Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 10477 

Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation 

* Elevation in feet (NGVD) 

+ Elevation in feet (NAVD) 

# Depth in feet above 

ground Communities affected 

Effective Modified 

Tributary 8 ...................... At the confluence with Uwharrie River ......................... None +557 Randolph County (Unincorporated Areas), City 

of Archdale. 

Approximately 190 feet upstream of Alexandria Drive None +663 

Walkers Creek ...................... At the confluence with Uwharrie River ......................... None +376 Randolph County (Unincorporated Areas). 

Approximately 1,775 feet upstream of the confluence 

with Uwharrie River.

None +385 

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum. 

# Depth in feet above ground. 

+ North American Vertical Datum. 

ADDRESSES 

Randolph County (Unincorporated Areas) 

Maps are available for inspection at the Randolph County Planning and Zoning Department, 725 McDowell Road, Asheboro, North Carolina. 

Send comments to Mr. Richard T. Wells, Randolph County Manager, P.O. Box 4728, Asheboro, North Carolina 27204–4728. 

City of Archdale 

Maps are available for inspection at the Archdale City Hall, 307 Balfour Drive, Archdale, North Carolina. 

Send comments to The Honorable Bert Lance Stone, Mayor of the City of Archdale, P.O. Box 14068, Archdale, North Carolina 27263.

City of Trinity 

Maps are available for inspection at the Trinity City Hall, 6701 NC Highway 62, Trinity, North Carolina. 

Send comments to The Honorable Fran Andrews, Mayor of the City of Trinity, P.O. Box 50, Trinity, North Carolina 27370. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 

83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) 

Dated: February 28, 2007. 

David I. Maurstad, 

Director, Mitigation Division, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, Department 

of Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. E7–4155 Filed 3–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the Monongahela River 

Basin Population of the Longnose 

Sucker as Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on a petition to list the 

Monongahela River Basin population of 

Catostomus catostomus (longnose 

sucker) as endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We find that the petition 

does not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing C. catostomus may be warranted. 

This finding is based on our 

determination that there is insufficient 

evidence to indicate that the 

Monongahela River Basin population of 

C. catostomus represents a distinct 

population segment (DPS) and, 

therefore, it cannot be considered a 

listable entity under section 3(15) of the 

Act. Accordingly, we will not initiate a 

status review in response to this 

petition. However, the public may at 

any time submit to us information 

concerning whether the Monongahela 

River Basin population of Catostomus 

catostomus meets the DPS criteria for 

this otherwise widespread species. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on March 8, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this 

finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the 

Pennsylvania Field Office, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 315 South Allen 

Street, Suite 322, State College, PA 

16801. Submit new information, 

materials, comments, or questions 

concerning the status of or threats to 

this taxon to us at the above address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Densmore, Supervisor, 

Pennsylvania Field Office, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES) 

(telephone 814–234–4090; facsimile 

814–234–0748). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of Act (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) requires that we make a 

finding on whether a petition to list, 

delist, or reclassify a species presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information to indicate that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. We 

are to base this finding on information 

provided in the petition, supporting 

information submitted with the petition, 

and information otherwise available in 

our files at the time we make the 

determination. To the maximum extent 

practicable, we are to make this finding 

within 90 days of our receipt of the 

petition, and publish our notice of this 

finding promptly in the Federal 

Register. 

Our standard for substantial 

information within the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90- 

day petition finding is ‘‘that amount of 

information that would lead a 

reasonable person to believe that the 

measure proposed in the petition may 

be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we 

find that substantial information was 

presented, we are required to promptly 

commence a review of the status of the 

species. 

In making this finding, we relied on 

information provided by the petitioners 

and otherwise available in our files at 

the time of the petition review and 

evaluated this information in 

accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our 

process of making a 90-day finding 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
10478 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 

section 424.14(b) of our regulations is 

limited to a determination of whether 

the information in the petition meets the 

‘‘substantial information’’ threshold. 

Unless otherwise noted, the following 

summary regarding the species, its 

distribution, and taxonomy was 

provided in the petition. 

Petition 

On December 27, 2002, we received a 

formal petition from the Fisheries 

Technical Committee of the 

Pennsylvania Biological Survey to list a 

population of longnose sucker 

(Catostomus catostomus), that is 

restricted to the Monongahela River 

Basin, as an endangered species under 

section 4 of the Act. The petition also 

requested that subsequent to listing, the 

Service make a definitive determination 

of the population’s taxonomic status, 

address direct and potential threats, 

investigate life history, and reintroduce 

the species within its historic range in 

the Monongahela River Basin. 

