14744 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2012 / Notices 

impact resulting from the specified 

activity that cannot be reasonably 

expected to, and is not reasonably likely 

to, adversely affect the species or stock 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival.’’ In making a 

negligible impact determination, NMFS 

considers a number of factors which 

include, but are not limited to, the 

number of anticipated injuries or 

mortalities (none of which would be 

authorized here), number, nature, 

intensity, and duration of Level B 

harassment, and the context in which 

takes occur. 

As described above, marine mammals 

would not be exposed to activities or 

sound levels which would result in 

injury (PTS), serious injury, or 

mortality. The proposed project area is 

not considered significant habitat for 

marine mammals. The closest 

significant pinniped haul out is 21 km 

away, which is well outside the project 

area’s largest harassment zone. Marine 

mammals approaching the action area 

would likely be traveling or 

opportunistically foraging. The amount 

of take NMFS proposes to authorize is 

considered small (less than three 

percent) relative to the estimated 

populations of 9,604 bottlenose 

dolphins, 89,054 harbor porpoises, and 

91,000 harbor seals. Marine mammals 

may be temporarily impacted by pile 

driving noise. However, marine 

mammals may avoid the area, thereby 

reducing exposure and impacts, and 

mitigation measures would minimize 

any impacts and further reduce the risk 

of injury or mortality prevent injury. 

Pile driving activities are expected to 

occur for about 15–24 days total. There 

is no anticipated effect on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival of affected 

marine mammals. Based on the 

application and subsequent analysis, the 

impact of the described pile driving 

operations may result in, at most, shortterm modification of behavior by small 

numbers of marine mammals within the 

action area. Marine mammals may avoid 

the area or temporarily alter their 

behavior at time of exposure. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

mitigation and monitoring measures, 

NMFS preliminarily determines that 

Fishermen’s proposed pile driving 

operations would result in the 

incidental take of small numbers of 

marine mammals, by Level B 

harassment only, and that the total 

taking would have a negligible impact 

on the affected species or stocks. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of marine mammals implicated by this 

action. Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Fishermen’s is not requesting, nor is 

NMFS proposing, take of ESA-listed 

species; therefore, ESA consultation is 

not necessary for issuance of the 

proposed IHA. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by 

the regulations published by the 

Council on Environmental Quality (40 

CFR parts 1500–1508), and NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6, NMFS is 

preparing an Environmental Assessment 

(EA) to consider the environmental 

impacts of issuance of a 1-year IHA. 

Upon completion, this EA will be 

available on the NMFS Web site listed 

in the beginning of this document (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Dated: March 7, 2012. 

Helen M. Golde, 

Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6058 Filed 3–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XA961 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Low-Energy 

Marine Geophysical Survey in the 

South-Eastern Pacific Ocean, May, 

2012 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed Incidental 

Harassment Authorization; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an 

application from the Scripps Institution 

of Oceanography (SIO) for an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take 

marine mammals, by harassment, 

incidental to conducting a low-energy 

marine geophysical (i.e., seismic) survey 

in the south-eastern Pacific Ocean, May, 

2012. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

requesting comments on its proposal to 

issue an IHA to SIO to incidentally 

harass, by Level B harassment only, 20 

species of marine mammals during the 

specified activity. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than April 12, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

application should be addressed to P. 

Michael Payne, Chief, Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The 

mailbox address for providing email 

comments is ITP.Goldstein@noaa.gov. 

NMFS is not responsible for email 

comments sent to addresses other than 

the one provided here. Comments sent 

via email, including all attachments, 

must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size. 

All comments received are a part of 

the public record and will generally be 

posted to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

permits/incidental.htm#applications 

without change. All Personal Identifying 

Information (for example, name, 

address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter may be publicly 

accessible. Do not submit confidential 

business information or otherwise 

sensitive or protected information. 

A copy of the application containing 

a list of the references used in this 

document may be obtained by writing to 

the above address, telephoning the 

contact listed here (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT) or visiting the 

internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications. 

The National Science Foundation 

(NSF) has prepared a draft ‘‘National 

Environmental Policy Act Analysis 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12114 of a 

Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V 

Melville in the South-Eastern Pacific 

Ocean May 2012 (EA).’’ The draft EA 

incorporates an ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis of a Marine Geophysical 

Survey by the R/V Melville in the SouthEastern Pacific Ocean off Chile, May 

2012,’’ prepared by LGL Ltd., 

Environmental Research Associates 

(LGL), on behalf of NSF and SIO, which 

is also available at the same internet 

address. Documents cited in this notice 

may be viewed, by appointment, during 

regular business hours, at the 

aforementioned address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Howard Goldstein or Jolie Harrison, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

301–427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 

U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)) directs the 

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to 

authorize, upon request, the incidental, 

but not intentional, taking of small 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2012 / Notices 14745 

numbers of marine mammals of a 

species or population stock, by United 

States citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region if 

certain findings are made and, if the 

taking is limited to harassment, a notice 

of a proposed authorization is provided 

to the public for review. 

Authorization for the incidental 

taking of small numbers of marine 

mammals 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 

subsistence uses (where relevant). The 

authorization must set forth the 

permissible methods of taking, other 

means of effecting the least practicable 

adverse impact on the species or stock 

and its habitat, and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings. NMFS 

has defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 

CFR 216.103 as ‘‘ * * * an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

established an expedited process by 

which citizens of the United States can 

apply for an authorization to 

incidentally take small numbers of 

marine mammals by harassment. 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

establishes a 45-day time limit for 

NMFS’s review of an application 

followed by a 30-day public notice and 

comment period on any proposed 

authorizations for the incidental 

harassment of small numbers of marine 

mammals. Within 45 days of the close 

of the public comment period, NMFS 

must either issue or deny the 

authorization. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: 

any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance 

which (i) has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 

[Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential 

to disturb a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild by causing 

disruption of behavioral patterns, including, 

but not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

[Level B harassment]. 

Summary of Request 

NMFS received an application on 

December 23, 2011, from SIO for the 

taking by harassment, of marine 

mammals, incidental to conducting a 

low-energy marine seismic survey in the 

south-eastern Pacific Ocean. SIO, a part 

of the University of California San 

Diego, with research funding from the 

NSF, plans to conduct a low-energy 

seismic survey in the South-Eastern 

Pacific Ocean off the coast of Chile 

during May, 2012, for approximately 

five to 11 days. The survey will use a 

pair of Generator Injector (GI) airguns 

each with a discharge volume of 45 

cubic inches (in3). SIO plans to conduct 

the proposed survey from 

approximately May 4 to 18, 2012. The 

proposed seismic survey will be 

conducted in the Exclusive Economic 

Zone (EEZ) of Chile. On behalf of SIO, 

the U.S. State Department will seek 

authorization from Chile for clearance to 

work in its EEZ. 

SIO plans to use one source vessel, 

the R/V Melville (Melville) and a seismic 

airgun array to collect seismic reflection 

and refraction profiles to monitor the 

post-seismic response of the outer 

acretionary prism, the area where 

sediments are accreted onto the nonsubducting tectonic plate at the 

convergent plate boundary off of the 

coast of Chile. In addition to the 

proposed operations of the seismic 

airgun array, SIO intends to operate a 

multibeam echosounder (MBES) and a 

sub-bottom profiler (SBP) continuously 

throughout the survey. 

Acoustic stimuli (i.e., increased 

underwater sound) generated during the 

operation of the seismic airgun array 

may have the potential to cause a shortterm behavioral disturbance for marine 

mammals in the survey area. This is the 

principal means of marine mammal 

taking associated with these activities 

and SIO has requested an authorization 

to take 20 species of marine mammals 

by Level B harassment. Take is not 

expected to result from the use of the 

MBES or SBP, for reasons discussed in 

this notice; nor is take expected to result 

from collision with the vessel because it 

is a single vessel moving at a relatively 

slow speed during seismic acquisition 

within the survey, for a relatively short 

period of time (approximately five to 11 

days). It is likely that any marine 

mammal would be able to avoid the 

vessel. 

Description of the Proposed Specified 

Activity 

SIO’s proposed seismic survey in the 

south-eastern Pacific Ocean will take 

place for approximately 5 to 11 days in 

May, 2012 (see Figure 1 of the IHA 

application). The proposed seismic 

survey will take place in water depths 

ranging from approximately 1,000 to 

5,300 meters (m) (3,280.8 to 17,388.5 

feet [ft]) and the program will consist of 

approximately 1,145 kilometers (km) 

(618.3 nautical miles [nmi]) of seismic 

survey tracklines (see Figure 1 of the 

IHA application). The survey will take 

place in the area approximately 34° to 

36° South, 72° to 74° West, off the coast 

of Chile. The project is scheduled to 

occur from approximately May 4 to 18, 

2012. Some minor deviation from these 

dates is possible, depending on logistics 

and weather. 

The survey will involve one source 

vessel, the Melville. For the seismic 

component of the research program, the 

Melville will deploy an array of two 

low-energy Sercel Generator Injector 

(GI) airguns as an energy source (each 

with a discharge volume of 45 in3) at a 

tow depth of 2 m (6.6 ft). The acoustic 

receiving system will consist of a 200 to 

800 m (656.2 to 2,624.7 ft) hydrophone 

streamer with up to 48 channels with 

12.5 m (41 ft) channel spacing, and 

broadband Ocean Bottom Seismometers 

(OBSs). The energy to the airguns is 

compressed air supplied by compressors 

on board the source vessel. As the 

airgun is towed along the survey lines, 

the hydrophone streamer will receive 

the returning acoustic signals and 

transfer the data to the on-board 

processing system. The OBSs acquire 

the signal, process the data, and log it 

internally until the instrument is 

retrieved and the data is recovered. 

SIO plans to use conventional lowenergy seismic methodology to monitor 

the post-seismic response of the outer 

accretionary prism, the area where 

sediments are accreted onto the nonsubducting tectonic plate at the 

convergent plate boundary. To provide 

constraints on the fault structure and 

seismic stratigraphy in the accretionary 

wedge, high resolution seismic data will 

be acquired using two GI airguns shot 

simultaneously. Simultaneous shots 

from both airguns will provide 

penetration to basement in the trench 

and clearly define fault structures and 

folds in the slop basin sediments that 

overlie the accretionary complex. The 

primary tracklines, approximately 569 

km (307.2 nmi), identified in Figure 1 of 

the IHA application, will be surveyed 

first. Depending on the weather, quality 

and at sea conditions, efforts will be 

made to survey the secondary 

tracklines, approximately 576 km (311 

nmi), identified in Figure 1 of the IHA 

application. During the survey OBSs 

will be deployed and survey profiles 

will be taken along the tracklines that 

extend from the trench across the 

accretionary complex to the region of 

greatest slip. These data will be 

processed onboard the vessel and will 

be used to optimize the location of 

remaining profiles to be collected 

within the survey site area. In addition 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14746 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2012 / Notices 

to the operations of the airgun array, a 

MBES and SBP will also be operated 

from the Melville continuously 

throughout the cruise. There will be 

additional seismic operations associated 

with equipment testing, start-up, and 

possible line changes or repeat coverage 

of any areas where initial data quality is 

sub-standard. In SIO’s calculations, 25% 

has been added for those contingency 

operations. 

All planned geophysical data 

acquisition activities will be conducted 

by technicians provided by SIO, with 

on-board assistance by the scientists 

who have proposed the study. The 

Principal Investigator (PI) is Dr. Anne 

Trehu of Oregon State University. The 

vessel will be self-contained, and the 

crew will live aboard the vessel for the 

entire cruise. 

Vessel Specifications 

The Melville is operated by the SIO 

under a charter agreement with the U.S. 

Office of Naval Research. The title of the 

vessel is held by the U.S. Navy. The 

Melville will tow the two GI airgun 

array, as well as the hydrophone 

streamer, along predetermined lines. 

The vessel has a length of 85 m (278.9 

ft); a beam of 14 m (45.9 ft), and a full 

load draft of 5.0 m (16.4 ft). The ship is 

powered by two 1,385 horsepower (hp) 

propulsion General Electric motors and 

a 900 hp retracting azimuthing bow 

thruster. An operations speed of 

approximately 8 to 12 km/hour (hr) (4 

to 6 knots [kt]) and 15 to 18.5 km/hr (8 

to 10 kt) will be used during seismic 

acquisition within the survey areas and 

between stations, respectively. When 

not towing seismic survey gear, the 

Melville cruises at 21.7 km/hr (11.7 kt) 

and has a maximum speed of 25.9 km/ 

hr (14 kt). The Melville has an operating 

range of approximately 18,630 km 

(10,059.4 nmi) (the distance the vessel 

can travel without refueling). 

The vessel will also serve as a 

platform for which vessel-based 

Protected Species Observers (PSOs) will 

watch for marine mammals before and 

during the proposed airgun operations. 

Acoustic Source Specifications 

Seismic Airguns 

The Melville will deploy and tow an 

array consisting of a pair of 45 in3 Sercel 

GI airgun and a streamer containing 

hydrophones along predetermined lines. 

Seismic pulses will be emitted at 

intervals of approximately eight to 12 

seconds (s). At speeds of approximately 

eight to 12 km/hr through the water, the 

eight to 12 s spacing corresponds to shot 

intervals of approximately 25 m (82 ft). 

The generator chamber of each GI 

airgun, the one responsible for 

introducing the sound pulse into the 

ocean, is 45 in3, depending on how it is 

configured. The injector chamber injects 

air into the previously-generated bubble 

to maintain its shape, and does not 

introduce more sound into the water. 

The two GI airguns will be towed 8 m 

(26.2 ft) apart side-by-side, 21 m (68.9 

ft) behind the Melville, at a depth of 2 

m (6.6 ft). Depending on the 

configuration, the total effective volume 

will be 90 in3 or 210 in3. As a 

precautionary measure, SIO assumes 

that the larger volume will be used. 

As the GI airguns are towed along the 

survey lines, the towed hydrophone 

array in the streamer receive the 

reflected signals and transfer the data to 

the on-board processing system. The 

OBSs acquire the signal, process the 

data, and log it internally until the 

instrument is retrieved and the data is 

recovered. Given the relatively short 

streamer length behind the vessel, the 

turning rate of the vessel while the gear 

is deployed is much higher than the 

limit of five degrees per minute for a 

seismic vessel towing a streamer of 

more typical length (much greater than 

1 km [0.5 nmi]). Thus maneuverability 

of the vessel is not limited much during 

operations. 

Metrics Used in This Document 

This section includes a brief 

explanation of the sound measurements 

frequently used in the discussions of 

acoustic effects in this document. Sound 

pressure is the sound force per unit 

area, and is usually measured in 

micropascals (mPa), where 1 pascal (Pa) 

is the pressure resulting from a force of 

one newton exerted over an area of one 

square meter. Sound pressure level 

(SPL) is expressed as the ratio of a 

measured sound pressure and a 

reference level. The commonly used 

reference pressure level in underwater 

acoustics is 1 mPa, and the units for 

SPLs are dB re: 1 mPa. SPL (in decibels 

[dB]) = 20 log (pressure/reference 

pressure). 

SPL is an instantaneous measurement 

and can be expressed as the peak, the 

peak-peak (p-p), or the root mean square 

(rms). Root mean square, which is the 

square root of the arithmetic average of 

the squared instantaneous pressure 

values, is typically used in discussions 

of the effects of sounds on vertebrates 

and all references to SPL in this 

document refer to the root mean square 

unless otherwise noted. SPL does not 

take the duration of a sound into 

account. 

Characteristics of the Airgun Sounds 

Airguns function by venting highpressure air into the water which creates 

an air bubble. The pressure signature of 

an individual airgun consists of a sharp 

rise and then fall in pressure, followed 

by several positive and negative 

pressure excursions caused by the 

oscillation of the resulting air bubble. 

The oscillation of the air bubble 

transmits sounds downward through the 

seafloor and the amount of sound 

transmitted in the near horizontal 

directions is reduced. However, the 

airgun array also emits sounds that 

travel horizontally toward non-target 

areas. 

The nominal downward-directed 

source levels of the airgun arrays used 

by SIO on the Melville do not represent 

actual sound levels that can be 

measured at any location in the water. 

Rather they represent the level that 

would be found 1 m (3.3 ft) from a 

hypothetical point source emitting the 

same total amount of sound as is 

emitted by the combined GI airguns. 

The actual received level at any location 

in the water near the GI airguns will not 

exceed the source level of the strongest 

individual source. In this case, that will 

be about 234.4 dB re 1 mPam peak, or 

239.8 dB re 1 mPam peak-to-peak. 

However, the difference between rms 

and peak or peak-to-peak values for a 

given pulse depends on the frequency 

content and duration of the pulse, 

among other factors. 

Accordingly, Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory of Columbia University (L– 

DEO) has predicted the received sound 

levels in relation to distance and 

direction from the two GI airgun array. 

A detailed description of L–DEO’s 

modeling for marine seismic source 

arrays for species mitigation is provided 

in Appendix A of NSF’s EA. These are 

the nominal source levels applicable to 

downward propagation. The effective 

source levels for horizontal propagation 

are lower than those for downward 

propagation when the source consists of 

numerous airguns spaced apart from 

one another. 

Appendix A of NSF’s EA discusses 

the characteristics of the airgun pulses. 

NMFS refers the reviewers to the 

application and EA documents for 

additional information. 

