[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53386-53401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21271]



[[Page 53386]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 600 and 648

[Docket No. 130402316-4656-01]
RIN 0648-BD02


Vessel Monitoring Systems; Requirements for Enhanced Mobile 
Transceiver Unit and Mobile Communication Service Type-Approval

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is proposing to codify type-approval standards, 
specifications, procedures, and responsibilities applicable to 
commercial Enhanced Mobile Transceiver Unit (EMTU) vendors and mobile 
communications service (MCS) providers seeking to obtain and maintain 
type-approval by NMFS for EMTU/MTU or MCS, collectively referred to as 
vessel monitoring system (VMS), products and services. This proposed 
rule is necessary to specify NMFS procedures for EMTU/MTU and MCS type-
approval, type-approval renewal, and revocation; revise latency 
standards; and ensure compliance with type-approval standards.

DATES: Comments must be received by October 24, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this proposed rule, identified by 
NOAA-NMFS-2014-0019, by either of the following methods:
     Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0019, click the 
``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or 
attach your comments.
     Mail: Send written comments to Kelly Spalding, 1315 East 
West Highway, Room 3301, Silver Spring, MD 20910
    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other 
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, 
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on 
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g.; name, address, etc.), confidential business 
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily 
by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous 
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain 
anonymous), and will accept attachments to electronic comments in 
Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
    Copies of the Draft Initial Regulatory Impact Review, Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and other related documents are 
available by contacting the individuals listed below in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Spalding, Vessel Monitoring 
System Management Analyst, 301-427-8269; or Eric Teeters, Fishery 
Regulations Specialist, 301-427-8580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Fishers must comply with applicable Federal fishery VMS 
regulations, and in doing so, may select from a variety of EMTU/MCS 
vendors who have been approved to participate in the VMS program for 
specific fisheries. Fishers may be cited for violations of the VMS 
regulations and held accountable for monitoring anomalies not 
attributable to faults in the EMTU or MCS. EMTUs and MCS must continue 
to meet the standards for type-approval throughout the service life of 
the VMS unit. Therefore, type-approval, periodic type-approval renewal, 
and procedures for revocation of type-approval are essential to 
establish and maintain uniformly high VMS system integrity and ensure 
fishers have access to VMS that meet their needs. Regional Fishery 
Management Councils and NMFS have established VMS programs to support 
NMFS regulations requiring the use of VMS that typically are designed 
to manage fisheries resources and protect marine species and 
ecologically sensitive areas. VMS is also required on U.S. vessels 
fishing outside the U.S. EEZ pursuant to conservation and management 
measures adopted by international Regional Fishery Management 
Organizations to which the United States is a party.
    The NMFS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) maintains VMS 
specification requirements. Currently, vessels participating in the VMS 
program must acquire a NMFS type-approved EMTU that operates pursuant 
to specific standards set forth in NMFS Policy Directive 06-102. The 
EMTU allows NMFS OLE to determine the geographic position of the vessel 
at specified intervals or during specific events, via mobile 
communications services between NMFS OLE and the vessel using a NMFS-
approved mobile communications service provider (MCSP). These 
communications are secure and the information is only made available to 
authorized personnel. In some regions, the use of Mobile Transmitter 
Units (MTUs) is allowed if the MTU was already installed on vessels 
when EMTUs were required. MTUs pre-date EMTUs, and, unlike EMTUs, are 
not capable of supporting two-way communications. No new installations 
of MTUs are allowed and no additional MTUs will be type-approved. 
However, the proposed rule would continue to allow use of previously 
type-approved MTUs for a period of time as set forth in proposed 50 CFR 
600.1512 and 600.1513 (approval period and renewal). For an MTU type-
approval renewal, 50 CFR 600.1513 provides that the MTU must, among 
other things, meet requirements applicable when the MTU was originally 
type-approved. To the extent that this rule lessens or relaxes a prior 
specification, e.g., latency requirements, previously type-approved 
MTUs will be held to the new, lesser standard.
    To date, NMFS has announced the National VMS type-approval 
standards by several notices in the Federal Register (59 FR 15180, 
March 31, 1994; 70 FR 61941, October 27, 2005; 71 FR 3053, January 19, 
2006; 73 FR 5813, January 31, 2008). NMFS first announced standards for 
the use of satellite-based VMS via a 1994 notice in the Federal 
Register (1994 VMS Type-Approval Standards; 59 FR 15180, March 31, 
1994). NMFS published these standards for any VMS transceiver unit that 
meets the VMS requirements implemented through amendments to various 
regional fishery management plans. NMFS published the 1994 VMS Type-
Approval Standards as a statement of policy or practice. The 1994 VMS 
Type-Approval Standards established a process for approval of VMS units 
by NMFS for fisheries which require use of VMS. These initial VMS Type-
Approval Standards have been revised on multiple occasions.
    In 2006 and 2008, NMFS revised its VMS Type-Approval Standards 
through a two-step process. In 2006, NMFS published a notice in the 
Federal Register to announce the standards for type-approvals of VMS 
MCSP (71 FR 3053, January 19, 2006). In 2008, NMFS published a notice 
in the Federal Register to announce the standards for type-approvals of 
VMS units (EMTU/MTUs) installed on vessels (73 FR 5813, January 31, 
2008). Each notice stated that it superseded all previous notices

[[Page 53387]]

on type-approval requirements for VMS MCSP, or VMS units, respectively. 
The notices also stated the VMS MCS and EMTU/MTU must meet the minimal 
national VMS standards, as required by the notices, and the 
requirements of the specific fisheries for which approval is sought. In 
the notices, NMFS set out the process for the initiation of type-
approval. Under that process, upon testing and approval by NMFS OLE 
Headquarters, a type-approval is officially issued to the applicant-
vendor.
    The notices also expressly stated that if the EMTU/MTU or MCS were 
changed in such a way it no longer satisfied the type-approval 
standards set forth in the notices, NMFS reserved the right to 
reconsider and revoke individual type-approvals for MCS or EMTU/MTUs 
installed on vessels. To date, the process for revoking individual 
type-approvals has not been codified into regulations. By codifying 
type-approval standards and setting forth type-approval renewal and 
revocation processes (see 50 CFR 600.1513 (renewal) and 50 CFR 600.1514 
through 600.1515 (revocation and appeals)), this proposed rule would 
improve enforceability of VMS type-approval standards and requirements. 
If NMFS were to revoke type-approval for an EMTU/MTU or MCS, this 
proposed rule (see 50 CFR 600.1516) would also ensure affected fishers 
would be notified of the revocation.
    An initial review of Federal rules indicated that there was the 
potential that this proposed rule would overlap with the NMFS Greater 
Atlantic Region's VMS vendor and unit requirements at 50 CFR 648.9. 
Currently, in the NMFS Greater Atlantic Region, the Regional 
Administrator has the authority and established procedures to issue 
type-approvals for that region. To eliminate this potential conflict in 
Federal regulations, this proposed rule would revise the regulations at 
50 CFR 648.9 so that the NMFS OLE Director would issue type-approvals 
for all NMFS regions, including the Greater Atlantic Region. Revising 
these regulations eliminates the possibility of duplicating, 
overlapping, or conflicting with other codified Federal regulations.

Purpose of This Proposed Rule

    The purpose of this proposed rule is to codify the VMS type-
approval process and standards, improve enforceability of the type-
approval standards, and better ensure all type-approved EMTU/MTUs and 
MCS remain in compliance with NMFS VMS type-approval standards.

Overview of the Proposed Rule

    As explained in detail below, NMFS is proposing procedures and 
requirements for initial type-approvals for EMTUs, MCS, or EMTU/MTU 
(``bundle'') (valid for 3 years); renewals of type-approvals; 
revocations of type-approvals; and appeals. NMFS OLE currently 
publishes in the Federal Register notices of type-approved EMTUs/MTUs, 
MCS, and bundles, and will continue to maintain and post the type-
approved list on its Web site at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/about/our_programs/vessel_monitoring.html and, upon request, 
provide the list to the Regional Fishery Management Council(s) and 
members of the public.
    NMFS will not issue new type-approvals for MTUs, only for EMTUs. 
However, as set forth in proposed 50 CFR 600.1512, all MTUs, EMTUs, 
MCSs, and bundles with valid type-approvals on the effective date of 
this rule will continue to be type-approved. If a type-approval date is 
more than 3 years old, the type-approval would expire 30 days after 
publication of this rule, as finalized.
    NMFS is also proposing substantive requirements for EMTUs and MCS 
in 50 CFR 600.1502 through 600.1509. Failure to meet these requirements 
or applicable VMS regulations and requirements in effect for the 
region(s) and Federal fisheries for which the EMTU or MCS is type-
approved would trigger a Notification Letter and potential revocation 
procedures. For initial type-approvals and renewals, the type-approval 
requestor (or holder, in the case of a renewal) would be required, 
among other things, to certify that the EMTU, MCS, or bundle complies 
with each requirement set out in 50 CFR 600.1502 through 600.1509, and 
applicable VMS regulations and requirements in effect for the region(s) 
and Federal fisheries for which type-approval/renewal is sought. 
Definitions and acronyms used in this rule are proposed in 50 CFR 
600.1500.
    Application for Initial Type-Approval (50 CFR 600.1501)
    Under proposed 50 CFR 600.1501, a requestor must make a written 
request for type-approval of an EMTU, MSC or bundle, and send 
electronic copies of supporting material to the NMFS OLE.
    As part of its application, the requestor would be required to 
provide to NMFS OLE two EMTUs, with activated MCS, loaded with forms 
and software for each NMFS region or Federal fishery for which the 
application is made, for a minimum of 90 calendar days for testing and 
evaluation. Two EMTUs, MSCPs, or bundles are needed for testing in each 
NMFS region or Federal fishery in order to quickly conduct in-office 
and field trials simultaneously. The requestor would be responsible for 
all associated costs of the EMTU and MCS (Sec.  600.1501(b)(3)(vi)).
    In addition, proposed 50 CFR 600.1501 provides that the requestor 
must, as part of its application, provide information and documentation 
regarding the EMTU and MCS. The requestor would be required to provide 
the following information regarding the EMTU: Communication class, 
manufacturer, brand name, model name, model number, software version 
and date, firmware version number and date, hardware version number and 
date, antenna type, antenna model number and date, tablet, monitor, or 
terminal model number and date, MCS to be used in conjunction with the 
EMTU, entity providing MCS to the end user, and current satellite 
coverage of the MSC. The requestor would be required to provide third 
party entity information for business entities authorized to: Provide 
bench configuration for the EMTU; distribute/sell the EMTU to end 
users; install the EMTU onboard vessels; offer a limited warranty; 
offer a maintenance service agreement; repair or install new software 
on the EMTU; train end-users; advertise the EMTU; and provide other 
customer services. The required third party entity information includes 
business name and contact information, specific services provided and 
geographic region covered. In addition, the requestor would be required 
to identify the NMFS region(s) or Federal fisheries for which the 
requestor is seeking type-approval; include copies of or citation to 
applicable VMS regulations and requirements in effect for the region(s) 
and Federal fisheries that require use of VMS; certify that the 
features, components, configuration, and services of the requestor's 
EMTU, MCS, or bundle comply with each requirement set out in 50 CFR 
600.1502 through 600.1509 and the VMS regulations and requirements for 
each NMFS region or Federal fishery for which the application is made; 
and certify that, if the request is approved, the requestor agrees to 
be responsible for ensuring compliance with each requirement set out in 
50 CFR 600.1502 through 600.1509 and the VMS regulations and 
requirements for each NMFS region or Federal fishery for which the 
application is made over the course of the type-approval period. 
Lastly, the application must include thorough documentation, including 
EMTU fact

