[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 52 (Monday, March 18, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11941-11946]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-6468]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 000816233-1154-02; I.D. 050200A]
RIN 0648-AK23


Fisheries off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; 
Precious Corals Fisheries; Harvest Quotas, Definitions, Size Limits, 
Gear Restrictions, and Bed Classification

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has partially approved a regulatory amendment under the 
Fishery Management Plan for Precious Coral Fisheries of the Western 
Pacific Region (FMP) submitted by the Western Pacific Fishery 
Management Council (Council) and is issuing a final rule that will 
implement gear restrictions, size limits, and definitions governing the 
harvest of precious coral resources managed under the FMP. Precious 
coral management measures that were published in the proposed rule that 
apply only to the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) are not being 
implemented by NMFS because they were determined to be inconsistent 
with certain provisions of Executive Order 13178 and Executive Order 
13196, which together establish the NWHI Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve 
(Reserve).

DATES: Effective April 17, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the background documents, including an 
environmental assessment/initial regulatory flexibility analysis/
regulatory impact review (EA/IRFA/RIR) (March 2001) and an RIR/final 
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA), (March 2002) are available from 
Dr. Charles Karnella, Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Area Office 
(PIAO), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alvin Katekaru, PIAO, 808-973-2937.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 5, 2000, NMFS published a 
proposed rule (65 FR 53692) on regulatory adjustments governing the 
harvest of precious coral resources managed under the FMP. The rule 
contained eight measures intended to conserve and reduce the risk of 
overfishing the precious coral resource; promote optimal utilization of 
the resource and minimize waste; and

[[Page 11942]]

protect the precious coral beds in the NWHI that provide foraging 
habitat for the endangered Hawaiian monk seal. In December 2000, and 
January 2001, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13178 and 
Executive Order 13196, respectively, which together established the 
Reserve. NMFS has determined that two of the proposed precious coral 
measures that apply only to precious coral beds around the NWHI are 
inconsistent with Executive Order 13178 and Executive Order 13196.
    This final rule implements the following six measures: (1) Suspends 
the harvest of gold coral at Makapu'u Bed off the Island of Oahu; (2) 
redefines ``dead precious coral'' as coral that has no live coral 
polyps or tissue, and redefines ``live precious coral'' accordingly; 
(3) applies minimum size restrictions only to live precious corals; (4) 
prohibits the harvest of black coral unless it has attained a minimum 
stem diameter of 1 inch (2.54 cm) or a minimum height of 48 inches (122 
cm), except in certain cases; (5) prohibits the use of non-selective 
fishing gear to harvest precious corals; and (6) applies the current 
minimum size restriction for pink coral to all permit areas.

Comment and Response

    One letter was received commenting on the proposed rule.
    Comment: The measures to define live coral as coral harboring 
living polyps and to apply size and quota restrictions to live coral 
only, mean that the harvest of dead gold coral will be unregulated. 
Unrestricted takes of dead gold coral may have negative impacts on live 
gold coral as there is some evidence from the NWHI that dead coral may 
be the preferred substrate for resettlement (i.e., seeding) of new gold 
coral colonies.
    Response: NMFS shares this concern. The amount of information on 
the relationship between dead gold coral and the seeding of new 
colonies is limited at this time. NMFS however believes the concern is 
mitigated by restrictions imposed on commercial harvesting of precious 
corals, under Executive Order 13178 and Executive Order 13196 
establishing the Reserve.
    NMFS is not implementing two precious coral measures that would 
have (a) revised the boundaries of the Brooks Banks Bed, NWHI, reduced 
this bed's harvest quota for pink coral, and suspended the harvest 
quota (i.e., reduced to zero) for gold coral; and (b) established a 
NWHI precious coral permit area, French Frigate Shoals (FFS) Gold 
Pinnacles Bed, and classified this bed as a ``conditional'' bed with a 
zero harvest quota for all species of precious corals. The final rule 
is changed from the proposed rule because continued management of 
precious coral fisheries around the NWHI is inconsistent with Executive 
Order 13178 and Executive Order 13196. Specifically, the measures 
establishing pink and gold coral harvest quotas at NWHI Brooks Banks 
Bed are inconsistent with section 7(b)(5) of the Executive Order 13178 
and Executive Order 13196. In this section, the Executive Order 
establishes zero harvest in the Reserve where the Brooks Banks Bed is 
located. Establishment of a quota for pink coral at Brooks Banks Bed 
also conflicts with the Executive Order 13178 and Executive Order 13196 
since they generally prohibit the harvest of living and nonliving 
resources throughout the Reserve. Although creation of a new FFS Gold 
Pinnacles Bed and its classification as a ``conditional'' bed are not 
literally contrary to the E.O.s, a zero harvest quota duplicates 
restrictions in the E.O.s, and therefore is unnecessary.
    Another change between the final rule and proposed rule is that 
Sec. 660.86 (b)(2) has been revised to allow for expedient issuance of 
exemptions from black coral harvest size requirements. This change 
allows NMFS to streamline the exemption process by relying on a State 
of Hawaii precious corals database to determine eligible harvesters.
    The final rule contains a technical correction to the location of 
the Wespac Bed, Permit Area R-1, by redefining the current position of 
28 deg.50.2' N. lat. to 23 deg.18' N. lat.

