing viewpoints, exhibiting willingness to compromise on areas of difference;

(g) Exercises tact and diplomacy and maintains effective relationships both within and external to the organization; and

(h) Readily gives assistance and shows appropriate respect and courtesy.

(3) Management of Time and Resources —Minimum Weight: 15%. As defined in the employee's individual performance objectives:

(a) Meets schedules and deadlines;

(b) Arranges work schedules to effectively balance difficult and time-consuming high priority tasks with other lower priority and less time-consuming tasks;

(c) Generates and accepts new ideas and methods for increasing work efficiency; and

(d) Effectively utilizes and, where appropriate, properly controls available resources.

(4) Customer Satisfaction —Minimum Weight: 10%. As defined in the employee's individual performance objectives:

(a) Demonstrates care for customers through responsive, courteous, and reliable actions;

(b) Promotes relationships of trust and respect;

(c) Maintains solid working relationship with existing customers and where appropriate seeks out and develops new customers;

(d) Responds to taskings and develops practical solutions to satisfy those needs.

(e) Keeps customer informed; and

(f) Within the scope of job responsibility seeks out and develops new programs and/or reimbursable customer work.

(5) Team/Project Leadership —Minimum Weight: 15%. As defined in the employee's individual performance objectives:

(a) Ensures that the organization/project strategic plan, mission, vision, and values are communicated into the team workplans, products, and services;

(b) Provides advice on work methods practices and procedures;

(c) Assists members in identifying viable solutions to work issues;

(d) As appropriate, distributes and balances workload, checks on work in progress, and makes adjustments as needed;

(e) Reports to the supervisor on team and individual work accomplishments, problems and training needs; and

(f) Resolves simple, informal complaints, informs supervisor of performance management issues/problems. (Mandatory for Team Leads and optional for others, e.g. project leaders).

(6) Supervision and EEO —Minimum Weight: 25%. As defined in the employee's individual performance objectives:

(a) Plans, develops, communicates, and directs the implementation of strategic and operational goals and objectives of the organization;

(b) Allocates and monitors resources and equitably distributes work to subordinates. Initiates personnel actions to recruit, select, promote and/or reassign employees in a timely manner;

(c) Develops subordinates, through counseling and positive motivational techniques on job expectations, identification of training needs, and attainment of career goals;

(d) Recognizes corrective action to resolve inadequate performance or behavioral issues;

(e) Applies EEO and Merit Principles;

(f) Creates a positive, safe and challenging work environment; and

(g) Ensures appropriate internal controls to prevent fraud, waste or abuse and to safeguard assigned property and resources. (Mandatory for Managers/Supervisors).

This 36(b) 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 the attached Transmittal 26-67, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

(i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Singapore

(ii) Total Estimated Value:

Funding Source: National Funds

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

(iv) Military Department: Army (SN-B-VIJ; SN-B-VIO)

(v) Prior Related Cases, if any: SN-B-VDO; SN-B-VEN; SN-B-VEP; SN-B-VER; SN-B-VGA; SN-B-VET; SN-B-VFW; SN-B-VFM; SN-B-VFB; SN-B-VEW; SN-B-VGM; SN-B-VEQ; SN-B-VES; SN-B-VGX; SN-B-VHA; SN-B-VHE; SN-B-VHU; SN-B-VHZ; SN-B-VIC; SN-B-VGR

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

(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: June 15, 2026

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

The Government of Singapore has requested to buy eighteen (18) Common Fire Control System upgrade kits for the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System. The following non-major defense equipment items will also be included: support equipment; technical documentation; spare parts; training; U.S. Government and contractor technical support; engineering and logistics support services; field office support; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $73 million.

This proposed sale will enhance the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a strategic partner that is an important force for political stability and economic progress in Asia.

The proposed sale will improve Singapore's capability to meet current and future threats by enhancing and extending its Army's ability to conduct operations and enable effective training. Singapore will have no difficulty absorbing this training into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin, located in Dallas, TX. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.

Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Singapore.

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

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

1. The M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) is a C-130 transportable wheeled launcher mounted on a five-ton family of medium tactical vehicle truck chassis. HIMARS is the modern Army-fielded version of the Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) M270 launcher and can fire all the MLRS family of munitions (MFOM), including the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System and Army Tactical Missile System. The MFOM HIMARS can engage targets between 15 and 300 kilometers with global positioning system-aided precision accuracy.

2. The Common Fire Control System (CFCS) is the replacement for the Universal Fire Control System. CFCS addresses obsolescence issues and features the capability to fire MFOMs. The CFCS provides the command and control, man-machine, weapon and launcher interfaces, as well as the embedded training. The CFCS enables a launcher to operate with compatible fire direction systems, navigate to specified fire or reload points, compute the firing solutions, and orient the launcher loader module on the target to deliver the weapon accurately and effectively. The CFCS includes a built-in test and mass storage capability to store critical mission parameters, as well as system configuration and maintenance information. The CFCS provides position navigation and processing, necessary to direct and maintain control of the launcher system, allowing for accurate firing and loading of weapons.

3. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.

4. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that 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 Singapore can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This proposed 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 Singapore.

This 36(b) 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 the attached Transmittal 26-62, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

(i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Brazil

(ii) Total Estimated Value:

Funding Source: National Funds

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

(iv) Military Department: Army (BR-B-UAN)

(v) Prior Related Cases, if any: None

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

(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: June 11, 2026

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

The Government of Brazil has requested to buy one hundred (100) FIM-92K Stinger Block I missiles. The following non-major defense equipment items will also be included: gripstocks; engineering assistance; integration support services; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $330 million.

This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of an important regional partner that is a force for political stability and economic progress in South America.

The proposed sale will improve Brazil's capability to meet current and future threats by providing the FIM-92K Stinger Block I missiles and thereby enhancing its air defense capability. This will contribute to the goals of enhancing interoperability with the United States and other allies. Brazil will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed force.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The principal contractors will be RTX Corporation, located in Arlington, VA and Lockheed Martin, located in Syracuse, NY. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.

Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Brazil.

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

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

1. FIM-92K Stinger Block I is primarily in the area of design and production know-how and not end-items. This sensitive and critical technology is inherent in the hybrid microcircuit assemblies; micro-processors; magnetic and amorphous metals; purification; firmware; printed circuit boards; laser roll rate sensor; dual detector assembly; detector filters; optical coatings; ultraviolet sensors; compounding and handling of electronic, electro-optic, and optical materials; test equipment operating instructions; energetic materials fabrication and loading technology; and warhead components and seeker assembly.

2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.