[[Page 53388]]

sheets, installation guides, user manuals, any necessary interfacing 
software, satellite coverage, performance specifications, and technical 
support information.
    A requestor seeking type-approval of an EMTU within a particular 
communications class, as opposed to type-approval for use with one 
particular MCS, must certify that the EMTU meets requirements under 
this subpart when using at least one qualified MCSP within the same 
communications class.
    NMFS OLE would review the submissions and evaluate them based on 
the VMS type-approval standards, and may perform field tests and at-sea 
trials. For these tests and trials, NMFS OLE would either coordinate 
test conditions with volunteer or contracted fishing vessels, or 
contract a third-party to accomplish this task. The tests may involve 
demonstrating every aspect of EMTU and communications operation, 
including installation of a registered EMTU, location tracking, 
messaging, and maintenance procedures. Most initial type-approval 
decisions are anticipated to be made within approximately 3-6 months of 
submission of a type-approval request.
    No sooner than 90 days after receipt of a complete type-approval 
request, NMFS OLE will notify the requestor if a request is approved or 
partially approved as provided in proposed 50 CFR 600.1510, or 
disapproved or partially disapproved as provided in Sec.  600.1501(d). 
If NMFS approves or partially approves the type-approval(s), the NMFS 
OLE Director would issue a type-approval letter. As applicable, the 
letter would indicate the specific EMTU model, MCS, or bundle that is 
approved for use, the MCS or class of MCSs permitted for use with the 
type-approved EMTU, and the regions or fisheries in which the EMTU, 
MCS, or bundle is approved for use. NMFS would also publish a notice in 
the Federal Register documenting the type-approval and the dates for 
which it is effective.
    If NMFS disapproves or partially disapproves the type-approval(s), 
NMFS OLE will send a letter to the requestor that explains the reason 
for the disapproval/partial disapproval. To have the request re-
examined, within 21 days of the date of the NMFS OLE letter, the 
requestor may respond to NMFS OLE in writing with additional 
information to address the reasons for disapproval identified in the 
NMFS OLE letter.
    If any additional information is submitted, and after reviewing 
such information, NMFS OLE may approve, partially approve, or continue 
to disapprove or partially disapprove the request. In the latter case, 
the NMFS OLE Director will send a letter to the requestor that explains 
the reasons for the disapproval/partial disapproval. The NMFS OLE 
Director's decision is final upon issuance of this letter and is not 
appealable.

Communications Functionality (50 CFR 600.1502)

    Proposed 50 CFR 600.1502 provides that an EMTU must be able to 
transmit automatically-generated Global Positioning System (GPS) 
position reports, provide visible or audible alarms onboard the vessel 
to indicate malfunctioning of the EMTU, be able to disable non-
essential alarms in non-Global Maritime Distress and Safety System 
(GMDSS) installations, be able to send communications that function 
uniformly throughout the geographic area(s) covered by the type-
approval, have two-way communications between authorized entities and 
the EMTU via MCS, have the capacity to send and receive electronic 
forms and Internet email messages, meet the latency requirement 
proposed at Sec.  600.1504 (described below), and have messaging and 
communications that are completely compatible with NMFS vessel 
monitoring software. Messages and communications from an EMTU would be 
required to be parsed out for separate billing when necessary. In 
addition, the costs associated with position reporting and the costs 
associated with other communications (for example, personal email or 
communications/reports to non-NMFS OLE entities) would be required to 
be parsed out and billed to separate parties, as appropriate.

Position Report Data Formats and Transmission (50 CFR 600.1503)

    Pursuant to 50 CFR 600.1503, an EMTU, MCS, or bundle would be 
required to comply with the following requirements in addition to 
providing position information as required by the applicable VMS 
regulations and requirements in effect for each fishery or region for 
which the type-approval applies. An EMTU must be able to transmit 
automatically generated position reports, for vessels managed 
individually or grouped by fleet, that meet the latency requirement 
(proposed Sec.  600.1504, described below). When an EMTU is powered up, 
it must automatically re-establish its position reporting function 
without manual intervention. Position reports must contain unique 
identification of an EMTU within the communications class; date (year/
month/day with century in the year) and time stamp (GMT) of the 
position fix; position fixed latitude and longitude, including the 
hemisphere of each, where the position fix precision must be to the 
decimal minute hundredths and accuracy of the reported position must be 
within 100 meters, unless otherwise indicated by an existing regulation 
or VMS requirement.
    An EMTU would be required to have the ability to store 1,000 
position fixes in local, non-volatile memory, allow for defining 
variable reporting intervals between 5 minutes and 24 hours, and allow 
for changes in reporting intervals remotely and only by authorized 
users. An EMTU would also be required to generate specially identified 
position reports upon antenna disconnection, loss of positioning 
reference signals, loss of the mobile communications signals, security 
events, power-up, power down, and other status data, the vessel 
crossing a pre-defined geographic boundary, and upon a request for EMTU 
status information such as configuration of programming and reporting 
intervals.

Latency Requirement (50 CFR 600.1504)

    All of the previously published VMS type-approval specification 
notices (59 FR 15180, March 31, 1994; 70 FR 61941, October 27, 2005; 71 
FR 3053, January 19, 2006; 73 FR 5813, January 31, 2008) included a 
reporting latency standard for type-approved EMTU/MTUs. NMFS OLE 
special agents and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) have indicated that 
near-real-time data transmissions are necessary to effectively enforce 
Federal fisheries laws and regulations. Near-real-time awareness of the 
location of vessels is essential to at-sea enforcement efforts, and the 
use of enforcement resources, in the event a vessel crosses into a 
closed area or other protected or ecologically sensitive area. NMFS and 
the USCG must ensure optimal and cost-effective dispatch of enforcement 
assets for at-sea interception, landing inspections, follow-up 
inspections, and active investigations of already-suspect vessels.
    NMFS OLE, states (through Joint Enforcement Agreements), and the 
USCG all use VMS for indication and substantiation for dispatching 
their assets. VMS-reporting delays result in less efficient use of 
funds, personnel, and other assets. NMFS OLE, states, and the USCG use 
near real-time VMS data on a daily basis to enhance law enforcement 
capabilities.
    Delayed data delivery is detrimental to fishers as well. Fishers 
may be delayed in starting a fishing trip if they

[[Page 53389]]

are required to deliver notice to NMFS OLE via VMS before leaving the 
dock and delivery is delayed due to a latency issue with that delivery, 
or days-at-sea may be miscalculated due to the delayed reporting of 
Demarcation-Line crossings. The delayed position reporting may cast 
doubt on documentation regarding when a vessel reported the required 
information via their VMS, leading to administrative or legal 
implications.
    Delayed data delivery may also allow illegal or non-compliant 
vessel activity to go undetected, which impedes the VMS program's 
utility in the enforcement of fishery regulations.
    Finally, in order for VMS data to carry its proper weight as 
admissible evidence, the national VMS program must be reliable in its 
entirety. Long latency periods draw into question the reliability of 
VMS data altogether.
    For these reasons, NMFS has determined it is essential for all VMS 
data to continue to be delivered by type-approved EMTU/MTUs in near-
real-time. The reporting latency requirements published in the Federal 
Register notices listed above stated that NMFS must receive no less 
than 97 percent of all messages within 15 minutes or less of the EMTU/
MTU timestamp, for 10 out of 11 consecutive days (24-hour time 
periods). Based on the NMFS OLE having reviewed several years of 
reports and input from NMFS OLE special agents and the USCG, NMFS 
believes that the requirements can be lowered slightly and still 
maintain the integrity of performance of the VMS program for providing 
near real-time data transmission. In light of these findings, NMFS 
proposes to revise this latency requirement to require that 90 percent 
of all pre-programmed or requested (e.g. manual poll request) GPS 
position reports during each 24-hour period must reach NMFS within 15 
minutes or less of the EMTU/MTU timestamp, for 10 out of 11 consecutive 
days (24-hour time periods). This new latency requirement is less 
burdensome for all current type-approval holders. NMFS also considered 
whether the latency requirement could be reduced further to require 
that 50 percent of the above-described reports must reach NMFS within 
15 minutes, for 10 out of 11 consecutive days. A 50 percent standard, 
however, does not achieve the objective of providing near real-time VMS 
data on a daily basis. Further considerations and alternatives for this 
revised latency requirement are discussed in the Classification section 
below.
    As explained in 50 CFR 600.1504, NMFS will continually examine 
these position reports by region and by type-approval holder. NMFS will 
select the exact dates to be used for calculation of latency, but will 
not use days in which isolated and documented system outages occur.

Messaging (50 CFR 600.1505)

    An EMTU would be required to provide for the capabilities specified 
in 50 CFR 600.1505. These capabilities include a minimum supported 
message length; minimum message history for inbox, outbox and sent 
message displays; confirmation of delivery and notification or failed 
delivery; and an ``address book,'' ``reply'' and review capabilities.

Electronic Forms (50 CFR 600.1506)

    Pursuant to proposed 50 CFR 600.1506, an EMTU, and its forms 
software must support a minimum of 20 Electronic Forms and meet the 
following requirements. Section 600.1506(a)(1) requires that each field 
on a form must be capable of being validated (defined) as Optional, 
Mandatory, or Logic Driven and sets forth explanations of those terms. 
In addition, a user must be able to select forms from a menu on the 
EMTU, populate a form based on the last values used, and modify or 
update a prior submission without unnecessary re-entry of data. A user 
must be able to review a minimum of 20 past form submissions and 
ascertain for each form when the form was transmitted and whether 
delivery was successfully sent to the type-approval holder's VMS data 
processing center. In the case of a transmission failure, a user must 
be provided with details of the cause and have the opportunity to retry 
the form submission.
    Section 600.1506(a)(4) would require that each form be capable of 
providing a position report with VMS position data, including latitude, 
longitude, date and time. Data to populate these fields must be 
automatically generated by the EMTU and be incapable of being manually 
entered or altered. Delivery of form data to NMFS must employ the same 
transport security and reliability as VMS position reports (Sec.  
600.1506(a)(5)). The SMPT protocol is not permitted for the 
transmission of data that is delivered to NMFS. The field coding within 
the data must follow either CSV or XML formatting rules. For CSV format 
the form must contain an identifier and the version number, and then 
the fields in the order defined on the form. In the CSV format strings 
that may contain ``,'' (comma) characters must be quoted. XML 
representations must use the field label to define the XML element that 
contains each field value.
    Section 600.1506(b) states that the EMTU and MCS must be capable of 
providing updates to forms or adding new form requirements via wireless 
transmission and without manual installation. From time to time, NMFS 
may provide type-approval holders with requirements for new forms or 
modifications to existing forms. NMFS would also provide notice of 
forms and form changes through the NMFS Work Order System. Type-
approval holders would be given at least 60 calendar days to complete 
their implementation of new or changed forms. Type-approval holders 
would be capable of, and responsible for, translating the requirements 
into their EMTU-specific forms definitions and wirelessly transmitting 
the same to all EMTU terminals supplied to fishing vessels.

