[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30088-30092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13613]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Docket No. 181019964-9283-01]
RIN 0648-XG584


Announcement of Hearing and Final Agenda Regarding Proposed 
Waiver and Regulations Governing the Taking of Marine Mammals

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of hearing; final agenda.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the final agenda for a hearing before an 
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the process by which interested 
persons can participate in the hearing on issues not previously 
included in the notice of hearing published on April 5, 2019. The 
hearing involves a proposed waiver under the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act (MMPA) and proposed regulations governing the hunting of eastern 
North Pacific (ENP) gray whales by the Makah Indian Tribe in northwest 
Washington State. During the prehearing conference, the following new 
issue of fact was identified: ``Is the ENP stock currently undergoing 
an Unusual Mortality Event (UME)? If so, does this merit further 
consideration before a waiver may be granted?''

DATES: NMFS has scheduled a hearing before Administrative Law Judge 
George J. Jordan to consider the proposed MMPA waiver and the proposed 
regulations previously published on April 5, 2019 (84 FR 13604). It 
will begin on Monday, August 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. PDT in the Henry M. 
Jackson Federal Building, 915 Second Avenue, 4th Floor Auditorium, 
Seattle, WA 98174. This date remains subject to change under 50 CFR 
228.6(b)(1). Persons interested in participating as a party in the 
hearing on issues not included in the notice of hearing should consult 
regulations at 50 CFR part 228, the notice of hearing (84 FR 13639), 
and this notice and notify NMFS by the filing deadline below.
    Filing Deadlines: The final date to submit direct testimony to 
rebut testimony previously submitted is July 9, 2019. The final date 
for submission of direct testimony on issues of fact not included in 
the notice of hearing (84 FR 13639) is July 9, 2019, and the final date 
for rebuttal to such testimony is July 31, 2019. The parties may file 
motions to exclude any issues listed in this notice by July 12, 2019. 
Motions to exclude based on any rebuttal evidence the parties submit 
must be filed by July 19, 2019. The other parties to this proceeding 
will have ten days to respond to any such motions, and additional 
replies will be authorized only on a showing of good cause.
    Any person desiring to participate as a party at the hearing on the 
new issue fact identified during the prehearing conference, which was 
not included in the notice of hearing published on April 5, 2019 (84 FR 
13639) must file a notice of intent to participate with the NMFS West 
Coast Region Regional Administrator by certified mail, postmarked no 
later than July 8, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held before Administrative Law Judge 
George J. Jordan of the United States Coast Guard at the Henry M. 
Jackson Federal Building, 915 Second Avenue, 4th Floor Auditorium, 
Seattle, WA 98174.
    Any person desiring to participate as a party in the hearing on 
issues not previously included in the notice of hearing published on 
April 5, 2019 (84 FR 13639) must notify NMFS, by certified mail, at the 
following address: Mr. Barry Thom, Regional Administrator, NMFS, West 
Coast Region, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 110, Portland, OR 97232.
    Any person desiring to participate as a party in the hearing should 
also send an electronic copy to [email protected]. Such persons may 
present direct testimony or cross-examine witnesses only on those 
issues not previously included in the notice of hearing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Milstein, NMFS West Coast 
Region, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232-1274; 503-
231-6268.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 14, 2005, NMFS received a 
request from the Makah Indian Tribe for a waiver of the MMPA moratorium 
on the take of marine mammals to allow for take of ENP gray whales 
(Eschrichtius robustus). The Tribe requested that NMFS authorize a 
tribal hunt for ENP gray whales in the coastal portion of the Tribe's 
usual and accustomed fishing area for ceremonial and subsistence 
purposes and the making and sale of handicrafts. The MMPA imposes a 
general moratorium on the taking of marine mammals but authorizes the 
Secretary of Commerce to waive the moratorium and issue regulations 
governing the take if certain statutory criteria are met.
    On April 5, 2019, NMFS published a Notice of Hearing and the 
associated proposed regulations in the Federal Register (84 FR 13639 
and 84 FR 13604). Pursuant to an interagency agreement, a Coast Guard 
Administrative Law Judge was assigned to conduct the formal hearing and 
issue a recommended decision in this matter under the procedures set 
forth at 50 CFR part 228.
    A prehearing conference took place on June 17, 2019 at the Jackson 
Federal Building, Seattle, WA. In compliance with 50 CFR 228.12, Judge 
George J. Jordan issued the following notice of final agenda for 
publication in the Federal Register.