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

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

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

This 36(b) 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 the attached Transmittal 26-37, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

(i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of New Zealand

(ii) Total Estimated Value:

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

(iv) Military Department: Navy (NZ-P-SAK)

(v) Prior Related Cases, if any: NZ-P-GES

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

(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: June 4, 2026

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

The Government of New Zealand has requested to buy five (5) MH-60R Multi-Mission Helicopters; seven (7) Link 16 Multifunctional Information Distribution Systems Joint Tactical Radio Systems (5 installed, 2 spares); fourteen (14) Embedded Global Positioning System/Precise Positioning Service/Inertial Navigation Systems with Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (10 installed, 4 spares); five (5) Airborne Low Frequency Sonar systems; two hundred twenty-five (225) Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) missiles; two hundred twenty-five (225) WGU-59A/B APKWS II guidance sections (single variant); sixty-five (65) AGM-114R Hellfire missiles; four (4) M36E8 Hellfire Captive Air Training Missiles; five (5) digital magnetic anomaly detection systems; and five (5) M240D 7.62mm machine guns. The following non-major defense equipment items will also be included: T700-GE-401D engines; M514 impulse cartridge/cartridge actuated devices; MJ20 cartridge actuated thruster/cartridge actuated devices; WB53 fire extinguisher cartridge/cartridge actuated devices; CCU-136A/A impulse cartridges; GAU-21 crew-served guns (including pintle and laser pointer); M299 guided missile launchers; LAU-61 digital rocket launchers; AN/ARC-210 RT-2036 radios with communications security; AN/AAR-47 missile warning systems; AN/APX-123 identification friend or foe (IFF) transponders; AN/ALE-47 dispenser, electronic countermeasures; advanced data transfer systems; AN/AAS-44C(V) multi-spectral targeting systems; KIV-78—Mode 4/5 IFF cryptographic applique; Joint Mission Planning Systems; AN/ARQ-59 Hawklink radio terminals; AN/SSQ-53 directional frequency analysis and recording sonobuoys; AN/SSQ-62 directional command activated sonobuoy system sonobuoys; AN/SSQ-36 bathythermograph sonobuoys; training simulators/operational machine interface assistants; aviation maintenance weapons loading trainer; tactical operational flight trainer; AN/ALQ-210 electronic support measures systems; APS-153(V) multi-mode radars; spare engine containers; spare and repair parts; support and test equipment; communications equipment; ferry support; publications and technical documentation; personnel training and training equipment; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; obsolescence engineering, integration, and test activities required to ensure readiness for the production of the New Zealand MH-60R helicopters; training equipment; studies and surveys; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $1.5 billion.

This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of a major ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Asia-Pacific region.

The proposed sale will improve New Zealand's capability to meet current and future warfare threats by providing greater security for its critical infrastructure. New Zealand will use the enhanced capability to strengthen its homeland defense. New Zealand will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin Rotary and Mission Systems, located in Owego, New York. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.

Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of one (1) U.S. Government representative and four (4) contractor representatives to New Zealand on a temporary basis in conjunction with program technical oversight and support requirements, including program and technical reviews.

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

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

1. The MH-60R Multi-Mission Helicopter focuses primarily on anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare missions. The MH-60R also performs search and rescue, naval gunfire support, surveillance, communications relay, logistics support, personnel transfer, and vertical replenishment missions. The MH-60R carries several sensors and data links to enhance its ability to work in a network centric battle group and as an extension of its home ship/main operating base.

2. The mission equipment subsystem consists of the following sensors and subsystems: an acoustics system capable of future dipping sonar and sonobuoy operations, multi-mode radar (MMR) with integral identification friend or foe (IFF) interrogator, radios with communications security, electronic support measures, integrated self-defense, and multi-spectral targeting system. The aircraft processes sensor data onboard and transmits data via common data link (also referred to as Hawklink). The aircraft is compatible with night vision. It can carry AGM-114A/B/K/N/R Hellfire missiles, as well as MK 46/54 torpedoes to engage surface and sub-surface targets.

a. The RT-2036(C) radios are capable of Line-Of-Sight (LOS) and beyond LOS communication and can transmit clear or secure voice using single channel ground and airborne radio system security features. ARC-210 Ultra High Frequency (UHF)/Very High Frequency radios contain embedded sensitive encryption algorithms and keying material.

b. The Embedded Global Positioning System/Precise Positioning Service/Inertial Navigation System is a sensor that combines positioning and inertial sensor inputs to provide accurate location information for navigation and targeting.

c. The Advanced Digital Antenna Production (ADAP) antenna electronics interfaces with the ADAP controlled reception pattern antennas to ensure availability of global positioning signals to the aircraft.

d. The IFF AN/APX-123 A(V) transponder is capable of both Mode 5 and Mode S secure modes and provides its own ship positional information.

e. The KIV-78 is Type 1 NSA-certified Communications Security (COMSEC) for IFF. The KIV-78 provides cryptographic and time-of-day services, concurrent Mode 4/5 operations as well as concurrent interrogator/transponder operations. The KIV-78 IFF system is deployed to identify cooperative, friendly systems.

f. The KY-100M provides for secure voice and data communications in tactical airborne and ground environments and is a self-contained terminal that includes COMSEC. The KY-100M is based on the KY-99A architecture with enhanced interface capability. It includes KY-99A's operational modes and KY-5’s operational modes.

g. Acoustics algorithms are used to process dipping sonar and sonobuoy data for target tracking and for the Acoustics Mission Planner, which is a tactical aid employed to optimize the deployment of sonobuoys and the dipping sonar.

h. AN/APS-153 MMR with an integrated IFF and Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar provides target surveillance and detection capability.

i. Digital Magnetic Anomaly Detection capability is being introduced into the MH-60R in response to a fleet need for a submarine detection capability, which will be effective in acoustically harsh environments.

j. Advanced Data Transfer System with Type 1 encryption for data at rest.

k. AN/ALQ-210 Electronic Support Measures system identifies the location of an emitter.

3. The MH-60R Multi-Mission Helicopter can carry airborne low frequency sonar, LAU-61 digital rocket launchers, advanced precision kill weapons system, GAU-21 crew served guns, and M240 crew served guns.

a. The WGU-59/B Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System-II (APKWS-II) All Up Round (AUR) (Rotary Wing) and WGU-59A/B APKWS-II AUR (Single Variant) is a design conversion of an unguided Hydra 2.75-inch rocket with a laser guidance kit to give it precision-kill capability. As a low-cost weapon, it is intended as an inexpensive means to destroy targets while limiting collateral damage in close combat. The APKWS consists of an APKWS-II guidance section (Single Variant Block Upgrade) developed by BAE Systems, Inc., a legacy 2.75-inch MK66 Mod 4 rocket motor, and the M151 or MK-152 high-explosive warhead.

b. The AGM-114 Hellfire missile is an antiarmor, laser guided, air-to-ground weapon that uses a shaped charge warhead to defeat hard point targets with minimal exposure of the launch helicopter to enemy fire. The Hellfire weapon system consists of an AGM-114 series missile(s) and M299 launcher. The missile consists of four major sections: seeker, guidance warhead, propulsion, and control. The M299 launcher can carry one to four missiles on each launcher. The length, weight, and physical characteristics of the Hellfire missile are the same as the base missile allowing full compatibility with launch platforms.

c. The M36E8 Hellfire Captive Air Training Missiles-114 training missile also has the same external shape and length as the tactical missile. Internally, it contains no explosives but has ballast to simulate the weight and center of gravity of the tactical missile. It is used for captive flight training and cannot be launched. The missile has an operational laser seeker that can search for and lock on laser energy. Training missiles are identified by blue colored bands around the warhead and propulsion sections. Training missiles are certified for captive flights.