Communications Security (50 CFR 600.1507)

    Section 600.1507 provides that communications between an EMTU and 
MCS must be secure from tampering or interception, including the 
reading of passwords and data. The EMTU and MCS would be required to 
have mechanisms to prevent, to the extent possible: Sniffing and/or 
interception during transmission from the EMTU to MCS and spoofing (see 
proposed definitions at 50 CFR 600.1500); false position reports sent 
from an EMTU; modification of EMTU identification; interference with 
GMDSS or other safety/distress functions; introduction of malware, 
spyware, keyloggers, or other software that may corrupt, disturb, or 
disrupt messages, transmission(s), and the VMS system. The EMTU would 
also be required to have mechanisms to prevent the EMTU terminal from 
communicating with, influencing or interfering with the GPS antenna or 
its functionality, position reports, or sending of position reports. 
The position reports must not be able to be altered, corrupted, 
degraded, or at all affected by the operation of the terminal or any of 
its peripherals or installed-software.

Customer Service (50 CFR 600.1508)

    The type-approval holder would be responsible for ensuring that 
customer service includes: Diagnostic and troubleshooting support to 
NMFS and fishers, which is available 24 hours a day, seven days per 
week, and year-round; response times for customer service inquiries 
that do not exceed 24-hours; warranty, and maintenance agreements; 
escalation procedures for resolution of problems; established

[[Page 53390]]

facilities and procedures to assist fishers in maintaining and 
repairing their EMTU/MTUs; assistance to fishers in the diagnosis of 
the cause of communications anomalies; assistance in resolving 
communications anomalies that are traced to the EMTU/MTU; and 
assistance to NMFS OLE and its contractors, upon request, in VMS system 
operation, resolving technical issues, and data analyses related to the 
VMS Program or system. Such assistance will be provided free of charge 
unless otherwise specified in NMFS-authorized service or purchase 
agreements, work orders, or contracts.

General Requirements (50 CFR 600.1509(a))

    Under proposed 50 CFR 600.1509, an EMTU would be required to have 
the durability and reliability necessary to meet all proposed 
requirements regardless of weather conditions, including when placed in 
a marine environment where the unit may be subjected to saltwater 
(spray) in smaller vessels, and in larger vessels where the unit may be 
maintained in a wheelhouse. The unit, cabling and antenna would be 
required to be resistant to salt, moisture, and shock associated with 
sea going vessels in the marine environment.

Personally Identifiable Information (PII) (50 CFR 600.1509(b))

    PII and other protected information includes Magnuson-Stevens Act 
confidential information as provided at 16 U.S.C. 1881a and Business 
Identifiable Information (BII), as defined in the Department of 
Commerce Information Technology Privacy Policy (available at http://ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/IT_Privacy/DEV01_002682). A type-approval holder would be responsible for 
ensuring that: All PII and other protected information must be handled 
in accordance with applicable state and federal law; all PII and other 
protected information provided to the type-approval holder by vessel 
owners or other authorized personnel for the purchase or activation of 
an MTU or EMTU or for the participation in any federal fishery are 
protected from disclosure not authorized by NMFS or the vessel owner or 
other authorized personnel; any release of PII or other protected 
information beyond authorized entities be requested and approved in 
writing, as appropriate, by the submitter of the data, or by NMFS; and 
any PII or other protected information sent electronically by the type-
approval holder to the NMFS OLE be transmitted by a secure means that 
prevents interception, spoofing, or viewing by unauthorized 
individuals.

Changes or Modifications to Type-Approvals (50 CFR 600.1511)

    After an EMTU/MTU is type-approved, the type-approval holder would 
be required to notify NMFS OLE in writing no later than 2 calendar days 
following modification to or replacement of any functional component or 
piece of their type-approved EMTU/MTU configuration. Timely 
notification of such changes are needed in order to allow NMFS OLE to 
be aware of a problem or a change that would affect monitoring, and so 
that NMFS OLE may reserve troubleshooting resources for a known issue, 
to give notice of an issue to our stakeholders, and to be sure that the 
unit is still in a type-approved status. NMFS would notify the type-
approval holder within 60 calendar days if an amended type-approval 
would be required, or if NMFS elects to revoke the original type-
approval in light of the substantive changes to the original 
submission.

Type-Approval Period (50 CFR 600.1512) and Renewal (50 CFR 600.1513)

    Under 50 CFR 600.1512, NMFS is proposing that a type-approval or 
type-approval renewal would be valid for a period of 3 years from the 
date of the Federal Register notice issued pursuant to 50 CFR 600.1510, 
subject to the revocation process at 50 CFR 600.1514. NMFS has 
considered three alternative periods of time for a renewal process: 1 
Year, 3 years, and 10 years. NMFS believes that a 1-year interval 
renewal process would result in too short of a renewal cycle, because 
changes in technology are not rapid enough to warrant such a short 
renewal cycle, and 1-year renewals would not provide sufficient time 
for vendors to maintain a stable service environment. A 10-year renewal 
period would be too long an interval between the time an initial type-
approval was issued and when NMFS would take an in-depth look at the 
type-approval holder's overall compliance record. Therefore, NMFS is 
proposing that at least 30 days, but no more than 6 months, prior to 
the end of each 3-year period, a type-approval holder may apply for 
renewal. To do so, the type-approval holder must submit a written 
renewal request letter and information and documentation required under 
50 CFR 600.1513.
    Pursuant to proposed 50 CFR 600.1513, the type-approval holder 
would need to certify that the features, components, configuration and 
services of their type-approved EMTU, MCS or bundle remain in 
compliance with the standards set out in 50 CFR 600.1502 through 
600.1509 (or for an MTU, requirements applicable when the MTU was 
originally type-approved) and with applicable VMS regulations and 
requirements in effect for the region(s) and Federal fisheries 
identified under paragraph (a)(1) that require use of VMS. The type-
approval holder would also certify that, since the holder's type-
approval or last renewal (whichever was later), there have been no 
modifications to or replacements of any functional component or piece 
of their type-approved configuration. Per Sec.  600.1513(b), the 
renewal request letter must also include a table that lists in one 
column each requirement set out in this proposed rule. The subsequent 
columns would show for each requirement:
    (1) Whether the requirement applies to their type-approval;
    (2) Whether the requirement is still being met;
    (3) Whether any modifications or replacements were made to the 
type-approved configuration or process since type-approval or the last 
renewal;
    (4) An explanation of any modifications or replacements that were 
made since type-approval or the last renewal; and
    (5) The date that any modifications or replacements were made.
    If the type-approval renewal is for an MCS or bundle, the renewal 
request letter would also be required under Sec.  600.1513(c) to 
include vessel position report statistics regarding the processing and 
transmission of position reports from the onboard EMTUs and MTUs to the 
MCS or MCSP's VMS data processing center. The statistics would at a 
minimum include successful position report transmission and delivery 
rates, the rate of position report latencies, and the minimum/maximum/
average lengths of time for those latencies. The showing would be 
demonstrated in graph form, would be divided out by each NMFS region 
and any relevant international agreement area and relevant high seas 
area, and would cover 6 full and consecutive months of data for all of 
the type-approval holder's U.S. federal fishery customers.
    As explained in Sec.  600.1513(d), within 30 days after receiving a 
complete renewal request letter, NMFS would notify the type-approval 
holder of approval or partial approval of the renewal request as 
provided in 50 CFR 600.1510, or send a letter to the type-approval 
holder that explains the reasons for denial or partial denial of the 
request.

[[Page 53391]]

    Per Sec.  600.1513(e), if NMFS denies or partially denies the 
renewal request, NMFS OLE will send a letter to the type-approval 
holder that explains the reason for the denial/partial denial. Within 
21 days of the date of the NMFS OLE letter, the type-approval holder 
may respond to NMFS OLE in writing with additional information to 
address the reasons for denial/partial identified in the NMFS OLE 
letter.
    If any additional information is submitted, and after reviewing 
such information, NMFS OLE may approve, partially approve, or continue 
to deny, or partially deny the request. In the latter case, the NMFS 
OLE Director will send a letter to the type-approval holder that 
explains the reasons for the denial/partial denial. The NMFS OLE 
Director's decision is final upon issuance of this letter and is not 
appealable.

Type-Approval Period (50 CFR 600.1512)

    All MTUs, EMTUs, MCSPs, and bundles with valid type-approvals on 
the effective date of this rule, as finalized, would continue to be 
type-approved. However, if the type-approval date is more than 3 years 
old, the type-approval would expire 30 days after publication of the 
final rule.
    As an example, if the most recent type-approval occurred on January 
1, 2013, then the MTU, EMTU, MCS, or bundle, as appropriate, would need 
to be renewed by January 1, 2016. If a type-approval date is more than 
3 years old, the type-approval will expire unless the type-approval 
holder submits a timely renewal request pursuant to Sec.  600.1513.

Revocation of Type-Approval (50 CFR 600.1514)

    If at any time a type-approved EMTU, MCS or bundle fails to meet 
requirements at 50 CFR 600.1502 through 600.1509, or applicable VMS 
regulations and requirements in effect for the region(s) and Federal 
fisheries for which the EMTU or MCS is type-approved, or if an MTU 
fails to meet the requirements under which it was type-approved, NMFS 
OLE may issue a Notification Letter to the type-approval holder that 
would, among other things, provide information regarding the alleged 
failure(s), set a Response Date by which the type-approval holder would 
have to present a response (if any), and explain options for recourse 
if the type-approval holder believes the Notification Letter is in 
error.
    Depending on the urgency and impact of the alleged failure, NMFS 
would establish a Response Date between 30 and 120 calendar days from 
the date that NMFS issued the Notification Letter. The type-approval 
holder's response would be required to be received in writing by the 
Response Date. If the type-approval holder fails to respond by the 
Response Date, the type-approval would be revoked (see Sec.  
600.1514(b)), and NMFS would notify the owners of vessels using this 
specific EMTU/MTU, MCS, or bundle of the type-approval revocation. At 
its discretion and for good cause, NMFS may extend the Response Date to 
a maximum of 150 calendar days from the date of the NMFS Notification 
Letter.
    A type-approval holder who has submitted a timely response to a 
Notification Letter may meet with NMFS to discuss a detailed and 
agreed-upon procedure for resolving the issue. The meeting between NMFS 
and the type-approval holder will take place within 21 calendar days of 
the date of the written response and may be in person, via conference 
call, or webcast.
    If the type-approval holder disagrees with the Notification Letter 
for the reasons described in Sec.  600.1514(d), then the type-approval 
holder should deliver its Objection, in writing, before the Response 
Date. Within 21 calendar days of the Objection Letter, the type-
approval holder may meet with NMFS to discuss a resolution or 
redefinition of the alleged failure. If modifications to any part of 
the Notification Letter are required, then NMFS would deliver a revised 
Notification Letter to the type-approval holder; however, the Response 
Date or any other timeline in this process would not restart or be 
modified unless NMFS decides to do so, at its discretion.
    The total process from the date of the Notification Letter to the 
date of final resolution should not exceed 180 calendar days, and may 
require a shorter time frame, to be determined by NMFS, depending on 
the urgency and impact of the alleged failure. In rare circumstances, 
NMFS, at its discretion, may extend the time for resolution of the 
alleged failure. In such a case, NMFS will provide a written notice to 
the type-approval holder informing him or her of the extension and the 
basis for the extension.
    If the failure(s) to comply cannot be resolved through the above 
process within NMFS' specified timeframe, then the type-approval would 
be revoked. As provided in Sec.  600.1514(f), the NMFS OLE Director 
would issue a Revocation Letter that, among other things: Identifies 
the MTU/EMTU, MCS, or bundle for which type-approval is being revoked; 
summarizes background of the failure(s) to comply with type-approval 
regulations and requirements, including efforts to resolve the 
issue(s); summarizes any proposed plan, or attempts to produce such a 
plan, to resolve the failure; states that revocation of the MTU/EMTU, 
MCS or bundle's type-approval has occurred; states that no new 
installations of the relevant MTU/EMTU will be approved for use in the 
U.S. VMS Program; explains why resolution was not achieved; and 
provides information about the appeals process.
    If the former type-approval holder, at a later date, brings an 
EMTU, MCS, or bundle with a revoked type-approval into compliance, the 
former type-approval holder may reapply for type-approval under the 
process established in 50 CFR 600.1501.