[[Page 30089]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Participant                            Interest
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Marine Fisheries Service,   NMFS is the proponent of the
 NOAA, Barry Thom, Regional           proposed regulations. All parties
 Administrator, Portland, OR, Chris   are deemed adverse to NMFS for the
 McNulty, Esq., NOAA Office of        purpose of cross-examination on
 General Counsel, Seattle, WA,        the issues presented.
 Laurie Beale, Esq., NOAA Office of
 General Counsel, Seattle, WA,
 Caitlin Imaki, Esq., NOAA Office
 of General Counsel, Seattle, WA.
Makah Indian Tribe, Brian Gruber,    The Makah Tribe claims the right to
 Esq., Ziontz Chestnut, Seattle, WA.  hunt whales, granted by the Treaty
                                      of Neah Bay. The Makah Tribe is
                                      generally in favor of the proposed
                                      regulations but opposes the
                                      restrictions on off-reservation
                                      consumption of gray whale
                                      products.
Inanna McCarty, Neah Bay, WA.......  Ms. McCarty is an enrolled member
                                      of the Makah Tribe and generally
                                      supports the proposed regulations.
Marine Mammal Commission, Michael    The Marine Mammal Commission (MMC)
 L. Gosliner, Esq., General           does not take a position as to the
 Counsel, Bethesda, MD.               outcome of this rulemaking, but
                                      acts as a scientific advisory body
                                      to NMFS.
Animal Welfare Institute, Elizabeth  The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI)
 Lewis, Esq., Meyer Glitzenstein &    opposes the proposed regulations
 Eubanks LLP, Forth Collins, CO,      for procedural reasons and for the
 Donald J. Schubert.                  impact they would have on marine
                                      mammals.
Sea Shepherd Legal/Sea Shepherd      Sea Shepherd Legal (SSL) opposes
 Conservation Society, Catherine      the proposed regulations for
 Pruett, Esq., Seattle, WA, Brett     procedural reasons and for the
 Sonnemeyer, Esq., Seattle, WA.       impact they would have on marine
                                      mammals.
Peninsula Citizens for the           PCPW opposes the proposed
 Protection of Whales, Margaret       regulations.
 Owens, Port Angeles, WA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Issues To Be Addressed at the Hearing

I. Should a waiver be granted pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(3)(A)?

    A. Did NMFS give due regard to the distribution, abundance, 
breeding habits, and times and lines of migratory movements of the 
stock subject to the waiver? Will the proposed waiver have a meaningful 
effect on the distribution, abundance, breeding habits, or migratory 
movements of the stock subject to the waiver?
    1. Distribution and Abundance:
    a. What numbers are appropriate to use for ENP, WNP, and PCFG:

i. Carrying capacity
ii. Current abundance estimates
iii. Population stability and/or historical fluctuation
iv. Optimum sustainable population (OSP) levels