Classification

    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    NMFS prepared a FRFA describing the impact of the action on small 
entities. The IRFA was summarized in the proposed rule published on 
September 5, 2000(65 FR 53692). None of the comments received on the 
proposed rule directly or indirectly addressed the results of the IRFA, 
which also provided analysis on the proposed measures that are not 
included in the final rule. The following is a summary of the FRFA 
(March 1, 2002).
    The Council considered eight adjustments to management measures in 
the FMP. Six of those management measures are discussed below. The 
remaining two management measures, that involve the Reserve, were not 
approved by NMFS for the reasons stated above. This partial disapproval 
is not expected to have any economic impact because no commercial 
precious coral harvest is currently occurring in the Reserve.
    Under Management Objective 1, (reduce the potential for overfishing 
of gold coral at the Makapu'u Bed), four alternatives were considered 
including the preferred alternative. Under the preferred alternative, 
the harvest quota for gold coral at the Makapu'u Bed will be suspended 
until further information on the impact of harvesting on subsequent 
recruitment of gold coral is available. A gold coral quota of zero 
would likely have some adverse economic impact on potential harvesters. 
However, the density of gold coral at the Makapu'u Bed is already very 
low. It is likely that any harvest effort occurring at Makapu'u bed 
will be directed mainly toward pink coral because this coral is 
relatively abundant at the bed and has a higher market value than gold 
coral ($440/kg for pink coral (C. secundum) vs. $330/kg for gold coral 
according to Maui Divers of Hawaii, Ltd.). A suspension of the quota is 
not expected to have an adverse economic impact on processors of 
precious corals in Hawaii. The fishery in the EEZ around Hawaii for 
deep-water species of precious coral, including pink, gold and bamboo 
coral, has been nearly dormant for two decades. Consequently, the 
processors of these corals in Hawaii have relied almost exclusively on 
imported material.
    Three alternatives were considered and rejected for the first 
management objective. The first rejected alternative would have 
maintained the biennial gold coral quota of 600 kg (132 lb) at Makapu'u 
Bed. Maintaining the current biennial harvest quota of 600 kg (132 lb) 
for gold coral at Makapu'u Bed would continue to make available to 
prospective harvesters a quantity of gold coral worth $198,000 every 
two years ($99,000 annually) if the actual stock is of sufficient size 
to support such a harvest. However, a recent survey of the bed revealed 
that the current standing stock of gold coral is low and may not yield 
the current harvest quota. In addition, the adverse economic impacts 
over the long term would be significant if further harvesting 
diminishes the number of colonies to the point that no recovery is 
possible.
    The second rejected alternative would have suspended the harvest 
quota for gold coral at all established and conditional beds until 
additional information is available on the impact of harvesting on 
subsequent recruitment of gold coral. The total harvest quota for gold 
coral at all established and conditional beds is 1,080 kg (238 lb) 
every two years, with an estimated dockside value of $356,400. However, 
the gold coral quota at the Makapu'u Bed accounts for more than half of 
this

[[Page 11943]]

total. As noted above, the current standing stock of gold coral at the 
Makapu'u Bed may not yield the current biennial harvest quota of 600 kg 
(132 lb). If no gold coral is harvested from the Makapu'u Bed the 
amount of potential gross revenues foregone by suspending the harvest 
quota at all established and conditional beds is estimated to be about 
$158,400 every two years.
    The third rejected alternative would have implemented a minimum 
size limit for gold coral at the Makapu'u Bed. This alternative was 
rejected because the calculation of an appropriate minimum size 
requires estimates of growth rates, mortality rates and size at 
reproductive maturity. These data estimates are lacking for gold coral. 
Without this information the size limit established may be too low, 
thereby insufficiently protecting the coral from overfishing and 
eventually leading to reduced economic returns, or may be too high, 
thereby resulting in an overly conservative size limit that 
unnecessarily reduces potential economic returns.
    Under Management Objective 2 (reduce the potential for harvest of 
coral which has live coral polyps or tissue), three alternatives were 
considered including the preferred alternative. Under the preferred 
alternative, dead precious coral will be defined as precious coral that 
no longer has any live coral polyps or tissue, and live precious coral 
will be defined as precious coral that has live polyps or tissue. Only 
live coral will be counted toward the quotas limiting the amount of 
precious coral that may be taken in any permit area during the fishing 
year. It is possible that some of the coral at a given bed that was 
regarded as dead under the current definition would be regarded as live 
under the alternative definition, and therefore be subject to the 
harvest quota for that bed. However, the amount of additional coral 
that would be subject to the quota is likely to be small, as coral 
colonies that contain holes from borers or are discolored or encrusted 
generally no longer have any living polyps or tissue. There is 
insufficient information on the amount of coral meeting this definition 
at different beds to quantify this economic impact.
    Two alternatives were considered and rejected for the second 
management objective. The first rejected alternative would have 
maintained the current definition of dead precious coral as any 
precious coral that contains holes from borers or is discolored or 
encrusted at the time of removal from the seabed. This alternative was 
rejected because allowing the harvest of coral that is currently 
defined as dead and is believed to provide foraging habitat to the 
endangered Hawaiian monk seal may lead to emergency closures of 
specific sites or alterations of fishing operations. The economic 
impact of closures or other measures would depend on the length of time 
that these measures are in effect.
    The second rejected alternative would have defined dead precious 
coral as precious coral that is no longer standing upright, and define 
live precious coral as precious coral that is standing upright. 
However, the amount of additional coral that would be subject to the 
quota is likely to be small, as coral colonies that contain holes from 
borers or are discolored or encrusted are often no longer standing 
upright. There is insufficient information on the amount of coral 
meeting this definition at different beds to quantify this economic 
impact.
    Under Management Objective 3, (allow greater utilization of dead 
coral resources), two alternatives were considered including the 
preferred alternative. Under the preferred alternative, size limits 
will be applied only to live coral. This alternative will allow greater 
utilization of dead coral resources and thus increase potential income 
to harvesters. There is insufficient information on the quantity of 
dead coral at different beds to quantify this economic impact.
    The rejected alternative would have maintained the application of 
minimum size limits to both live and dead coral. This alternative was 
rejected because it prohibits the harvest of dead coral that is below 
the minimum size limit despite the fact that the harvest of dead coral 
is not considered to be detrimental. There is insufficient information 
on the quantity of dead coral at different beds to quantify the 
economic impact.
    Under Management Objective 4 (regulate the harvest of black coral), 
four alternatives were considered including the preferred alternative. 
Under the preferred alternative, the harvest of black coral will be 
prohibited unless it has attained either a minimum stem diameter of 1 
inch (2.54 cm), measured no less than 1 inch (2.54 cm) from the top of 
the living holdfast, or a minimum height of 48 inches (122 cm), 
measured from the base to the greatest distal extremity of the colony. 
Persons who reported a landing of black coral to the State of Hawaii 
within 5 years before the effective date of the final rule may apply 
for an exemption which allows the hand harvest of black coral that has 
attained a 3/4 inch (1.905 cm) base diameter, measured on the widest 
portion of the skeleton at a location just above the holdfast.
    Three alternatives were considered and rejected for this management 
objective. The first rejected alternative would have maintained the 
current situation of no restrictions on the harvest of black coral. 
This alternative was rejected because it would allow fishing pressure 
to increase in an uncontrolled manner and could lead to overfishing of 
black coral.
    The second rejected alternative would have prohibited the harvest 
of black coral unless it has attained a minimum base diameter of 3/4 
inch (1.905 cm), which is believed to inadequately protect black coral 
resources from overfishing.
    The third rejected alternative would have established a weight 
quota for black coral and was rejected because a weight quota may not 
be as effective as a size limit in avoiding overfishing of the 
resource. Information on the standing stock and sustainable yield of 
managed species of black coral is limited. The use of minimum size 
limits based on knowledge of the reproductive biology of precious 
corals is the preferred basis for management of the fishery when 
selective harvesting is expected to be economically feasible as 
information on the standing stock and its sustainable yield in terms of 
weight is limited.
    Under Management Objective 5 (protect precious coral resources and 
essential fish habitat (EFH) from the effects of ecologically 
destructive and wasteful harvest gear), three alternatives were 
considered including the preferred alternative. The preferred 
alternative will require that selective gear be used to harvest 
precious corals from all permit areas. The cost of purchasing an 
unmanned submersible (i.e., remotely operated vehicle) may be as low as 
$50,000, which is roughly equal to the capital investment in gear 
required to initiate a non-selective harvest operation using tangle 
nets. Although the capital and operating costs of manned submersibles 
may be high, they are not economically prohibitive, as is evidenced by 
the recent interest of two firms in using this type of selective gear 
to harvest precious corals in the waters around Hawaii. In addition, it 
is likely that some harvesters of precious coral will be able to defray 
the costs of using selective gear by finding other lucrative uses for 
the gear, such as salvage and research. The use of non-selective gear 
to harvest precious corals is an inefficient use of fishery resources. 
Non-selective gear tends to damage the precious coral trees as it 
harvests them, thereby greatly reducing the value of the

[[Page 11944]]

coral. In contrast, selective gear harvests coral so that it retains 
its highest value.
    Two alternatives were considered and rejected for the fifth 
management objective to protect precious coral resources and EFH from 
the effects of ecologically destructive and wasteful harvest gear.
    The first rejected alternative would have maintained the current 
regulations requiring selective gear only at the Makapu'u, Keahole 
Point, and Kaena Point Beds. This alternative was rejected because the 
use of non-selective gear to harvest precious corals is not an 
efficient use of fishery resources. The value of precious coral 
colonies is dependent on its size, color and condition. Large, 
completely intact trees of coral have the greatest value. Non-selective 
gear such as dredges harvest pieces of broken coral knocked down by the 
dredge stone and entangled in the nets as the dredge is pulled along 
the sea floor. Breakage may reduce a coral's value by as much as 80 
percent.
    Allowing the continued use of this relatively inexpensive gear in 
exploratory areas may encourage the discovery and exploration of new 
beds. However, the use of non-selective gear is unlikely to provide 
sufficient data to develop reliable estimates of the standing stock and 
maximum sustained yield (MSY) for newly discovered beds because this 
gear cannot discriminate or differentiate between types, size, quality 
or characteristics of living or dead corals. Further, the degradation 
of precious coral beds may reduce monk seal foraging habitat. The 
economic impact of such adverse modifications would be likely to 
include emergency closures of specific sites, including Brooks Bank, or 
alteration of fishing operations. The specific cost of closures or 
other measures would depend on the length of time that these measures 
are in effect.
    The second rejected alternative would have required that selective 
gear be used to harvest precious corals from all established and 
conditional beds. This alternative was rejected as it would fail to 
protect those precious coral resources located outside of these beds.
    Under Management Objective 6 (reduce the potential for overfishing 
of pink coral at conditional beds and exploratory areas), three 
alternatives were considered including the preferred alternative. Under 
the preferred alternative, the current 10 inch size limit for pink 
coral will be applied to all established beds, conditional beds, and 
exploratory areas. The feasibility of this alternative is contingent on 
a prohibition on the use of non-selective gear to harvest precious 
corals for commercial purposes in all permit areas. Applying the size 
limit for pink coral to all permit areas is unlikely to have a 
significant negative economic impact because the potential financial 
return from harvesting colonies of pink coral that are less than 10 
inches (25.4 cm) in height is low. According to Maui Divers of Hawaii, 
Ltd., harvesting colonies less than 10 inches (25.4 cm) is not 
economically practical, because the return does not justify the time 
spent harvesting.
    Two alternatives were considered and rejected for the sixth 
management objective. The first rejected alternative would have 
maintained the application of the 10-inch (25.4 cm) size limit for pink 
coral at the established Makapu'u, Keahole Point, and Kaena Point Beds 
only, and was rejected because long-term negative impacts on harvest 
levels and gross revenues could be potentially large if the resources 
are overfished. Given the life-history characteristics of pink coral, 
such as slow growth and long generation time, overfishing could degrade 
the productivity of affected precious coral beds for many years.
    The second rejected alternative would have applied the current 10-
inch (25.4 cm) size limit for pink coral only to established and 
conditional beds. This alternative would have had economic impacts 
similar to the preferred alternative. However, it was rejected because 
it would not provide protection for the minimum sizes to pink corals 
located in exploratory areas.
    This final rule could affect five to seven small businesses. There 
are three to five small-boat fishermen who harvest black coral using 
scuba gear in beds overlapping State of Hawaii and Federal waters, as 
well as two historical or potential operations targeting other precious 
corals. Between 1990 and 1997, the total annual harvest of black coral 
in Hawaii varied from a low of 864 lbs (391 kg) to a high of 6,017 lbs 
(272 kg), with a yearly average of 3,084 lbs (139 kg). The 415 lbs (188 
kg) of black coral sold in 1997 had a dockside value of about $10,394, 
assuming a price of $25/lb. NMFS cannot determine the proportions of 
the harvest of black coral made in State and Federal waters based on 
the available information. Details on the harvest of other precious 
corals cannot be released due to confidentiality requirements as there 
have been less than three operations active in the past decade.
    Due to the low level of participation in the western Pacific 
precious coral fishery, aggregate economic impacts resulting from the 
final rule will be minimal. The analysis, however, shows that 
prohibiting the harvest of gold coral at Makapu'u Bed could result in 
the loss of potential revenues of approximately $100,000 annually in 
the short term, if the actual stock is of sufficient size to support 
the current harvest quota. Establishment of a universal minimum harvest 
size for all pink coral management unit species could result in a 
positive economic impact in the form of long-term maintenance of MSYs. 
On the other hand, imposing a minimum harvest size for black corals 
could have a negative economic impact on fishery revenues, except for 
five harvesters expected to be exempt from the minimum harvest size 
requirement. A prohibition on the use of non-selective gear to harvest 
precious corals could result in additional costs for future 
participants. Hand-harvesters for black corals would be unaffected by 
this prohibition. The exact costs of selective gear technologies are 
unknown, although a remotely operated submersible coral harvester can 
now be obtained for $50,000, which may be approximately equal to the 
cost of setting up a non-selective harvest operation using tangle nets. 
The effective yield is higher for selective harvesting of precious 
corals using submersibles compared to the wasteful practice of 
harvesting precious corals using non-selective gear.
    Due to a lack of information on the long term effects of 
alternative management measures on coral stocks, harvest effort or 
catch rates, a detailed quantitative analysis of the costs and benefits 
of alternative management measures is not possible at this time.
    Although long-term data are unavailable, analysis of this fishery 
is ongoing, and may lead to simulation models capable of predicting the 
biological (and economic) effects of each alternative. From a 
conceptual point of view, the precious corals fishery represents a 
difficult economic analysis. Although standard bioeconomic theory 
suggests that the harvest rate should be no more than the growth rate 
of the coral population at its MSY (accounting for economic production 
cost relationships and the discount rate), the growth rate of coral is 
so slow that a mining approach might be considered preferable, i.e., 
that the resource might be allowed to be over-fished in the short-term, 
and then harvesting prohibited for the many years which would be 
required for it to be fully restored. However, this approach was 
rejected because it would be inconsistent, with National Standard 1 of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act which prohibits overfishing. It is anticipated 
by NMFS that by allowing the coral populations to maintain their long-
term

[[Page 11945]]

sustainability, there will be a larger standing stock of corals which 
will optimize harvest rates and reduce the relative costs of harvesting 
(due to increased density). By limiting the harvest rates to those 
allowed by MSY, the likelihood that long-term benefits will exceed 
costs is increased. In addition, these restrictions may preclude new 
entry into the fishery, therefore improving social benefits (i.e., 
avoiding over-capacity). To the extent that these initial explorations 
are successful in identifying additional coral resources for 
harvesting, and as new economic information is acquired, a re-
evaluation of the relative benefits and costs of these management 
measures would be warranted.
    None of the alternatives considered is expected to have significant 
social impacts on fishery participants or Hawaii fishing communities in 
terms of employment, enjoyment of the fishery, vessel and crew safety, 
social or cultural activity in the fishery, or other social factors.
    To minimize impact, this final rule removes size limits for dead 
corals. However, this revision could cause some risk to certain corals, 
such as gold corals, that may use dead corals for resettlement of new 
colonies.
    This final rule does not contain any reporting or record- keeping 
requirements.
    An informal consultation under the Endangered Species Act was 
conducted to determine whether this regulatory amendment was likely to 
affect any endangered or threatened species, including Hawaiian monk 
seals. This consultation was completed on December 20, 2000, and 
concluded that this regulatory amendment is not likely to adversely 
affect any endangered or threatened resources. The disapproval of the 
two NWHI measures does not affect that determination.
    This final rule is consistent with Executive Order 13089, which is 
intended to preserve and protect the biodiversity, health, heritage, 
and social and economic value of U.S. coral reef ecosystems and the 
marine environment.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, 
Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 12, 2002.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended 
as follows:

PART 660--FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES AND IN THE WESTERN 
PACIFIC

    1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In Sec. 660.12, the definitions of ``Dead coral'' and ``Live 
coral'' are revised, and under the definition of ``Precious coral 
permit area'', paragraph (3) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 660.12  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Dead coral means any precious coral that no longer has any live 
coral polyps or tissue.
* * * * *
    Live coral means any precious coral that has live coral polyps or 
tissue.
* * * * *
    Precious coral permit area* * *
* * * * *
    (3) Refugia. Westpac Bed, Permit Area R-1, includes the area within 
a radius of 2.0 nm of a point at 23 deg.18' N. lat., 162 deg.35' W. 
long.
* * * * *

    3. In Sec. 660.82, paragraph (c) introductory text is revised to 
read as follows:


Sec.  660.82  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (c) Take and retain, possess, or land any live pink coral or live 
black coral from any precious coral permit area that is less than the 
minimum height specified in Sec. 660.86 unless:
* * * * *

    4. Section 660.86 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 660.86  Size restrictions.

    The height of a live coral specimen shall be determined by a 
straight line measurement taken from its base to its most distal 
extremity. The stem diameter of a living coral specimen shall be 
determined by measuring the greatest diameter of the stem at a point no 
less than 1 inch (2.54 cm) from the top surface of the living holdfast.
    (a) Live pink coral harvested from any precious coral permit area 
must have attained a minimum height of 10 inches (25.4 cm).
    (b) Black coral. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section, live black coral harvested from any precious coral permit area 
must have attained either a minimum stem diameter of 1 inch (2.54 cm), 
or a minimum height of 48 inches (122 cm).
    (2) The NMFS Pacific Islands Area Office will issue an exemption 
permitting hand-harvesting of live black coral that has attained a 
minimum base diameter of 3/4 inches (1.91 cm), measured on the widest 
portion of the skeleton at a location just above the holdfast, to any 
person who reported a landing of black coral to the State of Hawaii 
within 5 years before April 17, 2002.

    5. Section 660.88 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 660.88  Gear restrictions.

    Only selective gear may be used to harvest coral from any precious 
coral permit area.

    6. Table 1 to Part 660 is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 11946]]



      TABLE 1 TO PART 660.--QUOTAS FOR PRECIOUS CORALS PERMIT AREAS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Number
       Name of coral bed         Type of bed    Harvest quota       of
                                                                  years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Makapu'u                        Established         P--2,000 kg        2
                                                 G--Zero (0 kg)      n/a
                                                      B--500 kg        2
Ke-ahole Point                  Conditional            P--67 kg        1
                                                       G--20 kg        1
                                                       B--17 kg        1
Kaena Point                     Conditional            P--67 kg        1
                                                       G--20 kg        1
                                                       B--17 kg        1
Brooks Bank                     Conditional            P--17 kg        1
                                                      G--133 kg        1
                                                      B--111 kg        1
180 Fathom Bank                 Conditional           P--222 kg        1
 
                                                       G--67 kg        1
                                                       B--56 kg        1
Westpac Bed                     Refugium            Zero (0 kg)      n/a
Hawaii, American, Samoa, Guam,  Exploratory    X--1,000 kg (all        1
 U.S. Pacific Island                           species combined
 possessions.                                      except black
                                               corals) per area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. Types of corals: P = Pink G = Gold B = Bamboo
2. No authorized fishing for coral in refugia

[FR Doc. 02-6468 Filed 3-15-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S