Appeals Process (50 CFR 600.1515)

    A type-approval holder may file an appeal of a type-approval 
revocation with the NMFS Assistant Administrator at an address 
designated by NMFS. Under proposed Sec.  600.1515(b), a petition must 
be filed within 14 calendar days of the date of the Revocation Letter. 
A type-approval holder would not be able to request an extension of 
time to file a petition to appeal.
    An appeal must include a complete copy of the Revocation Letter and 
its attachments and a written statement detailing any facts or 
circumstances explaining and/or refuting the details contained in 
Revocation Letter (see Sec.  600.1515(c)). Within 21 days of receipt of 
the appeal, the NMFS Assistant Administrator would affirm, vacate, or 
modify the Revocation Letter. The NMFS Assistant Administrator will 
send a letter to the type-approval holder explaining his or her 
determination. The Assistant Administrator's determination constitutes 
the final agency decision.

Revocation Effective Date and Notification to Vessel Owners (50 CFR 
600.1516)

    Following issuance of a Revocation Letter pursuant to 50 CFR 
600.1514 and any appeal pursuant to 50 CFR 600.1515, NMFS would provide 
notice to affected vessel owners about the revocation via letter and 
Federal Register Notice. NMFS would provide information on the next 
steps vessel owners should take to remain in compliance with applicable 
VMS requirements and the effective date of the revocation. The 
effective date would be between 60-90 calendar days of the notice. This 
period of time would allow vessel owners to purchase and install a new 
type-approved VMS unit and avoid losing fishing opportunities. NMFS 
would also include information about

[[Page 53392]]

any reimbursement of the cost of a new type-approved EMTU should 
funding for reimbursement be available.

Litigation Support (50 CFR 600.1517)

    Due to the use of VMS for law enforcement, all technical aspects of 
a type-approved EMTU/MTU, MCS, or bundle submission are subject to 
being admitted as evidence in a court of law, if needed. The 
reliability of all technologies utilized in the EMTU/MTU, MCS, or 
bundle may be analyzed in court for, among other things, testing 
procedures, error rates, peer review, technical processes, and general 
industry acceptance.
    The type-approval holder would be required to provide technical and 
expert support for litigation to substantiate the EMTU/MTU, MCS, or 
bundle capabilities to establish NMFS OLE cases against violators, as 
needed, as a requirement of their type-approval. If the technologies 
have previously been subject to such scrutiny in a court of law, the 
vendor would be required to provide a brief summary of the litigation 
and any court finding on the reliability of the technology.
    Additionally, to maintain the integrity of VMS for fisheries 
management, the type-approval holder would be required to sign a non-
disclosure agreement limiting the release of certain information that 
might compromise the effectiveness of the VMS operations, such as 
details of anti-tampering safeguards.

Reimbursement Options (50 CFR 600.1518)

    NMFS Policy Directive 06-102 outlines the guidelines for NMFS to 
reimburse fishers for their VMS equipment and is viewable at 
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/op/pds/. Reimbursement opportunities may be available 
for the purpose of providing assistance to vessel owners for the 
purchase of a replacement EMTU if the vessel owner meets the 
eligibility and process requirements in NMFS Policy Directive 06-102, 
and NMFS revokes type-approval for the owner's existing EMTU or NMFS 
requires the vessel owner to purchase a new EMTU prior to the end of an 
existing EMTU's service life. Reimbursement payments are subject to 
available funding
    The current maximum for individual reimbursement payments is 
$3,100.00 per unit. This amount is subject to change.

Classification

    The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed 
rule is consistent with the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and 
other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public 
comment.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), as 
required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)(5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), to analyze the economic impacts that this proposed 
rule would have on small entities. A summary of the IRFA is included 
below.
    Section 603(b)(1) of the RFA requires that the Agency describe the 
reasons the action is being considered. NMFS seeks to codify in 
regulations VMS type-approval standards, specifications, procedures, 
and responsibilities applicable to commercial EMTU vendors and/or MCSP 
so they are able to obtain and maintain VMS type-approval by NMFS for 
products and/or services. In addition, the proposed rule sets out NMFS 
procedures for VMS type-approval renewal and revocation. The purpose of 
this proposed rule is to codify the VMS type-approval process, improve 
enforceability of the type-approval standards and better ensure all 
EMTUs and MCS remain in compliance with NMFS type-approval standards.
    Section 603(b)(2) of the RFA requires a succinct statement of the 
objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule. NMFS aims to 
further promote reliable, robust, and secure VMS products. The 
objective of this proposed rule is to revise latency standards, improve 
the enforceability of the EMTU/MTU and MCS type-approval standards, and 
to establish type-approval renewal and revocation processes. The legal 
basis for this proposed rule stems from the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). 
Reliable, robust, and secure VMS products are necessary for the 
effective implementation of various fishery management measures, such 
as closed areas, that are established by MSA fishery management plans 
throughout the country to reduce bycatch of undersized commercial fish 
species, sea turtles, and other species necessary to comply with the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and 
National Standard 9 (bycatch and bycatch mortality reduction) of the 
MSA.
    Under Section 603(b)(3), Federal agencies must provide an estimate 
of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. The 
Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for 
all major industry sectors in the United States. This proposed rule 
will impact EMTU vendors and MCSP, which fall within the SBA's 
satellite telecommunications classification (North American Industry 
Classification System code 517410) that has a small business size 
standard of $32.5 million. This proposed rule would directly apply to 
the existing six NMFS type-approved VMS equipment providers and any 
companies wishing to obtain VMS type-approval in the future. NMFS has 
received inquiries from three other companies possibly seeking type-
approval in the past. Based on a review of company financial records, 
NMFS estimates approximately half of the current VMS equipment 
providers would not be considered small businesses under the SBA size 
standard for the satellite telecommunications industry. Of the 
remaining businesses, many of them are privately held businesses that 
do not publicly report annual revenues, so it is difficult for NMFS to 
definitively determine whether they are small businesses. NMFS 
therefore conservatively estimates that this proposed rule would impact 
three to six small entities.
    Section 603(b)(4) of the RFA requires that the Agency provide a 
description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other 
compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of 
the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement 
and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the 
report or record. This proposed rule could involve reporting, record 
keeping, and other compliance requirements for the proposed application 
process, notifications for any substantive changes, litigation support, 
periodic renewal, and possibly responses to revocation notices.
    The proposed application process would require a vendor requesting 
type-approval of an EMTU, MCS, or bundle to make a written request to 
the NMFS. The requestor would be required to certify that the EMTU, MCS 
or bundle meets the requirements set out in Sec. Sec.  600.1502-
600.1509 of the proposed rule and provide the following information 
pertaining to the EMTU, MCS, or bundle: Communication class; 
manufacturer; brand name; model name; model number; software version 
and date; firmware version number and date; hardware version number and 
date; antenna type; antenna model number and date; monitor or terminal 
model number and date; MCS to be used in conjunction with the EMTU; 
entity providing MCS to the end user; the vendor-approved business 
entities associated with the EMTU and its use; messaging functionality; 
position data formats and transmission standards; electronic form and 
messaging

[[Page 53393]]

capabilities; detail the customer service that would be provided to 
NMFS; general durability and reliability of the unit, ability of the 
unit to comply with any additional requirements specified in the 
regulations for the VMS implementation; and protection of personally 
identifying information and other protected information for the 
purchase or activation of an MTU or EMTU from disclosure. In addition, 
as part of its application, the requestor would be required to provide 
to NMFS OLE two EMTUs, with activated MCS, loaded with forms and 
software for each NMFS region or Federal fishery for which the 
application is made for a minimum of 90 calendar days for testing and 
evaluation. Two EMTUs are needed for testing in each NMFS region or 
Federal fishery in order to quickly conduct in-office and field trials 
simultaneously. The application must also include thorough 
documentation, including EMTU fact sheets, installation guides, user 
manuals, any necessary interfacing software, satellite coverage, 
performance specifications, and technical support information. This 
application process would likely require engineering and product 
manager expertise for preparation of the application.
    The proposed rule would also require type-approval holders to 
notify NMFS within 2 calendar days of any substantive changes from the 
original submission for type-approval.
    As a condition of type-approval, the type-approval holder would be 
required to provide technical and expert support for litigation to 
substantiate the EMTU, MCS, or bundle capabilities to establish NMFS 
OLE cases against potential violators, as needed. If the technology has 
been subject to prior scrutiny in a court of law, the type-approval 
applicant or holder would be required to provide a brief summary of the 
litigation and any court finding on the reliability of the technology.
    Prior to the end of each 3 year type-approval period, a type-
approval holder may request renewal of the type-approval. In a renewal 
request, the type-approval holder must demonstrate successful 
compliance with applicable type-approval standards and requirements. To 
do so, the type-approval holder would certify, and complete a table 
that documents, that the EMTU, MCS, or bundle remains in compliance 
with type-approval standards and requirements. This type-approval 
renewal process would likely require engineering and product manager 
expertise for preparation of the renewal request.
    If NMFS issues a Notification Letter indicating intent to revoke a 
type-approval, the type-approval holder may respond, in writing, if the 
type-approval holder believes the Notification Letter is in error or 
can propose a solution to correct the issue. Any response would have to 
be submitted by a Response Date that NMFS will set between 30 to 120 
calendar days from the date of the Notification Letter. This response 
would likely require engineering and product manager expertise to 
develop.
    Section 603(b)(5) of the RFA requires an identification, to the 
extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, 
overlap or conflict with the proposed rule. An initial review of 
Federal rules indicated that there was the potential that this proposed 
rule would overlap with the NMFS Greater Atlantic Region (GARFO) VMS 
type approval regulations at 50 CFR 648.9. Currently, the GARFO 
Regional Administrator has the authority to issue type-approvals for 
that region. To eliminate this potential conflict in Federal 
regulations, this proposed rule would revise the GARFO regulations so 
that the NMFS OLE Director would issue type-approvals for all NMFS 
regions, including GARFO. Revising the GARFO regulations minimizes the 
possibility that the proposed rule would duplicate, overlap, or 
conflict with other codified Federal regulations.
    Section 603(c) of the RFA requires a description of any significant 
alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated 
objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. Additionally, 
section 603(c) lists four general categories of ``significant'' 
alternatives that would assist an agency in the development of 
significant alternatives. These categories of alternatives are: (1) 
Establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small 
entities; (3) use of performance rather than design standards; and, (4) 
exemptions from coverage of the rule for small entities. In order to 
meet the objectives of this proposed rule, consistent with all legal 
requirements, NMFS cannot exempt small entities or change the VMS type-
approval process and standards only for small entities. Thus, there are 
no alternatives discussed that fall under the first and fourth 
categories described above. NMFS has strived to clarify and simplify 
the type-approval process by proposing to codify the type-approval 
standards, specifications, procedures, and responsibilities for EMTU, 
MCS and bundle type-approval applicants and holders in this proposed 
rule. In addition, NMFS is considering performance rather than design 
standard alternatives for messaging latency standards for EMTUs, MCSs 
or bundles.
    NMFS analyzed several different alternatives in this proposed 
rulemaking and provides the rationale for identifying the preferred 
alternatives to achieve the desired objective. Requestors of type-
approval must submit a written request to NMFS OLE and a statement that 
the unit for which approval is sought meets the NMFS OLE type-approval 
standards. The application process would likely require engineering and 
product manager expertise for preparation of the application. NMFS 
estimates that small entities would utilize up to approximately 40 
hours engineering labor and 40 hours of product management labor to 
compile the written request and statement that details how the EMTU, 
MCS, or bundle meets the minimum national VMS standards and applicable 
VMS regulations and requirements for the regions and Federal fisheries 
for which type-approval is requested. This estimate would also include 
the amount of time it would take to compile the documentation and the 
packaging of the EMTUs to ship to each NOAA region or Federal fisheries 
for which an application is submitted. Based on the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics May 2012 National Occupational Employment and Wage 
Estimates, the mean hourly wage for engineers is approximately $44 per 
hour, and for general and operations managers it is approximately $55 
per hour. Therefore, NMFS estimates the total wage costs to be 
approximately $3,960 per type-approval application.
    Type-approval requestors would be required to send two EMTUs for 
testing to each NMFS region or Federal fishery for which type-approval 
is sought. NMFS estimates that type-approval requestors will likely 
spend between $85 and $220 per NMFS region for shipping two EMTUs, 
based on current ground shipping rates for a package of up to 30 pounds 
($77.50-$210 depending on the region), box costs ($2.50), and packaging 
materials ($5.00). Some requestors may opt to use next day air delivery 
to expedite the process, which would increase the shipping costs to 
approximately $250 per package, but that option is not as economical. 
NMFS estimates that a vendor would send units to five

