Dear Authors.
Thank-you for your responses to reviews and the revised manuscript. I am asking just for some “Technical Corrections” (“Editorial comments” below) after which it should go direct to the Copernicus Editorial system (i.e. without further intervention on my part) for publication in Ocean Science. It will be copy-edited and I expect some changes to the English usage, so please check that your intended meaning is preserved.
Thank-you for submitting to Ocean Science
Yours sincerely
John Huthnance

Editorial comments
Page 4
Lines 14-15. Better to put the three items in order of the following sections. So “. . but engine mass (m), mounting parameter (E) and cavitation inception speed (VCIS) were determined in the following manner.” It might be better to refer to the following section numbers 2.3, 2.4, 2.5.
Line 20. “)” at beginning suggests something missing.
Line 24. “( )” suggests reference missing.

Page 5
Line 5. “. . black lines of figure 2). . .”?
Lines 7, 10. Surely not “0.001 ton/kW”? This would look good in an aeroplane. Anyway “tonne”
Line 27. You could omit “which necessitates an alternative approach”
Line 28. “a manufacturer” or “manufacturers”

Page 6.
Line 4. Better “with” -> “;”
Line 26. Better “which” -> “as”

Page 7.
Line 1. “numbers”
Line 14. “for” -> “in”? [Megajoules are a time-integrated measure of noise. “in one year” expresses the time-integration. “for one year” suggests a rate maintained for a year”.]
Line 18. I think “third octave” -> “1/3-octave” would express better the width of the frequency band (assuming you mean 2**1/3 range of frequencies).
Line 23. “predicted” -> “found” or “estimated”?
Line 30. “. . type, relative to total noise energy emitted at each band, indicates . .”

Page 8
Line 1. “from” -> “of the”
Lines 9, 10, 12. “efficiency”. Yes this does increase with noise produced, but “efficiency” is usually regarded as a good thing whereas Good Environmental Status seeks less noise. I wonder if you might invert your measure to tonne-km/mJ (or tonne-km/μJ).
Line 29. “to” -> “from”?

Page 9
Line 10. Omit “range”? [As I understand it, the possible range could only be above 10 knots rather than 9 knots, so greater speed but less range].
Line 11. “will” -> “would”
Line 31. “vast” -> “the great”

Page 10.
Line 4. “consecutive” -> “consequent”?
Line 14. “sources”
Line 26. Better “done” -> “measured”. Maybe “However” could be omitted since the general meaning of its sentence agrees with the previous “Noise is not routinely monitored”
Line 30. “, but” -> “;” or “and”. [“but” implies contrast but actually “present limited opportunities” are the reason why “. . networks and . . cooperation are needed”]

Figure 4 caption. Colours named in caption do not match those in figure. Could omit “from total energy”.

Figures 4, 5. The words within the figures are very small; also the axis labels in S7, S8, S9.