    b. What are the maximum number of ENP and PCFG whale deaths and 
maximum percentage reduction in ENP and PCFG abundance expected to 
result from Makah hunting over the 10-year waiver period?
    i. Would this reduction have any impact on ENP or PCFG abundance?
    c. Is the ENP stock currently undergoing an Unusual Mortality Event 
(UME)? If so, does this merit further consideration before a waiver may 
be granted?
    d. Is the carrying capacity of ENP stock in the summer feeding 
areas being reduced and does this merit further consideration before a 
waiver may be granted?
    2. Facts pertaining to Breeding Habits:
    a. Under the proposed waiver, will hunting or hunt training overlap 
with the breeding season? Will this most likely occur in December-
January?
    i. What is the expected frequency of hunt activities during the 
relevant time period?
    ii. Will the boundaries set for the proposed hunt adversely affect 
mating whales or mothers and calves?
    3. Facts pertaining to Time and Lines of Migratory Movements:
    a. Does the majority of the ENP stock range from the winter/spring 
breeding grounds in northern Mexico and southern California to the 
summer/fall feeding grounds in the Bering, Beaufort, and Chukchi seas? 
Should the Okhotsk Sea be included in the migratory range?
    b. Does the ENP stock migrate between the breeding and feeding 
grounds between December and May?
    i. Is the timing of the southbound migration being altered due to a 
longer feeding season in the Arctic?
    c. Will migrating ENP whales generally be encountered only during 
even-year hunts?
    i. How long is it expected to take for a migrating ENP whale to 
pass through the proposed hunt boundary?
    ii. Proportionally, how much of the migratory range is included in 
the proposed hunt boundary?
    iii. What is the expected range and duration of hunting activities 
during the even-year hunts?
    iv. How many whales are likely to be subjected to hunt or training 
activities?
    d. Does the PCFG spend the summer and fall feeding season off the 
Pacific coast of North America from northern California to northern 
Vancouver Island? Are some PCFG whales also present in the feeding area 
throughout the winter?
    i. Are PCFG whales expected to be encountered during both even-and 
odd-year hunts?
    ii. Is the PCFG further delineated into sub-groups with distinct 
feeding areas? Do PCFG whales randomly choose feeding areas or are they 
internally or externally recruited into sub-groups?
    iii. Will the proposed waiver have a disproportionate impact on 
PCFG whales in the Makah Tribe's Usual and Accustomed (U&A) hunting 
area? Particularly, will it have an impact on reproductive females?
    e. Will non-lethal hunting activities result in a lasting effect on 
ENP/PCFG migratory movements?
    B. Are NMFS's Determinations Consistent with the MMPA's Purposes 
and Policies?
    1. Facts pertaining to the Health and Stability of the Marine 
Ecosystem and Functioning of Marine Mammals within their Ecosystems.
    a. Is the northern California Current ecosystem the appropriate 
ecosystem to focus on for this proceeding? Should the focus instead be 
on a smaller biologically relevant scale such as the northern 
Washington coastal environment or an even more localized area such as 
the Makah U&A?
    b. What effect would the waiver have on the relevant ecosystem(s) 
or area(s)?
    i. What role do gray whales play in structuring the relevant 
ecosystem? Does this differ in the various geographical areas in which 
gray whales are present?
    ii. In light of NMFS's assertion that ``most effects of the hunt 
would be temporary and localized,'' does the environmental role and 
impact of the small groups of whales feeding in the Makah U&A 
necessitate separate consideration under the MMPA?
    iii. Would the level of hunting proposed affect only a small 
fraction of

[[Page 30090]]

the ENP stock and the stock's ecosystems? Should the effects on ENP 
stock as a whole be compared and contrasted to the effects on the PCFG 
subset?
    c. How do non-lethal activities such as training approaches and 
training harpoon throws affect whale health and behavior?
    d. Consideration of waiver's collateral effects on WNP stock

    i. Do WNP whales occasionally migrate along with ENP whales to the 
North American breeding grounds, or are these whales in fact a Western 
Feeding Group (WFG) of the ENP stock?
    ii. If WNP whales are present in the ENP migration, how many are 
expected? Is this number constant or does it fluctuate?
    iii. What is the appropriate calculation for the likelihood that a 
WNP whale will be approached, struck, or killed?
    iv. Given that the waiver only applies to ENP stock, will an 
incidental take permit be required under the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA) to account for the possibility of a WNP whale being taken?
    v. Should struck or lost whales that cannot be identified as ENP 
stock be considered to be WNP whales rather than PCFG whales?
    2. Facts pertaining to Stocks to Attaining or Maintaining Optimum 
Sustainable Population (OSP) Levels
    a. Is NMFS's conclusion that ENP stock are within OSP levels, at 85 
percent carrying capacity, and with an 88 percent likelihood that the 
stock is above its maximum net productivity level scientifically valid?

    i. Does this account for the possibility of an Unusual Mortality 
Event as discussed in section I.A.1.c., above?
    ii. Will the removal of whales pursuant to this waiver affect these 
calculations?
    b. Regardless of whether the PCFG is properly considered a separate 
stock or a subset of the ENP stock, should an OSP be separately 
determined for this group of whales?
    c. What are the effects on the OSP of WNP whales if a WNP whale is 
killed?