[[Page 53394]]

different NOAA regional offices on average. Therefore, the total 
shipping cost per application is estimated to be $695 based on ground 
delivery costs of approximately $85 per region in the continental 
United States, and $220 per region for the Alaska and the Pacific 
Islands offices.
    The average cost of an EMTU unit is approximately $3,000. The 
vendor would be unable to sell the EMTU units as new after providing 
them to NMFS for testing and evaluation for 90-days. They might only 
get 60 to 80 percent of the regular retail value on refurbished units. 
Based on NMFS' estimate that 10 EMTUs that regularly retail for $3,000 
new would be sent to 5 regional offices, the reduced retail revenue 
might total approximately $6,000 to $12,000 per type-approval 
application. Alternatively, the vendor may opt to use these units as 
demo units for trade shows and other marketing purposes, and therefore 
considerably lower the costs of providing the evaluation units. It is 
difficult to estimate the exact costs associated with providing the 
units to NMFS given the uncertainty associated with what vendors would 
do with these EMTUs after the 90-day evaluation period.
    As part of this proposed rule, NMFS is also considering three 
alternatives to the EMTU latency requirements. These alternatives 
include no change from the current requirement that 97-percent of each 
vendor's position reports during each specified 24-hour period must 
reach NMFS within 15 minutes, for ten out of eleven consecutive days; a 
90-percent requirement; and a 50-percent requirement.
    Based on NMFS OLE having reviewed several years of reports, NMFS 
believes that the current 97 percent latency standard is not necessary 
to meet the needs of NMFS OLE and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) for near-
real-time data. See Latency Requirement section above (explaining need 
for near-real-time data). Also, the 97 percent latency standard 
requirement would be the most costly for vendors to achieve. Based on 
several years of reports, it is clear this latency requirement is 
difficult for type-approval holders to achieve consistently. Several of 
the current EMTU type-approval holders would have to take significant 
corrective actions, at likely significant costs, to achieve the 97-
percent standard. The corrective actions could potentially include 
deploying new satellites, switching out antennas on all units in order 
to switch to a more reliable network, or reengineering the 
communication software or backend hardware to ensure more reliable and 
efficient data transmission. These solutions would potentially require 
significant capital investments, which would be particularly 
challenging to small entities. Some vendors might instead opt out of 
this market given the potentially significant costs. While the 97-
percent requirement would achieve the objective of collecting reliable 
real-time data for enforcement of Federal fisheries laws and 
regulations, it is not the most cost effective alternative.
    NMFS determined that the latency requirement can be lowered to 90 
percent and still maintain the integrity of the VMS program by 
providing near real-time data transmission. In light of these findings, 
NMFS proposes to revise this latency requirement to require that 90 
percent of all pre-programmed or requested (e.g. manual poll request) 
GPS position reports during each 24-hour period must reach NMFS within 
15 minutes or less of the EMTU/MTU timestamp, for 10 out of 11 
consecutive days (24-hour time periods). This new latency requirement 
is less burdensome for all current type-approval holders. Also, the 90 
percent latency standard requirement is a more cost effective 
alternative. NMFS, along with its USCG partner, believe that the 90-
percent standard can meet the objective of providing near-real-time 
data on a consistent basis.
    While the third alternative, a 50-percent requirement, would be the 
least burdensome alternative for VMS vendors to achieve, this standard 
does not meet the objective of providing near real-time VMS data on a 
consistent basis. VMS-reporting delays will result in less efficient 
use of government funds, personnel, and other assets. Delayed data 
delivery is detrimental to fishers as well. Fishers have been delayed 
in starting fishing trips because VMS latency prevented them from 
delivering notice to NMFS OLE via EMTU/MTU before leaving the dock, and 
fishers' days-at-sea have been miscalculated due to the delayed 
reporting of Demarcation-Line crossings. Delays may also result in 
confusing documentation regarding when a vessel reported the required 
information via their EMTU, leading to administrative or legal 
complications. Delayed data delivery may also allow illegal or non-
compliant vessel activity to go undetected, which impedes the VMS 
program's utility in the enforcement of fisheries laws and regulations. 
Finally, in order for VMS data to carry its proper weight as admissible 
evidence, the VMS unit must be reliable. Long latency periods draw into 
question the reliability of the unit and its data, altogether. For 
these reasons, NMFS does not prefer the 50-percent standard at this 
time.
    After a type-approval is issued, the type-approval holder must 
notify NMFS OLE no later than 2 calendar days following any substantive 
change in the original submission, such as changes to firmware, 
software or hardware versions, MCS operations or performance, or 
customer support contacts. Within 60 calendar days of receiving such 
notice, NMFS OLE will notify the type-approval holder if an amended 
type-approval will be required, including additional testing, or 
provide notice that NMFS OLE will initiate the type-approval revocation 
process. NMFS estimates that small entities would utilize up to 
approximately four hours engineering labor and four hours of product 
management labor to notify NMFS of any substantive changes to the 
original type-approval submission and provide the agency with the 
details of those changes. Based on the National Occupational Employment 
and Wage Estimates, NMFS estimates the total wage costs to be 
approximately $396 for the change notification process.
    NMFS is considering three alternative periods of time for a type-
approval renewal process: 1 year, 3 years, and 10 years. The renewal 
process would be identical for each of these alternatives, except for 
the frequency of type-approval renewal.
    NMFS believes that a 1-year interval renewal process would result 
in too short of a renewal cycle because changes in technology are not 
rapid enough to warrant such a short renewal cycle and 1 year renewals 
would not provide sufficient time for vendors to maintain a stable 
service environment. A 1-year interval would also impose an undue 
burden on type-approval holders and NMFS OLE.
    While a 10-year renewal period would minimize the economic impacts 
of preparing renewal applications, NMFS considers this to be too long 
an interval between the time when an initial type-approval was issued 
and when NMFS would take an in-depth look at the type-approval holder's 
overall compliance record with the regulations set forth in this 
proposed rule. Significant technological change might also occur over a 
10-year period.
    NMFS prefers, and the proposed rule provides, that a type-approval 
will be valid for a period of 3 years. As such, prior to the end of 
each 3-year period, an EMTU vendor may request renewal of a type-
approval. The type-approval holder would be required to demonstrate 
successful compliance with

[[Page 53395]]

applicable type-approval standards and requirements.
    NMFS estimates that this renewal process would involve up to 16 
hours of engineering labor and 8 hours of product management labor to 
certify compliance with the type-approval standards and compile 
supporting materials. Based on the National Occupational Employment and 
Wage Estimates previously discussed, NMFS estimates the renewal process 
could result in up to $1,144 in labor costs. If the type-approval is 
not renewed by NMFS, the economic costs would be the same as those 
described below for the revocation process.
    If a type-approved EMTU/MTU, MCS, or bundle fails to meet 
applicable requirements and standards, NMFS will initiate the type-
approval revocation process by issuing a Notification Letter to the 
type-approval holder that identifies the potential violation(s). NMFS 
will set a Response Date between 30 and 120 calendar days from the date 
of the Notification Letter. The type-approval holder may submit a 
response or an Objection Letter, but either must be submitted on or 
before the Response Date. NMFS estimates that this revocation process 
would potentially involve 16 hours of engineering labor and 8 hours of 
product management labor to investigate the issues raised by NMFS and 
prepare a written response. Based on the wage costs previously 
discussed, NMFS estimates the revocation process could result in 
approximately $1,144 in labor costs. However, the actual amount of 
labor costs could vary considerably depending on the complexity of the 
issues causing the alleged failure NMFS identified. Some type-approval 
holders may decide not to challenge the revocation or may be unable to 
bring the issue to final resolution to NMFS' satisfaction and then face 
the revocation of the type-approval for their product. The type-
approval holder would then be impacted by the loss of future EMTU sales 
and monthly data communication fees from vessels required to carry and 
operate a type-approved EMTU/MTU, MCS, or bundle.
    The type-approval holder could also opt to appeal the type-approval 
revocation. In addition to the costs associated with the engineering 
and product management support provided during the revocation process, 
the type-approval holder may also decide to employ legal counsel to 
challenge the agency's decision. These costs could vary considerably 
depending on the complexity of the appeal arguments.
    NMFS estimates that this proposed rule, if finalized, would impact 
three to six entities, and as such this proposed rule does not contain 
a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval 
by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
    Public comment is sought on all aspects of this proposed rule. Send 
comments to NMFS, Headquarters at the ADDRESSES above.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 600

    Administrative practice and procedure, Fisheries, Fishing, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

50 CFR Part 648

    Administrative practice and procedure, Fisheries, Fishing, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 2, 2014.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 
CFR parts 600 and 648 as follows:

PART 600--MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 600 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

0
2. Add Subpart Q to read as follows:

Subpart Q--Vessel Monitoring System Type-Approval

Sec.
600.1500 Definitions and acronyms.
600.1501 Vessel Monitoring System type-approval process.
600.1502 Communications functionality.
600.1503 Position report data formats and transmission.
600.1504 Latency requirement.
600.1505 Messaging.
600.1506 Electronic forms.
600.1507 Communications security.
600.1508 Customer service.
600.1509 General.
600.1510 Notification of type-approval.
600.1511 Changes or modifications to type-approvals.
600.1512 Vessel Monitoring System type-approval period.
600.1513 Type-approval renewal.
600.1514 Type-approval revocation process.
600.1515 Type-approval revocation appeals process.
600.1516 Revocation effective date and notification to vessel 
owners.
600.1517 Litigation support.
600.1518 Reimbursement opportunities for revoked Vessel Monitoring 
System type-approval products.