Predicted Sound Levels for the Airguns 

Received sound levels have been 

modeled by L–DEO for a number of 

airgun configurations, including two 45 

in3 GI airguns, in relation to distance 

and direction from the airguns (see 

Figure 2 of the IHA application). The 

model does not allow for bottom 

interactions, and is most directly 

applicable to deep water. Based on the 

modeling, estimates of the maximum 

distances from the GI airguns where 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2012 / Notices 14747 

sound levels of 190, 180, and 160 dB re 

1 mPa (rms) are predicted to be received 

in deep water are shown in Table 1 (see 

Table 1 of the IHA application). 

Empirical data concerning the 190, 

180, and 160 dB (rms) distances were 

acquired for various airgun arrays based 

on measurements during the acoustic 

verification studies conducted by L– 

DEO in the northern GOM in 2003 

(Tolstoy et al., 2004) and 2007 to 2008 

(Tolstoy et al., 2009). Results of the 36 

airgun array are not relevant for the two 

GI airguns to be used in the proposed 

survey. The empirical data for the 6, 10, 

12, and 20 airgun arrays indicate that, 

for deep water, the L–DEO model tends 

to overestimate the received sound 

levels at a given distance (Tolstoy et al., 

2004). Measurements were not made for 

the two GI airgun array in deep water, 

however, SIO proposes to use the EZ 

predicted by L–DEO’s model for the 

proposed GI airgun operations in deep 

water, although they are likely 

conservative given the empirical 

proposed GI airgun operations in deep 

water. Using the L–DEO model, Table 1 

(below) shows the distances at which 

three rms sound levels are expected to 

be received from the two GI airgun 

array. The 180 and 190 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) distances are the safety criteria for 

potential Level A harassment as 

specified by NMFS (2000) and are 

applicable to cetaceans and pinnipeds, 

respectively. If marine mammals are 

detected within or about to enter the 

appropriate EZ, the airguns will be shutdown immediately. Table 1 summarizes 

the predicted distances at which sound 

levels (160, 180, and 190 dB [rms]) are 

expected to be received from the two GI 

airgun array operating in deep water 

depths. 

TABLE 1—DISTANCES TO WHICH SOUND LEVELS ≥ 190, 180, AND 160 DB RE 1 μPA (RMS) COULD BE RECEIVED IN DEEP

WATER DURING THE PROPOSED SEISMIC SURVEY IN THE SOUTH-EASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN, MAY, 2012 

Source and volume Tow depth 

(m) Water depth (m) 

Predicted RMS Radii Distances (m) 

190 dB 180 dB 160 dB 

Two GI airguns (45 in3) .................................................................... 2 Deep (> 1,000 ) 10 40 350 

Distances are based on model results provided by L–DEO. 

MBES 

The Melville will operate a Kongsberg 

EM 122 MBES operates at 10.5 to 13 

(usually 12) kHz and is hull-mounted on 

the Melville. The transmitting 

beamwidth is 1° fore-aft and 150° 

athwartship. The maximum source level 

is 242 dB re 1 mPam (rms). Each ‘‘ping’’ 

consists of eight (in water >1,000 m 

deep) or four (<1,000 m) successive fanshaped transmissions, each ensonifying 

a sector that extends 1° fore-aft. 

Continuous-wave pulses increase from 2 

to 15 milliseconds (ms) long in water 

depths up to 2,600 m (8,530.2 ft), and 

FM chirp pulses up to 100 ms long are 

used in water greater than 2,600 m. The 

successive transmissions span an 

overall cross-track angular extent of 

about 150°, with 2 ms gaps between the 

pulses for successive sectors. 

SBP 

The Melville will also operate an 

Knudsen Engineering Model 3260 SBP 

continuously throughout the cruise 

simultaneously with the MBES to map 

and provide information about the 

sedimentary features that occur below 

the sea floor. The SBP is capable of 

reaching depths of 10,000 m (32,808.4 

ft). The beam is transmitted as a 27° 

cone, which is directed downward by a 

3.5 kHz transducer array mounted on 

the hull of the Melville. The nominal 

power output is 10 kilowatts (kW) or 

222 dB re 1 mPam. The ping duration is 

up to 64 ms, and ping interval is 1 s. A 

common mode of operation is to 

broadcast five pings at 1 s intervals 

followed by a 5 s pause. The 12 kHz 

section is seldom used in survey mode 

on the Melville because of overlap with 

the operating frequency of the 

Kongsberg EM 122 MBES. 

NMFS expects that acoustic stimuli 

resulting from the proposed operation of 

the two GI airgun array has the potential 

to harass marine mammals, incidental to 

the conduct of the proposed seismic 

survey. NMFS expects these 

disturbances to be temporary and result, 

at worst, in a temporary modification in 

behavior and/or low-level physiological 

effects (Level B harassment) of small 

numbers of certain species of marine 

mammals. NMFS does not expect that 

the movement of the Melville, during 

the conduct of the seismic survey, has 

the potential to harass marine mammals 

because of the relatively slow operation 

speed of the vessel (approximately 8 to 

12 km/hr [4 to 6 kt] and 15–18.5 km/hr 

[8 to 10 kt]) during seismic acquisition. 

OBS Description and Deployment 

Approximately 10 broadband OBSs 

will be deployed and recovered by the 

Melville during the proposed survey. L– 

DEO OBS08 model broadband OBSs 

will be used during the cruise. This type 

of OBS has a height of approximately 

122 centimeters (cm) (48 inches [in]) 

and width and depth of 76.2 x 106.7 cm 

(30 x 42 in). The anchor is made of two 

steel cylinders approximately 15 cm (5.9 

in) in diameter and 46 cm (18.1 in) in 

length. Each cylinder weighs 

approximately 75 pounds (lbs) (34 

kilograms [kg]) in the air. OBSs will 

remain on the seafloor to continue to 

collect data for approximately one year. 

Once an OBS is ready to be retrieved, 

an acoustic release transponder 

interrogates the instrument at a 

frequency of 9 to 11 kilohertz (kHz), and 

a response is received at a frequency of 

9 to 13 kHz. The burn-wire release 

assembly is then activated, and the 

instrument is released from the anchor 

to float to the surface. 

Description of the Proposed Dates, 

Duration, and Specified Geographic 

Region 

The Melville is expected to depart and 

return to Valparaiso, Chile. The cruise is 

scheduled to occur for approximately 

five to 11 days from May 4 to 18, 2012. 

Some minor deviation from this 

schedule is possible, depending on 

logistics and weather. The survey will 

occur in the area approximately 34° to 

35° South, approximately 72° to 74° 

West (see Figure 1 of the IHA 

application). Water depths in the survey 

area generally range from approximately 

1,000 to 5,300 m (3,280.8 to 17,388.5 ft). 

The seismic survey will be conducted in 

the EEZ of Chile, approximately 50 km 

(27 nmi) off the coast. 

Description of the Marine Mammals in 

the Area of the Proposed Specified 

Activity 

Thirty-two marine mammal species 

could occur in the south-eastern Pacific 

Ocean survey area. Twenty-eight 

cetacean species (22 odontocetes and 6 

mysticetes) and four pinniped species 

could occur in the south-eastern Pacific 

Ocean study area. Several of these 

species are listed as endangered under 

the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 

1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

including the humpback (Megaptera 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14748 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2012 / Notices 

novaeangliae), sei (Balaenoptera 

borealis), fin (Balaenoptera physalus), 

blue (Balaenoptera musculus), and 

sperm (Physeter macrocephalus) whale. 

An additional 12 cetacean species, 

although present in the wider southeastern Pacific Ocean, likely would not 

be found in the proposed seismic survey 

area because their ranges in the survey 

area are extralimital, or they are 

typically found in coastal water. 

Southern right whales (Eubalaena 

australis) are listed as endangered under 

the ESA. Sightings are seen on rare 

occasions off the coasts of Peru and 

Chile (Aguayo et al., 1992; Santillan et 

al., 2004), although females with calves 

have been observed between June and 

October. Given the size of this 

population, estimated at 50 individuals, 

in Chile and Peru (IWC, 2007; ICW, 

2007b) and the rarity of the species in 

the survey area, it is unlikely that 

individuals from this subpopulation 

will be encountered. Pygmy right 

whales (Caperea marginata) are rarely 

seen at sea, but are known from 

stranding records off Chile (Cabrera et 

al., 2005). Little is known about 

Arnoux’s beaked whale (Berardius 

arnuxii) as they are rarely seen, but 

typically they are found between the 

Antarctic continent and 34° South. The 

northernmost limit of their range 

overlaps with the survey area, but no 

records of their occurrence exist within 

the survey area. The spade toothed 

beaked whale (Mesoplodon traversii) 

and Shepherd’s beaked whale 

(Tasmacetus shepherdi) are uncommon 

species, but individuals have been 

described from stranding records in the 

Juan Fernandez Archipelago in Chile 

(Reyes et al., 1996) approximately 700 

km (378 nmi) west of the survey site. 

The ginkgo-toothed beaked whale 

(Mesoplodon ginkgodens), pygmy 

beaked whale (Mesoplodon peruvianus), 

and the long-beaked common dolphin 

(Delphinus capensis) are likely 

extralimital with distributions mostly 

north of the survey area. The 

Commerson’s dolphin 

(Cephalorhynchus commersonii), 

hourglass dolphin (Lagenorhynchus 

cruciger), and southern bottlenose 

whale (Hyperoodon planifrons) are also 

extralimital in the survey area, but have 

a northernmost extent that is south of 

the survey area. 

No cetacean distribution and 

abundance studies have been conducted 

in the proposed survey area. The closest 

distribution studies have been in the 

Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP) and 

Patagonia, in southern Chile. Several 

other studies of marine mammal 

distribution and abundance have been 

conducted in the wider ETP. The most 

extensive regional distribution and 

abundance data come primarily from 

multi-year vessel surveys conducted by 

NMFS’s Southwest Fisheries Science 

Center (SWFSC). The surveys were 

conducted during July to December in 

an area generally extending from 30° 

North to 18° South from the coastline to 

153° West (Wade and Gerrodette, 1993; 

Ferguson and Barlow, 2001; Gerrodette 

et al., 2008; and Jackson et al., 2008). 

The marine mammals that occur in 

the proposed survey area belong to three 

taxonomic groups: odontocetes (toothed 

whales and dolphins), mysticetes 

(baleen whales), and pinnipeds (seals, 

sea lions, and walrus). Cetaceans and 

pinnipeds are the subject of the IHA 

application to NMFS. 

Table 2 (below) presents information 

on the abundance, distribution, 

population status, conservation status, 

and density of the marine mammals that 

may occur in the proposed survey area 

during May, 2012. 

TABLE 2—THE HABITAT, REGIONAL ABUNDANCE, AND CONSERVATION STATUS OF MARINE MAMMALS THAT MAY OCCUR

IN OR NEAR THE PROPOSED SEISMIC SURVEY AREA IN THE SOUTH-EASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN

[See text and Tables 2 to 3 in SIO’s application for further details] 

Species Habitat Abundance ESA1 MMPA2 Density (#/ 

1,000 km 2) 3

Mysticetes 

Humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae).

Mainly nearshore waters and 

banks.

6 2,900 

(SE Pacific) 

EN ..................... D ......................... 4 0.8 

Minke whale (Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata).

Coastal ......................................... 7 338,000 NL ..................... NC ...................... 4 0.8 

Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera 

edeni).

Pelagic and coastal ...................... 130,008 NL ..................... NC ...................... 0.96 

Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) Mostly pelagic .............................. 8 11,000 EN ..................... D ......................... 5 0.01 

Fin whale (Balaenoptera 

physalus).

Slope, mostly pelagic ................... 9 15,178 EN ..................... D ......................... 5 0.01 

Blue whale (Balaenoptera 

musculus).

Pelagic and coastal ...................... 10 1,415 EN ..................... D ......................... 2.44 

Odontocetes 

Sperm whale (Physeter 

macrocephalus).

Usually deep pelagic, steep topography.

11 26,053 EN ..................... D ......................... 3.95 

Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia 

breviceps).

Deep waters off shelf ................... 12 150,000 NL ..................... NC ...................... 0.03 

Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima) Deep waters off shelf ................... 12 150,000 NL ..................... NC ...................... 0.03 

Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius 

cavirostris).

Slope and pelagic ........................ 13 20,000 NL ..................... NC ...................... 0.80 

Blainville’s beaked whale 

(Mesoplodon densirostris).

Slope and pelagic ........................ 14 25,300 NL ..................... NC ...................... 0.80 

Gray’s beaked whale 

(Mesoplodon grayi).

Slope and pelagic ........................ NA NL ..................... NC ...................... NA 

Hector’s beaked whale 

(Mesoplodon hectori).

Slope and pelagic ........................ NA NL ..................... NC ...................... NA 

Strap-toothed beaked whale 

(Mesoplodon layardii).

Slope and pelagic ........................ NA NL ..................... NC ...................... NA 

Unidentified Mesoplodon spp ....... Slope and pelagic ........................ NA NL ..................... NC ...................... 0.36 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2012 / Notices 14749 

TABLE 2—THE HABITAT, REGIONAL ABUNDANCE, AND CONSERVATION STATUS OF MARINE MAMMALS THAT MAY OCCUR

IN OR NEAR THE PROPOSED SEISMIC SURVEY AREA IN THE SOUTH-EASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN—Continued 

[See text and Tables 2 to 3 in SIO’s application for further details] 

Species Habitat Abundance ESA1 MMPA2 Density (#/ 

1,000 km 2) 3

Rough-toothed dolphin (Steno 

bredanensis).

Mainly pelagic .............................. 107,633 NL ..................... NC ...................... 4.19 

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 

truncatus).

Coastal, shelf, pelagic .................. 335,834 NL ..................... NC D—Western 

North Atlantic 

coastal.

17.06 

Spinner dolphin (Stenella 

longirostris).

Coastal and pelagic ..................... 1,797,716 NL ..................... NC ...................... 35.70 

Striped dolphin (Stenella 

coeruleoalba).

Off continental shelf ..................... 964,362 NL ..................... NC D—Eastern ... 67.80 

Short-beaked common dolphin 

(Delphinus delphis).

Shelf, pelagic, high relief .............. 3,127,203 NL ..................... NC ...................... 110.90 

Risso’s dolphin (Grampus 

griseus).

Shelf, slope, seamounts ............... 110,457 NL ..................... NC ...................... 10.21 

False killer whale (Pseudorca 

crassidens).

Pelagic .......................................... 398,009 NL Proposed 

EN—insular 

Hawaiian.

NC ...................... 0.39 

Killer whale (Orcinus orca) ........... Widely distributed ......................... 15 8,500 NL EN—Southern resident.NC D—Southern 

resident, AT1 

transient.

0.85 

Long-finned pilot whale 

(Globicephala melas).

Shelf and pelagic ......................... 16 200,000 NL ..................... NC ...................... 11.88 

Peale’s dolphin (Lagenorhynchus 

australis).

Coastal and shelf ......................... NA NL ..................... NC ...................... 4 0.8 

Dusky dolphin (Lagenorhynchus 

obscures).

Shelf and slope ............................ 17 7,252 NL ..................... NC ...................... 37 

Southern right whale dolphin (Lis

sodelphis peronni).

Pelagic .......................................... NA NL ..................... NC ...................... 5 0.01 

Chilean dolphin (Cephalorhynchus 

eutropia).

Coastal and shelf ......................... 18 < 10,000 NL ..................... NC ...................... 11.11 

Burmeister’s porpoise (Phocoena 

spinipinnis).

Coastal ......................................... NA NL ..................... NC ...................... 5 0.01 

Pinnipeds 

South American fur seal (Otaria 

flavescens).

Coastal and shelf ......................... 19 30,000 NL ..................... NC ...................... NA 

Juan Fernandez fur seal 

(Arctocephalus philippii).

Coastal and shelf ......................... 2012,000 NL ..................... NC ...................... NA 

South American sea lion 

(Arctocephalus australis).

Coastal and shelf ......................... 21 150,000 NL ..................... NC ...................... NA 

Southern elephant seal (Mirounga 

leonina).

Coastal and pelagic ..................... 22 650,000 NL ..................... NC ...................... NA 

N.A. Not available or not assessed. 

1 U.S. Endangered Species Act: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, NL = Not listed. 

2 U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act: D = Depleted, NC = Not Classified. 

3 Densities of other species (e.g., pinnipeds) presumably would be lower than the lowest density in Table 3 of the application. 

4 Densities assigned an arbitrary density similar to densities reported for species that are uncommon in the survey area. 

5 Densities assigned an arbitrarily low number for rare species with unconfirmed sightings in the survey area. 

6Southeast Pacific (Felix et al., 2005) 7Estimated from Antarctic and common minke whales in South Pacific (Reilly, 2011). 

8Based on 2007 projection for southern hemisphere (IWC, 1996). 

9Based on 2007 projection for southern hemisphere (Reilly, 2011). 

10ETP (Wade and Gerrodette, 1993) excluded nursing area south of study area estimated at approximately 267 animals. 11Eastern temperate North Pacific (Whitehead, 2002). 12This abundance estimate is for Kogia sima and Kogia breviceps in ETP (Ferguson and Barlow, 2001). 13ETP (Wade and Gerrodette, 1993). 14This estimate includes all species of the genus Mesoplodon in the ETP (Ferguson and Barlow, 2001). 15ETP (Ford, 2002). 16Southern hemisphere population (Waring et al., 1997). 17Patagonian coast population (Dans et al., 1997). 18South-Eastern Pacific (Reeves et al., 2008). 19 Chile (Arias, Shreiber, and Rivas, 1998). 20 Juan Fernandez Archipelago population (Aurioles and Trillmich, 2008). 21Peru and Chile (Campagna, 2008a). 22Southern hemisphere (Campagna, 2009). 

