[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-7572]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: March 31, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 940367-4067; I.D. 060493A]
RIN 0648-AG19
Fishing Vessel Monitoring Systems Standards
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final standards.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues final standards, where appropriate, for the use of
satellite-based fishing vessel monitoring systems (VMS) to determine
positions of fishing vessels, collect real-time catch and environmental
data, and to specify minimum standards for these systems. This notice
advises the public that uniform standards have been promulgated for
VMS. NMFS has determined that standards are necessary to assure VMS
compatibility. The use of satellite-based fishing VMS to collect catch
data and determine vessel positions will contribute to reducing
overfishing and maintaining currently productive fisheries. Such
systems may also contribute significantly to NOAA's global
environmental and climate monitoring activities.
ADDRESSES: Copies of final standards may be obtained from Steven C.
Springer, Chief, Enforcement Programs Division, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Office of Enforcement, 8484 Georgia Avenue, suite
415, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven C. Springer, 301-427-2010.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act)
(16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) established Regional Fishery Management
Councils (Councils) and gave them authority to prepare fishery
management plans (FMPs) for the conservation and management of fishery
resources. The Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) may also prepare FMPs
under circumstances specified in the Magnuson Act. NMFS implements FMPs
and is responsible for collecting data and monitoring FMP compliance.
In recent years, some U.S. commercial marine fishery resources have
been overharvested. Many others are being fished at or near the point
of full utilization, and there is real danger that these could become
overharvested as well. Because of this, NMFS is endeavoring to improve
the accuracy and timeliness of catch and effort data, and improve
compliance with cost-effective management measures. NMFS published
proposed VMS standards on September 22, 1993, at 58 FR 49285.
Additional background can be found there.
Implementation
NMFS endorses the use of, and defines specifications and criteria
for, satellite-based fishing vessel monitoring systems as appropriate,
to determine positions of fishing vessels and collect real-time catch
and environmental data.
Several companies manufacture and distribute VMSs throughout the
United States and worldwide. Not all systems, however, are compatible
with each other. NMFS requires system compatibility for several
reasons. First, fishing vessels that engage in multiple fisheries
should not be required to install multiple VMSs. Further, it would not
be cost-efficient for NMFS to install multiple fishing vessel
monitoring centers/systems in order to monitor vessel activities from
multiple VMSs. In order to assure such compatibility, NMFS has defined
basic VMS and related performance criteria and system specifications.
However, recognizing that regulatory requirements for a VMS may be
promulgated on a fishery-by-fishery basis, all VMSs shall be certified
by NMFS to meet applicable requirements. These systems would be
implemented as appropriate through Secretarial and Council recommended
FMPs.
The real-time reporting of catch data that a VMS can provide would
significantly improve the ability to monitor and manage quotas and
allocations in certain fisheries. In fisheries managed by individual
fishing quotas (IFQs) or individual transferable quotas (ITQs),
mandatory remote monitoring of vessel catches and locations can improve
management by providing fishery managers with timely information on
catches (by area, if required) and transfers of quotas that can be
effected and monitored while the vessel is at sea. In fisheries where
real-time catch reporting is not essential for effective resource
management, but time or area closures are, the position tracking
component of a VMS could provide a more cost-effective means of
enforcing such closures.
All required information regarding fishing vessel activity would be
communicated from ship to shore through a secure, confidential
satellite communication system described below and processed in NMFS
regional data processing centers. Vessel position and catch data would
be used by NMFS Regions and Centers to monitor fishing quotas and
fishing activities, and identify suspected violations of time or area
regulations.
The system would provide for monitoring U.S. vessels and, where
appropriate, foreign vessels conducting fishing operations in the U.S.
exclusive economic zone and on the high seas.
In determining the feasibility of requiring a VMS for vessel
tracking purposes, Councils and NMFS will need to identify time and
area management measures, evaluate their degree of significance in
achieving the goals and objectives of the FMP, assess costs and
benefits, review fishery-related agreements, treaties or similar
arrangements, and estimate the amount and effectiveness of enforcement
surveillance and patrol resources needed to gain compliance. In most
cases, deployment of costly enforcement resources could be optimized by
identifying violations through a VMS and deploying further resources
accordingly (i.e., targeting apparent violations vs. random
patrolling).
NMFS may link VMS requirements to the issuance of Federal fishing
permits. In fisheries requiring a VMS, a permit may not be issued to a
vessel until a certified VMS is purchased, installed and is fully
operational on that vessel. Failure of a vessel to carry an operating
VMS may result in permit sanctions. In fisheries where there is no
Federal permit, but VMSs are required, the regulations could be amended
to prohibit fishing without a fully operational VMS on board the
vessel.