Action on the petition was precluded 

by court orders and settlement 

agreements for other listing actions that 

required nearly all of our listing funds 

for fiscal year 2003. A letter was sent to 

the petitioners on January 17, 2003, 

acknowledging receipt of the petition 

and explaining the reasons for the delay 

in processing. 

Species Information 

Catostomus catostomus, or longnose 

sucker, is a member of the family 

Catostomidae, a group of freshwater, 

principally substrate foraging fishes. 

This species was described by Forster in 

1773, based on specimens collected 

from tributaries to the Hudson Bay. The 

subject of the petition is a disjunct 

population that occurs in the 

Monongahela River drainage in West 

Virginia, western Maryland, and 

southwestern Pennsylvania. This 

southern population is geographically 

separated from the larger range of the 

fish. According to the petition, no other 

populations are known from the Ohio 

River drainage, or any other Mississippi 

River basin tributaries, excepting the 

Missouri River (Gilbert & Lee, 1980; 

Page and Burr, 1991). 

The petition utilizes several 

references regarding longnose sucker 

life history and habitat (e.g., Harris 

1962; Becker 1983; Cooper 1983; Geen 

et al., 1966; Smith 1985). None are 

specific to longnose suckers in the 

Monongahela River system, but present 

general information concerning 

longnose sucker habitats and life 

history. Longnose suckers occur in 

clear, cold waters throughout much of 

northern North America and parts of 

eastern Asia. Those in the Monongahela 

River Basin generally occur in small to 

medium-sized streams, most often in 

deeper pools with either boulder-rubble 

substrate or a significant amount of 

coarse, woody debris. These pools and 

runs (streams) are usually immediately 

below faster-flowing riffle areas. On the 

basis of available information, the 

Monongahela River population occurs 

primarily in clear, cool streams, which 

appear to be consistent with habitats 

utilized elsewhere throughout its range. 

The petitioners do not reference 

specific studies regarding reproductive 

behavior of the longnose sucker 

population in the Monongahela River 

Basin, but the species has been 

documented to spawn in water 

temperatures ranging from 10 to 15 

degrees Celsius (50 to 59 degrees 

Fahrenheit), with schools of the fish 

gathering over gravel substrates in 

stream riffles and lake shoals. Longnose 

suckers exhibit high fecundity, with egg 

counts ranging from 17,000 to more than 

60,000 per female. Annual survival of 

eggs and fry is low, leading to low 

annual recruitment into juvenile age 

classes. The species has been 

documented to begin to reach maturity 

at 4 years of age for males and 5 years 

of age for females in western Lake 

Superior. Longnose suckers exhibit 

some variation in mature size across 

their range; the largest individual 

recorded was a 642 millimeter (mm) 

(25.3 inches) female estimated to be 19 

years old from Great Slave Lake, 

Northwest Territories, Canada. 

Populations of apparently ‘‘stunted’’

individuals have also been reported in 

parts of the species’ range. Whether 

environmentally influenced or genetic, 

the largest specimen recorded from the 

Monongahela River drainage is less than 

250 mm. 

Distribution 

The longnose sucker is among the 

most widely distributed of North 

American freshwater fishes, ranging, in 

the east from western Labrador and 

Quebec; south to West Virginia; west to 

Nebraska, Colorado, and Washington; 

and north throughout most of Alaska 

and Canada, including the Arctic and 

extending into eastern Siberia. The 

Monongahela River drainage in West 

Virginia, western Maryland, and 

southwestern Pennsylvania supports the 

disjunct population that is the subject of 

the petition. 

The petition reports 39 collection 

records for the longnose sucker from the 

Monongahela River Basin (with 

references including Jordon 1878, 

Goldsborough and Clark 1908, and 

Hendricks 1980). With the exception of 

a collection record from the Tygart 

Valley River, West Virginia, and the 

Youghiogheny River (a Monongahela 

River tributary), Allegheny County, 

Pennsylvania, longnose sucker 

collection records are restricted to a 

Youghiogheny River tributary drainage, 

the Casselman River Basin in Garrett 

County, Maryland and Somerset 

County, Pennsylvania. The most recent 

reported collection from Maryland was 

in 1978, and the species is considered 

to be extirpated from the State 

(Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources 2004). The petition concludes 

that since 2000, longnose suckers have 

only been collected in the Monongahela 

River Basin in Pennsylvania within 

reaches of four Casselman River 

tributary streams: Elklick Creek, 

Flaugherty Creek, Piney Creek, and 

Whites Creek. 