Refer to Section III and IV of SIO’s 

application for detailed information 

regarding the abundance and 

distribution, population status, and life 

history and behavior of these species 

and their occurrence in the proposed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14750 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2012 / Notices 

project area. The application also 

presents how SIO calculated the 

estimated densities for the marine 

mammals in the proposed survey area. 

NMFS has reviewed these data and 

determined them to be the best available 

scientific information for the purposes 

of the proposed IHA. 

Potential Effects on Marine Mammals 

Acoustic stimuli generated by the 

operation of the airguns, which 

introduce sound into the marine 

environment, may have the potential to 

cause Level B harassment of marine 

mammals in the proposed survey area. 

The effects of sounds from airgun 

operations might include one or more of 

the following: tolerance, masking of 

natural sounds, behavioral disturbance, 

temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment, or non-auditory physical or 

physiological effects (Richardson et al., 

1995; Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et 

al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007). 

Permanent hearing impairment, in the 

unlikely event that it occurred, would 

constitute injury, but temporary 

threshold shift (TTS) is not an injury 

(Southall et al., 2007). Although the 

possibility cannot be entirely excluded, 

it is unlikely that the proposed project 

would result in any cases of temporary 

or permanent hearing impairment, or 

any significant non-auditory physical or 

physiological effects. Based on the 

available data and studies described 

here, some behavioral disturbance is 

expected, but NMFS expects the 

disturbance to be localized and shortterm. 

Tolerance to Sound 

Studies on marine mammals’ 

tolerance to sound in the natural 

environment are relatively rare. 

Richardson et al. (1995) defines 

tolerance as the occurrence of marine 

mammals in areas where they are 

exposed to human activities or manmade noise. In many cases, tolerance 

develops by the animal habituating to 

the stimulus (i.e., the gradual waning of 

responses to a repeated or ongoing 

stimulus) (Richardson, et al., 1995; 

Thorpe, 1963), but because of ecological 

or physiological requirements, many 

marine animals may need to remain in 

areas where they are exposed to chronic 

stimuli (Richardson, et al., 1995). 

Numerous studies have shown that 

pulsed sounds from airguns are often 

readily detectable in the water at 

distances of many kms. Several studies 

have shown that marine mammals at 

distances more than a few kms from 

operating seismic vessels often show no 

apparent response (see Appendix A[5] 

in the EA). That is often true even in 

cases when the pulsed sounds must be 

readily audible to the animals based on 

measured received levels and the 

hearing sensitivity of that mammal 

group. Although various baleen whales 

and toothed whales have been shown to 

react behaviorally to airgun pulses 

under some conditions, at other times 

mammals of both types have shown no 

over reactions. The relative 

responsiveness of baleen and toothed 

whales are quite variable. 

Masking of Natural Sounds 

The term masking refers to the 

inability of a subject to recognize the 

occurrence of an acoustic stimulus as a 

result of the interference of another 

acoustic stimulus (Clark et al., 2009). 

Introduced underwater sound may, 

through masking, reduce the effective 

communication distance of a marine 

mammal species if the frequency of the 

source is close to that used as a signal 

by the marine mammal, and if the 

anthropogenic sound is present for a 

significant fraction of the time 

(Richardson et al., 1995). 

Masking effects of pulsed sounds 

(even from large arrays of airguns) on 

marine mammal calls and other natural 

sounds are expected to be limited, 

although there are very few specific data 

on this. Because of the intermittent 

nature and low duty cycle of seismic 

airgun pulses, animals can emit and 

receive sounds in the relatively quiet 

intervals between pulses. However, in 

some situations, reverberation occurs for 

much or the entire interval between 

pulses (e.g., Simard et al., 2005; Clark 

and Gagnon, 2006) which could mask 

calls. Some baleen and toothed whales 

are known to continue calling in the 

presence of seismic pulses, and their 

calls can usually be heard between the 

seismic pulses (e.g., Richardson et al., 

1986; McDonald et al., 1995; Greene et 

al., 1999; Nieukirk et al., 2004; Smultea 

et al., 2004; Holst et al., 2005a, b, 2006; 

and Dunn and Hernandez, 2009). 

However, Clark and Gagnon (2006) 

reported that fin whales in the northeast 

Pacific Ocean went silent for an 

extended period starting soon after the 

onset of a seismic survey in the area. 

Similarly, there has been one report that 

sperm whales ceased calling when 

exposed to pulses from a very distant 

seismic ship (Bowles et al., 1994). 

However, more recent studies found 

that they continued calling in the 

presence of seismic pulses (Madsen et 

al., 2002; Tyack et al., 2003; Smultea et 

al., 2004; Holst et al., 2006; and Jochens 

et al., 2008). Dolphins and porpoises 

commonly are heard calling while 

airguns are operating (e.g., Gordon et al., 

2004; Smultea et al., 2004; Holst et al., 

2005a, b; and Potter et al., 2007). The 

sounds important to small odontocetes 

are predominantly at much higher 

frequencies than are the dominant 

components of airgun sounds, thus 

limiting the potential for masking. 

In general, NMFS expects the masking 

effects of seismic pulses to be minor, 

given the normally intermittent nature 

of seismic pulses. Refer to Appendix 

A(4) of NSF’s EA for a more detailed 

discussion of masking effects on marine 

mammals. 

Behavioral Disturbance 

Disturbance includes a variety of 

effects, including subtle to conspicuous 

changes in behavior, movement, and 

displacement. Reactions to sound, if 

any, depend on species, state of 

maturity, experience, current activity, 

reproductive state, time of day, and 

many other factors (Richardson et al., 

1995; Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et 

al., 2007; Weilgart, 2007). If a marine 

mammal does react briefly to an 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of the change are unlikely to be 

significant to the individual, let alone 

the stock or population. However, if a 

sound source displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and 

Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007). Given the 

many uncertainties in predicting the 

quantity and types of impacts of noise 

on marine mammals, it is common 

practice to estimate how many 

mammals would be present within a 

particular distance of industrial 

activities and/or exposed to a particular 

level of industrial sound. In most cases, 

this approach likely overestimates the 

numbers of marine mammals that would 

be affected in some biologicallyimportant manner. 

The sound criteria used to estimate 

how many marine mammals might be 

disturbed to some biologicallyimportant degree by a seismic program 

are based primarily on behavioral 

observations of a few species. Scientists 

have conducted detailed studies on 

humpback, gray, bowhead (Balaena 

mysticetus), and sperm whales, and on 

ringed seals (Phoca hispida). Less 

detailed data are available for some 

other species of baleen whales, small 

toothed whales, and sea otters, but for 

many species there are no data on 

responses to marine seismic surveys. 

Baleen Whales—Baleen whales 

generally tend to avoid operating 

airguns, but avoidance radii are quite 

variable (reviewed in Richardson et al., 

1995). Whales are often reported to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2012 / Notices 14751 

show no overt reactions to pulses from 

large arrays of airguns at distances 

beyond a few kms, even though the 

airgun pulses remain well above 

ambient noise levels out to much longer 

distances. However, as reviewed in 

Appendix A(5) of NSF’s EA, baleen 

whales exposed to strong noise pulses 

from airguns often react by deviating 

from their normal migration route and/ 

or interrupting their feeding and moving 

away. In the cases of migrating gray and 

bowhead whales, the observed changes 

in behavior appeared to be of little or no 

biological consequence to the animals 

(Richardson, et al., 1995). They simply 

avoided the sound source by displacing 

their migration route to varying degrees, 

but within the natural boundaries of the 

migration corridors. 

Studies of gray, bowhead, and 

humpback whales have shown that 

seismic pulses with received levels of 

160 to 170 dB re 1 mPa (rms) seem to 

cause obvious avoidance behavior in a 

substantial fraction of the animals 

exposed (Malme et al., 1986, 1988; 

Richardson et al., 1995). In many areas, 

seismic pulses from large arrays of 

airguns diminish to those levels at 

distances ranging from 4.5 to 14.5 km 

(2.4 to 7.8 nmi) from the source. A 

substantial proportion of the baleen 

whales within those distances may 

show avoidance or other strong 

behavioral reactions to the airgun array. 

Subtle behavioral changes sometimes 

become evident at somewhat lower 

received levels, and studies summarized 

in Appendix A(5) of NSF’s EA have 

shown that some species of baleen 

whales, notably bowhead and 

humpback whales, at times, show strong 

avoidance at received levels lower than 

160 to 170 dB re 1 mPa (rms). 

McCauley et al. (1998, 2000a) studied 

the responses of humpback whales off 

western Australia to a full-scale seismic 

survey with a 16 airgun array (2,678 in3) 

and to a single airgun (20 in3) with 

source level of 227 dB re 1 mPa (p-p). In 

the 1998 study, they documented that 

avoidance reactions began at five to 

eight km (2.7 to 4.3 nmi) from the array, 

and that those reactions kept most pods 

approximately three to four km from the 

operating seismic boat. In the 2000 

study, they noted localized 

displacement during migration of four 

to five km by traveling pods and seven 

to 12 km (6.5 nmi) by more sensitive 

resting pods of cow-calf pairs. 

Avoidance distances with respect to the 

single airgun were smaller but 

consistent with the results from the full 

array in terms of the received sound 

levels. The mean received level for 

initial avoidance of an approaching 

airgun was 140 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for 

humpback pods containing females, and 

at the mean closest point of approach 

distance the received level was 143 dB 

re 1 mPa (rms). The initial avoidance 

response generally occurred at distances 

of five to eight km from the airgun array 

and two km from the single airgun. 

However, some individual humpback 

whales, especially males, approached 

within distances of 100 to 400 m (328 

to 1,312 ft), where the maximum 

received level was 179 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms). 

Data collected by observers during 

several seismic surveys in the 

Northwest Atlantic showed that sighting 

rates of humpback whales were 

significantly greater during non-seismic 

periods compared with periods when a 

full array was operating (Moulton and 

Holst, 2010). In addition, humpback 

whales were more likely to swim away 

and less likely to swim towards a vessel 

during seismic vs. non-seismic periods 

(Moulton and Holst, 2010). 

Humpback whales on their summer 

feeding grounds in southeast Alaska did 

not exhibit persistent avoidance when 

exposed to seismic pulses from a 1.64– 

L (100 in3) airgun (Malme et al., 1985). 

Some humpbacks seemed ‘‘startled’’ at 

received levels of 150 to 169 dB re 1 

mPa. Malme et al. (1985) concluded that 

there was no clear evidence of 

avoidance, despite the possibility of 

subtle effects, at received levels up to 

172 dB re 1 mPa (rms). However, 

Moulton and Holst (2010) reported that 

humpback whales monitored during 

seismic surveys in the Northwest 

Atlantic had lower sighting rates and 

were most often seen swimming away 

from the vessel during seismic periods 

compared with periods when airguns 

were silent. 

Studies have suggested that south 

Atlantic humpback whales wintering off 

Brazil may be displaced or even strand 

upon exposure to seismic surveys (Engel 

et al., 2004). The evidence for this was 

circumstantial and subject to alternative 

explanations (IAGC, 2004). Also, the 

evidence was not consistent with 

subsequent results from the same area of 

Brazil (Parente et al., 2006), or with 

direct studies of humpbacks exposed to 

seismic surveys in other areas and 

seasons. After allowance for data from 

subsequent years, there was no 

observable direct correlation between 

strandings and seismic surveys (IWC, 

2007:236). 

There are no data on reactions of right 

whales to seismic surveys, but results 

from the closely-related bowhead whale 

show that their responsiveness can be 

quite variable depending on their 

activity (migrating versus feeding). 

Bowhead whales migrating west across 

the Alaskan Beaufort Sea in autumn, in 

particular, are unusually responsive, 

with substantial avoidance occurring 

out to distances of 20 to 30 km (10.8 to 

16.2 nmi) from a medium-sized airgun 

source at received sound levels of 

around 120 to 130 dB re 1 mPa (Miller 

et al., 1999; Richardson et al., 1999; see 

Appendix A[5] of NSF’s EA). However, 

more recent research on bowhead 

whales (Miller et al., 2005; Harris et al., 

2007) corroborates earlier evidence that, 

during the summer feeding season, 

bowheads are not as sensitive to seismic 

sources. Nonetheless, subtle but 

statistically significant changes in 

surfacing-respiration-dive cycles were 

evident upon statistical analysis 

(Richardson et al., 1986). In the 

summer, bowheads typically begin to 

show avoidance reactions at received 

levels of about 152 to 178 dB re 1 mPa 

(Richardson et al., 1986, 1995; 

Ljungblad et al., 1988; Miller et al., 

2005). 

Reactions of migrating and feeding 

(but not wintering) gray whales to 

seismic surveys have been studied. 

Malme et al. (1986, 1988) studied the 

responses of feeding eastern Pacific gray 

whales to pulses from a single 100 in3

airgun off St. Lawrence Island in the 

northern Bering Sea. They estimated, 

based on small sample sizes, that 50 

percent of feeding gray whales stopped 

feeding at an average received pressure 

level of 173 dB re 1 mPa on an 

(approximate) rms basis, and that 10 

percent of feeding whales interrupted 

feeding at received levels of 163 dB re 

1 mPa (rms). Those findings were 

generally consistent with the results of 

experiments conducted on larger 

numbers of gray whales that were 

migrating along the California coast 

(Malme et al., 1984; Malme and Miles, 

1985), and western Pacific gray whales 

feeding off Sakhalin Island, Russia 

(Wursig et al., 1999; Gailey et al., 2007; 

Johnson et al., 2007; Yazvenko et al., 

2007a, b), along with data on gray 

whales off British Columbia (Bain and 

Williams, 2006). 

Various species of Balaenoptera (blue, 

sei, fin, and minke whales) have 

occasionally been seen in areas 

ensonified by airgun pulses (Stone, 

2003; MacLean and Haley, 2004; Stone 

and Tasker, 2006), and calls from blue 

and fin whales have been localized in 

areas with airgun operations (e.g., 

McDonald et al., 1995; Dunn and 

Hernandez, 2009; Castellote et al., 

2010). Sightings by observers on seismic 

vessels off the United Kingdom from 

1997 to 2000 suggest that, during times 

of good sightability, sighting rates for 

mysticetes (mainly fin and sei whales) 

were similar when large arrays of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14752 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2012 / Notices 

airguns were shooting vs. silent (Stone, 

2003; Stone and Tasker, 2006). 

However, these whales tended to exhibit 

localized avoidance, remaining 

significantly further (on average) from 

the airgun array during seismic 

operations compared with non-seismic 

periods (Stone and Tasker, 2006). 

Castellote et al. (2010) reported that 

singing fin whales in the Mediterranean 

moved away from an operating airgun 

array. 

Ship-based monitoring studies of 

baleen whales (including blue, fin, sei, 

minke, and humpback whales) in the 

Northwest Atlantic found that overall, 

this group had lower sighting rates 

during seismic vs. non-seismic periods 

(Moulton and Holst, 2010). Baleen 

whales as a group were also seen 

significantly farther from the vessel 

during seismic compared with nonseismic periods, and they were more 

often seen to be swimming away from 

the operating seismic vessel (Moulton 

and Holst, 2010). Blue and minke 

whales were initially sighted 

significantly farther from the vessel 

during seismic operations compared to 

non-seismic periods; the same trend was 

observed for fin whales (Moulton and 

Holst, 2010). Minke whales were most 

often observed to be swimming away 

from the vessel when seismic operations 

were underway (Moulton and Holst, 

2010). 

Data on short-term reactions by 

cetaceans to impulsive noises are not 

necessarily indicative of long-term or 

biologically significant effects. It is not 

known whether impulsive sounds affect 

reproductive rate or distribution and 

habitat use in subsequent days or years. 

However, gray whales have continued to 

migrate annually along the west coast of 

North America with substantial 

increases in the population over recent 

years, despite intermittent seismic 

exploration (and much ship traffic) in 

that area for decades (Appendix A in 

Malme et al., 1984; Richardson et al., 

1995; Allen and Angliss, 2010). The 

western Pacific gray whale population 

did not seem affected by a seismic 

survey in its feeding ground during a 

previous year (Johnson et al., 2007). 

Similarly, bowhead whales have 

continued to travel to the eastern 

Beaufort Sea each summer, and their 

numbers have increased notably, 

despite seismic exploration in their 

summer and autumn range for many 

years (Richardson et al., 1987; Allen and 

Angliss, 2010). 

Toothed Whales—Little systematic 

information is available about reactions 

of toothed whales to noise pulses. Few 

studies similar to the more extensive 

baleen whale/seismic pulse work 

summarized above and (in more detail) 

in Appendix A of NSF’s EA have been 

reported for toothed whales. However, 

there are recent systematic studies on 

sperm whales (e.g., Gordon et al., 2006; 

Madsen et al., 2006; Winsor and Mate, 

2006; Jochens et al., 2008; Miller et al., 

2009). There is an increasing amount of 

information about responses of various 

odontocetes to seismic surveys based on 

monitoring studies (e.g., Stone, 2003; 

Smultea et al., 2004; Moulton and 

Miller, 2005; Bain and Williams, 2006; 

Holst et al., 2006; Stone and Tasker, 

2006; Potter et al., 2007; Hauser et al., 

2008; Holst and Smultea, 2008; Weir, 

2008; Barkaszi et al., 2009; Richardson 

et al., 2009; Moulton and Holst, 2010). 