4. The MH-60R is also equipped with the AN/USQ-190A Multifunctional Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS JTRS), which is a secure, jam-resistant communication and positioning system that employs a defined waveform in the 960-1215-megahertz UHF range for packet message communication and 16 kilobit digital voice and packet message communication. MIDS significantly increases force command and control effectiveness. The tactical digital information link-J series message standard is employed by the system as defined in NATO Standardization Agreement (STANAG) 5516 and U.S. Military Standard 6016. The embedded hardware features provide communications security. MIDS JTRS builds on the earlier MIDS-low volume terminal's capabilities with the addition of concurrent multi-netting (CMN) and concurrent contention receive (CCR) functions. CMN and CCR dramatically expand the number of platforms and network-enabled systems that can be reliably included in a Link 16 network. These enhancements allow a single MIDS JTRS terminal to simultaneously receive messages on up to four nets, compared with on a single net in terminals without CMN and CCR, within a single Link 16 time slot, allowing a user to “hear” messages from up to three additional sources at once.

5. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.

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

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

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

This 36(b) 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 the attached Transmittal 26-56 and Policy Justification.

(i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Kuwait

(ii) Total Estimated Value:

Funding Source: National Funds

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

(iv) Military Department: Navy (KU-P-GID)

(v) Prior Related Cases, if any: KU-P-SBF; KU-P-GHR

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

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: None

(viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: June 15, 2026

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

The Government of Kuwait has requested to buy aircraft maintenance support, spare parts, accessories, and unclassified technical and non-technical publications; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; five (5) years of KC-130J aircraft spare and repair parts; support equipment; logistics technical assistance; software support publications; technical documentation; repair and return; personnel training and training equipment; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $235.9 million.

This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a major non-NATO ally that has been an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.

The proposed sale will improve Kuwait's Air Force (KAF) capability to meet current and future threats by contributing to shared security objectives, promote regional stability, and build interoperability with the United States. The KAF utilizes these aircraft to deter threats and protect national resources. This sale will support ongoing sustainment efforts, maintenance, repair, and provide the U.S. Navy program office (NAVAIR PMA 207) with the flexibility to perform the necessary sustainment actions based on KAF priorities. Kuwait will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The principal contractor will be V2X, located in Madison, MS; Aviation Training Consulting located in Atlus, OK; CAE USA located in Tampa, FL; Dowty located in Evendale, OH; and Rolls Royce located in Indianapolis, IN. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.

Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Kuwait.

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

This 36(b) 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 the attached Transmittal 26-0X.

(i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Poland

(ii) Sec. 36(b)(1), AECA Transmittal No.: 23-64

Date: September 11, 2023

Implementing Agency: Army

Funding Source: National Funds

(iii) Description: On September 11, 2023, Congress was notified by congressional certification transmittal number 23-64 of the possible sale, under Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, of ninety-three (93) Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System (IBCS) Engagement Operation Centers (EOCs); and one hundred seventy-five (175) IBCS Integrated Fire Control Network (IFCN) relays. Also included were network encryptors; IBCS software development and component integration; U.S. Government and contractor technical support; System Integration Lab (SIL) infrastructure; SIL test tools and equipment; U.S. Government and contractor technical support for SIL; flight test infrastructure and equipment; flight test targets; flight test range costs and fees; U.S. Government and Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) flight test services and support; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost was $4 billion. Major defense equipment (MDE) constituted $1.5 billion of this total.

This transmittal notifies the inclusion of the following MDE items: six (6) IAMD IBCS EOCs; and twelve (12) IBCS IFCN relays. The following non-MDE items will also be included: network encryptors; IBCS software development and component integration; U.S. Government and contractor technical support; Systems Integration Lab (SIL) infrastructure; SIL test tools and equipment; U.S. Government and contractor technical support for SIL; flight test infrastructure and equipment; flight test targets; flight test range costs and fees; and U.S. Government and OEM flight test services and support. The estimated total value of the new items is $100 million. The estimated MDE value will increase by $80 million to a revised $1.58 billion. The estimated non-MDE value will increase by $20 million to a revised $2.52 billion. The estimated total case value will increase by $100 million to a revised $4.1 billion. MDE constitutes $1.58 billion of this total.

(iv) Significance: This notification accounts for requested additional MDE and non-MDE items not included in the original notification. The inclusion of this MDE represents an increase in capability over what was previously notified. The proposed sale will improve Poland's capability to meet current and future threats by providing a credible force that can deter adversaries and facilitate its participation in NATO operations. Poland will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.

(v) Justification: This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a NATO Ally that is an important force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.

(vi) Sensitivity of Technology:

The Sensitivity of Technology Statement contained in the original notification applies to items reported here.

The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.

(vii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: June 23, 2025

This 36(b) 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 the attached Transmittal 26-58, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

(i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Austria

(ii) Total Estimated Value:

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

(iv) Military Department: Army (AU-B-VCV)

(v) Prior Related Cases, if any: AU-B-VCS

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

(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: June 17, 2026

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

The Government of Austria has requested to buy twelve (12) UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters consisting of (26) T700-GE-701D engines; five (5) AN/AAR-57 Common Missile Warning Systems; five (5) Common Infrared Countermeasure Systems; five (5) AN/APR-39E(V)2 Radar Warning Receiver; thirty (30) EAGLE-M+429; and thirty (30) AN/ARC-231A RT-1987 VHF/UHF/LOS SATCOM radios. The following non-MDE items will also be included: AN/ARC-201D RT-1478D; AVR-2B laser detecting sets; APX-128 Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) transponder; AN/PYQ-10 simple key loader; KIV-79 common IFF applique crypto computers; AN/ARN-147(V) very high frequency omni-directional range/instrument landing system receiver radio; AN/ARN-149(V) low frequency/automatic direction finder radio receiver; AN/ARN-153 tactical air navigation system receiver transmitter; AN/APN-209 radar altimeter; EBC-406HM emergency locator transmitter; improved heads up display (IHUD); signal data converters for IHUD; color weather radars; MX-10D E.O./IR with laser designator; engine inlet barrier filters; ballistic armor protection systems; internal auxiliary fuel tank systems; fast rope insertion extraction system; external rescue hoist; rescue hoist equipment sets; dual patient litter system sets; Martin-Baker palletized crew chief/gunner seats with crashworthy floor structural modifications; external stores support system; degraded visual environment system; LINK-16 (small tactical terminal KOR-24A); traffic alert collision avoidance system; cargo hook scale; sling load observation capability; direction finder DF-935; environmental control system; snow skis provisions; Bambi bucket provisions; helicopter terrain awareness system; CONRAD troop radio capability; TETRA BOS radio capability; very important person kit; 28 VDC/10A utility power socket (cabin); universal serial bus charging outlet; crashworthy extended range fuel systems tanks; instrument panel; cockpit multi-function display; cartridge, aircraft fire extinguisher; cartridge, impulse; thruster control unit 3/A; cartridge, aircraft; Black Hawk aircrew trainer; M-134 mini-guns and spares; training devices; helmets; transportation; organizational equipment; spare and repair parts; support equipment; tools and test equipment; technical data and publications; personnel training and training equipment; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated total cost is $1.50 billion.

This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of a partner that is a force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.

The proposed sale will improve Austria's capability to deter current and future threats and support coalition operations and the United States' and Austria's goal of greater military interoperability. Austria will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The principal contractor will be Sikorsky, a Lockheed Martin Company, located in Jupiter, FL. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.

Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of approximately fifteen U.S. Government and/or fifteen contractor representatives to travel to Austria 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 UH-60M aircraft is a medium-lift four-bladed helicopter with two (2) T-701D engines. The aircraft has four (4) multifunction displays (MFDs), which provide access to aircraft system, flight, mission, and communication management systems. The instrumentation panel includes four (4) MFDs, two (2) pilot and copilot flight director panels, and two (2) data concentrator units (DCUs). The navigation system will have Embedded GPS/INS (EGIs), and two (2) advanced flight control computer systems, which provide four-axis aircraft control.

a. The AN/ARC-201D very high frequency-frequency modulation Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS) airborne radio is a reliable, field-proven voice and data communication system used with the UH-60.

b. The AN/ARC-231A is a software-definable radio for military aircraft that provides two-way, multi-mode voice and data communications over a 30 Hz to 512 MHz frequency range. No designated exportable/non-COMSEC capable version planned. Support both line-of-sight ultra-high frequency and very high frequency bands with AM, FM and SATCOM capabilities includes embedded frequency agile modes, Electronic Counter-Countermeasures anti-jam waveforms including HAVE QUICK and SINCGARS, Demand Assigned Multiple Access, Integrated Waveform. It provides simultaneous, real-time participation in tactical voice and data communications networks. The RT-1987 will provide NSA TSVCIS 3.1.1crypto modernization compliance. Operator selectable Air Traffic Control channel spacing of 5, 8.33, 12.5, and 25kHz steps, and other data link and secure communications features, providing battlefield interoperability.

c. The AN/APX-128, Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Transponder, is a space diversity transponder and is installed on various military platforms. When installed in conjunction with platform antennas and the Remote-Control Unit (or other appropriate control unit), the transponder provides identification, altitude and surveillance reporting in response to interrogations from airborne, ground-based and/or surface interrogators. The transponder will be classified as SECRET if MODE IV, MODE 5, or MODE S fill is installed in the equipment with a crypto device. This item contains sensitive technology.

d. The AN/PYQ-10 simple key loader (SKL) is a ruggedized, portable, hand-held fill device, for securely receiving, storing, and transferring data between compatible cryptographic and communications equipment. The AN/PYQ-10 SKL will contain the KOV-21 COMSEC card, which is a Controlled Cryptographic Item. Cryptographic functions are performed by an embedded KOV-21 card developed by the National Security Agency (NSA).

e. The KIV-79 Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Crypto Appliqué provides cryptographic and time-of-day services for a Combined Interrogator/Transponder or individual interrogator or transponder Mark XIIA (Mode 4 and Mode 5) IFF system deployed to identify cooperative, friendly systems. The KIV-79 contains embedded security and is classified up to Secret when keys are loaded.

f. The AN/AVR-2B Laser Warning Receiver detects laser rangefinders, target designators and beam rider laser-aided systems targeting an aircraft or vehicle. The AVR-2B is a detection component of the suite of countermeasures designed to increase survivability of current generation combat aircraft and specialized special operations aircraft against the threat posed by laser designated or guided weapons. This item contains sensitive technology.

g. The AAR-57 Common Missile Warning System is an integrated infrared countermeasures suite utilizing ultraviolet sensors to display accurate threat location and dispense decoys/countermeasures either automatically or under pilot/crew control to defeat incoming missile threats.

h. The EAGLE M+429, contains sensitive technology that provides GPS hardening when loaded with COMSEC keys.

i. The Common Infrared Countermeasure (CIRCM) System is the next-generation lightweight, laser-based, infrared countermeasure system for rotary-wing, tilt-rotor, and small fixed-wing aircraft across the DoD. CIRCM provides near spherical coverage of the host platform to defeat Infrared-seeking threat missiles. CIRCM receives an angular hand-off from the Missile Warning System, employs a pointing and tracking system that acquires and tracks the incoming missile. CIRCM jams the missile by using modulated laser energy, thus degrading the tracking capability of the missile and causing it to miss the aircraft.

j. The AN/APR-39E(V)2 Radar Warning Receiver is a radar threat detection system that passively detects, categorizes, and prioritizes radio frequency (RF) threats to aircraft, and then provides an audio/visual cue to aircrew. AN/APR-39E(V)2 provides a fully digital capability to enhance threat discrimination in the millimeter wave (mmW) band and increased overall system performance against frequency-agile RF and active electronically scanned array threat radars.

k. The Link 16 data link is a military tactical data link network. Link 16 provides aircrews with enhanced situational awareness and the ability to exchange target information with Command and Control (C2) assets via Tactical Digital Information Link-Joint. The Link 16 can provide a range of combat information in near-real time to U.S. and allies' combat aircraft and C2 centers. The UH-60M uses the Harris Small Tactical Terminal (STT) KOR-24A to provide Airborne, Maritime, Fixed Station Small Airborne Link 16 Terminal capability. STT is the latest generation of small, two-channel, Link 16 and VHF/UHF radio terminals. While in flight, the STT provides simultaneous communication, voice or data, on two key waveforms.

l. The KOR-24A Lightweight Airborne Recovery System with Link 16 capability provides enhanced situational awareness and personnel recovery support through participation in secure tactical data link networks. The system enables the transmission and reception of tactical data via Link 16 in support of joint and coalition operations. The system incorporates Communications Security (COMSEC) and Transmission Security capabilities, enabling encrypted and secure data exchange using U.S. Government-approved cryptographic methods. Secure operation requires the use of classified keying material and network configuration parameters loaded via approved key loading devices ( e.g., AN/PYQ-10 Simple Key Loader). The case includes associated COMSEC equipment, including fill devices, cables, and ancillary components required to support secure operations. All COMSEC equipment, keying material, and network participation will be provided, controlled, and managed in accordance with U.S. Government security and releasability policy.

2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.