II. Do NMFS's proposed regulations satisfy the regulatory requirements 
in 16 U.S.C. 1373?

    A. Did NMFS Consider all Enumerated Factors in Prescribing 
Regulations?
    1. Facts pertaining to the effect of regulations on existing and 
future levels of marine mammal species and population stocks (16 U.S.C. 
1373(b)(1)):
    a. Many issues related to this factor are discussed in Section I, 
pertaining to the Requirements for Waiver.
    b. Are the protections in the waiver, such as reduced strike and 
landing limits, new strike limits for PCFG whales and PCFG females, 
minimum abundance threshold for PCFG whales, photographic and genetic 
matching, restrictions on additional strikes, restriction of the hunt 
to U&A waters, 10-year sunset provision sufficiently protective?
    c. Are the protections for WNP whales sufficient and appropriate, 
including alternating hunt seasons, a limit of three strikes during 
even-year hunts, a ban on hunting during November and June, seasonal 
restriction on training harpoon throws in odd-numbered years, 
restriction on multiple strikes within 24 hours in even-year hunts, and 
the requirement that if a WNP is confirmed to be struck, the hunt will 
cease until steps are taken to ensure such an event will not recur?
    2. Facts pertaining to existing international treaty and agreement 
obligations of the United States (16 U.S.C. 1373(b)(2)):
    a. What is the relevance in this proceeding of the Treaty of Neah 
Bay, between the Makah Tribe and the United States, which explicitly 
protects the tribe's right to hunt whales?
    b. The United States is a signatory to the International Convention 
for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). The ICRW establishes the 
International Whaling Commission (IWC), which sets catch limits for 
aboriginal subsistence whaling.

    i. Since 1997, the IWC has routinely approved an aboriginal 
subsistence catch limit for ENP gray whales for joint use by the United 
States and the Russian Federation.
    ii. The United States and the Russian Federation have been 
routinely, and are currently, parties to a bilateral agreement that 
allocates the IWC catch limit between the two countries and allows 
either country to transfer to the other any unused allocation.
    iii. The IWC gray whale catch limit is currently 140 per year, with 
5 gray whales per year allocated to the United States.
    iv. If the waiver at issue here is not approved, will the United 
States continue to transfer the unused portion of the gray whale catch 
limit to the Russian Federation for use by Chukotkan natives, as has 
been current practice?
    v. Does the proposed hunt comply with the IWC conservation 
objectives for WNP, ENP, and PCFG whales?
    vi. Is the proposed hunt an aboriginal substance hunt as defined by 
the IWC?
    A. Is the entire constellation of activities involved in hunting 
whales integral to the Makah Tribe?
    B. How central is whaling to Makah Tribal identity? Does the Tribe 
have a continuing traditional dependence?
    C. Does the Makah Tribe have a nutritional, substance, and cultural 
need for whaling?
    D. Is any traditional dependence on whaling obviated by the Makah 
Tribe's engagement in sealing starting in the latter half of the 19th 
century and the near-cessation of whale hunting after 1927?
    E. Is it possible for the Makah Tribe to substitute other, non-
lethal activities and maintain their traditional ties to whaling?
    3. Facts pertaining to the marine ecosystem and related 
environmental considerations (16 U.S.C. 1373(b)(3)):
    a. Is NMFS's risk analysis sufficiently conservative and based on 
the best available scientific evidence?
    b. Is consideration of cumulative impacts, including those 
including those from military exercises, marine energy and coastal 
development, and climate change, necessary? If so, is there evidence 
these factors were considered?
    c. Were all local impacts that must be considered under the MMPA 
adequately considered?
    4. Facts pertaining to the conservation, development, and 
utilization of fishery resources (16 U.S.C. 1373(b)(4)):
    a. NMFS asserts the proposed hunt will have no effect on the 
conservation, development, and utilization of fishery resources.
    5. Facts pertaining to the economic and technological feasibility 
of implementation (16 U.S.C. 1373(b)(5)):
    a. What are the specific costs to NMFS and to the Makah Tribe 
associated with regulating a hunt under the proposed regulations? Are 
these feasible?
    b. What are the specific technological requirements associated with 
managing and carrying out a hunt? Are these feasible?
    c. What are the costs of enforcing the various restrictions 
contained in the regulations? Are these feasible?
    d. Who is specifically tasked with each type of enforcement (i.e., 
training restrictions, strike restrictions, use and sale restrictions 
on edible and non-edible whale parts) and do those persons/
organizations have the necessary training and authority to carry out 
their obligations?
    e. How will records be kept and shared amongst the necessary 
parties? How will any discrepancies in the records be resolved?