Sec.  600.1500  Definitions and acronyms.

    In addition to the definitions in the Magnuson-Stevens Act and in 
Sec.  600.10, and the acronyms in Sec.  600.15, the terms and acronyms 
in this subpart have the following meanings:
    Authorized entity means a person, defined at 16 U.S.C. 1802(36), 
authorized to receive data transmitted by EMTU(s) or MTU(s).
    Bench configuration means the EMTU's configuration after the 
manufactured unit has been customized to meet the federal VMS 
requirements.
    Bundle means an MCS and EMTU sold as a package and considered one 
product. If a bundle is type-approved, the requestor will be the type-
approval holder for the bundled MCS and EMTU.
    Communication class means the satellite communications operator 
from which satellite communications services originate.
    Electronic form means a pre-formatted message transmitted by an 
EMTU that is required for the collection of data for a specific fishery 
program (e.g.; declaration system, catch effort reporting).
    Enhanced Mobile Transceiver Unit (EMTU) means a type of MTU that is 
capable of supporting two-way communication, messaging, and electronic 
forms transmission via satellite. An EMTU is a transceiver or 
communications device, including: antenna; dedicated message terminal 
and display; and an input device such as a tablet or keyboard installed 
on fishing vessels participating in fisheries with a VMS requirement.
    Latency means the state of untimely delivery of Global Positioning 
System position reports and electronic forms to NMFS (i.e.; information 
is not delivered to NMFS consistent with timing requirements of this 
subpart).
    Mobile Communications Service (MCS) means the satellite 
communications services affiliated with particular MTUs/EMTUs.
    Mobile Communications Service Provider (MCSP) means the entity that 
sells VMS satellite communications services to end users.
    Mobile Transmitter Unit (MTU) means a communication device capable 
of transmitting Global Positioning System position reports via 
satellite.
    Notification Letter means a letter issued by NMFS to a type-
approval holder identifying an alleged failure of an EMTU, MTU, MCS, or 
the type-approval holder to comply with requirements of this subpart.
    Position report means the unique electronic Global Positioning 
System report generated by a vessel's EMTU or MTU, which identifies the 
vessel's

[[Page 53396]]

latitude/longitude position at a point in time. Position reports are 
sent from the EMTU or MTU, via MCS, to authorized entities.
    Requestor means a vendor seeking type-approval.
    Service life means the length of time during which an EMTU/MTU 
remains fully operational with reasonable repairs.
    Sniffing means the unauthorized and illegitimate monitoring and 
capture, through use of a computer program or device, of data being 
transmitted over a computer network.
    Spoofing means the reporting of a false Global Positioning System 
position and/or vessel identity.
    Time stamp means the time, in hours, minutes, and seconds in a 
position report. Each position report is time stamped.
    Type-approval holder means a vendor whose type-approval request has 
been approved pursuant to this subpart.
    Vendor means a commercial provider of VMS hardware, software, and/
or mobile communications services.
    Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) means, for purposes of this subpart, 
a satellite based system designed to monitor the location and movement 
of vessels using onboard EMTU or MTU units that send Global Positioning 
System position reports to an authorized entity.
    Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) data means the data transmitted to 
authorized entities by an EMTU or MTU.
    Vessel Monitoring System Program means the federal program that 
manages the vessel monitoring system, data, and associated program-
components, nationally and in each NOAA region; it is housed in the 
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service's Office of Law 
Enforcement.


Sec.  600.1501  Vessel Monitoring System type-approval process.

    (a) Application submission. A requestor must submit a written type-
approval request and electronic copies of supporting materials that 
include the information required under this section to the NMFS Office 
of Law Enforcement (OLE) at: U.S. Department of Commerce; National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; National Marine Fisheries 
Service; Office of Law Enforcement; Attention: Vessel Monitoring System 
Office; 1315 East West Highway, SSMC3, Suite 3301, Silver Spring, 
Maryland 20910.
    (b) Application requirements--(1) EMTU and MCS identifying 
information. In a type-approval request, the requestor should indicate 
whether the requestor is seeking approval for an EMTU, MCS, or bundle 
and must specify identifying characteristics of the EMTU and MCS, as 
applicable: Communication class; manufacturer; brand name; model name; 
model number; software version and date; firmware version number and 
date; hardware version number and date; antenna type; antenna model 
number and date; tablet, monitor or terminal model number and date; MCS 
to be used in conjunction with the EMTU; entity providing MCS to the 
end user; and current satellite coverage of the MCS.
    (2) Requestor-approved third party business entities. The requestor 
must provide the business name, address, phone number, contact name(s), 
email address, specific services provided, and geographic region 
covered for the following third party business entities:
    (i) Entities providing bench configuration for the EMTU at the 
warehouse or point of supply;
    (ii) Entities distributing/selling the EMTU to end users;
    (iii) Entities currently approved by the requestor to install the 
EMTU onboard vessels;
    (iv) Entities currently approved by the requestor to offer a 
limited warranty;
    (v) Entities approved by the requestor to offer a maintenance 
service agreement;
    (vi) Entities approved by the requestor to repair or install new 
software on the EMTU;
    (vii) Entities approved by the requestor to train end users;
    (viii) Entities approved by the requestor to advertise the EMTU; 
and
    (ix) Entities approved by the requestor to provide other customer 
services.
    (3) Regulatory requirements and documentation. In a type-approval 
request, a requestor must:
    (i) Identify the NOAA region(s) and/or Federal fisheries for which 
the requestor seeks type-approval;
    (ii) Include copies of, or citation to, applicable VMS regulations 
and requirements in effect for the region(s) and Federal fisheries 
identified under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section that require use 
of VMS;
    (iii) Provide a table with the type-approval request that lists in 
one column each requirement set out in Sec. Sec.  600.1502 through 
600.1509 and regulations described under paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this 
section. NMFS OLE will provide a template for the table upon request. 
The requestor must indicate in subsequent columns in the table:
    (A) Whether the requirement applies to the type-approval; and
    (B) Whether the EMTU, MCS or bundle meets the requirement.
    (iv) Certify that the features, components, configuration and 
services of the requestor's MTU, EMTU, MCS or bundle comply with each 
requirement set out in Sec. Sec.  600.1502 through 600.1509 and the 
regulations described under paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section;
    (v) Certify that, if the request is approved, the requestor agrees 
to be responsible for ensuring compliance with each requirement set out 
in Sec. Sec.  600.1502 through 600.1509 and the regulations described 
under paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section over the course of the type-
approval period;
    (vi) Provide NMFS OLE with two EMTUs loaded with forms and software 
for each NOAA region or Federal fishery, with activated MCS, for which 
a type-approval request is submitted for a minimum of 90 calendar days 
for testing and evaluation. Copies of forms currently used by NMFS are 
available upon request. As part of its review, NMFS OLE may perform 
field tests and at-sea trials that involve demonstrating every aspect 
of EMTU and communications operation. The requestor is responsible for 
all associated costs including paying for: shipping of the EMTU to the 
required NMFS regional offices or headquarters for testing; the MCS 
during the testing period; and shipping of the EMTU back to the vendor; 
and
    (vii) Provide thorough documentation for the EMTU or MTU and MCS, 
including: EMTU fact sheets; installation guides; user manuals; any 
necessary interfacing software; satellite coverage; performance 
specifications; and technical support information.
    (c) Interoperability. A requestor seeking type-approval of an EMTU 
within a communications class, as opposed to type-approval for use with 
a specific MCS, shall certify that the EMTU meets requirements under 
this subpart when using at least one qualified MCSP within the same 
communications class.
    (d) Notification. No sooner than 90 days after receipt of a 
complete type-approval request, NMFS OLE will notify the requestor as 
follows:
    (1) If a request is approved or partially approved, NMFS NMFS OLE 
will provide notice as described under Sec.  600.1510.
    (i) The type-approval letter would serve as official documentation 
and notice of type-approval.
    (ii) NMFS would also publish a notice in the Federal Register 
documenting the type-approval and the dates for which it is effective.

[[Page 53397]]

    (2) If a request is disapproved or partially disapproved:
    (i) OLE will send a letter to the requestor that explains the 
reason for the disapproval/partial disapproval.
    (ii) The requestor may respond to NMFS OLE in writing with 
additional information to address the reasons for disapproval 
identified in the NMFS OLE letter. The requestor must submit this 
response within 21 calendar days of the date of the OLE letter sent 
under paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section.
    (iii) If any additional information is submitted under paragraph 
(d)(2)(ii) of this section, NMFS OLE, after reviewing such information, 
may either take action under paragraph (d)(1) of this section or 
determine that the request should continue to be disapproved or 
partially disapproved. In the latter case, the NMFS OLE Director will 
send a letter to the requestor that explains the reasons for the 
continued disapproval/partial disapproval. The NMFS OLE Director's 
decision is final upon issuance of this letter and is not appealable.


Sec.  600.1502  Communications functionality.

    (a) An EMTU must comply with the following requirements:
    (1) Be able to transmit all automatically-generated position 
reports;
    (2) Provide visible or audible alarms onboard the vessel to 
indicate malfunctioning of the EMTU;
    (3) Be able to disable non-essential alarms in non-Global Maritime 
Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) installations;
    (4) Be able to send communications that function uniformly 
throughout the geographic area(s) covered by the type-approval;
    (5) Have two-way communications between authorized entities and 
EMTU via MCS;
    (6) Have the capacity to send and receive electronic forms and 
Internet email messages; and
    (7) Have messaging and communications that are completely 
compatible with NMFS vessel monitoring software.
    (b) Messages and communications from an EMTU must be able to be 
parsed out for separate billing when necessary. The costs associated 
with position reporting and the costs associated with other 
communications (for example, personal email or communications/reports 
to non-NMFS Office of Law Enforcement entities) must be parsed out and 
billed to separate parties, as appropriate.


Sec.  600.1503  Position report data formats and transmission.