Taxonomy 

The petition references McPhail and 

Taylor (1990) in asserting that across the 

species’ range, longnose suckers are 

morphologically variable, with some 

evidence of eastern and western 

divergence across North America. 

However, no such variation is described 

for the population in the Monongahela 

River Basin. The Monongahela River 

Basin is geographically separated from 

other waters supporting this species by 

a watershed divide; the closest 

population is the one that occurs in the 

Lake Erie Basin, more than 257 

kilometers (km) (160 miles (mi)) to the 

north. The petitioners present 

information that theorizes that longnose 

suckers in the Monongahela River Basin 

became isolated from the main 

populations to the north through stream 

capture and changing flow patterns that 

occurred during the Wisconsin glacial 

retreat, and that this subpopulation may 

have persisted in the Monongahela 

River Basin for 15,000 years or more. 

The petitioners suggest that this period 

of isolation may have resulted in genetic 

differences from other longnose sucker 

populations. They indicate that the 

Salish sucker, a longnose sucker 

population native to the Frazier River 

and Puget Sound, Canada, appears to be 

genetically distinct from other 

northwestern longnose suckers. The 

petition uses this example to suggest 

that the Monongahela River population 

of the longnose sucker may also be 

genetically distinct from other longnose 

sucker populations. However, the 

petition does not present any genetic 

data or other specific information to 

support this hypothesis. Rather, the 

petition specifically requests that the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 10479 

Service make a ‘‘definitive 

determination of its taxonomic status.’’

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments 

The petitioners have asked us to 

consider listing the longnose sucker in 

the Monongahela River Basin in 

Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West 

Virginia as endangered. Under the Act, 

we can consider for listing any species, 

subspecies, or distinct population 

segment (DPS) of any species of 

vertebrate fish or wildlife that 

interbreeds when mature, if information 

is substantial to indicate that such 

action may be warranted. To implement 

the measures prescribed by the Act and 

its Congressional guidance (see Senate 

Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session), 

we developed a joint policy with the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration entitled ‘‘Policy 

Regarding the Recognition of Distinct 

Vertebrate Population Segments under 

the Act’’ (61 FR 4725; February 7, 1996). 

According to the Service’s policy on 

distinct vertebrate population segments, 

the three elements considered regarding 

the potential recognition of a DPS as 

endangered or threatened are: (1) The 

discreteness of the population segment 

in relation to the remainder of the 

species to which it belongs; (2) the 

significance of the population segment 

to the species to which it belongs; and 

(3) the population segment’s 

conservation status in relation to the 

Act’s standards for listing (i.e., when 

treated as if it were a species, is the 

population segment endangered or 

threatened?). Following is our 

evaluation of these elements in relation 

to the petitioned entity, the longnose 

sucker in the Monongahela River Basin. 

Discreteness: A population segment of 

a vertebrate species may be considered 

discrete if it is markedly separated from 

other populations of the same taxon as 

a consequence of physical, 

physiological, ecological, or behavioral 

factors, or if it is delimited by 

international governmental boundaries 

within which differences in control of 

exploitation, management of habitat, 

conservation status, or regulatory 

mechanisms exist that are significant in 

light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. 

The petition states that the longnose 

sucker population in the Monongahela 

River Basin is the only population of 

this species recorded from the Ohio 

River Basin, and is markedly separated 

from the rest of the species’ range, with 

the nearest population occurring across 

a major watershed boundary in the Lake 

Erie Basin at least 265 km (160 mi) to 

the north (Gilbert and Lee 1980; Page 

and Burr 1991). The petition further 

hypothesizes that the population in the 

Monongahela River Basin appears to be 

a glacial relic and may have been 

separated from the larger range of the 

species as much as 15,000 years ago 

(Hendricks et al. 1983). On the basis of 

a review of the information centered 

within the petition, we find that the 

petition presents substantial evidence to 

indicate that the species is markedly 

separated from other populations of the 

same taxon by physical factors. 

Therefore, we conclude that the 

longnose sucker population in the 

Monongahela River Basin meets the 

‘‘discreteness’’ criterion. 

Significance: If a population segment 

is considered discrete under one or 

more of the conditions listed in the 

Service’s DPS policy, its biological and 

ecological significance will then be 

considered in light of Congressional 

guidance that the authority to list DPS’s 

be used ‘‘sparingly’’ while encouraging 

the conservation of genetic diversity. In 

carrying out this evaluation, the Service 

considers available scientific evidence 

of the potential DPS’s importance to the 

taxon to which it belongs. This 

consideration may include, but is not 

limited to: (1) Persistence of the DPS in 

an ecological setting unusual or unique 

for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of 

the DPS would result in a significant 

gap in the range of a taxon; (3) evidence 

that the DPS represents the only 

surviving natural occurrence of a taxon 

that may be more abundant elsewhere as 

an introduced population outside its 

historic range; or (4) evidence that the 

DPS differs markedly from other 

populations of the species in its genetic 

characteristics. Each of these factors is 

discussed below, based on the 

information presented in the petition. 

Persistence of the population segment 

in an ecological setting that is unique 

for the taxon. Longnose suckers in the 

Monongahela River Basin appear to use 

habitat that is similar to stream habitats 

used by the species throughout its 

range. Although situated geographically 

to the south, the ecological setting is 

consistent with habitats described 

elsewhere in the species’ range (i.e., 

cool, clear streams with gravel and 

cobble substrates). Therefore, on the 

basis of information provided in the 

petition, it is our determination that the 

Monongahela River population does not 

appear to exist in either an unusual or 

unique setting for the species. 

Loss of the population segment would 

result in a significant gap in the range 

of taxon. Both the historic, and current, 

range of longnose suckers in the 

Monongahela River Basin represents a 

very small percentage (less than one 

percent) of the species’ overall global 

range. While the loss of this population 

would eliminate the species from the 

Monongahela River drainage, the 

species would continue to exist in over 

99 percent of its range. As a result, we 

do not believe that a significant gap in 

the species’ range would result. 

Furthermore, neither the petition nor 

information in our files indicates that 

loss of this population would result in 

a significant gap at the edge of the 

species range. 

The population segment represents 

the only surviving natural occurrence of 

a taxon that may be more abundant 

elsewhere as an introduced population 

outside its historical range. The 

Monongahela River population of the 

longnose sucker does not represent the 

only surviving natural occurrence of 

this species. According to the petition, 

the longnose sucker survives naturally 

throughout much of northern North 

America. Therefore, we have 

determined that this criterion is not 

relevant to this evaluation. 

The discrete population segment 

differs markedly from other populations 

of the species in its genetic 

characteristics. The petitioners 

speculate that longnose suckers from the 

Monongahela River Basin may be 

genetically distinct from longnose 

sucker populations to the north and 

west, and suggest that this population 

may be ‘‘stunted.’’ The petitioners 

suggest that because the Salish sucker 

(Catostomus catostomus), appears to be 

genetically distinct from longnose 

sucker populations elsewhere in the 

Frazier River and Puget Sound, Canada, 

that genetic differences may also exist 

between the Monongahela River Basin 

population of the longnose sucker and 

longnose suckers elsewhere. However, 

no data regarding quantitative or 

morphological analysis or literature 

citations were presented to support the 

genetic distinctiveness of the 

Monongahela River population of the 

longnose sucker, and the petition 

recommends that such studies be 

initiated. Therefore, on the basis of a 

review of the information provided in 

the petition, we have determined that 

there is insufficient evidence to suggest 

that the Monongahela River population 

of the longnose sucker differs markedly 

from other populations of the longnose 

sucker. 

Based on an evaluation of each of the 

criteria identified in the Service’s DPS 

policy under significance relative to the 

information provided in the petition, we 

have determined that the Monongahela 

River Basin population of the longnose 

sucker does not meet the ‘‘significance’’

criterion under the Service’s DPS 

policy. Because the Monongahela River 

Basin population of the longnose sucker 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
10480 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

fails to meet one of the first two criteria 

for a distinct vertebrate population 

segment per our policy (i.e., the 

significance criterion), we have 

determined that it is not a listable entity 

under the Act. We note that the petition 

also fails to present substantial 

information that the range of the 

longnose sucker within the 

Monongahela River Basin may be a 

significant portion of the range of the 

species. Therefore, we are not 

proceeding with an evaluation of its 

conservation status relative to the Act’s 

standards for listing as endangered or 

threatened. 

The petition presented information 

for the five listing factors in section 4 of 

the Act in an effort to identify threats 

that may be leading to the decline of the 

Monongahela River population of the 

longnose sucker. These factors are 

pertinent only in cases where the 

organism being proposed for listing is a 

listable entity as defined by section 

3(15) of the Act. Because the 

Monongahela River basin population 

does not meet the significance criterion 

for a DPS, and therefore not a listable 

entity, the five threat factors are not 

analyzed for that population here. 