[[Page 30091]]

    f. Is the use of photo-identification technology economically and 
technologically feasible? How quickly can identification be made? Is 
genetic identification more scientifically reliable and how does its 
economic and technological feasibility compare?
    6. Other factors not enumerated in 16 U.S.C. 1373(b), but raised by 
parties to this proceeding and meriting consideration:
    a. What is the appropriate degree to which the analysis in Anderson 
v. Evans, 371 F.3d 475 (9th Cir. 2011) should be considered in this 
proceeding?
    b. Are the definitions contained in the proposed regulations 
adequate or do they contain ambiguities, omissions, and/or 
inconsistencies?
    B. Restrictions in the Proposed Regulations.
    1. Issues pertaining to the proposed restrictions on the number of 
animals that may be taken in any calendar year (16 U.S.C. 1373(c)(1)):
    a. Hunt permits may authorize no more than three gray whales to be 
landed in an even-year hunt and no more than one to be landed in an 
odd-year hunt. No more than three strikes are permitted during an even-
year hunt and no more than two are permitted in an odd-year hunt.
    b. Additional restrictions are placed on the taking of PCFG whales 
and WNP whales.
    c. How were the low-abundance triggers for PCFG whales, which would 
cause hunting activity to cease, determined?
    2. Issues pertaining to the proposed restrictions on the age, size, 
sex, or any combination thereof of animals that may be taken (16 U.S.C. 
1373(c)(2)):
    a. Are the limits set on authorized strikes of PCFG females 
appropriate?
    b. Are there, or should there be, limitations on approaches or 
strikes on calves or mother-and-calf pairs?
    3. Issues pertaining to the season or other period of time within 
which animals may be taken (16 U.S.C. 1373(c)(3)):
    a. The hunting seasons are split into ``even-year hunts,'' during 
which hunting would be authorized from December 1 of an odd-numbered 
year until May 31 of the following even-numbered year, and ``odd-year 
hunts,'' during which hunting would be authorized from July 1 through 
October 31 of the odd-numbered year.
    4. Issues pertaining to the manner and locations in which animals 
may be taken (16 U.S.C. 1373(c)(4)):
    a. The proposed waiver and regulations authorize training 
exercises, including approaches and training harpoon throws. A question 
has been raised as to whether the inclusion of training exercises is 
necessary and/or appropriate.
    b. Do the definitions of ``land'' and ``landing'' provide 
sufficient information about where the Makah Tribe would be permitted 
to land whales? Are consultations with other Federal and state agencies 
necessary (see 16 U.S.C. 1382)?
    c. Are the definitions of ``strike'' and ``struck'' ambiguous? 
Specifically, issues have been raised regarding the single-strike limit 
within 24 hours (whether a harpoon strike followed by a firearm shot 
consist of a single ``strike'' or two separate strikes, and whether 
this will lead to unnecessary suffering on the part of a whale that is 
struck but not immediately killed); whether whales can be appropriately 
identified as belonging to WNP stock, ENP stock, or the PCFG during a 
24-hour post-strike period; whether the use of crossbows or other 
devices to obtain genetic material from a struck whale should also be 
considered a strike; and whether the struck-and-lost limits proposed 
are inconsistent with the definition of ``strike.''
    d. Will independent observers be present at every hunt or only 
certain hunts? How are these observers selected and trained?
    e. Should the potential for an off-shore hunt to result in the 
taking of more migratory ENP whales and fewer PCFG/Makah U&A whales be 
considered?
    5. Issues pertaining to techniques which have been found to cause 
undue fatalities to any species of marine mammal (16 U.S.C. 
1373(c)(5)):
    a. None identified.
    6. Issues related to other proposed restrictions not specifically 
enumerated in 16 U.S.C. 1373(c):
    a. Restrictions on the use or sale of gray whale products:

    i. Do the restrictions on utilization of edible products of ENP 
gray whales off-reservation unfairly burden enrolled Makah Tribe 
members living elsewhere? Are such members permitted to share ENP gray 
whale products with members of their immediate households who are not 
enrolled in the Makah Tribe?
    ii. Are there any restrictions on the resale of handicrafts by 
persons who are not enrolled members of the Makah tribe, either on a 
small or large scale?
    iii. Are there restrictions on the international sale or 
transportation of handicrafts?