Seismic operators and marine 

mammal observers on seismic vessels 

regularly see dolphins and other small 

toothed whales near operating airgun 

arrays, but in general there is a tendency 

for most delphinids to show some 

avoidance of operating seismic vessels 

(e.g., Goold, 1996a, b, c; Calambokidis 

and Osmek, 1998; Stone, 2003; Moulton 

and Miller, 2005; Holst et al., 2006; 

Stone and Tasker, 2006; Weir, 2008; 

Richardson et al., 2009; Barkaszi et al., 

2009; Moulton and Holst, 2010). Some 

dolphins seem to be attracted to the 

seismic vessel and floats, and some ride 

the bow wave of the seismic vessel even 

when large arrays of airguns are firing 

(e.g., Moulton and Miller, 2005). 

Nonetheless, small toothed whales more 

often tend to head away, or to maintain 

a somewhat greater distance from the 

vessel, when a large array of airguns is 

operating than when it is silent (e.g., 

Stone and Tasker, 2006; Weir, 2008; 

Barry et al., 2010; Moulton and Holst, 

2010). In most cases, the avoidance radii 

for delphinids appear to be small, on the 

order of one km or less, and some 

individuals show no apparent 

avoidance. The beluga whale 

(Delphinapterus leucas) is a species that 

(at least at times) shows long-distance 

avoidance of seismic vessels. Aerial 

surveys conducted in the southeastern 

Beaufort Sea during summer found that 

sighting rates of beluga whales were 

significantly lower at distances 10 to 20 

km compared with 20 to 30 km from an 

operating airgun array, and observers on 

seismic boats in that area rarely see 

belugas (Miller et al., 2005; Harris et al., 

2007). 

Captive bottlenose dolphins and 

beluga whales exhibited changes in 

behavior when exposed to strong pulsed 

sounds similar in duration to those 

typically used in seismic surveys 

(Finneran et al., 2000, 2002, 2005). 

However, the animals tolerated high 

received levels of sound before 

exhibiting aversive behaviors. 

Results for porpoises depend on 

species. The limited available data 

suggest that harbor porpoises show 

stronger avoidance of seismic operations 

than do Dall’s porpoises (Stone, 2003; 

MacLean and Koski, 2005; Bain and 

Williams, 2006; Stone and Tasker, 

2006). Dall’s porpoises seem relatively 

tolerant of airgun operations (MacLean 

and Koski, 2005; Bain and Williams, 

2006), although they too have been 

observed to avoid large arrays of 

operating airguns (Calambokidis and 

Osmek, 1998; Bain and Williams, 2006). 

This apparent difference in 

responsiveness of these two porpoise 

species is consistent with their relative 

responsiveness to boat traffic and some 

other acoustic sources (Richardson et 

al., 1995; Southall et al., 2007). 

Most studies of sperm whales exposed 

to airgun sounds indicate that the sperm 

whale shows considerable tolerance of 

airgun pulses (e.g., Stone, 2003; 

Moulton et al., 2005, 2006a; Stone and 

Tasker, 2006; Weir, 2008). In most cases 

the whales do not show strong 

avoidance, and they continue to call 

(see Appendix A of NSF’s EA for 

review). However, controlled exposure 

experiments in the GOM indicate that 

foraging behavior was altered upon 

exposure to airgun sound (Jochens et al., 

2008; Miller et al., 2009; Tyack, 2009). 

There are almost no specific data on 

the behavioral reactions of beaked 

whales to seismic surveys. However, 

some northern bottlenose whales 

(Hyperoodon ampullatus) remained in 

the general area and continued to 

produce high-frequency clicks when 

exposed to sound pulses from distant 

seismic surveys (Gosselin and Lawson, 

2004; Laurinolli and Cochrane, 2005; 

Simard et al., 2005). Most beaked 

whales tend to avoid approaching 

vessels of other types (e.g., Wursig et al., 

1998). They may also dive for an 

extended period when approached by a 

vessel (e.g., Kasuya, 1986), although it is 

uncertain how much longer such dives 

may be as compared to dives by 

undisturbed beaked whales, which also 

are often quite long (Baird et al., 2006; 

Tyack et al., 2006). Based on a single 

observation, Aguilar-Soto et al. (2006) 

suggested that foraging efficiency of 

Cuvier’s beaked whales may be reduced 

by close approach of vessels. In any 

event, it is likely that most beaked 

whales would also show strong 

avoidance of an approaching seismic 

vessel, although this has not been 

documented explicitly. In fact, Moulton 

and Holst (2010) reported 15 sightings 

of beaked whales during seismic studies 

in the Northwest Atlantic; seven of 

those sightings were made at times 

when at least one airgun was operating. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2012 / Notices 14753 

There was little evidence to indicate 

that beaked whale behavior was affected 

by airgun operations; sighting rates and 

distances were similar during seismic 

and non-seismic periods (Moulton and 

Holst, 2010). 

There are increasing indications that 

some beaked whales tend to strand 

when naval exercises involving midfrequency sonar operation are ongoing 

nearby (e.g., Simmonds and LopezJurado, 1991; Frantzis, 1998; NOAA and 

USN, 2001; Jepson et al., 2003; 

Hildebrand, 2005; Barlow and Gisiner, 

2006; see also the Stranding and 

Mortality section in this document). 

These strandings are apparently a 

disturbance response, although auditory 

or other injuries or other physiological 

effects may also be involved. Whether 

beaked whales would ever react 

similarly to seismic surveys is 

unknown. Seismic survey sounds are 

quite different from those of the sonar 

in operation during the above-cited 

incidents. 

Odontocete reactions to large arrays of 

airguns are variable and, at least for 

delphinids and Dall’s porpoises, seem to 

be confined to a smaller radius than has 

been observed for the more responsive 

of the mysticetes, belugas, and harbor 

porpoises (Appendix A of NSF’s EA). 

Pinnipeds—Pinnipeds are not likely 

to show a strong avoidance reaction to 

the airgun array. Visual monitoring from 

seismic vessels has shown only slight (if 

any) avoidance of airguns by pinnipeds, 

and only slight (if any) changes in 

behavior, see Appendix A(5) of NSF’s 

EA. In the Beaufort Sea, some ringed 

seals avoided an area of 100 m to (at 

most) a few hundred meters around 

seismic vessels, but many seals 

remained within 100 to 200 m (328 to 

656 ft) of the trackline as the operating 

airgun array passed by (e.g., Harris et al., 

2001; Moulton and Lawson, 2002; 

Miller et al., 2005). Ringed seal sightings 

averaged somewhat farther away from 

the seismic vessel when the airguns 

were operating than when they were 

not, but the difference was small 

(Moulton and Lawson, 2002). Similarly, 

in Puget Sound, sighting distances for 

harbor seals and California sea lions 

tended to be larger when airguns were 

operating (Calambokidis and Osmek, 

1998). Previous telemetry work suggests 

that avoidance and other behavioral 

reactions may be stronger than evident 

to date from visual studies (Thompson 

et al., 1998). 

Hearing Impairment and Other Physical 

Effects 

Exposure to high intensity sound for 

a sufficient duration may result in 

auditory effects such as a noise-induced 

threshold shift—an increase in the 

auditory threshold after exposure to 

noise (Finneran, Carder, Schlundt, and 

Ridgway, 2005). Factors that influence 

the amount of threshold shift include 

the amplitude, duration, frequency 

content, temporal pattern, and energy 

distribution of noise exposure. The 

magnitude of hearing threshold shift 

normally decreases over time following 

cessation of the noise exposure. The 

amount of threshold shift just after 

exposure is called the initial threshold 

shift. If the threshold shift eventually 

returns to zero (i.e., the threshold 

returns to the pre-exposure value), it is 

called temporary threshold shift (TTS) 

(Southall et al., 2007). 

Researchers have studied TTS in 

certain captive odontocetes and 

pinnipeds exposed to strong sounds 

(reviewed in Southall et al., 2007). 

However, there has been no specific 

documentation of TTS let alone 

permanent hearing damage, i.e., 

permanent threshold shift (PTS), in freeranging marine mammals exposed to 

sequences of airgun pulses during 

realistic field conditions. 

Temporary Threshold Shift—TTS is 

the mildest form of hearing impairment 

that can occur during exposure to a 

strong sound (Kryter, 1985). While 

experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold 

rises and a sound must be stronger in 

order to be heard. At least in terrestrial 

mammals, TTS can last from minutes or 

hours to (in cases of strong TTS) days. 

For sound exposures at or somewhat 

above the TTS threshold, hearing 

sensitivity in both terrestrial and marine 

mammals recovers rapidly after 

exposure to the noise ends. Few data on 

sound levels and durations necessary to 

elicit mild TTS have been obtained for 

marine mammals, and none of the 

published data concern TTS elicited by 

exposure to multiple pulses of sound. 

Available data on TTS in marine 

mammals are summarized in Southall et 

al. (2007). Table 1 (above) presents the 

distances from the Melville’s airguns at 

which the received energy level (per 

pulse, flat-weighted) would be expected 

to be greater than or equal to 190 dB re 

1 mPa (rms). 

Researchers have derived TTS 

information for odontocetes from 

studies on the bottlenose dolphin and 

beluga. For the one harbor porpoise 

tested, the received level of airgun 

sound that elicited onset of TTS was 

lower (Lucke et al., 2009). If these 

results from a single animal are 

representative, it is inappropriate to 

assume that onset of TTS occurs at 

similar received levels in all 

odontocetes (cf. Southall et al., 2007). 

Some cetaceans apparently can incur 

TTS at considerably lower sound 

exposures than are necessary to elicit 

TTS in the beluga or bottlenose dolphin. 

For baleen whales, there are no data, 

direct or indirect, on levels or properties 

of sound that are required to induce 

TTS. The frequencies to which baleen 

whales are most sensitive are assumed 

to be lower than those to which 

odontocetes are most sensitive, and 

natural background noise levels at those 

low frequencies tend to be higher. As a 

result, auditory thresholds of baleen 

whales within their frequency band of 

best hearing are believed to be higher 

(less sensitive) than are those of 

odontocetes at their best frequencies 

(Clark and Ellison, 2004). From this, it 

is suspected that received levels causing 

TTS onset may also be higher in baleen 

whales (Southall et al., 2007). For this 

proposed study, SIO expects no cases of 

TTS given the low abundance of baleen 

whales in the proposed survey area at 

the time of the proposed survey, and the 

strong likelihood that baleen whales 

would avoid the approaching airguns 

(or vessel) before being exposed to 

levels high enough for TTS to occur. 

In pinnipeds, TTS thresholds 

associated with exposure to brief pulses 

(single or multiple) of underwater sound 

have not been measured. Initial 

evidence from more prolonged (nonpulse) exposures suggested that some 

pinnipeds (harbor seals in particular) 

incur TTS at somewhat lower received 

levels than do small odontocetes 

exposed for similar durations (Kastak et 

al., 1999, 2005; Ketten et al., 2001). The 

TTS threshold for pulsed sounds has 

been indirectly estimated as being an 

SEL of approximately 171 dB re 1 mPa2·s 

(Southall et al., 2007) which would be 

equivalent to a single pulse with a 

received level of approximately 181 to 

186 dB re 1 mPa (rms), or a series of 

pulses for which the highest rms values 

are a few dB lower. Corresponding 

values for California sea lions and 

northern elephant seals are likely to be 

higher (Kastak et al., 2005). 

To avoid the potential for injury, 

NMFS (1995, 2000) concluded that 

cetaceans should not be exposed to 

pulsed underwater noise at received 

levels exceeding 180 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

and pinnipeds should not be exposed to 

pulsed underwater noise at received 

levels exceeding 190 dB re 1 mPa (rms). 

NMFS believes that to avoid the 

potential for permanent physiological 

damage (Level A harassment), cetaceans 

should not be exposed to pulsed 

underwater noise at received levels 

exceeding 180 dB re 1 mPa (rms) and 

pinnipeds should not be exposed to 

pulsed underwater noise at received 

levels exceeding 190 dB re 1 mPa (rms). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14754 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2012 / Notices 

The 180 dB and 190 dB levels are the 

shutdown criterion applicable to 

cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively, 

as specified by NMFS (2000); these 

levels were used to establish the EZs. 

NMFS also assumes that marine 

mammals exposed to levels exceeding 

160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) may experience 

Level B harassment. 

Permanent Threshold Shift—When 

PTS occurs, there is physical damage to 

the sound receptors in the ear. In severe 

cases, there can be total or partial 

deafness, whereas in other cases, the 

animal has an impaired ability to hear 

sounds in specific frequency ranges 

(Kryter, 1985). There is no specific 

evidence that exposure to pulses of 

airgun sound can cause PTS in any 

marine mammal, even with large arrays 

of airguns. However, given the 

possibility that mammals close to an 

airgun array might incur at least mild 

TTS, there has been further speculation 

about the possibility that some 

individuals occurring very close to 

airguns might incur PTS (e.g., 

Richardson et al., 1995, p. 372ff; 

Gedamke et al., 2008). Single or 

occasional occurrences of mild TTS are 

not indicative of permanent auditory 

damage, but repeated or (in some cases) 

single exposures to a level well above 

that causing TTS onset might elicit PTS. 

Relationships between TTS and PTS 

thresholds have not been studied in 

marine mammals, but are assumed to be 

similar to those in humans and other 

terrestrial mammals. PTS might occur at 

a received sound level at least several 

dBs above that inducing mild TTS if the 

animal were exposed to strong sound 

pulses with rapid rise time—see 

Appendix A(6) of SIO’s EA. Based on 

data from terrestrial mammals, a 

precautionary assumption is that the 

PTS threshold for impulse sounds (such 

as airgun pulses as received close to the 

source) is at least 6 dB higher than the 

TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis, 

and probably greater than six dB 

(Southall et al., 2007). 

Given the higher level of sound 

necessary to cause PTS as compared 

with TTS, it is considerably less likely 

that PTS would occur. Baleen whales 

generally avoid the immediate area 

around operating seismic vessels, as do 

some other marine mammals. 

Stranding and Mortality—Marine 

mammals close to underwater 

detonations of high explosives can be 

killed or severely injured, and the 

auditory organs are especially 

susceptible to injury (Ketten et al., 1993; 

Ketten, 1995). However, explosives are 

no longer used for marine waters for 

commercial seismic surveys or (with 

rare exceptions) for seismic research; 

they have been replaced entirely by 

airguns or related non-explosive pulse 

generators. Airgun pulses are less 

energetic and have slower rise times, 

and there is no specific evidence that 

they can cause serious injury, death, or 

stranding even in the case of large 

airgun arrays. However, the association 

of strandings of beaked whales with 

naval exercises involving mid-frequency 

active sonar and, in one case, an L–DEO 

seismic survey (Malakoff, 2002; Cox et 

al., 2006), has raised the possibility that 

beaked whales exposed to strong 

‘‘pulsed’’ sounds may be especially 

susceptible to injury and/or behavioral 

reactions that can lead to stranding (e.g., 

Hildebrand, 2005; Southall et al., 2007). 

Appendix A(6) of SIO’s EA provides 

additional details. 

Specific sound-related processes that 

lead to strandings and mortality are not 

well documented, but may include: 

(1) Swimming in avoidance of a 

sound into shallow water; 

(2) A change in behavior (such as a 

change in diving behavior) that might 

contribute to tissue damage, gas bubble 

formation, hypoxia, cardiac arrhythmia, 

hypertensive hemorrhage or other forms 

of trauma; 

(3) A physiological change such as a 

vestibular response leading to a 

behavioral change or stress-induced 

hemorrhagic diathesis, leading in turn 

to tissue damage; and 

(4) Tissue damage directly from sound 

exposure, such as through acousticallymediated bubble formation and growth 

or acoustic resonance of tissues. Some 

of these mechanisms are unlikely to 

apply in the case of impulse sounds. 

However, there are indications that gasbubble disease (analogous to ‘‘the 

bends’’), induced in supersaturated 

tissue by a behavioral response to 

acoustic exposure, could be a pathologic 

mechanism for the strandings and 

mortality of some deep-diving cetaceans 

exposed to sonar. However, the 

evidence for this remains circumstantial 

and associated with exposure to naval 

mid-frequency sonar, not seismic 

surveys (Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al., 

2007). 

Seismic pulses and mid-frequency 

sonar signals are quite different, and 

some mechanisms by which sonar 

sounds have been hypothesized to affect 

beaked whales are unlikely to apply to 

airgun pulses. Sounds produced by 

airgun arrays are broadband impulses 

with most of the energy below one kHz. 

Typical military mid-frequency sonar 

emits non-impulse sounds at 

frequencies of two to 10 kHz, generally 

with a relatively narrow bandwidth at 

any one time. A further difference 

between seismic surveys and naval 

exercises is that naval exercises can 

involve sound sources on more than one 

vessel. Thus, it is not appropriate to 

assume that there is a direct connection 

between the effects of military sonar and 

seismic surveys on marine mammals. 

However, evidence that sonar signals 

can, in special circumstances, lead (at 

least indirectly) to physical damage and 

mortality (e.g., Balcomb and Claridge, 

2001; NOAA and USN, 2001; Jepson et 

al., 2003; Ferna ́ndez et al., 2004, 2005; 

Hildebrand 2005; Cox et al., 2006) 

suggests that caution is warranted when 

dealing with exposure of marine 

mammals to any high-intensity 

‘‘pulsed’’ sound. 

There is no conclusive evidence of 

cetacean strandings or deaths at sea as 

a result of exposure to seismic surveys, 

but a few cases of strandings in the 

general area where a seismic survey was 

ongoing have led to speculation 

concerning a possible link between 

seismic surveys and strandings. 

Suggestions that there was a link 

between seismic surveys and strandings 

of humpback whales in Brazil (Engel et 

al., 2004) were not well founded (IAGC, 

2004; IWC, 2007). In September, 2002, 

there was a stranding of two Cuvier’s 

beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris) in 

the Gulf of California, Mexico, when the 

L–DEO vessel R/V Maurice Ewing was 

operating a 20 airgun (8,490 in3) array 

in the general area. The link between 

the stranding and the seismic surveys 

was inconclusive and not based on any 

physical evidence (Hogarth, 2002; 

Yoder, 2002). Nonetheless, the Gulf of 

California incident plus the beaked 

whale strandings near naval exercises 

involving use of mid-frequency sonar 

suggests a need for caution in 

conducting seismic surveys in areas 

occupied by beaked whales until more 

is known about effects of seismic 

surveys on those species (Hildebrand, 

2005). No injuries of beaked whales are 

anticipated during the proposed study 

because of: 

(1) The high likelihood that any 

beaked whales nearby would avoid the 

approaching vessel before being 

exposed to high sound levels, and 

(2) Differences between the sound 

sources operated by SIO and those 

involved in the naval exercises 

associated with strandings. 

Non-auditory Physiological Effects— 

Non-auditory physiological effects or 

injuries that theoretically might occur in 

marine mammals exposed to strong 

underwater sound include stress, 

neurological effects, bubble formation, 

resonance, and other types of organ or 

tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall 

et al., 2007). Studies examining such 

effects are limited. However, resonance 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2012 / Notices 14755 

effects (Gentry, 2002) and direct noiseinduced bubble formations (Crum et al., 

2005) are implausible in the case of 

exposure to an impulsive broadband 

source like an airgun array. If seismic 

surveys disrupt diving patterns of deepdiving species, this might perhaps result 

in bubble formation and a form of the 

bends, as speculated to occur in beaked 

whales exposed to sonar. However, 

there is no specific evidence of this 

upon exposure to airgun pulses. 

In general, very little is known about 

the potential for seismic survey sounds 

(or other types of strong underwater 

sounds) to cause non-auditory physical 

effects in marine mammals. Such 

effects, if they occur at all, would 

presumably be limited to short distances 

and to activities that extend over a 

prolonged period. The available data do 

not allow identification of a specific 

exposure level above which nonauditory effects can be expected 

(Southall et al., 2007), or any 

meaningful quantitative predictions of 

the numbers (if any) of marine mammals 

that might be affected in those ways. 

Marine mammals that show behavioral 

avoidance of seismic vessels, including 

most baleen whales and some 

odontocetes, are especially unlikely to 

incur non-auditory physical effects. 

Potential Effects of Other Acoustic 

Devices 

MBES 

SIO will operate the Kongsberg EM 

122 MBES from the source vessel during 

the planned study. Sounds from the 

MBES are very short pulses, occurring 

for two to 15 ms once every five to 20 

s, depending on water depth. Most of 

the energy in the sound pulses emitted 

by this MBES is at frequencies near 12 

kHz, and the maximum source level is 

242 dB re 1 mPam (rms). The beam is 

narrow (1 to 2°) in fore-aft extent and 

wide (150°) in the cross-track extent. 

Each ping consists of eight (in water 

greater than 1,000 m deep) or four (in 

water less than 1,000 m deep) 

successive fan-shaped transmissions 

(segments) at different cross-track 

angles. Any given mammal at depth 

near the trackline would be in the main 

beam for only one or two of the 

segments. Also, marine mammals that 

encounter the Kongsberg EM 122 are 

unlikely to be subjected to repeated 

pulses because of the narrow fore-aft 

width of the beam and will receive only 

limited amounts of pulse energy 

because of the short pulses. Animals 

close to the ship (where the beam is 

narrowest) are especially unlikely to be 

ensonified for more than two to 15 ms 

pulse (or two pings if in the overlap 

area). Similarly, Kremser et al. (2005) 

noted that the probability of a cetacean 

swimming through the area of exposure 

when an MBES emits a pulse is small. 

The animal would have to pass the 

transducer at close range and be 

swimming at speeds similar to the 

vessel in order to receive the multiple 

pulses that might result in sufficient 

exposure to cause TTS. 

Navy sonars that have been linked to 

avoidance reactions and stranding of 

cetaceans: (1) generally have longer 

pulse duration than the Kongsberg EM 

122; and (2) are often directed close to 

horizontally versus more downward for 

the MBES. The area of possible 

influence of the MBES is much 

smaller—a narrow band below the 

source vessel. Also, the duration of 

exposure for a given marine mammal 

can be much longer for naval sonar. 

During SIO’s operations, the individual 

pulses will be very short, and a given 

mammal would not receive many of the 

downward-directed pulses as the vessel 

passes by. Possible effects of an MBES 

on marine mammals are outlined below. 

Masking—Marine mammal 

communications will not be masked 

appreciably by the MBES signals given 

the low duty cycle of the echosounder 

and the brief period when an individual 

mammal is likely to be within its beam. 

Furthermore, in the case of baleen 

whales, the MBES signals (12 kHz) do 

not overlap with the predominant 

frequencies in the calls, which would 

avoid any significant masking. 

Behavioral Responses—Behavioral 

reactions of free-ranging marine 

mammals to sonars, echosounders, and 

other sound sources appear to vary by 

species and circumstance. Observed 

reactions have included silencing and 

dispersal by sperm whales (Watkins et 

al., 1985), increased vocalizations and 

no dispersal by pilot whales (Rendell 

and Gordon, 1999), and the previouslymentioned beachings by beaked whales. 

During exposure to a 21 to 25 kHz 

‘‘whale-finding’’ sonar with a source 

level of 215 dB re 1 mPa, gray whales 

reacted by orienting slightly away from 

the source and being deflected from 

their course by approximately 200 m 

(Frankel, 2005). When a 38 kHz 

echosounder and a 150 kHz acoustic 

Doppler current profiler were 

transmitting during studies in the 

Eastern Tropical Pacific, baleen whales 

showed no significant responses, while 

spotted and spinner dolphins were 

detected slightly more often and beaked 

whales less often during visual surveys 

(Gerrodette and Pettis, 2005). 

Captive bottlenose dolphins and a 

beluga whale exhibited changes in 

behavior when exposed to 1 s tonal 

signals at frequencies similar to those 

that will be emitted by the MBES used 

by SIO, and to shorter broadband pulsed 

signals. Behavioral changes typically 

involved what appeared to be deliberate 

attempts to avoid the sound exposure 

(Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 

2002; Finneran and Schlundt, 2004). 

The relevance of those data to freeranging odontocetes is uncertain, and in 

any case, the test sounds were quite 

different in duration as compared with 

those from an MBES. 

Very few data are available on the 

reactions of pinnipeds to echosounder 

sounds at frequencies similar to those 

used during seismic operations. Hastie 

and Janik (2007) conducted a series of 

behavioral response tests on two captive 

gray seals to determine their reactions to 

underwater operation of a 375 kHz 

multibeam imaging echosounder that 

included significant signal components 

down to 6 kHz. Results indicated that 

the two seals reacted to the signal by 

significantly increasing their dive 

durations. Because of the likely brevity 

of exposure to the MBES sounds, 

pinniped reactions are expected to be 

limited to startle or otherwise brief 

responses of no lasting consequences to 

the animals. 

Hearing Impairment and Other 

Physical Effects—Given recent stranding 

events that have been associated with 

the operation of naval sonar, there is 

concern that mid-frequency sonar 

sounds can cause serious impacts to 

marine mammals (see above). However, 

the MBES proposed for use by SIO is 

quite different than sonar used for Navy 

operations. Pulse duration of the MBES 

is very short relative to the naval sonar. 

Also, at any given location, an 

individual marine mammal would be in 

the beam of the MBES for much less 

time given the generally downward 

orientation of the beam and its narrow 

fore-aft beamwidth; Navy sonar often 

uses near-horizontally-directed sound. 

Those factors would all reduce the 

sound energy received from the MBES 

rather drastically relative to that from 

naval sonar. 

NMFS believes that the brief exposure 

of marine mammals to one pulse, or 

small numbers of signals, from the 

MBES is not likely to result in the 

harassment of marine mammals. 

SBP 

SIO will also operate a SBP from the 

source vessel during the proposed 

survey. Sounds from the SBP are very 

short pulses, occurring for up to 64 ms 

once every s. Most of the energy in the 

sound pulses emitted by the SBP is at 

3.5 kHz, and the beam is directed 

downward. The SBP on the Melville has 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14756 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2012 / Notices 

a maximum source level of 222 dB re 1 

mPam (rms). Kremser et al. (2005) noted 

that the probability of a cetacean 

swimming through the area of exposure 

when a bottom profiler emits a pulse is 

small—even for an SBP more powerful 

than that on the Melville—if the animal 

was in the area, it would have to pass 

the transducer at close range in order to 

be subjected to sound levels that could 

cause TTS. 

Masking—Marine mammal 

communications will not be masked 

appreciably by the SBP signals given the 

directionality of the signal and the brief 

period when an individual mammal is 

likely to be within its beam. 

Furthermore, in the case of most baleen 

whales, the SBP signals do not overlap 

with the predominant frequencies in the 

calls, which would avoid significant 

masking. 

Behavioral Responses—Marine 

mammal behavioral reactions to other 

pulsed sound sources are discussed 

above, and responses to the SBP are 

likely to be similar to those for other 

pulsed sources if received at the same 

levels. However, the pulsed signals from 

the SBP are considerably weaker than 

those from the MBES. Therefore, 

behavioral responses are not expected 

unless marine mammals are very close 

to the source. 

Hearing Impairment and Other 

Physical Effects—It is unlikely that the 

SBP produces pulse levels strong 

enough to cause hearing impairment or 

other physical injuries even in an 

animal that is (briefly) in a position near 

the source. The SBP is usually operated 

simultaneously with other higher-power 

acoustic sources, including airguns. 

Many marine mammals will move away 

in response to the approaching higherpower sources or the vessel itself before 

the mammals would be close enough for 

there to be any possibility of effects 

from the less intense sounds from the 

SBP. 

Acoustic Release Signals 

The acoustic release transponder used 

to communicate with the OBSs uses 

frequencies nine to 13 kHz. These 

signals will be used very intermittently. 

It is unlikely that the acoustic release 

signals would have a significant effect 

on marine mammals through masking, 

disturbance, or hearing impairment. 

Any effects likely would be negligible 

given the brief exposure at presumable 

low levels. 

The potential effects to marine 

mammals described in this section of 

the document do not take into 

consideration the proposed monitoring 

and mitigation measures described later 

in this document (see the Proposed 

Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring 

and Reporting sections) which, as noted 

are designed to effect the least 

practicable adverse impact on affected 

marine mammal species and stocks. 

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat 

The proposed seismic survey will not 

result in any permanent impact on 

habitats used by the marine mammals in 

the proposed survey area, including the 

food sources they use (i.e. fish and 

invertebrates), and there will be no 

physical damage to any habitat. While it 

is anticipated that the specified activity 

may result in marine mammals avoiding 

certain areas due to temporary 

ensonification, this impact to habitat is 

temporary and reversible and was 

considered in further detail earlier in 

this document, as behavioral 

modification. The main impact 

associated with the proposed activity 

will be temporarily elevated noise levels 

and the associated direct effects on 

marine mammals, previously discussed 

in this notice. 

Anticipated Effects on Fish 

One reason for the adoption of airguns 

as the standard energy source for marine 

seismic surveys is that, unlike 

explosives, they have not been 

associated with large-scale fish kills. 

However, existing information on the 

impacts of seismic surveys on marine 

fish populations is limited (see 

Appendix D of NSF’s EA). There are 

three types of potential effects of 

exposure to seismic surveys: (1) 

Pathological, (2) physiological, and (3) 

behavioral. Pathological effects involve 

lethal and temporary or permanent sublethal injury. Physiological effects 

involve temporary and permanent 

primary and secondary stress responses, 

such as changes in levels of enzymes 

and proteins. Behavioral effects refer to 

temporary and (if they occur) permanent 

changes in exhibited behavior (e.g., 

startle and avoidance behavior). The 

three categories are interrelated in 

complex ways. For example, it is 

possible that certain physiological and 

behavioral changes could potentially 

lead to an ultimate pathological effect 

on individuals (i.e., mortality). 

The specific received sound levels at 

which permanent adverse effects to fish 

potentially could occur are little studied 

and largely unknown. Furthermore, the 

available information on the impacts of 

seismic surveys on marine fish is from 

studies of individuals or portions of a 

population; there have been no studies 

at the population scale. The studies of 

individual fish have often been on caged 

fish that were exposed to airgun pulses 

in situations not representative of an 

actual seismic survey. Thus, available 

information provides limited insight on 

possible real-world effects at the ocean 

or population scale. This makes drawing 

conclusions about impacts on fish 

problematic because ultimately, the 

most important aspect of potential 

impacts relates to how exposure to 

seismic survey sound affects marine fish 

populations and their viability, 

including their availability to fisheries. 

Hastings and Popper (2005), Popper 

(2009), and Popper and Hastings 

(2009a,b) provided recent critical 

reviews of the known effects of sound 

on fish. The following sections provide 

a general synopsis of the available 

information on the effects of exposure to 

seismic and other anthropogenic sound 

as relevant to fish. The information 

comprises results from scientific studies 

of varying degrees of rigor plus some 

anecdotal information. Some of the data 

sources may have serious shortcomings 

in methods, analysis, interpretation, and 

reproducibility that must be considered 

when interpreting their results (see 

Hastings and Popper, 2005). Potential 

adverse effects of the program’s sound 

sources on marine fish are noted. 

Pathological Effects—The potential 

for pathological damage to hearing 

structures in fish depends on the energy 

level of the received sound and the 

physiology and hearing capability of the 

species in question (see Appendix D of 

NSF’s EA). For a given sound to result 

in hearing loss, the sound must exceed, 

by some substantial amount, the hearing 

threshold of the fish for that sound 

(Popper, 2005). The consequences of 

temporary or permanent hearing loss in 

individual fish on a fish population are 

unknown; however, they likely depend 

on the number of individuals affected 

and whether critical behaviors involving 

sound (e.g., predator avoidance, prey 

capture, orientation and navigation, 

reproduction, etc.) are adversely 

affected. 

Little is known about the mechanisms 

and characteristics of damage to fish 

that may be inflicted by exposure to 

seismic survey sounds. Few data have 

been presented in the peer-reviewed 

scientific literature. As far as SIO and 

NMFS know, there are only two papers 

with proper experimental methods, 

controls, and careful pathological 

investigation implicating sounds 

produced by actual seismic survey 

airguns in causing adverse anatomical 

effects. One such study indicated 

anatomical damage, and the second 

indicated TTS in fish hearing. The 

anatomical case is McCauley et al. 

(2003), who found that exposure to 

airgun sound caused observable 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2012 / Notices 14757 

anatomical damage to the auditory 

maculae of pink snapper (Pagrus 

auratus). This damage in the ears had 

not been repaired in fish sacrificed and 

examined almost two months after 

exposure. On the other hand, Popper et 

al. (2005) documented only TTS (as 

determined by auditory brainstem 

response) in two of three fish species 

from the Mackenzie River Delta. This 

study found that broad whitefish 

(Coregonus nasus) exposed to five 

airgun shots were not significantly 

different from those of controls. During 

both studies, the repetitive exposure to 

sound was greater than would have 

occurred during a typical seismic 

survey. However, the substantial lowfrequency energy produced by the 

airguns [less than 400 Hz in the study 

by McCauley et al. (2003) and less than 

approximately 200 Hz in Popper et al. 

(2005)] likely did not propagate to the 

fish because the water in the study areas 

was very shallow (approximately nine 

m in the former case and less than two 

m in the latter). Water depth sets a 

lower limit on the lowest sound 

frequency that will propagate (the 

‘‘cutoff frequency’’) at about one-quarter 

wavelength (Urick, 1983; Rogers and 

Cox, 1988). 

Wardle et al. (2001) suggested that in 

water, acute injury and death of 

organisms exposed to seismic energy 

depends primarily on two features of 

the sound source: (1) the received peak 

pressure and (2) the time required for 

the pressure to rise and decay. 

Generally, as received pressure 

increases, the period for the pressure to 

rise and decay decreases, and the 

chance of acute pathological effects 

increases. According to Buchanan et al. 

(2004), for the types of seismic airguns 

and arrays involved with the proposed 

program, the pathological (mortality) 

zone for fish would be expected to be 

within a few meters of the seismic 

source. Numerous other studies provide 

examples of no fish mortality upon 

exposure to seismic sources (Falk and 

Lawrence, 1973; Holliday et al., 1987; 

La Bella et al., 1996; Santulli et al., 

1999; McCauley et al., 2000a,b, 2003; 

Bjarti, 2002; Thomsen, 2002; Hassel et 

al., 2003; Popper et al., 2005; Boeger et 

al., 2006). 

Some studies have reported, some 

equivocally, that mortality of fish, fish 

eggs, or larvae can occur close to 

seismic sources (Kostyuchenko, 1973; 

Dalen and Knutsen, 1986; Booman et 

al., 1996; Dalen et al., 1996). Some of 

the reports claimed seismic effects from 

treatments quite different from actual 

seismic survey sounds or even 

reasonable surrogates. However, Payne 

et al. (2009) reported no statistical 

differences in mortality/morbidity 

between control and exposed groups of 

capelin eggs or monkfish larvae. Saetre 

and Ona (1996) applied a ‘worst-case 

scenario’ mathematical model to 

investigate the effects of seismic energy 

on fish eggs and larvae. They concluded 

that mortality rates caused by exposure 

to seismic surveys are so low, as 

compared to natural mortality rates, that 

the impact of seismic surveying on 

recruitment to a fish stock must be 

regarded as insignificant. 

Physiological Effects—Physiological 

effects refer to cellular and/or 

biochemical responses of fish to 

acoustic stress. Such stress potentially 

could affect fish populations by 

increasing mortality or reducing 

reproductive success. Primary and 

secondary stress responses of fish after 

exposure to seismic survey sound 

appear to be temporary in all studies 

done to date (Sverdrup et al., 1994; 

Santulli et al., 1999; McCauley et al., 

2000a,b). The periods necessary for the 

biochemical changes to return to normal 

are variable and depend on numerous 

aspects of the biology of the species and 

of the sound stimulus (see Appendix D 

of NSF’s EA). 

Behavioral Effects—Behavioral effects 

include changes in the distribution, 

migration, mating, and catchability of 

fish populations. Studies investigating 

the possible effects of sound (including 

seismic survey sound) on fish behavior 

have been conducted on both uncaged 

and caged individuals (e.g., Chapman 

and Hawkins, 1969; Pearson et al., 1992; 

Santulli et al., 1999; Wardle et al., 2001; 

Hassel et al., 2003). Typically, in these 

studies fish exhibited a sharp ‘‘startle’’ 

response at the onset of a sound 

followed by habituation and a return to 

normal behavior after the sound ceased. 

There is general concern about 

potential adverse effects of seismic 

operations on fisheries, namely a 

potential reduction in the ‘‘catchability’’ 

of fish involved in fisheries. Although 

reduced catch rates have founded by 

other sources of disturbance (Dalen and 

Raknes, 1985; Dalen and Knutsen, 1986; 

Lokkeborg, 1991; Skalski et al., 1992; 

Engas et al., 1996). In other airgun 

experiments, there was no change in 

catch per unit effort of fish when airgun 

pulses were emitted, particularly in the 

immediate vicinity of the seismic survey 

(Pickett et al., 1994; La Bella et al., 

1996). For some species, reductions in 

catch may have resulted from a change 

in behavior of the fish, e.g., a change in 

vertical or horizontal distribution, as 

reported in Slotte et al. (2004). 

In general, any adverse effects on fish 

behavior or fisheries attributable to 

seismic testing may depend on the 

species in question and the nature of the 

fishery (season, duration, fishing 

method). They may also depend on the 

age of the fish, its motivational state, its 

size, and numerous other factors that are 

difficult, if not impossible, to quantify at 

this point, given such limited data on 

effects of airguns on fish, particularly 

under realistic at-sea conditions. 

Anticipated Effects on Invertebrates 

The existing body of information on 

the impacts of seismic survey sound on 

marine invertebrates is very limited. 

However, there is some unpublished 

and very limited evidence of the 

potential for adverse effects on 

invertebrates, thereby justifying further 

discussion and analysis of this issue. 

The three types of potential effects of 

exposure to seismic surveys on marine 

invertebrates are pathological, 

physiological, and behavioral. Based on 

the physical structure of their sensory 

organs, marine invertebrates appear to 

be specialized to respond to particle 

displacement components of an 

impinging sound field and not to the 

pressure component (Popper et al., 

2001; see also Appendix E of NSF’s EA). 

The only information available on the 

impacts of seismic surveys on marine 

invertebrates involves studies of 

individuals; there have been no studies 

at the population scale. Thus, available 

information provides limited insight on 

possible real-world effects at the 

regional or ocean scale. The most 

important aspect of potential impacts 

concerns how exposure to seismic 

survey sound ultimately affects 

invertebrate populations and their 

viability, including availability to 

fisheries. 

Literature reviews of the effects of 

seismic and other underwater sound on 

invertebrates were provided by 

Moriyasu et al. (2004) and Payne et al. 

(2008). The following sections provide a 

synopsis of available information on the 

effects of exposure to seismic survey 

sound on species of decapod 

crustaceans and cephalopods, the two 

taxonomic groups of invertebrates on 

which most such studies have been 

conducted. The available information is 

from studies with variable degrees of 

scientific soundness and from anecdotal 

information. A more detailed review of 

the literature on the effects of seismic 

survey sound on invertebrates is 

provided in Appendix E of NSF’s EA. 

Pathological Effects—In water, lethal 

and sub-lethal injury to organisms 

exposed to seismic survey sound 

appears to depend on at least two 

features of the sound source: (1) The 

received peak pressure; and (2) the time 

required for the pressure to rise and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14758 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2012 / Notices 

decay. Generally, as received pressure 

increases, the period for the pressure to 

rise and decay decreases, and the 

chance of acute pathological effects 

increases. For the type of airgun array 

planned for the proposed program, the 

pathological (mortality) zone for 

crustaceans and cephalopods is 

expected to be within a few meters of 

the seismic source, at most; however, 

very few specific data are available on 

levels of seismic signals that might 

damage these animals. This premise is 

based on the peak pressure and rise/ 

decay time characteristics of seismic 

airgun arrays currently in use around 

the world. 

Some studies have suggested that 

seismic survey sound has a limited 

pathological impact on early 

developmental stages of crustaceans 

(Pearson et al., 1994; Christian et al., 

2003; DFO, 2004). However, the impacts 

appear to be either temporary or 

insignificant compared to what occurs 

under natural conditions. Controlled 

field experiments on adult crustaceans 

(Christian et al., 2003, 2004; DFO, 2004) 

and adult cephalopods (McCauley et al., 

2000a,b) exposed to seismic survey 

sound have not resulted in any 

significant pathological impacts on the 

animals. It has been suggested that 

exposure to commercial seismic survey 

activities has injured giant squid 

(Guerra et al., 2004), but the article 

provides little evidence to support this 

claim. Recent work by Andre et al. 

(2011) purports to present the first 

morphological and ultrastructural 

evidence of massive acoustic trauma 

(i.e., permanent and substantial 

alterations of statocyst sensory hair 

cells) in four cephalopod species 

subjected to low-frequency sound. The 

cephalopods, primarily cuttlefish, were 

exposed to continuous 50 to 400 Hz 

sinusoidal wave sweeps (100% duty 

cycle and 1 s sweep period) for two 

hours while captive in relatively small 

tanks (one 2,000 liter [L, 2m3] and one 

200 L [0.2 m3] tank), and reported 

morphological and ultrastructural 

evidence of massive acoustic trauma 

(i.e., permanent and substantial 

alterations of statocyst sensory hair 

cells). The received SPL was reported as 

157±5 dB re 1 mPa, with peak levels at 

175 dB re 1 mPa. As in the McCauley et 

al. (2003) paper on sensory hair cell 

damage in pink snapper as a result of 

exposure to seismic sound, the 

cephalopods were subjected to higher 

sound levels than they would be under 

natural conditions, and they were 

unable to swim away from the sound 

source. 

Physiological Effects—Physiological 

effects refer mainly to biochemical 

responses by marine invertebrates to 

acoustic stress. Such stress potentially 

could affect invertebrate populations by 

increasing mortality or reducing 

reproductive success. Primary and 

secondary stress responses (i.e., changes 

in haemolymph levels of enzymes, 

proteins, etc.) of crustaceans have been 

noted several days or months after 

exposure to seismic survey sounds 

(Payne et al., 2007). The periods 

necessary for these biochemical changes 

to return to normal are variable and 

depend on numerous aspects of the 

biology of the species and of the sound 

stimulus. 

Behavioral Effects—There is 

increasing interest in assessing the 

possible direct and indirect effects of 

seismic and other sounds on 

invertebrate behavior, particularly in 

relation to the consequences for 

fisheries. Changes in behavior could 

potentially affect such aspects as 

reproductive success, distribution, 

susceptibility to predation, and 

catchability by fisheries. Studies 

investigating the possible behavioral 

effects of exposure to seismic survey 

sound on crustaceans and cephalopods 

have been conducted on both uncaged 

and caged animals. In some cases, 

invertebrates exhibited startle responses 

(e.g., squid in McCauley et al., 2000a,b). 

In other cases, no behavioral impacts 

were noted (e.g., crustaceans in 

Christian et al., 2003, 2004; DFO 2004). 

There have been anecdotal reports of 

reduced catch rates of shrimp shortly 

after exposure to seismic surveys; 

however, other studies have not 

observed any significant changes in 

shrimp catch rate (Andriguetto-Filho et 

al., 2005). Similarly, Parry and Gason 

(2006) did not find any evidence that 

lobster catch rates were affected by 

seismic surveys. Any adverse effects on 

crustacean and cephalopod behavior or 

fisheries attributable to seismic survey 

sound depend on the species in 

question and the nature of the fishery 

(season, duration, fishing method). 

OBS Deployment—A total of 

approximately 10 OBSs will be 

deployed during the proposed survey. 

L–DEO OBS08 model broadband OBSs 

will be used during the cruise. This type 

of OBS has a height of approximately 

122 cm and a width and depth of 76.2 

x 106.7 cm. The anchor is made of two 

steel cylinders approximately 15 cm in 

diameter and 46 cm in length. Each 

cylinder weighs approximately 75 lbs in 

air. OBSs will remain on the seafloor to 

continue to collect data for 

approximately one year. Once an OBS is 

ready to be retrieved, an acoustic release 

transponder interrogates the instrument 

at a frequency of 9 to 11 kHz, and a 

response is received at a frequency of 9 

to 13 kHz. The burn-wire release 

assembly is then activated and the 

instrument is released from the anchor 

to float to the surface. OBS anchors will 

be left behind upon equipment 

recovery. Although OBS placement will 

disrupt a very small area of seafloor 

habitat and could disturb benthic 

invertebrates, the impacts are expected 

to be localized and transitory. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an Incidental Take 

Authorization (ITA) under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must 

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to such activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on such 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, and the availability of such 

species or stock for taking for certain 

subsistence uses. 

SIO has based the mitigation 

measures described herein, to be 

implemented for the proposed seismic 

survey, on the following: 

(1) Protocols used during previous 

SIO seismic research cruises as 

approved by NMFS; 

(2) Previous IHA applications and 

IHAs approved and authorized by 

NMFS; and 

(3) Recommended best practices in 

Richardson et al. (1995), Pierson et al. 

(1998), and Weir and Dolman, (2007). 

Planning Phase—The PIs worked with 

SIO and NSF to identify potential time 

periods to carry out the survey taking 

into consideration key factors such as 

environmental conditions (i.e., the 

seasonal presence of marine mammals), 

weather conditions, equipment, and 

optimal timing for other proposed 

seismic surveys using the Melville. Most 

marine mammal species are expected to 

occur in the area year-round, so altering 

the timing of the proposed survey likely 

would result in no net benefits for those 

species. Baleen whales are most 

common south of the survey area 

between February and June, whereas 

odontocetes were most commonly 

observed between October and 

November. After considering what 

energy source level was necessary to 

achieve the research goals, the PIs 

determined the use of the two GI airgun 

array with a maximum total volume of 

210 in3 would be required. Given the 

research goals, location of the survey 

and associated deep water, this energy 

source level was viewed appropriate. 

The location of the survey was informed 

and adjusted based on the latest 

scientific information on the epicenter 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2012 / Notices 14759 

of the February 27, 2010 earthquake; 

survey location is critical for collecting 

the data for the overall research activity 

and meeting research objectives. 

To reduce the potential for 

disturbance from acoustic stimuli 

associated with the activities, SIO and/ 

or its designees has proposed to 

implement the following mitigation 

measures for marine mammals: 

(1) Proposed exclusion zones; 

(2) Speed or course alteration; 

(3) Shut-down procedures; and 

(4) Ramp-up procedures. 

Proposed Exclusion Zones—Received 

sound levels have been modeled by L– 

DEO for a number of airgun 

configurations, including two 45 in3 GI 

airguns, in relation to distance and 

direction from the airguns (see Figure 2 

of the IHA application). The model does 

not allow for bottom interactions, and is 

most directly applicable to deep water. 

Based on the modeling, estimates of the 

maximum distances from the source 

where sound levels are predicted to be 

190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) in 

deep water were determined (see Table 

1 above). 

Empirical data concerning the 190, 

180, and 160 dB (rms) distances were 

acquired for various airgun arrays based 

on measurements during the acoustic 

verification studies conducted by L– 

DEO in the northern GOM in 2003 

(Tolstoy et al., 2004) and 2007 to 2008 

(Tolstoy et al., 2009). Results of the 36 

airgun array are not relevant for the two 

GI airguns to be used in the proposed 

survey. The empirical data for the 6, 10, 

12, and 20 airgun arrays indicate that, 

for deep water, the L–DEO model tends 

to overestimate the received sound 

levels at a given distance (Tolstoy et al., 

2004). Measurements were not made for 

the two GI airgun array in deep water, 

however, SIO proposes to use the EZ 

predicted by L–DEO’s model for the 

proposed GI airgun operations in deep 

water, although they are likely 

conservative give the empirical results 

for the other arrays. 

The 180 and 190 dB radii are shutdown criteria applicable to cetaceans 

and pinnipeds, respectively, as 

specified by NMFS (2000); these levels 

were used to establish the EZs. If the 

PSO detects marine mammal(s) within 

or about to enter the appropriate EZ, the 

airguns will be shut-down immediately. 

Speed or Course Alteration—If a 

marine mammal is detected outside the 

EZ an, based on its position and the 

relative motion, is likely to enter the EZ, 

the vessel’s speed and/or direct course 

could be changed. This would be done 

if operationally practicable while 

minimizing the effect on the planned 

science objectives. The activities and 

movements of the marine mammal 

(relative to the seismic vessel) will then 

be closely monitored to determine 

whether the animal is approaching the 

applicable EZ. If the animal appears 

likely to enter the EZ, further mitigative 

actions will be taken, i.e., either further 

course alterations or a shut-down of the 

seismic source. Typically, during 

seismic operations, the source vessel is 

unable to change speed or course and 

one or more alternative mitigation 

measures will need to be implemented. 

Shut-down Procedures—SIO will shut 

down the operating airgun(s) if a marine 

mammal is seen outside the EZ for the 

airgun(s), and if the vessel’s speed and/ 

or course cannot be changed to avoid 

having the animal enter the EZ, the 

seismic source will be shut-down before 

the animal is within the EZ. If a marine 

mammal is already within the EZ when 

first detected, the seismic source will be 

shut-down immediately. 

Following a shut-down, SIO will not 

resume airgun activity until the marine 

mammal has cleared the EZ. SIO will 

consider the animal to have cleared the 

EZ if: 

• A PSO has visually observed the 

animal leave the EZ, or 

• A PSO has not sighted the animal 

within the EZ for 15 min for species 

with shorter dive durations (i.e., small 

odontocetes or pinnipeds), or 30 min for 

species with longer dive durations (i.e., 

mysticetes and large odontocetes, 

including sperm, killer, and beaked 

whales). 

Ramp-up Procedures—SIO will 

follow a ramp-up procedure when the 

airgun array begins operating after a 

specified period without airgun 

operations or when a shut-down has 

exceeded that period. SIO proposes that, 

for the present cruise, this period would 

be approximately 15 min. SIO has used 

similar periods (approximately 15 min) 

during previous SIO surveys. 

Ramp-up will begin with a single GI 

airgun (45 in3). The second GI airgun 

(45 in3) will be added after five min. 

During ramp-up, the PSOs will monitor 

the EZ, and if marine mammals are 

sighted, SIO will implement a shutdown as though both GI airguns were 

operational. 

If the complete EZ has not been 

visible for at least 30 min prior to the 

start of operations in either daylight or 

nighttime, SIO will not commence the 

ramp-up. If one airgun has operated, 

ramp-up to full power will be 

permissible at night or in poor visibility, 

on the assumption that marine 

mammals will be alerted to the 

approaching seismic vessel by the 

sounds from the single airgun and could 

move away if they choose. A ramp-up 

from a shut-down may occur at night, 

but only where the EZ is small enough 

to be visible. SIO will not initiate a 

ramp-up of the airguns if a marine 

mammal is sighted within or near the 

applicable EZs during the day or close 

to the vessel at night. 

NMFS has carefully evaluated the 

applicant’s proposed mitigation 

measures and has considered a range of 

other measures in the context of 

ensuring that NMFS prescribes the 

means of effecting the least practicable 

adverse impact on the affected marine 

mammal species and stocks and their 

habitat. NMFS’s evaluation of potential 

measures included consideration of the 

following factors in relation to one 

another: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure is 

expected to minimize adverse impacts 

to marine mammals; 

(2) The proven or likely efficacy of the 

specific measure to minimize adverse 

impacts as planned; and 

(3) The practicability of the measure 

for applicant implementation. 

Based on NMFS’s evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS 

or recommended by the public, NMFS 

has preliminarily determined that the 

proposed mitigation measures provide 

the means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impacts on marine 

mammal species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an ITA 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 IHAs must 

include the suggested means of 

accomplishing the necessary monitoring 

and reporting that will result in 

increased knowledge of the species and 

of the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are 

expected to be present in the action 

area. 

Monitoring 

SIO proposes to sponsor marine 

mammal monitoring during the 

proposed project, in order to implement 

the proposed mitigation measures that 

require real-time monitoring, and to 

satisfy the anticipated monitoring 

requirements of the IHA. SIO’s proposed 

Monitoring Plan is described below this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14760 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2012 / Notices 

section. SIO understands that this 

monitoring plan will be subject to 

review by NMFS, and that refinements 

may be required. The monitoring work 

described here has been planned as a 

self-contained project independent of 

any other related monitoring projects 

that may be occurring simultaneously in 

the same regions. SIO is prepared to 

discuss coordination of its monitoring 

program with any related work that 

might be done by other groups insofar 

as this is practical and desirable. 

Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring 

PSOs will be based aboard the seismic 

source vessel and will watch for marine 

mammals near the vessel during 

daytime airgun operations and during 

any ramp-ups at night. PSOs will also 

watch for marine mammals near the 

seismic vessel for at least 30 min prior 

to the ramp-up of airgun operations after 

an extended shut-down (i.e., greater 

than approximately 15 min for this 

proposed cruise). When feasible, PSOs 

will conduct observations during 

daytime periods when the seismic 

system is not operating for comparison 

of sighting rates and behavior with and 

without airgun operations and between 

acquisition periods. Based on PSO 

observations, the airguns will be shutdown when marine mammals are 

observed within or about to enter a 

designated EZ. The EZ is a region in 

which a possibility exists of adverse 

effects on animal hearing or other 

physical effects. 

During seismic operations in the 

south-eastern Pacific Ocean, three PSOs 

will be based aboard the Melville. SIO 

will appoint the PSOs with NMFS’s 

concurrence. At least one PSO will 

monitor the EZs during seismic 

operations. Observations will take place 

during ongoing daytime operations and 

nighttime ramp-ups of the airguns. 

PSO(s) will be on duty in shifts of 

duration no longer than 4 hr. The vessel 

crew will also be instructed to assist in 

detecting marine mammals. 

The Melville is a suitable platform for 

marine mammal observations of 

protected species. The primary observer 

platform is located one deck below and 

forward of the bridge (02 level, 12.46 m 

[40.9 ft] above the waterline), affording 

relatively unobstructed 180° forward 

view. A pair of Big-eye binoculars is 

mounted in this location. The open deck 

continues along both the port and 

starboard sides, and opens up to an aft 

deck stretching across the full width of 

the vessel. PSOs have views in a full 

360° by walking along this deck. In 

extremely inclement weather, the PSOs 

move on to the bridge (03 level, 15.5 m 

[50.6 ft] above the water line). There 

they will have a 360° view through the 

windows. 

During daytime, the PSVOs will scan 

the area around the vessel 

systematically with reticle binoculars 

(e.g., 7 × 50 Fujinon), Big-eye binoculars 

(25 × 150), optical range finders and 

with the naked eye. During darkness, 

night vision devices (NVDs) will be 

available, when required. The PSOs will 

be in wireless communication with the 

vessel’s officers on the bridge and 

scientists in the vessel’s operations 

laboratory, so they can advise promptly 

of the need for avoidance maneuvers or 

seismic source shut-down. When 

marine mammals are detected within or 

about to enter the designated EZ, the 

airguns will immediately be shut-down 

if necessary. The PSO(s) will continue 

to maintain watch to determine when 

the animal(s) are outside the EZ by 

visual confirmation. Airgun operations 

will not resume until the animal is 

confirmed to have left the EZ, or if not 

observed after 15 min for species with 

shorter dive durations (small 

odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 min 

for species with longer dive durations 

(mysticetes and large odontocetes, 

including sperm, killer, and beaked 

whales). 

PSO Data and Documentation 

PSOs will record data to estimate the 

numbers of marine mammals exposed to 

various received sound levels and to 

document apparent disturbance 

reactions or lack thereof. Data will be 

used to estimate numbers of animals 

potentially ‘taken’ by harassment (as 

defined in the MMPA). They will also 

provide information needed to order a 

shut-down of the airguns when a marine 

mammal is within or near the EZ. 

Observations will also be made during 

daytime periods when the Melville is 

underway without seismic operations 

(i.e., transits to, from, and through the 

study area) to collect baseline biological 

data. 

When a sighting is made, the 

following information about the sighting 

will be recorded: 

1. Species, group size, age/size/sex 

categories (if determinable), behavior 

when first sighted and after initial 

sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing 

and distance from seismic vessel, 

sighting cue, apparent reaction to the 

airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, 

approach, paralleling, etc.), and 

behavioral pace. 

2. Time, location, heading, speed, 

activity of the vessel, Beaufort sea state, 

visibility, and sun glare. 

The data listed under (2) will also be 

recorded at the start and end of each 

observation watch, and during a watch 

whenever there is a change in one or 

more of the variables. 

All observations as well as 

information regarding shut-downs of the 

seismic source, will be recorded in a 

standardized format. The data accuracy 

will be verified by the PSOs at sea, and 

preliminary reports will be prepared 

during the field program and summaries 

forwarded to the operating institution’s 

shore facility and to NSF weekly or 

more frequently. 

Vessel-based observations by the PSO 

will provide the following information: 

1. The basis for real-time mitigation 

(airgun shut-down). 

2. Information needed to estimate the 

number of marine mammals potentially 

taken by harassment, which must be 

reported to NMFS. 

3. Data on the occurrence, 

distribution, and activities of marine 

mammals in the area where the seismic 

study is conducted. 

4. Information to compare the 

distance and distribution of marine 

mammals relative to the source vessel at 

times with and without seismic activity. 

5. Data on the behavior and 

movement patterns of marine mammals 

seen at times with and without seismic 

activity. 

SIO will submit a report to NMFS and 

NSF within 90 days after the end of the 

cruise. The report will describe the 

operations that were conducted and 

sightings of marine mammals near the 

operations. The report will provide full 

documentation of methods, results, and 

interpretation pertaining to all 

monitoring. The 90-day report will 

summarize the dates and locations of 

seismic operations, and all marine 

mammal sightings (dates, times, 

locations, activities, associated seismic 

survey activities). The report will also 

include estimates of the number and 

nature of exposures that could result in 

potential ‘‘takes’’ of marine mammals by 

harassment or in other ways. After the 

report is considered final, it will be 

publicly available on the NMFS and 

NSF Web sites. 

In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by this IHA, such as an 

injury (Level A harassment), serious 

injury or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear 

interaction, and/or entanglement), SIO 

will immediately cease the specified 

activities and immediately report the 

incident to the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS at 301–427– 

8401 and/or by email to 

Michael.Payne@noaa.gov and 

Howard.Goldstein@noaa.gov, and the 

NMFS Southwest Regional Stranding 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2012 / Notices 14761 

Coordinators (Joe.Cordaro@noaa.gov 

and Sarah.Wilkin@noaa.gov). The report 

must include the following information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

• Name and type of vessel involved; 

• Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

• Description of the incident; 

• Status of all sound source use in the 

24 hours preceding the incident; 

• Water depth; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

• Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Fate of the animal(s); and 

• Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s) (if equipment is available). 

Activities shall not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS shall work with SIO to determine 

what is necessary to minimize the 

likelihood of further prohibited take and 

ensure MMPA compliance. SIO may not 

resume their activities until notified by 

NMFS via letter or email, or telephone. 

In the event that SIO discovers an 

injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead PSO determines that the cause 

of the injury or death is unknown and 

the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less 

than a moderate state of decomposition 

as described in the next paragraph), SIO 

will immediately report the incident to 

the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301– 

427–8401, and/or by email to 

Michael.Payne@noaa.gov and 

Howard.Goldstein@noaa.gov, and the 

NMFS Southwest Regional Office (562– 

980–4017) and/or by email to the 

Southwest Regional Stranding 

Coordinators (Joe.Cordaro@noaa.gov 

and Sarah.Wilkin@noaa.gov). The report 

must include the same information 

identified in the paragraph above. 

Activities may continue while NMFS 

reviews the circumstances of the 

incident. NMFS will work with SIO to 

determine whether modifications in the 

activities are appropriate. 

In the event that SIO discovers an 

injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead PSO determines that the injury 

or death is not associated with or related 

to the activities authorized in the IHA 

(e.g., previously wounded animal, 

carcass with moderate to advanced 

decomposition, or scavenger damage), 

SIO will report the incident to the Chief 

of the Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, at 301–427–8401, and/or by 

email to Michael.Payne@noaa.gov and 

Howard.Goldstein@noaa.gov, and the 

NMFS Southwest Regional Office (562– 

980–4017), and/or by email to the 

Southwest Regional Stranding 

Coordinators (Joe.Cordaro@noaa.gov 

and Sarah.Wilkin@noaa.gov), within 24 

hours of discovery. SIO will provide 

photographs or video footage (if 

available) or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to NMFS and 

the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. 

Activities may continue while NMFS 

reviews the circumstances of the 

incident. 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: 

any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance 

which (i) has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 

[Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential 

to disturb a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild by causing 

disruption of behavioral patterns, including, 

but not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

[Level B harassment]. 

Only take by Level B harassment is 

anticipated and proposed to be 

authorized as a result of the proposed 

marine seismic survey in the southeastern Pacific Ocean. Acoustic stimuli 

(i.e., increased underwater sound) 

generated during the operation of the 

seismic airgun array may have the 

potential to cause marine mammals in 

the survey area to be exposed to sounds 

at or greater than 160 dB or cause 

temporary, short-term changes in 

behavior. There is no evidence that the 

planned activities could result in injury, 

serious injury, or mortality within the 

specified geographic area for which SIO 

seeks the IHA. The required mitigation 

and monitoring measures will minimize 

any potential risk for injury, serious 

injury, or mortality. 

The following sections describe SIO’s 

methods to estimate take by incidental 

harassment and present the applicant’s 

estimates of the numbers of marine 

mammals that could be affected during 

the proposed seismic program. The 

estimates are based on a consideration 

of the number of marine mammals that 

could be disturbed appreciably by 

operations with the two GI airgun array 

to be used during approximately 1,810 

km (977.3 nmi) (includes primary and 

secondary lines and an additional 25 

percent contingency) of survey lines in 

the south-eastern Pacific Ocean. 

SIO assumes that, during 

simultaneous operations of the airgun 

array and the other sources, any marine 

mammals close enough to be affected by 

the MBES and SBP would already be 

affected by the airguns. However, 

whether or not the airguns are operating 

simultaneously with the other sources, 

marine mammals are expected to exhibit 

no more than short-term and 

inconsequential responses to the MBES 

and SBP given their characteristics (e.g., 

narrow, downward-directed beam) and 

other considerations described 

previously. Such reactions are not 

considered to constitute ‘‘taking’’ 

(NMFS, 2001). Therefore, SIO provides 

no additional allowance for animals that 

could be affected by sound sources 

other than airguns. 

Extensive systematic ship-based 

surveys have been conducted by NMFS 

SWFSC for marine mammals in the ETP. 

SIO used densities from five sources: 

(1) SWFSC has recently developed 

habitat modeling as a method to 

estimate cetacean densities on a finer 

spatial scale than traditional linetransect analyses by using a continuous 

function of habitat variables, e.g., sea 

surface temperature, depth, distance 

from shore, and prey density (Barlow et 

al., 2009). For the ETP, the models are 

based on data from 12 SWFSC shipbased cetacean and ecosystem 

assessment surveys conducted during 

July to December from 1986 to 2006. 

The models have been incorporated into 

a web-based Geographic Information 

System (GIS) developed by Duke 

University’s Department of Defense 

Strategic Environmental Research and 

Development Program (SERDP) team in 

close collaboration with the SWFSC 

SERDP team Read et al., 2009). For 11 

cetacean species in the model, SIO used 

the GIS to obtain mean densities near 

the proposed survey area, i.e., in a 

rectangle bounded by 4° to 12° South 

and 75° to 85° West, which was the 

south-eastern extent of the model; 

(2) For species sighted in SWFSC 

surveys whose sample sizes were too 

small to model density, SIO used 

densities from the surveys conducted 

during summer and fall 1986 to 1996, as 

summarized by Ferguson and Barlow 

(2001). Densities were calculated from 

Ferguson and Barlow (2003) for 5° x 5° 

blocks that include the proposed survey 

areas and corridors: Blocks 139, 159, 

160, 200, 201, 202, 212, 213, and 219. 

Those blocks included 27,275 km 

(14727.3 nmi) of survey effort in 

Beaufort sea states 0 to 5, and 2,564 km 

(1,384.5 nmi) of survey effort in 

Beaufort sea states 0 to 2. Densities were 

obtained for an additional five species 

that were sighted in one or more of 

those blocks; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14762 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2012 / Notices 

(3) For dusky dolphins, SIO used the 

mean densities reported for Area A from 

aerial surveys in North and Central 

Patagonia (Shiavini et al., 1999), 

corrected for ƒ(0), but not g(0). Since the 

closest density estimates were taken 

south of the proposed survey area, 

where dusky dolphin abundance is 

higher, SIO used 10 percent of the 

reported density to account for the 

decreased abundance of dusky dolphins 

in the proposed survey area; 

(4) For Chilean dolphins, SIO used 

the estimated density of Chilean 

dolphins in Patagonia from Heinrich 

(2006). The extralimital, offshore 

distribution of Chilean dolphins in the 

proposed survey area was corrected for 

by taking 1 percent of the densities 

reported by Heinrich (2006); 

(5) For blue whales, SIO used the 

densities reported by GallettiVernazzani and Cabrera (2009) from 

aerial surveys in Patagonia in March 

2007 and April in 2009 that took place 

south of the survey site (39° South to 

44° South). The density estimates were 

corrected for ƒ(0) and g(0). Given the 

higher abundance of blue whales south 

of the survey site, SIO corrected the 

reported density for the proposed 

survey area by reducing the density by 

50 percent. 

For two species for which there are 

only unconfirmed sightings in the 

region, the sei and fin whale, arbitrary 

low densities (equal to the density of the 

species with the lowest calculated 

density) were assigned. The same 

arbitrary low density was assigned to 

southern right whale dolphins and 

Burmeister’s porpoise, where no 

confirmed sightings were made within 

the survey region. In addition, there 

were no density estimates available for 

humpback whales, minke whales, and 

Peale’s dolphins, but confirmed 

sightings have been made near the 

survey area. SIO arbitrarily assigned a 

density estimate of 0.8 animals/1,000 

km2, which was similar to the densities 

reported for uncommon species in the 

area. 

Oceanographic conditions, including 

occasional El Nino and La Nina events, 

influence the distribution and numbers 

of marine mammals present in the ETP 

and SEP, resulting in considerable yearto-year variation in the distribution and 

abundance of many marine mammal 

species (e.g., Escorza-Trevino, 2009). 

Thus, for some species the densities 

derived from recent surveys may not be 

representative of densities that will be 

encountered during the proposed 

seismic survey. 

SIO used estimated densities (see 

Table 3 of the application) for each 

cetacean species likely to occur in the 

proposed study area, i.e., species for 

which SIO obtained or assigned 

densities. The densities had been 

corrected, by the authors, for both 

trackline detectability and availability 

bias. Trackline detection probability 

bias is associated with diminishing 

sightability with increasing lateral 

distance from the trackline, and is 

measured by ƒ(0). Availability bias 

refers to the fact that there is less-than100% probability of sighting an animal 

that is present along the survey trackline 

ƒ(0), and it is measured by g(0). 

Corrections for ƒ(0) and g(0) were made 

where mentioned above. The densities 

are given in Table 3 of SIO’s IHA 

application. 

SIO’s estimates of exposures to 

various sound levels assume that the 

proposed surveys will be fully 

completed; in fact, the ensonified areas 

calculated using the planned number of 

line-km have been increased by 25 

percent to accommodate turns, lines 

that may need to be repeated, 

equipment testing, etc. As is typical 

during offshore ship surveys, inclement 

weather and equipment malfunctions 

are likely to cause delays and may limit 

the number of useful line-kilometers of 

seismic operations that can be 

undertaken. Furthermore, any marine 

mammal sightings within or near the 

designated EZs will result in the shutdown of seismic operations as a 

mitigation measure. Thus, the following 

estimates of the numbers of marine 

mammals potentially exposed to sound 

levels of 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) are 

precautionary and probably 

overestimate the actual numbers of 

marine mammals that might be 

involved. These estimates also assume 

that there will be no weather, 

equipment, or mitigation delays, which 

is highly unlikely. 

SIO estimated the number of different 

individuals that may be exposed to 

airgun sounds with received levels 

greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) on one or more occasions by 

considering the total marine area that 

would be within the 160 dB radius 

around the operating airgun array on at 

least one occasion, along with the 

expected density of marine mammals in 

the area. The proposed seismic lines are 

not in close proximity, which 

minimizes the number of times an 

individual marine mammal may be 

exposed during the proposed survey; 

the area including the overlap is only 

1.2 times the area excluding overlap. 

The numbers of different individuals 

potentially exposed to greater than or 

equal to 160 dB (rms) were calculated 

by multiplying the expected species 

density times the anticipated area to be 

ensonified during airgun operations. 

The area expected to be ensonified was 

determined by entering the planned 

survey lines into a MapInfo GIS, using 

the GIS to identify the relevant areas by 

‘‘drawing’’ the applicable 160 dB buffer 

(see Table 1 of the IHA application) 

around each seismic line, and then 

calculating the total area within the 

buffers. Areas where overlap occurred 

(because of crossing lines) were 

included only once when estimating the 

number of individuals exposed. 

Applying the approach described 

above, approximately 1,448.4 km2

(422.3 nmi2) would be within the 160 

dB isopleth on one or more occasions 

during the proposed survey (including 

primary and secondary lines). The total 

ensonified area used to calculate 

estimated numbers exposed was 

approximately 1,810.5 km2 [527.9 nmi2] 

and includes the additional 25 percent 

increase in the calculated area for 

contingency. Because this approach 

does not allow for turnover in the 

marine mammal populations in the 

study area during the course of the 

survey, the actual number of individuals 

exposed could be underestimated, 

although the conservative (i.e., probably 

overestimated) line-kilometer distances 

used to calculate the area may offset 

this. Also, the approach assumes that no 

cetaceans will move away from or 

toward the trackline as the Melville 

approaches in response to increasing 

sound levels prior to the time the levels 

reach 160 dB. Another way of 

interpreting the estimates that follow is 

that they represent the number of 

individuals that are expected (in the 

absence of a seismic program) to occur 

in the waters that will be exposed to 

greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms). 

Table 3 (Table 3 of the IHA 

application) shows the estimates of the 

number of different individual marine 

mammals that potentially could be 

exposed to greater than or equal to 160 

dB re 1 mPa (rms) during the seismic 

survey if no animals moved away from 

the survey vessel. The requested take 

authorization is given in Table 3 (below; 

the far right column of Table 3 of the 

IHA application). For ESA listed 

species, the requested take authorization 

has been increased to the mean group 

size in southern Chile where available 

(Viddi et al., 2010) or the ETP (Wade 

and Gerodette, 1993), where the 

calculated number of individuals 

exposed was between 0.05 and the mean 

group size (i.e., for sei, fin, humpback, 

and sperm whales). For species not 

listed under the ESA that could occur in 

the study area, the requested take 

authorization has been increased to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2012 / Notices 14763 

mean group size in the ETP (Wade and 

Gerodette, 1993) or southern Chile 

(Viddi et al., 2010); ZamoranoAbramson et al., 2010) in cases where 

the calculated number of individuals 

exposed was between one and the mean 

group size. For delphinids where 

typically large group sizes are 

encountered, the requested take 

authorization was increased to the mean 

group size in southern Chile (Aguauo et 

al., 1998; Viddi et al., 2010; ZamaranoAbramson et al., 2010) if the calculated 

number was greater than one, but less 

than the mean group size. 

The best estimate of the number of 

individual cetaceans that could be 

exposed to seismic sounds with 

received levels greater than or equal to 

160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) during the 

proposed survey is 561 (see Table 3 of 

the IHA application). That total 

includes: 1 humpback, 1 minke, 2 

Bryde’s, 4 blue, and 7 sperm whales, 1 

Cuvier’s, 1 Blainville’s, and 1 

unidentified Mesoplodon beaked whale, 

15 rough-toothed, 72 bottlenose, 134 

spinner, 123 striped, 254 short-beaked 

common, 4 Peale’s, 67 dusky, and 4 

Chilean dolphins, and 1 false killer, 2 

killer, and 22 long-finned pilot whales, 

which would represent less than 1% of 

the regional populations for any of the 

respective species. Most (96.4%) of the 

cetaceans potentially exposed are 

delphinids; rough-toothed, short-beaked 

common, striped, spinner, bottlenose, 

Risso’s, and dusky dolphins and longfinned pilot whales are estimated to be 

the most common species in the 

proposed study area. Due to the 

extralimital distribution of pinnipeds in 

the study area, no pinnipeds are 

expected to be encountered during the 

proposed survey. 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATES OF THE POSSIBLE NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS EXPOSED TO DIFFERENT SOUND LEVELS ≥160 

DB DURING SIO’S PROPOSED SEISMIC SURVEY IN THE SOUTH-EASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN DURING MAY, 2012 

Species 

Estimated 

number of 

individuals 

exposed to 

sound levels 

≥160 dB re 1 

μPa1

Requested take 

authorization 

Approximate 

percent of regional population (for requested take) 2

Mysticetes: 

Humpback whale .............................................................................................................. 1 * 3 0.1 

Minke whale ...................................................................................................................... 1 * 2 <0.01 

Bryde’s whale ................................................................................................................... 2 2 <0.01 

Sei whale .......................................................................................................................... 0 0 NA 

Fin whale .......................................................................................................................... 0 0 NA 

Blue whale ........................................................................................................................ 4 4 0.3 

Odontocetes: 

Sperm whale ..................................................................................................................... 7 * 8 0.03 

Pygmy sperm whale ......................................................................................................... 0 0 NA 

Dwarf sperm whale ........................................................................................................... 0 0 NA 

Cuvier’s beaked whale ..................................................................................................... 1 1 <0.01 

Blainville’s beaked whale ................................................................................................. 1 1 <0.01 

Gray’s beaked whale ........................................................................................................ 0 0 NA 

Hector’s beaked whale ..................................................................................................... 0 0 NA 

Strap-toothed beaked whale ............................................................................................ 0 0 NA 

Unidentified Mesoplodon spp. .......................................................................................... 1 1 <0.01 

Rough-toothed dolphin ..................................................................................................... 8 * 15 0.01 

Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................................................................ 31 * 72 0.02 

Spinner dolphin ................................................................................................................. 65 * 134 <0.01 

Striped dolphin .................................................................................................................. 123 123 0.01 

Short-beaked common dolphin ........................................................................................ 201 * 254 0.01 

Risso’s dolphin ................................................................................................................. 18 18 0.02 

False killer whale .............................................................................................................. 1 1 <0.01 

Killer whale ....................................................................................................................... 2 2 0.02 

Long-finned pilot whale .................................................................................................... 22 22 0.01 

Peale’s dolphin ................................................................................................................. 1 * 4 NA 

Dusky dolphin ................................................................................................................... 67 67 0.92 

Southern right whale dolphin ............................................................................................ 0 0 NA 

Chilean dolphin ................................................................................................................. 4 4 0.4 

Burmeister’s porpoise ....................................................................................................... 0 0 NA 

Pinnipeds: 

South American fur seal ................................................................................................... 0 0 NA 

Juan Fernandez fur seal .................................................................................................. 0 0 NA

South American sea lion .................................................................................................. 0 0 NA

Southern elephant seal .................................................................................................... 0 0 NA 

1Estimates are based on densities from Table 2 (Table 3 of the IHA application) and ensonified areas (including 25% contingency) for 160 dB 

of 1,810.5 km2. 2 Regional population size estimates are from Table 2 (see Table 2 of the IHA application); NA means not available. 

* Requested authorized take was increased to mean group size for delphinids if calculated numbers were between 1 and mean group size, and 

increased to the mean group size if calculated vales were greater than 0.05 for endangered species. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14764 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2012 / Notices 

Encouraging and Coordinating 

Research 

SIO and NSF will coordinate the 

planned marine mammal monitoring 

program associated with the seismic 

survey in the south-eastern Pacific 

Ocean with any parties that may have or 

express an interest in the proposed 

seismic survey area. SIO and NSF have 

coordinated, and will continue to 

coordinate, with other applicable 

Federal agencies as required, and will 

comply with their requirements. 

Pursuant to IHA requirements, SIO will 

submit a monitoring report to NMFS 90 

days after the proposed survey. PSO 

data collected during the survey will be 

submitted to OBIS Seamap and will be 

made available on the NSF Web site for 

interested parties and researchers. 

Negligible Impact and Small Numbers 

Analysis and Preliminary 

Determination 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘* * * an 

impact resulting from the specified 

activity that cannot be reasonably 

expected to, and is not reasonably likely 

to, adversely affect the species or stock 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival.’’ In making a 

negligible impact determination, NMFS 

evaluated factors such as: 

(1) The number of anticipated 

injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities; 

(2) The number, nature, and intensity, 

and duration of Level B harassment (all 

relatively limited); 

(3) The context in which the takes 

occur (i.e., impacts to areas of 

significance, impacts to local 

populations, and cumulative impacts 

when taking into account successive/ 

contemporaneous actions when added 

to baseline data); 

(4) The status of stock or species of 

marine mammals (i.e., depleted, not 

depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, 

and impact relative to the size of the 

population); 

(5) Impacts on habitat affecting rates 

of recruitment/survival; and 

(6) The effectiveness of monitoring 

and mitigation measures (i.e., the 

manner and degree in which the 

measure is likely to reduce adverse 

impacts to marine mammals, the likely 

effectiveness of the measures, and the 

practicability of implementation). 

For reasons stated previously in this 

document, the specified activities 

associated with the marine seismic 

survey are not likely to cause PTS, or 

other non-auditory injury, serious 

injury, or death because: 

(1) The likelihood that, given 

sufficient notice through relatively slow 

ship speed, marine mammals are 

expected to move away from a noise 

source that is annoying prior to its 

becoming potentially injurious; 

(2) The potential for temporary or 

permanent hearing impairment is 

relatively low and would likely be 

avoided through the incorporation of 

the required monitoring and mitigation 

measures (described above); 

(3) The fact that pinnipeds would 

have to be closer than 10 m (32.8 ft) in 

deep water when the two GI airgun 

array is in use at 2 m (6.6 ft) tow depth 

from the vessel to be exposed to levels 

of sound believed to have even a 

minimal chance of causing PTS; 

(4) The fact that cetaceans would have 

to be closer than 40 m (131.2 ft) in deep 

water when the two GI airgun array is 

in 2 m tow depth from the vessel to be 

exposed to levels of sound believed to 

have even a minimal chance of causing 

PTS; and 

(5) The likelihood that marine 

mammal detection ability by trained 

PSOs is high at close proximity to the 

vessel. 

No injuries, serious injuries, or 

mortalities are anticipated to occur as a 

result of SIO’s planned marine seismic 

survey, and none are authorized by 

NMFS. Only short-term, behavioral 

disturbance is anticipated to occur due 

to the brief and sporadic duration of the 

survey activities. Table 3 in this 

document outlines the number of Level 

B harassment takes that are anticipated 

as a result of the activities. Due to the 

nature, degree, and context of Level B 

(behavioral) harassment anticipated and 

described (see Potential Effects on 

Marine Mammals section above) in this 

notice, the activity is not expected to 

impact rates of recruitment or survival 

for any affected species or stock. 

Many animals perform vital functions, 

such as feeding, resting, traveling, and 

socializing, on a diel cycle (i.e., 24 hr 

cycle). Behavioral reactions to noise 

exposure (such as disruption of critical 

life functions, displacement, or 

avoidance of important habitat) are 

more likely to be significant if they last 

more than one diel cycle or recur on 

subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). 

While seismic operations are 

anticipated to occur on consecutive 

days, the entire duration of the survey 

is not expected to last more than 15 

days and the Melville will be 

continuously moving along planned 

tracklines. Therefore, the seismic survey 

will be increasing sound levels in the 

marine environment surrounding the 

vessel for several weeks in the study 

area. Of the 32 marine mammal species 

under NMFS jurisdiction that are 

known to or likely to occur in the study 

area, five are listed as endangered under 

the ESA: humpback, sei, fin, blue, and 

sperm whale. These species are also 

considered depleted under the MMPA. 

There is generally insufficient data to 

determine population trends for the 

other depleted species in the study area. 

To protect these animals (and other 

marine mammals in the study area), SIO 

must cease or reduce airgun operations 

if animals enter designated zones. No 

injury, serious injury, or mortality is 

expected to occur and due to the nature, 

degree, and context of the Level B 

harassment anticipated, the activity is 

not expected to impact rates of 

recruitment or survival. 

As mentioned previously, NMFS 

estimates that 20 species of marine 

mammals under its jurisdiction could be 

potentially affected by Level B 

harassment over the course of the 

proposed IHA. For each species, these 

numbers are small (each less than one 

percent) relative to the regional 

population size. The population 

estimates for the marine mammal 

species that may be taken by harassment 

were provided in Table 2 of this 

document. 

NMFS’s practice has been to apply the 

160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) received level 

threshold for underwater impulse sound 

levels to determine whether take by 

Level B harassment occurs. Southall et 

al. (2007) provide a severity scale for 

ranking observed behavioral responses 

of both free-ranging marine mammals 

and laboratory subjects to various types 

of anthropogenic sound (see Table 4 in 

Southall et al. [2007]). 

NMFS has preliminarily determined, 

provided that the aforementioned 

mitigation and monitoring measures are 

implemented, that the impact of 

conducting a marine seismic survey in 

the south-eastern Pacific Ocean, May, 

2012, may result, at worst, in a 

temporary modification in behavior 

and/or low-level physiological effects 

(Level B harassment) of small numbers 

of certain species of marine mammals. 

See Table 3 (above) for the requested 

authorized take numbers of cetaceans 

and pinnipeds. 

While behavioral modifications, 

including temporarily vacating the area 

during the operation of the airgun(s), 

may be made by these species to avoid 

the resultant acoustic disturbance, the 

availability of alternate areas within 

these areas and the short and sporadic 

duration of the research activities, have 

led NMFS to preliminary determine that 

this action will have a negligible impact 

on the species in the specified 

geographic region. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2012 / Notices 14765 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

mitigation and monitoring measures, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that SIO’s 

planned research activities, will result 

in the incidental take of small numbers 

of marine mammals, by Level B 

harassment only, and that the total 

taking from the marine seismic survey 

will have a negligible impact on the 

affected species or stocks of marine 

mammals; and that impacts to affected 

species or stocks of marine mammals 

have been mitigated to the lowest level 

practicable. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species or Stock for Taking for 

Subsistence Uses 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) also requires 

NMFS to determine that the 

authorization will not have an 

unmitigable adverse effect on the 

availability of marine mammal species 

or stocks for subsistence use. There are 

no relevant subsistence uses of marine 

mammals in the study area (offshore 

waters of the south-eastern Pacific 

Ocean off of Chile) that implicate 

MMPA section 101(a)(5)(D). 

Endangered Species Act 

Of the species of marine mammals 

that may occur in the proposed survey 

area, several are listed as endangered 

under the ESA, including the 

humpback, sei, fin, blue, and sperm 

whale. Under section 7 of the ESA, NSF 

has initiated formal consultation with 

the NMFS, Office of Protected 

Resources, Endangered Species Act 

Interagency Cooperation Division, on 

this proposed seismic survey. NMFS’s 

Office of Protected Resources, Permits 

and Conservation Division, has initiated 

formal consultation under section 7 of 

the ESA with NMFS’s Office of 

Protected Resources, Endangered 

Species Act Interagency Cooperation 

Division, to obtain a Biological Opinion 

evaluating the effects of issuing the IHA 

on threatened and endangered marine 

mammals and, if appropriate, 

authorizing incidental take. NMFS will 

conclude formal section 7 consultation 

prior to making a determination on 

whether or not to issue the IHA. If the 

IHA is issued, NSF and SIO, in addition 

to the mitigation and monitoring 

requirements included in the IHA, will 

be required to comply with the Terms 

and Conditions of the Incidental Take 

Statement corresponding to NMFS’s 

Biological Opinion issued to both NSF 

and NMFS’s Office of Protected 

Resources. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

With its complete application, NSF 

and SIO provided NMFS a draft 

‘‘National Environmental Policy Act 

Analysis Pursuant to Executive Order 

12114 of a Marine Geophysical Survey 

by the R/V Melville in the South-Eastern 

Pacific Ocean, May 2012’’ and NMFS 

will prepare an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) titled ‘‘Issuance of an 

Incidental Harassment Authorization to 

the Scripps Institution of Oceanography 

to Take Marine Mammals by 

Harassment Incidental to a Marine 

Geophysical Survey in the SouthEastern Pacific Ocean, May, 2012.’’ This 

EA will incorporate the NSF’s NEPA 

analysis by reference pursuant to 40 

CFR 1502.21 and NOAA Administrative 

Order (NAO) 216–6 § 5.09(d). NMFS’s 

EA will rely on the environmental 

information disclosed and referenced in 

this notice and NMFS will evaluate 

public comments provided in responses 

to this notice when preparing its EA. 

Prior to making a final decision on the 

SIO’s IHA application, NMFS will make 

a decision of whether or not to issue a 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI). 

Proposed Authorization 

NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to 

SIO for conducting a marine 

geophysical survey in the south-eastern 

Pacific Ocean, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

The duration of the IHA would not 

exceed one year from the date of its 

issuance. 

Information Solicited 

NMFS requests interested persons to 

submit comments and information 

concerning this proposed project and 

NMFS’s preliminary determination of 

issuing an IHA (see ADDRESSES). 

Concurrent with the publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is 

forwarding copies of this application to 

the Marine Mammal Commission and 

its Committee of Scientific Advisors. 

Dated: March 7, 2012. 

Helen M. Golde, 

Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6054 Filed 3–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for clearance the following 

proposal for collection of information 

under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). 

Agency: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO). 

Title: Recording Assignments. 

Form Number(s): PTO–1594 and 

PTO–1595. 

Agency Approval Number: 0651– 

0027. 

Type of Request: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Burden: 234,414 hours annually. 

Number of Respondents: 468,826 

responses per year. 

Avg. Hours per Response: The USPTO 

estimates that it will take the public 

approximately 30 minutes (0.5 hours) to 

prepare and submit a patent or 

trademark assignment recordation 

request. 

Needs and Uses: Under 35 U.S.C. 261 

and 262 and 15 U.S.C. 1057 and 1060, 

the USPTO records patent and 

trademark assignment documents that 

show the transfer of ownership of 

applications, patents, and trademark 

registrations from one entity to another. 

The USPTO provides cover sheets to 

ensure all the necessary assignment data 

is submitted for accurate recording. In 

order to file a request to record an 

assignment, the respondent must submit 

an appropriate cover sheet along with 

copies of the assignment documents to 

be recorded and payment of the 

appropriate fee. The recorded 

documents are available for public 

inspection, except for those documents 

that are sealed under secrecy orders or 

related to unpublished patent 

applications. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households; businesses or other forprofits; and not-for-profit institutions. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. 

OMB Desk Officer: Nicholas A. Fraser, 

email: 

Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov. 

Once submitted, the request will be 

publicly available in electronic format 

through the Information Collection 

Review page at www.reginfo.gov. 

Paper copies can be obtained by: 

• Email: 

InformationCollection@uspto.gov. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES