[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-7572]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: March 31, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 940367-4067; I.D. 060493A]
RIN 0648-AG19

 

Fishing Vessel Monitoring Systems Standards

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

ACTION: Final standards.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues final standards, where appropriate, for the use of 
satellite-based fishing vessel monitoring systems (VMS) to determine 
positions of fishing vessels, collect real-time catch and environmental 
data, and to specify minimum standards for these systems. This notice 
advises the public that uniform standards have been promulgated for 
VMS. NMFS has determined that standards are necessary to assure VMS 
compatibility. The use of satellite-based fishing VMS to collect catch 
data and determine vessel positions will contribute to reducing 
overfishing and maintaining currently productive fisheries. Such 
systems may also contribute significantly to NOAA's global 
environmental and climate monitoring activities.

ADDRESSES: Copies of final standards may be obtained from Steven C. 
Springer, Chief, Enforcement Programs Division, National Marine 
Fisheries Service, Office of Enforcement, 8484 Georgia Avenue, suite 
415, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven C. Springer, 301-427-2010.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act) 
(16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) established Regional Fishery Management 
Councils (Councils) and gave them authority to prepare fishery 
management plans (FMPs) for the conservation and management of fishery 
resources. The Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) may also prepare FMPs 
under circumstances specified in the Magnuson Act. NMFS implements FMPs 
and is responsible for collecting data and monitoring FMP compliance. 
In recent years, some U.S. commercial marine fishery resources have 
been overharvested. Many others are being fished at or near the point 
of full utilization, and there is real danger that these could become 
overharvested as well. Because of this, NMFS is endeavoring to improve 
the accuracy and timeliness of catch and effort data, and improve 
compliance with cost-effective management measures. NMFS published 
proposed VMS standards on September 22, 1993, at 58 FR 49285. 
Additional background can be found there.

Implementation

    NMFS endorses the use of, and defines specifications and criteria 
for, satellite-based fishing vessel monitoring systems as appropriate, 
to determine positions of fishing vessels and collect real-time catch 
and environmental data.
    Several companies manufacture and distribute VMSs throughout the 
United States and worldwide. Not all systems, however, are compatible 
with each other. NMFS requires system compatibility for several 
reasons. First, fishing vessels that engage in multiple fisheries 
should not be required to install multiple VMSs. Further, it would not 
be cost-efficient for NMFS to install multiple fishing vessel 
monitoring centers/systems in order to monitor vessel activities from 
multiple VMSs. In order to assure such compatibility, NMFS has defined 
basic VMS and related performance criteria and system specifications. 
However, recognizing that regulatory requirements for a VMS may be 
promulgated on a fishery-by-fishery basis, all VMSs shall be certified 
by NMFS to meet applicable requirements. These systems would be 
implemented as appropriate through Secretarial and Council recommended 
FMPs.
    The real-time reporting of catch data that a VMS can provide would 
significantly improve the ability to monitor and manage quotas and 
allocations in certain fisheries. In fisheries managed by individual 
fishing quotas (IFQs) or individual transferable quotas (ITQs), 
mandatory remote monitoring of vessel catches and locations can improve 
management by providing fishery managers with timely information on 
catches (by area, if required) and transfers of quotas that can be 
effected and monitored while the vessel is at sea. In fisheries where 
real-time catch reporting is not essential for effective resource 
management, but time or area closures are, the position tracking 
component of a VMS could provide a more cost-effective means of 
enforcing such closures.
    All required information regarding fishing vessel activity would be 
communicated from ship to shore through a secure, confidential 
satellite communication system described below and processed in NMFS 
regional data processing centers. Vessel position and catch data would 
be used by NMFS Regions and Centers to monitor fishing quotas and 
fishing activities, and identify suspected violations of time or area 
regulations.
    The system would provide for monitoring U.S. vessels and, where 
appropriate, foreign vessels conducting fishing operations in the U.S. 
exclusive economic zone and on the high seas.
    In determining the feasibility of requiring a VMS for vessel 
tracking purposes, Councils and NMFS will need to identify time and 
area management measures, evaluate their degree of significance in 
achieving the goals and objectives of the FMP, assess costs and 
benefits, review fishery-related agreements, treaties or similar 
arrangements, and estimate the amount and effectiveness of enforcement 
surveillance and patrol resources needed to gain compliance. In most 
cases, deployment of costly enforcement resources could be optimized by 
identifying violations through a VMS and deploying further resources 
accordingly (i.e., targeting apparent violations vs. random 
patrolling).
    NMFS may link VMS requirements to the issuance of Federal fishing 
permits. In fisheries requiring a VMS, a permit may not be issued to a 
vessel until a certified VMS is purchased, installed and is fully 
operational on that vessel. Failure of a vessel to carry an operating 
VMS may result in permit sanctions. In fisheries where there is no 
Federal permit, but VMSs are required, the regulations could be amended 
to prohibit fishing without a fully operational VMS on board the 
vessel.
    NMFS intends to establish a National Monitoring Center (NMC) to 
receive and process data transmitted by the VMS. The NMC will specify 
data requirements for vessel terminals, ensure confidentiality of data 
in accordance with applicable rules and regulations, and distribute 
data in real or near real time to NMFS offices, the U.S. Coast Guard 
and other users as appropriate.
    If the Councils or NMFS determine there is a need for real-time 
catch data, costs associated with changes in data collection, 
management and analysis infrastructure beyond the selection of a VMS 
should be assessed, as well as benefits. Any self-reported data 
reporting system must include comprehensive validation mechanisms, 
especially where the incentives for misreporting are high. The 
statistical, computer, compliance and analytical staffing resources 
must be integral components of the need and justification of a VMS. If 
a VMS is deemed an appropriate tool, then NMFS would require that the 
following system criteria and specifications apply.

Changes From the Proposed Standards

    Proposed standard 3 stated VMS shall be capable of tracking vessels 
throughout their range and shall provide position accuracy to within 
400 m (1,300 ft). Because industry standards for Global Positioning 
system (GPS) position locating is generally accepted to be accurate 
within 100 m, the final standard states VMS equipment shall be capable 
of tracking vessels throughout their range and shall provide position 
accuracies that meet current industry standards. All systems certified 
by NMFS must be accurate to within 400 m (1,300 ft).
    Proposed standard 7 has been renumbered standard 8, with no change 
to the text. A new standard 7 was created to include certain other 
vessel-tracking-only systems or systems that provide vessel tracking 
and limited data capabilities. Standard 7 states that exceptions may be 
made to the requirements for remote access to the VMS, vessel polling 
and two-way communications in fisheries where the Councils or the 
Secretary determine that effective vessel monitoring can occur without 
these features.

Response to Public Comments

    Twenty-one written comments on the proposed standards were received 
by NMFS. These comments originated from the fishing industry--
independent fishermen, fishermen's associations, and fishing companies; 
Fishery Management Councils; the vessel monitoring/satellite tracking 
industry; and the U.S. Coast Guard. Most of the comments favored VMS 
and included ideas on how the standards could be improved. Several 
respondents felt that there was no reason for a VMS in their particular 
fishery, but made constructive comments about national standards for 
VMS.
    Many respondents reacted as if NMFS was proposing a new rule 
requiring VMS. The notice of proposed standards clearly stated that 
NMFS endorses the use of VMS and is defining specifications and 
criteria for their use. It further stated that decisions to require VMS 
must be made on a fishery-by-fishery basis by the Councils or the 
Secretary.
    Comment 1: The VMS program will be a financial burden on individual 
vessel owners. Several fishermen and fishing associations were 
concerned that NMFS would increase the monthly operational cost to the 
fishermen by requesting additional data transmission and polling from 
the fishing vessels when NMFS wants more information.
    Response: The cost of any VMS will depend on the system(s) 
recommended by the Councils. Fishermen will have the opportunity to 
address VMSs and their associated costs with Council members and NMFS 
through many channels, including the public hearing process. As VMSs 
are implemented, fishery by fishery, the Councils and NMFS will work 
together to choose the least expensive system that will meet the 
enforcement and management objectives of the FMP. NMFS notes that the 
trend in the industry has been for equipment and data costs to decline 
as applications of the technology increase. NMFS believes that 
continued competition among equipment and service providers will 
continue to drive prices down in the future.
    Comment 2: Requiring VMS on fishing vessels is a serious privacy 
issue and infringes on individual's rights.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. Fishing is a highly regulated industry. 
It has become highly regulated because of the increased competition for 
a finite and dwindling resource. Vessel operators have a choice to fish 
in state waters, Federal waters or both. If they choose to fish in 
Federal waters, they will be required to operate within the constraints 
of Federal regulations. NMFS and the U.S. Coast Guard are required to 
enforce Federal fishery regulations. If it is determined that the most 
efficient and effective means of managing Federal fisheries and 
enforcing Federal fisheries regulations is through the use of VMS, then 
any perceived ``privacy'' issues are outweighed by the necessity to 
conserve and manage Federal fishery resources.
    Comment 3: VMS standards should not be so restrictive that they 
create a closed system where only one contractor would be able to 
supply all the equipment or services. Such a system would eliminate 
competition and increase prices.
    Response: NMFS is currently gathering information to design a 
system that will be open to as many vendors of equipment and services 
as possible. NMFS will attempt to employ an open architecture design 
for equipment and software to create easy access and ensure 
adaptability to technological advances. The fishermen purchasing VMS 
equipment will, in most fisheries, have a choice of several certified 
vendors.
    Comment 4: Service Argos and several manufacturers of Argos-based 
equipment noted that their system offered vessel tracking and limited 
capabilities to send data. They also noted that the proposed standards 
required the ability to remotely change location reporting intervals, 
poll vessels and engage in two-way communications. They believed that 
these requirements were not necessary in all fisheries and unfairly 
excluded their equipment from the NMFS certification process.
    Response: NMFS agrees that circumstances may exist in some 
fisheries where Argos or other VMS equipment capable of tracking 
vessels, but incapable of performing the functions identified above, 
would be appropriate. If the systems can meet all of the other 
standards, they may still be certified for certain fishing vessel 
tracking applications. Final standard 7 reflects this change.
    Comment 5: The accuracy specified in standard 3 is potentially 
limiting to VMS in the future. The U.S. Coast Guard and several 
respondents from the vessel tracking industry commented that position 
fixing standards using the GPS is accurate to within 100 m with 
present-day equipment. The Coast Guard noted that 400 m, in some cases, 
might not be accurate enough for the enforcement of small closed areas 
and boundary lines.
    Response: NMFS agrees that industry standards should prevail. 
However, it appears that only systems using GPS can obtain accuracies 
of less than 100 m. In order not to exclude other systems from 
consideration, standard 3 has been changed to require VMS to meet 
industry standards while maintaining a minimum accuracy of 400 m.
    Comment 6: Before NMFS endorses any system, it should test the 
system and provide the results to the public.
    Response: In 1991, NMFS and staff members from the Western Pacific 
Fishery Management Council worked together to demonstrate the 
capabilities of several automated vessel monitoring technologies. A 
report detailing the systems demonstrated and the purpose and results 
of the demonstration can be obtained from the NMFS Office of 
Enforcement (see ADDRESSES). The name of the report is Fishing Vessel 
Tracking--Application for Fisheries Management and Enforcement (1991).
    Comment 7: NMFS already has observers on certain groundfish vessels 
in Alaska who send catch data via satellite to NMFS. Requiring VMS for 
automatic vessel tracking would be an unnecessary additional burden.
    Response: NMFS is aware that observers on certain groundfish 
vessels in Alaska send data over the vessel's satellite communication 
system to NMFS. If the Council or NMFS implements a VMS requirement in 
the Alaskan groundfish fishery sometime in the future, any accompanying 
analysis would most likely include the interrelationship of observer 
coverage and VMS.

System Specifications (Final Standards)

    Determinations by the Councils or NMFS may require a VMS for 
tracking purposes only, data reporting only, or for both vessel 
tracking and data reporting purposes. Some performance specifications 
and criteria may not apply to a VMS that is required for vessel 
tracking only or data reporting only.
    The following system specifications and criteria will be applied to 
a VMS for any fishery for which NMFS or the Councils determine a need 
for vessel tracking, monitoring and/or reporting:
    1. The VMS shall be tamperproof, i.e., shall not permit the input 
of false positions.
    2. VMS equipment shall be fully automatic and operational at all 
times, regardless of weather and environmental conditions.
    3. VMS equipment shall be capable of tracking vessels throughout 
their range and shall provide position accuracies that meet current 
industry standards. All systems certified by NMFS must be accurate to 
within 400 m (1,300 ft).
    4. The VMS shall have the capability of transmitting and storing 
information, including vessel identification, date-time, latitude, 
longitude, speed and bearing.
    5. The VMS shall provide accurate position transmissions, the 
interval between which can be determined by NMFS and set or changed 
remotely. In addition, the VMS shall allow NMFS to poll individual 
vessels or any set of vessels at any time and receive position reports 
in real time.
    6. Under certain conditions, the VMS may be required to provide 
network message communications between the vessel and shore. (This 
specification may not be applicable to tracking-only systems). Such 
communications shall include, but not be limited to, transmitting and 
receiving telex and full or compressed data messages to and from shore. 
The VMS shall allow NMFS to initiate communications or data transfer at 
any time.
    7. Exceptions may be made to the requirements for remote access to 
the VMS, vessel polling and two-way communications in fisheries where 
the Councils or Secretary determine that effective vessel monitoring 
can occur without these features.
    8. Shore station software shall:
    (a.) Reliably retrieve position records, as defined in standard 4 
above, and display such data on a computer monitor;
    (b.) Provide a means for printing such data;
    (c.) Include on-screen displays of charts capable of showing 
boundaries of fishery management areas;
    (d.) Be capable of accurately displaying vessel positions on such 
charts;
    (e.) Be capable of providing an alarm, signal, or other notice to 
shore station operators when a vessel is within 1 nautical mile (1.9 
km) of designated closed areas or management area boundaries;
    (f.) Provide printer/plotter support for drawing charts; and
    (g.) Have the capacity to archive vessel position histories for a 
minimum of 1 year.

Classification

    This notice does not implement or require VMS. However, it 
announces standards that will apply to any VMS requirement implemented 
through amendments to the various FMPs.
    This action is not subject to review under E.O. 12866.

    Dated: March 24, 1994.
Nancy Foster,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 94-7572 Filed 3-30-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P