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

4. A determination has been made that Austria can provide substantially the same degree of protection of this technology as the U.S. Government. This proposed sale is necessary in furtherance of U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

5. All defense articles, technical data, and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of Austria.

This 36(b) 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 the attached Transmittal 26-57, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

(i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Australia

(ii) Total Estimated Value:

(iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase: Foreign Military Sales case AT-P-GTM was below congressional notification threshold at $18 million ($0 in major defense equipment (MDE)) and included F/A-18F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler aircraft aircrew and maintenance training; protective personnel equipment; U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. In 2015, the case was amended and added $49 million for a total of $67 million ($0 in MDE) and included F/A-18F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler aircraft aircrew and maintenance training; protective personnel equipment; U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. This amendment caused the case to exceed the congressional notification threshold, and it should have been notified to Congress at that time, but the technical error was not discovered until the partner requested an amendment in 2026. In 2018, the case was amended and added $75 million for a total of $142 million ($0 in MDE) and included F/A-18F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler aircraft classified and unclassified aircrew and maintenance training; protective personnel equipment; U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. In 2022, the case was amended and the value decreased by $2 million for a total of $140 million ($0 in MDE) due to limited pilot attendance and included delivery of F/A-18F and EA-18G operational conversion; and HAVOC and TOPGUN training to the Royal Australian Air Force aircrew. At this time, the Government of Australia has requested that the case be amended to include the following non-MDE items: F/A-18F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler aircraft classified and unclassified aircrew and maintenance training; protective personnel equipment; U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics support services; classified and unclassified technical and non-technical manuals, books, publications, and training documentation; and other related elements of logistics and program support. This amendment will be adding $110 million ($0 in MDE). This adjustment brings the estimated total program cost to $250 million. These case amendments exceed the notification threshold, and thus notification of the entire program is required. The above notification requirements are combined as follows:

(iv) Military Department: Navy (AT-P-GTM)

(v) Prior Related Cases, if any: Navy (AT-P-SAF; AT-P-GQY; AT-P-LEN; AT-P-SCI; AT-P-GQF; AT-P-FBS)

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

(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: June 25, 2026

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

The Government of Australia has requested to buy the following additional non-major defense equipment (MDE) items: F/A-18F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler aircraft classified and unclassified aircrew and maintenance training; protective personnel equipment; U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics support services; classified and unclassified technical and non-technical manuals, books, publications, and training documentation; and other related elements of logistics and program support that will be added to the previously implemented cases. The original Foreign Military Sales case, valued at $18 million ($0 in MDE), included F/A-18F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler aircraft aircrew and maintenance training; protective personnel equipment; U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. In 2015, the case was amended and added $49 million for a total of $67 million ($0 in MDE) and included F/A-18F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler aircraft aircrew and maintenance training; protective personnel equipment; U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. This amendment caused the case to exceed the congressional notification threshold, and it should have been notified to Congress at that time, but the technical error was not discovered until the partner requested an amendment in 2026. In 2018, the case was amended and added $75 million for a total of $142 million ($0 in MDE) and included F/A-18F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler aircraft classified and unclassified aircrew and maintenance training; protective personnel equipment; U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. In 2022, the case was amended and the case value decreased to $2 million for a total of $140 million ($0 in MDE) due to limited pilot attendance and included delivery of F/A-18F and EA-18G operational conversion; and HAVOC and TOPGUN training to the Royal Australian Air Force aircrew. This notification is for a combined total of the following non-MDE items: F/A-18F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler aircraft classified and unclassified aircrew and maintenance training; protective personnel equipment; U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics support services; classified and unclassified technical and non-technical manuals, books, publications, and training documentation; and other related elements of logistics and program support. This amendment will be adding $110 million ($0 in MDE). This adjustment brings the estimated total program cost to $250 million.

This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States. Australia is one of our most important allies in the Western Pacific. The strategic location of this political and economic power contributes significantly to ensuring peace and economic stability in the Western Pacific. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist our ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability.

The proposed sale will enhance Australia's capability to meet current and future threats and increase its interoperability with the U.S. and its allies through comprehensive training. Australia will have no difficulty absorbing this training into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

There is no principal contractor associated with this potential sale. Training will be provided by U.S. Government or contract vendors based upon requirements as they are determined. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.

Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Australia.

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

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

1. The F/A-18F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler aircraft aircrew training provides squadron level proficiency training, aircrew courseware, and follow-on courses of instruction for the F/A-18F and EA-18G aircraft. The F/A-18F and EA-18G aircraft system training includes the provision of publications, other technical documentation, flight manuals, technical manuals, and technical data and updates for improved operations and maintenance.

2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.

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

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

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

This 36(b) 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 the attached Transmittal 26-0U.

(i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Norway

(ii) Sec. 36(b)(1), AECA Transmittal No.: 23-34

Date: April 26, 2023

Implementing Agency: Air Force

(iii) Description: On April 26, 2023, Congress was notified by congressional certification transmittal number 23-34 of the possible sale, under Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act of continued sustainment and associated services for four (4) C-130J aircraft beyond Block 6 through 2028. Included were Joint Mission Planning Systems; aircraft components, spare parts, consumables, and accessories; repair and return support; aircraft support and support equipment; unclassified publications and technical documentation; software delivery and support; unclassified Computer Program Identification Number systems; telecommunications support; minor modifications, maintenance, and maintenance support; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of program and logistical support. The estimated total value was $166 million. There was no major defense equipment (MDE) associated with this sale.

This transmittal notifies the inclusion of the following non-MDE items: avionics software support; maps, charts, and software; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total value of the new items is $344 million. The estimated non-MDE value will increase by $344 million to a revised $510 million. The estimated total case value will increase by $344 million to a revised $510 million. There is no MDE associated with this sale.

(iv) Significance: This notification accounts for requested additional non-MDE items not included in the original notification. The inclusion of this non-MDE represents an increase in capability over what was previously notified. The proposed articles and services will support Norway's capability to meet current and future threats by increasing the reliability of its C-130J fleet, while expanding its national defense capabilities and supporting the common defense of NATO.

(v) Justification: This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a NATO Ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.

(vi) Sensitivity of Technology:

The Sensitivity of Technology Statement contained in the original notification applies to additional items reported here.

The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.

(vii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: June 17, 2026

The Department 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: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2027 Amendment 1.

OMB Control Number: 1850-0928.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved ICR.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 18,076.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 10,892.

Abstract: The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), is a federally authorized survey of student achievement at grades 4, 8, and 12 in various subject areas, such as mathematics, reading, writing, science, U.S. history, and civics. The National Assessment of Educational Progress Authorization Act (Pub. L. 107-279 Title III, section 303) requires the assessment to collect data on specified student groups and characteristics, including information organized by race/ethnicity, sex, socio-economic status, disability, and limited English proficiency. It requires fair and accurate presentation of achievement data and permits the collection of background, noncognitive, or descriptive information that is related to academic achievement and aids in fair reporting of results. The intent of the law is to provide representative sample data on student achievement for the nation, the states, and subpopulations of students and to monitor progress over time. The nature of NAEP is that burden alternates from a relatively low burden in national-level administration years to a substantial burden increase in state-level administration years when the sample has to allow for estimates for individual states and some of the large urban districts.

NAEP 2027 will include the grade 8 Science Pilot assessment.

This Amendment is a revision to the NAEP 2027 Clearance package (OMB#1850-0928 v.39). Since the 30-day Clearance Package, there are minor changes to burden hours and costs to the Federal Government. Minor shifts in schools expected to participate in School Device Model versus NAEP Device Model, as well as percentages of schools who will need an additional staff member to support the assessment, resulted in an increase in burden hours from the initial Clearance package (10,790 hours) compared to this Amendment (10,892 hours). In addition, the costs to the Federal Government have increased by $1,889,007 from the initial Clearance package. Since the OMB approval of the initial Clearance Package, the Confidentiality Assurances are unchanged.

This Amendment includes updates to: Parts A and B including changes to burden hours and costs, committee members and their affiliations in Appendix A, communication materials in Appendix D (see headers notated with “NEW”), the school coordinator preassessment and assessment day feedback forms in Appendix E, Assessment Management System (AMS) screens in Appendix I (see headers notated with “NEW”), final survey questionnaire items (SQs) in J-1 (student), J-2 (teacher), J-3 (school administrator), the 2027 sampling memo in Appendix C. Additionally, NAEP changed the TUDA acronym from “Trends in Urban Districts Assessment (TUDA)” to “Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA),” and references throughout package documents reflect this change. This package is the final submission for the 2027 NAEP assessment.

The following table and pages below provide a summary of the changes that are included in this submission.

1. Part A:

a. Burden and Costs to the Federal Government updates.

b. Editorial updates ( e.g., references to the Amendment, schedule, or Appendices).

2. Part B: Editorial updates ( e.g., references to the Amendment, schedule, or Appendices).

3. Appendix A: Minor updates to committee members and/or their affiliations.

4. Appendix C: The 2027 sampling memo.

5. Appendix D:

a. All communication and recruitment materials; See documents marked “NEW”.

b. Of note, the term “Trends in Urban Districts Assessment (TUDA)” is now used in communications rather than “Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA).” The previously approved versions of the Facts for Districts and Facts for Principals documents have this updated naming convention reflected in this appendix.

6. Appendix E: The school coordinator preassessment and assessment day feedback forms.

7. Appendix I: Assessment Management System content and screens; See documents marked “NEW”.

8. Appendix J-1: 2027 Student Questionnaires.

9. Appendix J-2: 2027 Teacher Questionnaires.

10. Appendix J-3: 2027 School Questionnaires.

Proposal to renew the following currently approved collection of information:

1. Title: Summary of Deposits.

OMB Number: 3064-0061.

Affected Public: FDIC-insured depository institutions.

Burden Estimate:

A copy of the agency form and confirmation PDF are attached. A confirmation PDF will be sent once the form is submitted online.

FMCS published a Federal Register notice, with a 60-day public comment period soliciting comments, of the following collection of information on May 15, 2026, 91 FR 27942. FMCS received no comments.

FMCS solicits comments to:

i. Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.

ii. Enhance the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information.

iii. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

iv. Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic collection technologies or other forms of information technology.

Agency: Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.

Form Number: Not yet assigned.

Title: Service Request Form.

Type of Request: New Collection.

Affected Entities: Private sector: Businesses or other for-profits and (not-for profit institutions) and State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

Frequency: On occasion.

Burden: FMCS anticipates receiving approximately two responses per decade from an estimated 2,400 respondents. Each respondent is expected to spend about five minutes completing the required form.

Information Collection Requirement: 29 U.S.C. 172, et seq. authorizes and requires FMCS to perform services dependent upon the information collected in these forms.

Purpose and Description of Data Collection: The information collected will be used by Field Operations to deliver FMCS services to requesters. The Service Request Form is not a statistical survey that will yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study.

The official records are electronic records.

Title 5, U.S. Code, 4314(c)(4), requires that the appointment of Performance Review Board members be published in the Federal Register before Board service commences. The following persons will serve on the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board's Performance Review Board which will review initial summary ratings to ensure the ratings are consistent with established performance requirements, reflect meaningful distinctions among senior executives based on their relative performance and organizational results and provide recommendations for ratings, awards, and pay adjustments in a fair and equitable manner: Brittany Borg, Jason Boyd, Jim Courtney, Dharmesh Vashee.

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(1).

Description: Program monitoring is a post-award process through which ACF assesses a recipient's programmatic performance and business management performance. Monitoring activities are necessary to ensure timely action by ACF to support grantees and protect federal interests. Program offices use information collected under this generic clearance to monitor funding recipient activities and to provide support or take appropriate action, as needed. The information gathered is or will be used primarily for internal purposes, but aggregate data may be included in public materials such as reports to Congress or program office documents. Following standard OMB requirements, ACF will submit a request for each individual data collection activity under this generic clearance. Each request will include the individual form(s) or instrument(s), a justification specific to the individual information collection, and any supplementary documents.

Respondents: ACF funding recipients.

The following burden estimates include burden associated with currently approved individual requests that ACF intends to include with this extension request and an estimate of burden for potential new requests under this generic. Note that new individual requests may be approved between this publication and submission of the full extension request.

All currently approved individual requests are available here: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202604-0970-004.

Based on the past 3 years and with a goal to reduce burden moving forward the estimated annual burden for potential new requests is 31 percent less than the currently approved umbrella generic.

Authority: ACF monitors award performance through a combination of financial and programmatic requirements, including: 31 U.S.C. 503; 31 U.S.C. 6101-6106; 31 U.S.C. 6307; 31 U.S.C. 7501-7507.

This generic is related to and will be of use to all ACF program offices that award federal funds ( e.g., grants, cooperative agreements) and monitor activities related to funding. Each individual program use will be related to a specific statutory authority.

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

This information collection helps support implementation of statutory provisions that govern premarket clearance of devices. Section 510(k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and implementing regulations in part 807, subpart E (21 CFR part 807, subpart E), establish premarket notification procedures. Persons who intend to market a medical device, for which a premarket approval application (PMA) is not required, must submit a premarket notification to FDA, unless the device is exempt from 510(k) requirements and does not exceed the limitations of exemptions of the device classification regulations, at least 90 days before proposing to begin the introduction, or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce, for commercial distribution of a device intended for human use. Based on the information provided in the notification, FDA must determine whether the new device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed device. If a device is determined to be not substantially equivalent to a legally marketed device, it must have an approved PMA, product development protocol, humanitarian device exemption (HDE), request for an evaluation of automatic class III designation (De Novo request), or be reclassified into class I or class II before being marketed. The information collection also helps support section 510(l) of the FD&C Act, which provides for exemption from premarket notification.

The following instruments are included in the information collection:

We are revising the information collection to include Form FDA 3674, “Certification of Compliance, Under 42 U.S.C., 282(j)(5)(B), with Requirements of ClinicalTrials.gov. ” Under applicable authorities, applications under sections 505, 515, or 520(m) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360e, or 360j(m)), or under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), or submission of a report under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act, must be accompanied by a certification. Where available, such certification must include the appropriate National Clinical Trial numbers.

The information collection also includes an “Acceptance Checklist.” As discussed in the guidance document “Refuse to Accept Policy for 510(k)s” (April 2022), available at https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/refuse-accept-policy-510ks, we believe the checklist can be a helpful resource for 510(k) submitters and may simplify preparation of the 510(k). Similarly, the guidance document “Recognition and Withdrawal of Voluntary Consensus Standards” (September 2020), available at https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/recognition-and-withdrawal-voluntary-consensus-standards, communicates procedures followed by the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) when requests for recognition of a voluntary consensus standard for medical products are received. The guidance document outlines principles for recognizing a standard wholly, partly, or not at all, as well as reasons and rationales for withdrawing a standard. Section 514 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360d) allows FDA to recognize consensus standards developed by international and national organizations for use in satisfying portions of device premarket review submissions, including premarket notifications or other requirements. We publish and update the list of recognized standards regularly at https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Standards/ucm123792.htm. As instructed in the guidance document, any interested party may submit a request for recognition of a standard by mail directed to the CDRH Standards Program ( i.e., paper copy) or electronically via email.

For efficiency of Agency operations, we are also revising the information to include activities associated with section 520(b) of the FD&C Act, governing custom devices. Regulations in 21 CFR 812.3 define a custom device and implementing regulations in 21 CFR 807.85 provide for exemption from premarket notification. Section 520(b) of the FD&C Act also provides for the issuance of guidance. The guidance document entitled, “Custom Device Exemption” (September 2014), and available for download at https://www.fda.gov/media/89897/download, explains how FDA interprets provisions in section 520(b)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act, describes what information should be submitted in a Custom Device Annual Report (“annual report”), and provides recommendations on how to submit an annual report for devices distributed under the custom device exemption.

Finally, we discuss the guidance document entitled, “Transition Plan for Medical Devices That Fall Within Enforcement Policies Issued During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Public Health Emergency,” announced in the Federal Register of March 27, 2023 (88 FR 18153), which describes a phased approach intended to help avoid disruption in device supply and help facilitate compliance with applicable legal requirements. The recommendations discussed in the guidance document result in the one-time collection of information intended to ensure an orderly and transparent transition from temporary policies established during the COVID-19 public health emergency to normal operations. Because the information collection recommendations apply to specific medical devices already in distribution, we believe the information discussed is appropriately characterized as nonstandardized followup designed to clarify responses to approved collections of information ( i.e., plans for compliance with applicable requirements unique to that distributed device). We therefore believe the activity constitutes the collection of non-identical and/or followup information, as defined under 5 CFR 1320.3. At the same time, we expect some degree of fluctuation in future submissions under part 807, subpart E, as a result of implementation of the medical device transition plan.

In the Federal Register of March 19, 2026 (91 FR 13310), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

The information collection reflects program changes and adjustments. We have also made nominal adjustments on individual provisions to reflect expected fluctuations in submissions. Cumulatively these actions result in an overall increase of 145,804 hours and a corresponding increase of 3,625 responses annually. The increase was attributed to the 510(k) submissions increase from 100 to 3,800.

Section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(j)) allows the submission of an ANDA to market a generic version of a previously approved drug product. To obtain approval, the ANDA applicant must show, among other things, that the generic drug product: (1) has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, route of administration, strength, conditions of use, and (with certain exceptions) labeling as the listed drug, which is a version of the drug that was previously approved, and (2) is bioequivalent to the listed drug. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).

Section 505(j)(7) of the FD&C Act requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).

A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.

RASUVO (methotrexate) solution, 27.5 mg/0.55 mL (27.5 mg/0.55 mL), is the subject of NDA 205776, held by Medexus Pharma, Inc., and initially approved on July 10, 2014. RASUVO is a folate analog metabolic inhibitor indicated for the management of patients with severe, active rheumatoid arthritis and polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis who are intolerant of or had an inadequate response to first-line therapy, and for symptomatic control of severe, recalcitrant, disabling psoriasis in adults who are not adequately responsive to other forms of therapy.

RASUVO (methotrexate) solution, 27.5 mg/0.55 mL (27.5 mg/0.55 mL), is currently listed in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book.

Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, P.C., submitted a citizen petition dated April 15, 2026 (Docket No. FDA-2026-P-4232), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether RASUVO (methotrexate) solution, 27.5 mg/0.55 mL (27.5 mg/0.55 mL), has been voluntarily withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness.

After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that RASUVO (methotrexate) solution, 27.5 mg/0.55 mL (27.5 mg/0.55 mL), was not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that RASUVO (methotrexate) solution, 27.5 mg/0.55 mL (27.5 mg/0.55 mL), was withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of RASUVO (methotrexate) solution, 27.5 mg/0.55 mL (27.5 mg/0.55 mL), from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have found no information that would indicate that this drug product was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.

Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list RASUVO (methotrexate) solution, 27.5 mg/0.55 mL (27.5 mg/0.55 mL), in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to RASUVO (methotrexate) Injection, 27.5 mg/0.55 mL (27.5 mg/0.55 mL), may be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.

When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the ICR title for reference.

Information Collection Request Title: Advanced Nursing Education (ANE) Program Specific Form OMB No. 0906-0089—Revision

Abstract: HRSA provides advanced nursing education grants to educational institutions to increase the supply, distribution, quality of, and access to advanced education nurses through the Advanced Nursing Education (ANE) Programs. The ANE Programs are authorized by Section 811 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 296j), as amended. This clearance request is for continued approval of the information collection OMB No. 0906-0089 with revisions.

The proposed revision to Table 2 of the ANE Program Specific Form is to remove the Part-Time column under the Nurse Midwife and Nurse Anesthetist specialty headers. This change reflects current program requirements, as these programs support only full-time trainees. This requirement applies to all trainees enrolled in either master's or doctoral programs. Because part-time enrollment is not an eligible training status under these programs, the Part-Time column is unnecessary and minimizes confusion for applicants.

Need and Proposed Use of the Information: Section 811 of the PHS Act provides the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the authority to award grants to and enter into contracts with eligible entities to meet the costs of: (1) projects that support the enhancement of advanced nursing education and practice; and (2) traineeships for individuals in advanced nursing education programs. Under this section, HRSA makes awards to entities who train and support nurses characterized as “advanced education nurses.” Section 805 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 296d) requires that in awarding such grants, a statutory funding preference is given to “applicants with projects that will substantially benefit rural or medically underserved populations or help meet public health nursing needs in state or local health departments.” For traineeship awards, PHS Act section 811(h)(2) requires special consideration be given to an eligible entity that agrees to expend the award to train advanced education nurses who will practice in designated Health Professional Shortage Areas.

The ANE Program Specific Form allows HRSA to effectively target funding and measure the impact of the ANE Programs in meeting the legislative intent and program goals of supporting the enhancement of advanced nursing education and creating opportunities for individuals in advanced nursing education programs to increase the number of advanced practice nurses, especially in rural and medically underserved areas. Additionally, collecting this data assists HRSA in carrying out the most impactful program and ensuring resources are used responsibly.

Likely Respondents: Likely respondents will be current ANE Programs awardees and new applicants to ANE Programs.

Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.

Total Estimated Annualized Burden Hours:

HRSA specifically requests comments on: (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

Executive Order 12862 directs Federal agencies to provide service to the public that matches or exceeds the best service available in the private sector. In order to work continuously to ensure that our programs are effective and meet our customers' needs, Department of Homeland Security (hereafter “the Agency”) seeks to obtain OMB approval of a generic clearance to collect qualitative feedback on our service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study.

This collection of information is necessary to enable the Agency to garner customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with our commitment to improving service delivery. The information collected from our customers and stakeholders will help ensure that users have an effective, efficient, and satisfying experience with the Agency's programs. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

Improving agency programs requires ongoing assessment of service delivery, by which we mean systematic review of the operation of a program compared to a set of explicit or implicit standards, as a means of contributing to the continuous improvement of the program. The Agency will collect, analyze, and interpret information gathered through this generic clearance to identify strengths and weaknesses of current services and make improvements in service delivery based on feedback. The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the Agency's services will be unavailable.