NMFS intends to establish a National Monitoring Center (NMC) to
receive and process data transmitted by the VMS. The NMC will specify
data requirements for vessel terminals, ensure confidentiality of data
in accordance with applicable rules and regulations, and distribute
data in real or near real time to NMFS offices, the U.S. Coast Guard
and other users as appropriate.
If the Councils or NMFS determine there is a need for real-time
catch data, costs associated with changes in data collection,
management and analysis infrastructure beyond the selection of a VMS
should be assessed, as well as benefits. Any self-reported data
reporting system must include comprehensive validation mechanisms,
especially where the incentives for misreporting are high. The
statistical, computer, compliance and analytical staffing resources
must be integral components of the need and justification of a VMS. If
a VMS is deemed an appropriate tool, then NMFS would require that the
following system criteria and specifications apply.
Changes From the Proposed Standards
Proposed standard 3 stated VMS shall be capable of tracking vessels
throughout their range and shall provide position accuracy to within
400 m (1,300 ft). Because industry standards for Global Positioning
system (GPS) position locating is generally accepted to be accurate
within 100 m, the final standard states VMS equipment shall be capable
of tracking vessels throughout their range and shall provide position
accuracies that meet current industry standards. All systems certified
by NMFS must be accurate to within 400 m (1,300 ft).
Proposed standard 7 has been renumbered standard 8, with no change
to the text. A new standard 7 was created to include certain other
vessel-tracking-only systems or systems that provide vessel tracking
and limited data capabilities. Standard 7 states that exceptions may be
made to the requirements for remote access to the VMS, vessel polling
and two-way communications in fisheries where the Councils or the
Secretary determine that effective vessel monitoring can occur without
these features.
Response to Public Comments
Twenty-one written comments on the proposed standards were received
by NMFS. These comments originated from the fishing industry--
independent fishermen, fishermen's associations, and fishing companies;
Fishery Management Councils; the vessel monitoring/satellite tracking
industry; and the U.S. Coast Guard. Most of the comments favored VMS
and included ideas on how the standards could be improved. Several
respondents felt that there was no reason for a VMS in their particular
fishery, but made constructive comments about national standards for
VMS.
Many respondents reacted as if NMFS was proposing a new rule
requiring VMS. The notice of proposed standards clearly stated that
NMFS endorses the use of VMS and is defining specifications and
criteria for their use. It further stated that decisions to require VMS
must be made on a fishery-by-fishery basis by the Councils or the
Secretary.
Comment 1: The VMS program will be a financial burden on individual
vessel owners. Several fishermen and fishing associations were
concerned that NMFS would increase the monthly operational cost to the
fishermen by requesting additional data transmission and polling from
the fishing vessels when NMFS wants more information.
Response: The cost of any VMS will depend on the system(s)
recommended by the Councils. Fishermen will have the opportunity to
address VMSs and their associated costs with Council members and NMFS
through many channels, including the public hearing process. As VMSs
are implemented, fishery by fishery, the Councils and NMFS will work
together to choose the least expensive system that will meet the
enforcement and management objectives of the FMP. NMFS notes that the
trend in the industry has been for equipment and data costs to decline
as applications of the technology increase. NMFS believes that
continued competition among equipment and service providers will
continue to drive prices down in the future.
Comment 2: Requiring VMS on fishing vessels is a serious privacy
issue and infringes on individual's rights.
Response: NMFS disagrees. Fishing is a highly regulated industry.
It has become highly regulated because of the increased competition for
a finite and dwindling resource. Vessel operators have a choice to fish
in state waters, Federal waters or both. If they choose to fish in
Federal waters, they will be required to operate within the constraints
of Federal regulations. NMFS and the U.S. Coast Guard are required to
enforce Federal fishery regulations. If it is determined that the most
efficient and effective means of managing Federal fisheries and
enforcing Federal fisheries regulations is through the use of VMS, then
any perceived ``privacy'' issues are outweighed by the necessity to
conserve and manage Federal fishery resources.
Comment 3: VMS standards should not be so restrictive that they
create a closed system where only one contractor would be able to
supply all the equipment or services. Such a system would eliminate
competition and increase prices.
Response: NMFS is currently gathering information to design a
system that will be open to as many vendors of equipment and services
as possible. NMFS will attempt to employ an open architecture design
for equipment and software to create easy access and ensure
adaptability to technological advances. The fishermen purchasing VMS
equipment will, in most fisheries, have a choice of several certified
vendors.
Comment 4: Service Argos and several manufacturers of Argos-based
equipment noted that their system offered vessel tracking and limited
capabilities to send data. They also noted that the proposed standards
required the ability to remotely change location reporting intervals,
poll vessels and engage in two-way communications. They believed that
these requirements were not necessary in all fisheries and unfairly
excluded their equipment from the NMFS certification process.