    An EMTU, MCSP, or bundle must comply with the following 
requirements, in addition to providing position information as required 
by the applicable VMS regulations and requirements in effect for each 
fishery or region for which the type-approval applies:
    (a) An EMTU must be able to transmit all automatically-generated 
position reports, for vessels managed individually or grouped by fleet, 
that meet the latency requirement under Sec.  600.1504.
    (b) When an EMTU is powered up, it must automatically re-establish 
its position reporting function without manual intervention.
    (c) Position reports must contain all of the following:
    (1) Unique identification of an EMTU within the communications 
class;
    (2) Date (year/month/day with century in the year) and time stamp 
(GMT) of the position fix; and
    (3) Position fixed latitude and longitude, including the hemisphere 
of each, which comply with the following requirements:
    (A) The position fix precision must be to the decimal minute 
hundredths; and
    (B) Accuracy of the reported position must be within 100 meters.
    (d) An EMTU must have the ability to:
    (1) Store 1000 position fixes in local, non-volatile memory;
    (2) Allow for defining variable reporting intervals between 5 
minutes and 24 hours; and
    (3) Allow for changes in reporting intervals remotely and only by 
authorized users.
    (e) An EMTU must generate specially identified position reports 
upon:
    (1) Antenna disconnection;
    (2) Loss of positioning reference signals;
    (3) Loss of the mobile communications signals;
    (4) Security events, power-up, power down, and other status data;
    (5) The vessel crossing a pre-defined geographic boundary; or
    (6) A request for EMTU status information such as configuration of 
programming and reporting intervals.


Sec.  600.1504  Latency requirement.

    (a) Ninety percent of all pre-programmed or requested Global 
Positioning System position reports during each 24-hour period must 
reach NMFS within 15 minutes or less of the EMTU/MTU timestamp, for 10 
out of 11 consecutive days (24-hour time periods).
    (b) NMFS will continually examine position reports by region and by 
type-approval holder.
    (c) Exact dates for calculation of latency will be chosen by NMFS. 
Days in which isolated and documented system outages occur will not be 
used by NMFS to calculate a type-approval holder's latency.


Sec.  600.1505  Messaging.

    An EMTU must provide for the following capabilities:
    (a) Messaging from vessel to shore, and from shore to vessel by 
authorized entities, must have a minimum supported message length of 
1kb.
    (b) There must be a confirmation of delivery function that allows a 
user to ascertain whether a specific message was successfully 
transmitted to the MCS email server(s).
    (c) Notification of failed delivery to the EMTU must be sent to the 
sender of the message. The failed delivery notification must include 
sufficient information to identify the specific message that failed and 
the cause of failure (e.g.; invalid address, EMTU switched off, etc.).
    (d) The EMTU must have an automatic retry feature in the event that 
a message fails to be delivered.
    (e) The EMTU user interface must:
    (1) Support an ``address book'' capability and a function 
permitting a ``reply'' to a received message without re-entering the 
sender's address;
    (2) Provide the ability to review by date order, or by recipient, 
messages that were previously sent. The EMTU terminal must support a 
minimum message history of 50 sent messages--commonly referred to as an 
``Outbox'' or ``Sent'' message display; and
    (3) Provide the ability to review by date order, or by sender, all 
messages received. The EMTU terminal must support a minimum message 
history of at least 50 messages in an inbox.


Sec.  600.1506  Electronic forms.

    (a) An EMTU and its forms software must support a minimum of 20 
Electronic Forms, and meet the following requirements:
    (1) Form validation. Each field on a form must be capable of being 
defined as Optional, Mandatory, or Logic Driven. Mandatory fields are 
those fields that must be entered by the user before the form is 
complete. Optional fields are those fields that do not require data 
entry. Logic driven fields have their attributes determined by earlier 
form selections. Specifically, a logic driven field must allow for 
selection of options in that field to change the values available as 
menu selections on a subsequent field within the same form;

[[Page 53398]]

    (2) Form selection. A user must be able to select forms from a menu 
on the EMTU;
    (3) Data entry, form review, and transmission failure. A user must 
be able to populate a form based on the last values used and ``modify'' 
or ``update'' a prior submission without unnecessary re-entry of data. 
A user must be able to review a minimum of 20 past form submissions and 
ascertain for each form when the form was transmitted and whether 
delivery was successfully sent to the type-approval holder's VMS data 
processing center. In the case of a transmission failure, a user must 
be provided with details of the cause and have the opportunity to retry 
the form submission;
    (4) VMS position report. Each form must capable of including VMS 
position data, including latitude, longitude, date and time. Data to 
populate these fields must be automatically generated by the EMTU and 
unable to be manually entered or altered; and
    (5) Delivery format for form data. Delivery of form data to NMFS 
must employ the same transport security and reliability as VMS position 
and declaration reports. The SMTP protocol is not permitted for the 
transmission of data that is delivered to NMFS. The field coding within 
the data must follow either CSV or XML formatting rules. For CSV format 
the form must contain an identifier and the version number, and then 
the fields in the order defined on the form. In the CSV format strings 
that may contain '','' (comma) characters must be quoted. XML 
representations must use the field label to define the XML element that 
contains each field value.
    (b) Updates to forms. (1) The EMTU and MCS must be capable of 
providing updates to forms or adding new form requirements via wireless 
transmission and without manual installation.
    (2) From time to time, NMFS may provide type-approved vendors with 
requirements for new forms or modifications to existing forms. NMFS may 
also provide notice of forms and form changes through the NMFS Work 
Order System. Type-approved vendors will be given at least 60 calendar 
days to complete their implementation of new or changed forms. Vendors 
will be capable of, and responsible for translating the requirements 
into their EMTU-specific forms definitions and wirelessly transmitting 
the same to all EMTU terminals supplied to fishing vessels.


Sec.  600.1507  Communications security.

    Communications between an EMTU and MCS must be secure from 
tampering or interception, including the reading of passwords and data. 
The EMTU and MCS must have mechanisms to prevent to the extent 
possible:
    (a) Sniffing and/or interception during transmission from the EMTU 
to MCS;
    (b) Spoofing;
    (c) False position reports sent from an EMTU;
    (d) Modification of EMTU identification;
    (e) Interference with GMDSS or other safety/distress functions;
    (f) Introduction of malware, spyware, keyloggers, or other software 
that may corrupt, disturb, or disrupt messages, transmission, and the 
VMS system; and
    (g) The EMTU terminal from communicating with, influencing, or 
interfering with the Global Positioning System antenna or its 
functionality, position reports, or sending of position reports. The 
position reports must not be altered, corrupted, degraded, or at all 
affected by the operation of the terminal or any of its peripherals or 
installed-software.


Sec.  600.1508  Customer service.

    The type-approval holder is responsible for ensuring that customer 
service includes:
    (a) Diagnostic and troubleshooting support to NMFS and fishers, 
which is available 24 hours a day, seven days per week, and year-round;
    (b) Response times for customer service inquiries that shall not 
exceed 24 hours;
    (c) Warranty and maintenance agreements;
    (d) Escalation procedures for resolution of problems;
    (e) Established facilities and procedures to assist fishers in 
maintaining and repairing their EMTU/MTUs;
    (f) Assistance to fishers in the diagnosis of the cause of 
communications anomalies;
    (g) Assistance in resolving communications anomalies that are 
traced to the EMTU/MTU; and
    (h) Assistance to NMFS Office of Law Enforcement and its 
contractors, upon request, in VMS system operation, resolving technical 
issues, and data analyses related to the VMS Program or system. Such 
assistance will be provided free of charge unless otherwise specified 
in NMFS-authorized service or purchase agreements, work orders or 
contracts.


Sec.  600.1509  General.

    (a) An EMTU must have the durability and reliability necessary to 
meet all requirements of Sec. Sec.  600.1502 through 600.1507 
regardless of weather conditions, including when placed in a marine 
environment where the unit may be subjected to saltwater (spray) in 
smaller vessels, and in larger vessels where the unit may be maintained 
in a wheelhouse. The unit, cabling and antenna must be resistant to 
salt, moisture, and shock associated with sea going vessels in the 
marine environment.
    (b) PII and Other Protected Information. Personally identifying 
information (PII) and other protected information includes Magnuson-
Stevens Act confidential information as provided at 16 U.S.C. 1881a and 
Business Identifiable Information (BII). A type-approval holder is 
responsible for ensuring that:
    (1) All PII and other protected information is handled in 
accordance with applicable state and federal law;
    (2) All PII and other protected information provided to the type-
approval holder by vessel owners or other authorized personnel for the 
purchase or activation of an MTU or EMTU or arising from participation 
in any federal fishery are protected from disclosure not authorized by 
NMFS or the vessel owner or other authorized personnel;
    (3) Any release of PII or other protected information beyond 
authorized entities must be requested and approved in writing, as 
appropriate, by the submitter of the data in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 
1881a, or by NMFS; and
    (4) Any PII or other protected information sent electronically by 
the type-approval holder to the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement must be 
transmitted by a secure means that prevents interception, spoofing, or 
viewing by unauthorized individuals.


Sec.  600.1510  Notification of type-approval.

    (a) If a request made pursuant to Sec.  600.1501 (type-approval) or 
Sec.  600.1513 (renewal) is approved or partially approved, NMFS will 
issue a type-approval letter and publish a notice in the Federal 
Register to indicate the specific EMTU model, MCSP, or bundle that is 
approved for use, the MCS or class of MCSs permitted for use with the 
type-approved EMTU, and the regions or fisheries in which the EMTU, 
MCSP, or bundle is approved for use.
    (b) The NMFS Office of Law Enforcement will maintain a list of 
type-approved EMTUs, MCSPs, and bundles on a publicly available Web 
site and provide copies of the list upon request.

[[Page 53399]]

Sec.  600.1511  Changes or modifications to type-approvals.

    Type-approval holders must notify NMFS Office of Law Enforcement 
(OLE) in writing no later than 2 days following modification to or 
replacement of any functional component or piece of their type-approved 
EMTU/MTU configuration, MCS or bundle. If the changes are substantial, 
NMFS OLE will notify the type-approval holder in writing within 60 
calendar days that an amended type-approval is required or that NMFS 
will initiate the type-approval revocation process.


Sec.  600.1512  Vessel Monitoring System type-approval period.

    A type-approval or type-approval renewal is valid for a period of 3 
years from the date of the Federal Register notice issued pursuant to 
Sec.  600.1510, subject to the revocation process at Sec.  600.1514. 
All MTUs, EMTUs, MCSs, and bundles with valid type-approvals on the 
effective date of this rule will continue to be type-approved. However, 
if the type-approval date is more than 3 years old, the type-approval 
will expire [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The type-approval holder may request a type-
approval renewal as provided in Sec.  600.1513.


Sec.  600.1513  Type-approval renewal.