Stipulations of the Parties

    During the prehearing conference, the participants stipulated that, 
while discussion of issues related to the hunt methodology and 
humaneness during the hearing are not entirely foreclosed, this hearing 
is not the appropriate time for the final determination of these 
issues; rather, they will be determined during the permitting process.
    The parties also agreed that, while evidence concerning the 
waiver's impact on various stocks and populations of gray whales 
recognized or supported by the scientific literature may be considered, 
the parties will not challenge the identification of any whale 
populations, stocks, or groups under the MMPA during this hearing.

Direct Testimony on the Issues

    The parties have submitted the following direct testimony which 
bears on the issues noted above:

For NMFS

Declaration of Chris Yates with Attachments
Declaration of Dr. Shannon Bettridge
Declaration of Dr. David Weller
Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Moore

For the Makah Tribe

Initial Direct Testimony of John Bickham with Exhibits
Initial Direct Testimony of John Brandon with Exhibits
Initial Direct Testimony of Jonathan Scordino with Exhibits
Initial Direct Testimony of Joshua Reid with Exhibits
Initial Direct Testimony of Daniel J. Greene
Initial Direct Testimony of Grieg Arnold with Exhibits
Initial Direct Testimony of Maria Pascua
Initial Direct Testimony of Dolly DeBari

For SSL/SSCS

Direct Testimony of Brett Sommermeyer with Attachments

For AWI

Declaration of Donald J. (DJ) Schubert with Attachments

For PCPW

Declaration of Margaret Owens with Attachments

List of Witnesses

    The parties have identified the following witnesses, who will be 
cross-examined regarding their direct testimony. Potential rebuttal 
witnesses have not yet been identified.

For NMFS

Chris Yates, Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, 
West Coast Region, NMFS
Dr. Shannon Bettridge, Chief, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation

[[Page 30092]]

Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS
Dr. David Weller, Research Biologist, Marine Mammal and Turtle 
Division, NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center
Dr. Jeffrey Moore, Research Biologist, Marine Mammal and Turtle 
Division, NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center

For the Makah Tribe

Jonathan Scordino, Marine Mammal Biologist, Makah Tribe Marine Mammal 
Program
John W. Bickham, Ph.D., Geneticist and Professor Emeritus, Department 
of Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
John R. Brandon, Ph.D., Biometrician
Joshua L. Reid, Ph.D., Historian and Professor, University of 
Washington
Greig Arnold, Member of the Makah Tribe and former Chairman, Vice 
Chairman, and member of the Makah Tribal Council
Polly DeBari, Member of the Makah Tribe
Maria Pascua, Member of the Makah Tribe
Daniel J. Greene, Sr., Member of the Makah Tribe

For SSL

Brett Sommermeyer, Esq., Sea Shepherd Legal

For AWI

Donald J. Schubert, Wildlife Biologist, Animal Welfare Institute
Dr. Naomi Rose, Wildlife Biologist, Animal Welfare Institute

For Peninsula Citizens for the Protection of Whales

Margaret Owens, Member, Peninsula Citizens for the Protection of Whales

New Issues Identified

    The following issue was not included in the notice of hearing 
published on April 5, 2019 (84 FR 13639): Is the ENP stock currently 
undergoing an Unusual Mortality Event (UME)? If so, does this merit 
further consideration before a waiver may be granted?
    Any person desiring to participate as a party at the hearing on the 
new issue of fact must file a notice of intent to participate with the 
NMFS West Coast Region Regional Administrator by certified mail, 
postmarked no later than July 8, 2019, as described in the DATES and 
ADDRESSES sections above.

Scheduling of the Hearing

    The hearing on this matter is currently scheduled to begin on 
August 12, 2019 in the Jackson Federal Building, Seattle, WA. At the 
pre-hearing conference, several parties requested a change in the date 
of the proceeding due to issues concerning the availability of 
witnesses and counsel. The parties are briefing the presiding officer 
on this issue. If the presiding officer reschedules the hearing, a 
notice will be published in the Federal Register.
    The presiding officer, Judge George J. Jordan, prepared the 
contents of this notice. A copy of the draft notice Judge Jordan 
submitted to the NMFS Regulations Unit for filing with the Office of 
the Federal Register (OFR) was made available to all parties to this 
proceeding. The NMFS Regulations Unit reviewed the notice to ensure 
consistency with the OFR filing requirements. NMFS was otherwise not 
involved in the review of the contents of the notice. The signature of 
NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator Barry Thom is required to 
authorize the filing of the notice with the OFR.

    Dated: June 21, 2019.
Barry A. Thom,
Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-13613 Filed 6-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P