Response: NMFS agrees that circumstances may exist in some
fisheries where Argos or other VMS equipment capable of tracking
vessels, but incapable of performing the functions identified above,
would be appropriate. If the systems can meet all of the other
standards, they may still be certified for certain fishing vessel
tracking applications. Final standard 7 reflects this change.
Comment 5: The accuracy specified in standard 3 is potentially
limiting to VMS in the future. The U.S. Coast Guard and several
respondents from the vessel tracking industry commented that position
fixing standards using the GPS is accurate to within 100 m with
present-day equipment. The Coast Guard noted that 400 m, in some cases,
might not be accurate enough for the enforcement of small closed areas
and boundary lines.
Response: NMFS agrees that industry standards should prevail.
However, it appears that only systems using GPS can obtain accuracies
of less than 100 m. In order not to exclude other systems from
consideration, standard 3 has been changed to require VMS to meet
industry standards while maintaining a minimum accuracy of 400 m.
Comment 6: Before NMFS endorses any system, it should test the
system and provide the results to the public.
Response: In 1991, NMFS and staff members from the Western Pacific
Fishery Management Council worked together to demonstrate the
capabilities of several automated vessel monitoring technologies. A
report detailing the systems demonstrated and the purpose and results
of the demonstration can be obtained from the NMFS Office of
Enforcement (see ADDRESSES). The name of the report is Fishing Vessel
Tracking--Application for Fisheries Management and Enforcement (1991).
Comment 7: NMFS already has observers on certain groundfish vessels
in Alaska who send catch data via satellite to NMFS. Requiring VMS for
automatic vessel tracking would be an unnecessary additional burden.
Response: NMFS is aware that observers on certain groundfish
vessels in Alaska send data over the vessel's satellite communication
system to NMFS. If the Council or NMFS implements a VMS requirement in
the Alaskan groundfish fishery sometime in the future, any accompanying
analysis would most likely include the interrelationship of observer
coverage and VMS.
System Specifications (Final Standards)
Determinations by the Councils or NMFS may require a VMS for
tracking purposes only, data reporting only, or for both vessel
tracking and data reporting purposes. Some performance specifications
and criteria may not apply to a VMS that is required for vessel
tracking only or data reporting only.
The following system specifications and criteria will be applied to
a VMS for any fishery for which NMFS or the Councils determine a need
for vessel tracking, monitoring and/or reporting:
1. The VMS shall be tamperproof, i.e., shall not permit the input
of false positions.
2. VMS equipment shall be fully automatic and operational at all
times, regardless of weather and environmental conditions.
3. VMS equipment shall be capable of tracking vessels throughout
their range and shall provide position accuracies that meet current
industry standards. All systems certified by NMFS must be accurate to
within 400 m (1,300 ft).
4. The VMS shall have the capability of transmitting and storing
information, including vessel identification, date-time, latitude,
longitude, speed and bearing.
5. The VMS shall provide accurate position transmissions, the
interval between which can be determined by NMFS and set or changed
remotely. In addition, the VMS shall allow NMFS to poll individual
vessels or any set of vessels at any time and receive position reports
in real time.
6. Under certain conditions, the VMS may be required to provide
network message communications between the vessel and shore. (This
specification may not be applicable to tracking-only systems). Such
communications shall include, but not be limited to, transmitting and
receiving telex and full or compressed data messages to and from shore.
The VMS shall allow NMFS to initiate communications or data transfer at
any time.
7. Exceptions may be made to the requirements for remote access to
the VMS, vessel polling and two-way communications in fisheries where
the Councils or Secretary determine that effective vessel monitoring
can occur without these features.
8. Shore station software shall:
(a.) Reliably retrieve position records, as defined in standard 4
above, and display such data on a computer monitor;
(b.) Provide a means for printing such data;
(c.) Include on-screen displays of charts capable of showing
boundaries of fishery management areas;
(d.) Be capable of accurately displaying vessel positions on such
charts;
(e.) Be capable of providing an alarm, signal, or other notice to
shore station operators when a vessel is within 1 nautical mile (1.9
km) of designated closed areas or management area boundaries;
(f.) Provide printer/plotter support for drawing charts; and
(g.) Have the capacity to archive vessel position histories for a
minimum of 1 year.
Classification
This notice does not implement or require VMS. However, it
announces standards that will apply to any VMS requirement implemented
through amendments to the various FMPs.
This action is not subject to review under E.O. 12866.
Dated: March 24, 1994.
Nancy Foster,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 94-7572 Filed 3-30-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