    At least 30 days, but no more than six months, prior to the end of 
the type-approval period, a type-approval holder may seek a type-
approval renewal by sending a written renewal request letter and 
information and documentation required under this section to: U.S. 
Department of Commerce; National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration; National Marine Fisheries Service; Office of Law 
Enforcement; Attention: Vessel Monitoring System Office; 1315 East West 
Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.
    (a) In a type-approval renewal request letter, the type-approval 
holder should indicate whether the holder is seeking renewal of an MTU, 
EMTU, MSC, or bundle and must:
    (1) Identify the NOAA region(s) or Federal fisheries for which 
renewal is sought;
    (2) Certify that the features, components, configuration and 
services of the type-approved MTU, EMTU, MCS or bundle remain in 
compliance with the standards set out in Sec. Sec.  600.1502 through 
600.1509 (or for an MTU, requirements applicable when the MTU was 
originally type-approved) and with applicable VMS regulations and 
requirements in effect for the region(s) and/or Federal fisheries 
identified under paragraph (a)(1) of this section that require use of 
VMS; and
    (3) Certify that, since the type-approval or last renewal 
(whichever was later), there have been no modifications to or 
replacements of any functional component or piece of the type-approved 
configuration.
    (b) The type-approval holder must include a table with the renewal 
request letter that lists in one column, each requirement set out in 
Sec. Sec.  600.1502 through 600.1509 and regulations described under 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section. For an MTU, instead of the 
requirements at Sec. Sec.  600.1502 through 600.1509, the table must 
list any requirements applicable when the MTU was originally type-
approved. NMFS' Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) will provide a template 
for the table upon request. The type-approval holder must indicate in 
subsequent columns in the table:
    (1) Whether the requirement applies to the type-approval;
    (2) Whether the requirement is still being met;
    (3) Whether any modifications or replacements were made to the 
type-approved configuration or process since type-approval or the last 
renewal;
    (4) An explanation of any modifications or replacements that were 
made since type-approval or the last renewal; and
    (5) The date that any modifications or replacements were made.
    (c) If the type-approval renewal is for an MCS or bundle, the type-
approval holder seeking renewal must also provide the following 
statistical information on the transmission and processing of vessel 
position reports from onboard EMTUs and MTUs to the MCS or MCSP's VMS 
data processing center.
    (1) The statistical information will, at a minimum, show:
    (i) Successful position report transmission and delivery rates;
    (ii) The rate of position report latencies; and
    (iii) The minimum/maximum/average lengths of time for those 
latencies.
    (2) The statistical information will be demonstrated:
    (i) In graph form;
    (ii) For each NMFS region and any relevant international agreement 
area and relevant high seas area; and
    (iii) Using data from six full and consecutive months for all of 
the type-approval holder's U.S. federal fishery customers.
    (d) Within 30 days after receipt of a complete renewal request 
letter, NMFS OLE will notify the type-approval holder of its decision 
to approve or partially approve the request as provided in Sec.  
600.1510, or send a letter to the type-approval holder that explains 
the reasons for denial or partial denial of the request.
    (e) The type-approval holder may respond to NMFS OLE in writing 
with additional information to address the reasons for denial or 
partial denial of the renewal request. The type approval holder must 
submit this response within 21 calendar days of the date of the NMFS 
OLE letter sent under paragraph (d) of this section.
    (f) If any additional information is submitted under paragraph (e) 
of this section, NMFS OLE, after reviewing such information, may either 
notify the type-approval holder of its decision to approve or partially 
approve the renewal request as provided in Sec.  600.1510 or determine 
that the renewal request should continue to be disapproved or partially 
disapproved. In the latter case, the NMFS OLE Director will send a 
letter to the type-approval holder that explains the reasons for the 
disapproval/partial disapproval. The NMFS OLE Director's decision is 
final upon issuance of this letter and is not appealable.


Sec.  600.1514  Type-approval revocation process.

    (a) If at any time, a type-approved EMTU, MCS or bundle fails to 
meet requirements at Sec. Sec.  600.1502 through 600.1509 or applicable 
VMS regulations and requirements in effect for the region(s) and 
Federal fisheries for which the EMTU or MCS is type-approved, or if an 
MTU fails to meet the requirements under which it was type-approved, 
the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) may issue a Notification 
Letter to the type-approval holder that:
    (1) Identifies the MTU, EMTU, MCS or bundle that allegedly fails to 
comply with type-approval regulations and requirements;
    (2) Identifies the alleged failure to comply with type-approval 
regulations and requirements, and the urgency and impact of the alleged 
failure;
    (3) Cites relevant regulations and requirements under this subpart;
    (4) Describes the indications and evidence of the alleged failure;
    (5) Provides documentation and data demonstrating the alleged 
failure;
    (6) Sets a Response Date by which the type-approval holder must 
submit to NMFS OLE a written response to the Notification Letter, 
including, if applicable, a proposed solution; and
    (7) Explains the type-approval holder's options if the type-
approval

[[Page 53400]]

holder believes the Notification Letter is in error.
    (b) NMFS will establish a Response Date between 30 and 120 calendar 
days from the date of the Notification Letter. The type-approval 
holder's response must be received in writing by NMFS on or before the 
Response Date. If the type-approval holder fails to respond by the 
Response Date, the type-approval will be revoked. At its discretion and 
for good cause, NMFS may extend the Response Date to a maximum of 150 
calendar days from the date of the Notification Letter.
    (c) A type-approval holder who has submitted a timely response may 
meet with NMFS within 21 calendar days of the date of that response to 
discuss a detailed and agreed-upon procedure for resolving the alleged 
failure. The meeting may be in person, conference call, or webcast.
    (d) If the type-approval holder disagrees with the Notification 
Letter and believes that there is no failure to comply with the type-
approval regulations and requirements, NMFS has incorrectly defined or 
described the failure or its urgency and impact, or NMFS is otherwise 
in error, the type-approval holder may submit a written Objection 
Letter to NMFS on or before the Response Date. Within 21 calendar days 
of the date of the Objection Letter, the type-approval holder may meet 
with NMFS to discuss a resolution or redefinition of the issue. The 
meeting may be in person, conference call, or webcast. If modifications 
to any part of the Notification Letter are required, then NMFS will 
issue a revised Notification Letter to the type-approval holder; 
however, the Response Date or any other timeline in this process would 
not restart or be modified unless NMFS decides to do so, at its 
discretion.
    (e) The total process from the date of the Notification Letter to 
the date of final resolution should not exceed 180 calendar days, and 
may require a shorter time frame, to be determined by NMFS, depending 
on the urgency and impact of the alleged failure. In rare 
circumstances, NMFS, at its discretion, may extend the time for 
resolution of the alleged failure. In such a case, NMFS will provide a 
written notice to the type-approval holder informing him or her of the 
extension and the basis for the extension.
    (f) If the failure to comply with type-approval regulations and 
requirements cannot be resolved through this process, the NMFS OLE 
Director will issue a Revocation Letter to the type-approval holder 
that:
    (1) Identifies the MTU, EMTU, MCS, or bundle for which type-
approval is being revoked;
    (2) Summarizes the failure to comply with type-approval regulations 
and requirements, including describing its urgency and impact;
    (3) Summarizes any proposed plan, or attempts to produce such a 
plan, to resolve the failure;
    (4) States that revocation of the MTU/EMTU, MCS or bundle's type-
approval has occurred;
    (5) States that no new installations of the revoked unit will be 
permitted in any NMFS-managed fishery requiring the use of VMS;
    (6) Cites relevant regulations and requirements under this subpart;
    (7) Explains why resolution was not achieved;
    (8) Advises the type-approval holder that:
    (i) The type-approval holder may reapply for a type-approval under 
the process set forth in Sec.  600.1501, and
    (ii) A revocation may be appealed pursuant to the process under 
Sec.  600.1515.


Sec.  600.1515  Type-approval revocation appeals process.

    (a) If a type-approval holder receives a Revocation Letter pursuant 
to Sec.  600.1514, the type-approval holder may file an appeal of the 
revocation to the NMFS Assistant Administrator.
    (b) An appeal must be filed within 14 calendar days of the date of 
the Revocation Letter. A type-approval holder may not request an 
extension of time to file an appeal.
    (c) An appeal must include a complete copy of the Revocation Letter 
and its attachments and a written statement detailing any facts or 
circumstances explaining and refuting the failures summarized in the 
Revocation Letter.
    (d) The NMFS Assistant Administrator may, in his or her discretion, 
affirm, vacate, or modify the Revocation Letter and will send a letter 
to the type-approval holder explaining his or her determination, within 
21 calendar days of receipt of the appeal. The NMFS Assistant 
Administrator's determination constitutes the final agency decision.


Sec.  600.1516  Revocation effective date and notification to vessel 
owners.

    (a) Following issuance of a Revocation Letter pursuant to Sec.  
600.1514 and any appeal pursuant to Sec.  600.1515, NMFS will provide 
notice to all vessel owners impacted by the type-approval revocation 
via letter and Federal Register notice. NMFS will provide information 
to impacted vessel owners on:
    (1) The next steps vessel owners should take to remain in 
compliance with regional and/or national VMS requirements;
    (2) The date, 60-90 calendar days from the notice date, on which 
the type-approval revocation will become effective;
    (3) Reimbursement of the cost of a new type-approved EMTU, should 
funding for reimbursement be available pursuant to Sec.  600.1518.


Sec.  600.1517  Litigation support.

    (a) All technical aspects of a type-approved EMTU/MTU, MCS or 
bundle are subject to being admitted as evidence in a court of law, if 
needed. The reliability of all technologies utilized in the EMTU/MTU, 
MCS, or bundle may be analyzed in court for, inter alia, testing 
procedures, error rates, peer review, technical processes and general 
industry acceptance.
    (b) The type-approval holder must, as a requirement of the holder's 
type-approval, provide technical and expert support for litigation to 
substantiate the EMTU, MCS or bundle capabilities to establish NMFS 
Office of Law Enforcement cases against violators, as needed. If the 
technologies have previously been subject to such scrutiny in a court 
of law, the type-approval holder must provide NMFS with a brief summary 
of the litigation and any court findings on the reliability of the 
technology.
    (c) The type-approval holder will be required to sign a non-
disclosure agreement limiting the release of certain information that 
might compromise the effectiveness of the VMS operations.


Sec.  600.1518  Reimbursement opportunities for revoked vessel 
Monitoring System Type-approved products.

    (a) Subject to the availability of funds, vessel owners may be 
eligible for reimbursement payments for a replacement EMTU if:
    (1) All eligibility and process requirements specified by NMFS are 
met as described in NMFS Policy Directive 06-102; and
    (2) The replacement type-approved EMTU is installed on the vessel, 
and reporting to NMFS Office of Law Enforcement; and
    (3) The type-approval for the previously installed EMTU has been 
revoked by NMFS; or
    (4) NMFS requires the vessel owner to purchase a new EMTU prior to 
the end of an existing unit's service life.
    (b) The cap for individual reimbursement payments is subject to

[[Page 53401]]

change. If this occurs, NMFS Office of Law Enforcement will publish a 
notice in the Federal announcing the change.

PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

0
3. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. In Sec.  648.9, revise paragraph (a) and paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  648.9  VMS vendor and unit requirements.

    (a) Approval. The type-approval requirements for VMS MTUs and MCSPs 
for the Greater Atlantic Region are those as published by the NMFS 
Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) in the Federal Register, and are 
available upon request. Both the national type-approval requirements at 
50 CFR subpart Q and any established regional standards must be met in 
order to receive approval for use in the Greater Atlantic Region. The 
NMFS OLE Director shall approve all MTUs, MCSPs, and bundles including 
those operating in the Greater Atlantic Region.
* * * * *
    (d) Revocations. Revocation procedures for type-approvals are at 50 
CFR 600.1514. In the event of a revocation, NMFS will provide 
information to affected vessel owners as explained at 50 CFR 600.1516. 
In these instances, vessel owners may be eligible for the reimbursement 
of the cost of a new type-approved EMTU should funding for 
reimbursement be available.

[FR Doc. 2014-21271 Filed 9-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P