The Agency will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:

• Information gathered will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency (if released, procedures outlined in Question 16 wil be followed);

• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions;

• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study;

• The collections are voluntary.

• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government.

• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;

• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future; and

• With the exception of information needed to provide renumeration for participants of focus groups and cognitive laboratory studies, personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained.

If these conditions are not met, the Agency will submit an information collection request to OMB for approval through the normal PRA process.

To obtain approval for a collection that meets the conditions of this generic clearance, a standardized form will be submitted to OMB along with supporting documentation ( e.g., a copy of the comment card). The submission will have automatic approval, unless OMB identifies issues within 5 business days.

The types of collections that this generic clearance covers include, but are not limited to:

The Agency has established a manager/managing entity to serve for this generic clearance and will conduct an independent review of each information collection to ensure compliance with the terms of this clearance prior to submitting each collection to OMB.

If appropriate, agencies will collect information electronically and/or use online collaboration tools to reduce burden.

Small business or other small entities may be involved in these efforts but the Agency will minimize the burden on them of information collections approved under this clearance by sampling, asking for readily available information, and using short, easy-to-complete information collection instruments.

Without these types of feedback, the Agency will not have timely information to adjust its services to meet customer needs.

If a confidentiality pledge is deemed useful and feasible, the Agency will only include a pledge of confidentiality that is supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, and that does not unnecessarily impede sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use. If the agency includes a pledge of confidentiality, it will include a citation for the statute or regulation supporting the pledge.

There is no change in the information being collected.

The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments which:

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

2. 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 used;

3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

4. 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, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.

OMB Number: 1601-0014.

Frequency: On occasion.

Affected Public: Private sector and individual household members.

Number of Respondents: 184,902.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 1 hour.

Total Burden Hours: 300,000.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) reviews and investigates civil rights and civil liberties complaints filed by the public regarding U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policies and activities. Under 6 U.S.C. 345 and 42 U.S.C. 2000ee-1, CRCL reviews and assesses allegations involving a range of alleged civil rights and civil liberties abuses, such as:

• Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, sex, or disability;

• Violation of rights while in immigration detention or as subject of immigration enforcement;

• Discrimination or inappropriate questioning related to entry into the United States;

• Violation of due process rights, such as the right to timely notice of charges or access to lawyer;

• Violation of confidentiality provisions of the Violence Against Women Act;

• Physical abuse or any other type of abuse;

• Denial of meaningful access to DHS or DHS-supported programs, activities, or services due to limited English proficiency and

• Any other civil rights, civil liberties, or human rights violation related to a Department program or activity, including allegations of discrimination by an organization or program that receives financial assistance from DHS.

The information collected on this form will allow CRCL to review and investigate civil rights and civil liberties complaints filed by the public regarding DHS programs and activities. CRCL submits copies of all external allegations of civil rights and civil liberties violations within its jurisdiction that it receives to the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) for review because OIG has the right of first refusal to investigate any allegations. If the OIG declines to investigate the allegations, CRCL may investigate. CRCL coordinates with DHS Components and the OIG regarding matters that CRCL opens as complaint investigations as well as some it decides not to investigate. In general, CRCL shares the incoming information with the Components involved and coordinates with the Components throughout a CRCL investigation. CRCL typically has a designated liaison office or person for each component and directs requests to them, which they route or share according to their internal procedures and obligations to obtain and share information with CRCL pursuant to statute, delegation, and other Department policies and directives. CRCL staff receive privacy training and adhere to DHS required policies and procedures regarding the protection of PII. At the conclusion of its complaint investigations, CRCL issues recommendations to DHS Components to address issues of concern and to enhance the agency's civil rights and civil liberties protections. CRCL also engages with Components on the implementation of such recommendations. In addition, the information provided is entered into a CRCL complaint management system (CMS) and may be used by CRCL to track allegations and identify trends and systemic issues that are within CRCL's jurisdiction regardless of whether CRCL investigates an individual allegation. CRCL has used information from these database records to notify DHS Components of issue areas and locations that may warrant closer attention. Information must be submitted to CRCL via the web form https://www.dhs.gov/make-civil-rights-complaint and may be initiated by members of the public, federal agencies, or agency personnel, non-governmental organizations, media reports or other sources. The use of the complaint form is optional and all fields do not have to be completed to submit a complaint. Furthermore, the complaints may be submitted anonymously. The form in an electronic form and it is available online for submission at https://www.dhs.gov/ make-civil-rights-complaint. This information collection does not have an impact on small businesses or other small entities. If the information collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, CRCL may not be able to effectively fulfill its statutory obligation to the public to review and investigate allegations involving alleged civil rights and civil liberties concerns regarding DHS polices and activities. The assurance of confidentiality provided to the respondents for this information collection will be provided by: CRCL's statute under 6 U.S.C. 345, 42 U.S.C. 2000ee-1; the Privacy Impact Assessment for the CRCL Complaint Form and Privacy Waiver; and the Systems of Record Notice: Department of Homeland Security/ALL-029 Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Records System of Records. This submission is a reinstatement of a previously approved collection. Any changes reflected are updates made to incorporate 2026 data and information. No other program changes or adjustments have been made beyond these updates.

The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments which:

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

2. 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 used;

3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

4. 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, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Title: DHS Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Complaint and Privacy Waiver Form.

OMB Number: 1601-0035.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: Affected public.

Number of Respondents: 13,000.

Estimated Time per Respondent: .5 hrs (30 mins).

Total Burden Hours: 6,500 hrs (390,00 mins).

We invite the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies to comment on these applications. Before issuing any of the requested permits, we will take into consideration any information that we receive during the public comment period.

You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods in ADDRESSES . We will not consider comments sent by email or to an address not in ADDRESSES . We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see DATES ).

When submitting comments, please specify the name of the applicant and the permit number at the beginning of your comment. Provide sufficient information to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include. The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations.

You may view and comment on others' public comments at https://www.regulations.gov unless our allowing so would violate the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) or Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

If you submit a comment at https://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment, including any personal identifying information, will be posted on the website. If you submit a hard copy comment that includes personal identifying information, such as your address, phone number, or email address, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Moreover, all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.

To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), we invite public comments on permit applications before final action is taken. With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits certain activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is issued that allows such activities. Permits issued under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA allow otherwise prohibited activities for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species. Service regulations regarding prohibited activities with endangered species, captive-bred wildlife registrations, and permits for any activity otherwise prohibited by the ESA with respect to any endangered species are available in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations in part 17.

We invite comments on the following applications.

The applicant requests a permit to import four live, captive-born cheetahs ( Acinonyx jubatus ) from Canada for the purpose of enhancing the propagation or survival of the species. This notification is for a single import.

The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

The following applicants request permits to import sport-hunted trophies of male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus pygargus ) culled from a captive herd from the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancing the propagation or survival of the species.