Finding 

We have reviewed the information 

presented in the petition, and evaluated 

that information in relation to 

information readily available in our 

files. Based on this review, we find the 

petition does not present substantial 

information indicating that listing the 

Monongahela River population of C. 

catostomus may be warranted. This 

finding is based on the lack of evidence 

to indicate that the Monongahela River 

population of C. catostomus meets the 

criteria for being classified as a DPS. 

Although it is geographically and 

reproductively isolated, scientific 

evidence was not provided to document 

this population’s biological or ecological 

significance under the Service’s DPS 

policy. Therefore, we have concluded 

that the Monongahela River population 

of the longnose sucker is not a listable 

entity under section 3(15) of the Act. We 

will not commence a status review in 

response to this petition. We encourage 

interested parties to monitor the 

Monongahela River population’s status 

and trends, and potential threats, and to 

implement actions that will contribute 

to this species’ conservation. We also 

encourage interested parties to continue 

to gather data that will assist with these 

conservation efforts. New information 

regarding this population’s potential 

consideration as a DPS should be 

submitted to the Field Supervisor, 

Pennsylvania Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES). 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available, upon request, from 

the Pennsylvania Field Office, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES). 

Author 

The primary author of this notice is 

Robert M. Anderson, Pennsylvania Field 

Office (see ADDRESSES). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is section 

4 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Dated: February 23, 2007. 

Kenneth Stansell, 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–4081 Filed 3–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 070302052–7052–01; I.D. 

021307B] 

RIN 0648–AV09 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Atlantic Commercial Shark 

Management Measures 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

establish the 2007 second and third 

trimester season quotas for large coastal 

sharks (LCS), small coastal sharks (SCS), 

and pelagic sharks based on over- or 

underharvests from the 2006 second and 

third trimester seasons. In addition, this 

rule proposes the opening and closing 

dates for the LCS fishery based on 

adjustments to the trimester quotas. The 

intended effect of these proposed 

actions is to provide advance notice of 

quotas and season dates for the Atlantic 

commercial shark fishery. 

DATES: Written comments will be 

accepted until March 28, 2007. 

Public hearings will be held from 6–

8 p.m. on March 22 and March 28, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the 

proposed rule may be submitted to 

LeAnn Southward Hogan, Highly 

Migratory Species Management Division 

via: 

• E-mail: SF1.021307B@noaa.gov. 

• Mail: 1315 East-West Highway, 

Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark 

on the outside of the envelope 

‘‘Comments on Proposed Rule for 2007 

2nd & 3rd Trimester Season Lengths and 

Quotas.’’

• Fax: 301–713–1917. 

• Federal e-Rulemaking portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Include in the 

subject line the following identifier: I.D. 

021307B. 

The hearing locations are: 

1. March 22, 2007 from 6–8 p.m. 

Orlando Public Library, 101 E. Central 

Blvd., Orlando, FL 32801. 

2. March 28, 2007 from 6–8 p.m. 

Town Hall, 407 Budleigh Street, 

Manteo, NC 27954. 

Copies of the draft Environmental 

Assessment (EA) and other relevant 

document are available from the HMS 

website (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/ 

hms/), or by contacting LeAnn 

Southward Hogan (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

LeAnn Southward Hogan or Karyl 

Brewster-Geisz by phone: 301–713–2347 

or by fax: 301–713–1917. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Atlantic shark fishery is managed 

under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act). NMFS recently finalized a 

Consolidated Highly Migratory Species 

(HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) 

that consolidated and replaced previous 

FMPs for Atlantic Billfish and Atlantic 

Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks. The 

HMS FMP is implemented by 

regulations at 50 CFR part 635. 

Currently, the Atlantic shark annual 

quotas, with the exception of pelagic 

sharks, are split among three regions 

based on historic landings (1999–2003). 

Consistent with 50 CFR 635.27(b)(1)(iii) 

and (iv), the annual LCS quota (1,017 mt 

dw) is split among the three regions as 

follows: 52 percent to the Gulf of 

Mexico, 41 percent to the South 

Atlantic, and 7 percent to the North 

Atlantic. The annual SCS quota (454 mt 

dw) is split among the three regions as 

follows: 10 percent to the Gulf of 

Mexico, 87 percent to the South 

Atlantic, and 3 percent to the North 

Atlantic. The regional quotas for LCS 

and SCS are divided equally between 

the trimester seasons in the South 

Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, and 

according to historical landings in the 

North Atlantic. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS