Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 77399 

2See U.S. Department of Transportation guidance 

at, ‘‘Reform Act of 1995,’’ February 24, 2014 

(update), http://www.dot.gov/office-policy/

transportation-policy/threshold-significantregulatory-actions-under-unfunded-mandates. 

requirements specifically set forth in 

law).’’ Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 

1532) further requires that ‘‘before 

promulgating any general notice of 

proposed rulemaking that is likely to 

result in the promulgation of any rule 

that includes any Federal mandate that 

may result in expenditure by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100,000,000 or more (adjusted 

annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and 

before promulgating any final rule for 

which a general notice of proposed 

rulemaking was published, the agency 

shall prepare a written statement’’ 

detailing the effect on State, local, and 

tribal governments and the private 

sector. When adjusted for inflation 

using the Consumer Price Index for All 

Urban Consumers as the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics published, the 

equivalent value of $100,000,000 in year 

2012 dollars is $151,000,000.2 The final 

rule will not result in the expenditure, 

in the aggregate, of $151,000,000 or 

more in any one year, and thus 

preparation of such a statement is not 

required. Executive Order 13211 

requires Federal agencies to prepare a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

‘‘significant energy action.’’ 66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001. Under the 

Executive Order, a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ is defined as ‘‘[a]ny action by an 

agency (normally published in the 

Federal Register) that promulgates or is 

expected to lead to the promulgation of 

a final rule or regulation, including 

notices of inquiry, advance notices of 

proposed rulemaking, and notices of 

proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866 or any successor 

order, and (ii) is likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that 

is designated by the Administrator of 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs as a significant energy action.’’ 

FRA has evaluated this final rule under 

Executive Order 13211. FRA has 

determined that this final rule is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. Consequently, FRA has 

determined that this regulatory action is 

not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ within 

the meaning of Executive Order 13211. 

Privacy Act 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits 

comments from the public to better 

inform its rulemaking process. DOT 

posts these comments, without edit, 

including any personal information the 

commenter provides, to 

www.regulations.gov, as described in 

the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 

14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 

www.dot.gov/privacy. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 225 

Investigations, Penalties, Railroad 

safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

The Rule 

In consideration of the foregoing, FRA 

amends part 225 of chapter II, subtitle 

B of title 49, Code of Federal 

Regulations, as follows: 

PART 225—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 225 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 103, 322(a), 20103, 

20107, 20901–02, 21301, 21302, 21311; 28 

U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89. 

■ 2. Amend § 225.19 by revising the first 

sentence of paragraph (c) and revising 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 225.19 Primary groups of accidents/

incidents. 

* * * * * 

(c) Group II—Rail equipment. Rail 

equipment accidents/incidents are 

collisions, derailments, fires, 

explosions, acts of God, and other 

events involving the operation of ontrack equipment (standing or moving) 

that result in damages higher than the 

current reporting threshold (i.e., $6,700 

for calendar years 2002 through 2005, 

$7,700 for calendar year 2006, $8,200 

for calendar year 2007, $8,500 for 

calendar year 2008, $8,900 for calendar 

year 2009, $9,200 for calendar year 

2010, $9,400 for calendar year 2011, 

$9,500 for calendar year 2012, $9,900 

for calendar year 2013, $10,500 for 

calendar year 2014, and $10,500 for 

calendar year 2015) to railroad on-track 

equipment, signals, tracks, track 

structures, or roadbed, including labor 

costs and the costs for acquiring new 

equipment and material. * * * 

* * * * * 

(e) The reporting threshold is $6,700 

for calendar years 2002 through 2005, 

$7,700 for calendar year 2006, $8,200 

for calendar year 2007, $8,500 for 

calendar year 2008, $8,900 for calendar 

year 2009, $9,200 for calendar year 

2010, $9,400 for calendar year 2011, 

$9,500 for calendar year 2012, $9,900 

for calendar year 2013, $10,500 for 

calendar year 2014, and $10,500 for 

calendar year 2015. The procedure for 

determining the reporting threshold for 

calendar years 2006 and beyond appears 

as paragraphs 1–8 of appendix B to part 

225. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

18, 2014. 

Joseph C. Szabo, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30113 Filed 12–23–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 600 and 648 

[Docket No. 130402316–4999–02] 

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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS publishes this final 

rule implementing regulations to codify 

type-approval standards, requirements, 

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 systems (VMS), products 

and services. This rule is necessary to 

specify NMFS procedures for EMTU/

MTU and MCS type-approval, typeapproval renewal, and revocation; revise 

latency standards; and ensure 

compliance with type-approval 

standards. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

January 23, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the 

Regulatory Impact Review, Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), 

and other related documents are 

available by contacting the individuals 

listed below in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. Other 

documents relevant to this rule are 

available from the Office of Law 

Enforcement Web site at http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/about/

programs.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kelly Spalding, Vessel Monitoring 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

77400 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

System Management Analyst, 301–427– 

8269; or Eric Teeters, Fishery 

Regulations Specialist, 301–427–8580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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, typeapproval, latency requirements, periodic 

type-approval renewal, and procedures 

for revocation of type-approval(s) 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. On September 9, 2014, 

NMFS published and requested 

comments (79 FR 53386) for the 

proposed regulations that outline the 

rationale for the actions contained 

herein. The 45-day comment period on 

the proposed rule ended on October 24, 

2014. A summary of the comments and 

the responses by NMFS are provided 

under the Comments and Responses 

section of this preamble. 

Background 

A brief summary of the background of 

this final action is provided below. A 

detailed review of the provisions of the 

proposed regulations, the alternatives, 

and the rationale for these regulations is 

provided in the preamble to the 

proposed rule (79 FR 53386, September 

9, 2014). Those documents are 

incorporated by reference and their 

description of specific requirements and 

procedures are not repeated here. 

Additional information regarding, and 

the proposed rule itself, are available 

from the NMFS Office of Law 

Enforcement Web site (see ADDRESSES). 

Through this final rule, NMFS is 

codifying 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 will no longer 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 typeapproved. If a type-approval date is 

more than 3 years old, the type-approval 

will expire February 23, 2015. 

The final rule will codify the VMS 

type-approval process and standards, 

improve enforceability of the typeapproval standards, and better ensure 

all type-approved EMTU/MTUs and 

MCS remain in compliance with NMFS 

VMS type-approval standards. 

NMFS is implementing 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 will 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) will 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. The final rule relaxes the 

latency standard, as well as implements 

procedures for revoking type-approvals, 

and sets up an appeals process for such 

type-approvals. 

Lastly, this final rule revises existing 

regulations in the NMFS Greater 

Atlantic Region’s VMS vendor and unit 

requirements at 50 CFR 648.9 that will 

otherwise overlap and conflict with the 

regulations herein. To eliminate this 

potential conflict in Federal regulations, 

this final rule revises the regulations at 

50 CFR 648.9 so that the NMFS OLE 

Director will issue type-approvals for all 

NMFS regions, including the Greater 

Atlantic Region. 

Comments and Responses 

During the proposed rule comment 

period, NMFS received three comment 

letters with six unique comments. A 

summary of the relevant comments on 

the proposed rule is shown below with 

NMFS’ response. All written comments 

submitted during the comment period 

can be found at http://regulations.gov/ 

by searching for NOAA–NMFS–2014– 

0019–0002. 

Comment 1: Support was expressed 

for the requirement in § 600.1513(c) that 

a type-approval renewal request letter 

include vessel position report statistics 

regarding the processing and 

transmitting of position reports to the 

VMS data processing center. 

Response: NMFS agrees. By providing 

these data to NMFS, the type-approval 

holder will expedite the type-approval 

process. 

Comment 2: For initial type-approval 

of EMTUs, NMFS should be required to 

complete its certification testing for 

marine electronics products in less than 

the 90 calendars days provided for in 

§ 600.1501(d) of the proposed rule. The 

commenter believes the testing as 

outlined in the proposed rule could be 

completed in 30–40 hours and a 

response, with adequate documentation, 

should only take an additional 100–120 

hours. Therefore, the commenter 

suggested the final rule should require 

NMFS to complete certification testing 

within 30 days. 

Response: Testing of an EMTU for 

type-approval is conducted in multiple 

steps, including laboratory and field 

testing of hardware, software, and 

communications that may require weeks 

or months to complete. Requiring NMFS 

to complete testing within 30 days as 

suggested by the commenter would not 

allow NMFS OLE sufficient time to have 

all aspects of EMTU and 

communication operation evaluated 

thoroughly by experts to ensure the 

devices meet all requirements in all of 

the NMFS regions for which typeapproval is requested. NMFS believes 

that certification should occur as 

quickly as possible and, in certain 

circumstances, NMFS may be able to 

complete the certification process in 

less than 90 calendar days, but cannot 

commit to doing so in all instances. The 

regulatory text in § 600.1501(d) of this 

final rule has been changed to reflect the 

expectation that NMFS will complete 

certification testing within 90 days of 

receipt of a complete type-approval 

request, unless additional time is 

needed for testing. 

Comment 3: In proposed § 600.1502, 

there is a new requirement that typeapproved vendors be able to parse out 

billing for various features, rather than 

simply billing customers only for the 

service they use, without regard for the 

type of service. A commenter stated that 

billing should be kept simple and does 

not need to have the detail and extra 

expense that parsed billing would 

require. 

Response: The requirement for 

vendors to parse billing is to distinguish 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 77401 

services billed to the government from 

services billed to fishermen. If 

additional polling, increased VMS 

position reports, or other services are 

required of the vendor by the 

government, then those services need to 

be billed to the government, not to 

fishermen. Thus this final rule requires 

that vendors parse billing clearly. 

Comment 4: This commenter suggests 

50 CFR 600.1508, which requires all 

VMS vendors to provide 24/7/365 

customer service support, would 

increase fishermen’s expenses. The 

commenter states this additional 

expense is unnecessary and would only 

solve a portion of the support issues 

since vendors do not have access to 

NOAA’s data center, and cannot tell 

what issues are related to the equipment 

on the vessels. The commenter believes 

that additional technical and customer 

support to fishermen would best be 

provided by NOAA’s OLE Helpdesk. 

Response: The requirement for 24- 

hour customer support for VMS vendors 

to assist the fisherman in maintaining 

and repairing their EMTU/MTU, 

including timely responses to customer 

support requests, has been in place 

since January 31, 2008 (see 73 FR 5813). 

Prior to the January 2008 Federal 

Register notice, NMFS had required that 

VMS vendors provide some level of 

customer support, but not 24/7/365 

support, as a condition of being typeapproved. (see 70 FR 61941, October 27, 

2005; 71 FR 3053, January 19, 2006). As 

such, this 24/7/365 requirement will not 

add any new or additional financial 

burden to fishers or VMS vendors, as 

this requirement has already been built 

into the vendors’ costs for the service 

being provided to fishers since 2008. 

Additionally, it is important to note that 

customer service is provided by VMS 

vendors to the government as well as 

fishermen. 

Comment 5: Reimbursement of the 

cost of an EMTU should also include 

reimbursing the cost of a generator if it 

is needed to power the EMTU. Also, 

special consideration should be made 

for cases when the installation of a 

generator may not be physically 

possible due to space or other vessel 

limitations. Please provide information 

about currently available resources for 

reimbursing the cost of an EMTU. 

Response: The amount of power that 

is required to operate the EMTUs that 

are currently type-approved varies. 

Several of these EMTUs are operated 

with battery power on small center 

console vessels with very little space 

taken by the EMTU. The range of 

EMTUs that are currently type-approved 

provide fishermen with options to 

determine which EMTU best meets their 

needs for the fishery in which they 

participate and the specific 

characteristics of their vessel without 

requiring the use of a generator. For 

information about the EMTU 

reimbursement program, please go to 

http://www.psmfc.org/program/vesselmonitoring-system-reimbursementprogram-vms or call the NOAA OLE 

VMS Helpdesk at 1–888–219–9228. 

Comment 6: NMFS is already 

monitoring all fish that are caught and 

it is unfair to further burden fishers with 

the costs associated with putting 

cameras on every boat. These additional 

costs reduce fishers’ income and drive 

up the cost of seafood. 

Response: This rule does not directly 

impose any additional costs or 

monitoring on fishers or other sectors of 

the fishing industry; nor does it require 

the installation of cameras on every 

boat. This final rule will enable fishers 

to have increased confidence that 

EMTUs/MTUs that are type-approved 

will be capable of complying with typeapproval standards established by 

NMFS. 

Changes From the Proposed Rule 

Based on public comment, the 

regulatory text at 50 CFR 600.1501(d) 

has been changed to read, ‘‘Unless 

additional time is required for EMTU 

testing, NMFS OLE will notify the 

requestor within 90 days after receipt of 

a complete type-approval request as 

follows:’’. 

Based on public comment, the 

regulatory text at 50 CFR 600.1502(b) 

has been changed to provide further 

clarification that billing for messages 

and communications from an EMTU 

must be able to be parsed out to enable 

clear billing of costs to the government 

and to the owner of a vessel or EMTU, 

when necessary. 

Classification 

The NMFS Assistant Administrator 

has determined that this final rule is 

consistent with the provisions of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 

applicable law. 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

This final rule does not duplicate, 

conflict, or overlap with any Federal 

regulations. 

The Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (FRFA) was prepared pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 604(a) of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), and incorporated 

the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA), a summary of the 

significant issues raised by the public 

comments in response to the IRFA, 

NMFS’s responses to those comments, 

and summary of the analyses completed 

to support the action. 

The preamble to the proposed rule 

included a detailed summary of the 

analyses contained in the IRFA, and that 

discussion is not repeated here. The full 

FRFA is included below. 

Section 604(a)(1) of the RFA requires 

that the Agency describe the need for, 

and objectives of, the final rule. A 

description of the final action, why it is 

being considered, and the legal basis for 

this final action are summarized here 

and described in more detail in the 

preamble to the proposed rule. The 

current national process regarding VMS 

Type-Approval Standards do not 

adequately address the process for 

evaluating VMS performance, or 

procedures for improving VMS 

performance or revoking VMS typeapprovals for failure to meet typeapproval requirements at any time after 

initial approval. The purpose of the 

final action, therefore, 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. In 

addition, the final action specifies 

NMFS procedures for VMS typeapproval renewal and revocation. The 

objective of the proposed action is to 

revise latency standards, improve the 

enforceability of the VMS type-approval 

standards, and to establish typeapproval renewal and revocation 

processes. 

Section 604(a)(2) of the RFA requires 

a summary of the significant issues 

raised by the public comments in 

response to the IRFA and statement of 

any changes made in the final rule as a 

result of such comments. NMFS 

received six unique public comments on 

the proposed rule and IRFA. A summary 

of these comments and the Agency’s 

responses, including changes as a result 

of public comment, are included in the 

preamble above. For the reasons 

discussed in the response to Comment 

2, NMFS is recognizing that initial 

EMTU type-approval testing and 

notification to the type-approval 

requestor may be made in less than 90 

days, in some circumstances. As 

discussed in response to Comment 3, 

NMFS has provided further clarification 

about the meaning and purpose of 

parsing bills for VMS services. 

Otherwise, there are no substantive 

changes from the proposed rule as a 

result of these economic comments. The 

comments above did not alter the cost 

analysis in the FRFA and final rule. 

Under Section 604(a)(4), Federal 

agencies must provide an estimate of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

77402 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 rule 

will impact EMTU vendors and/or 

MCSP. The rule will directly apply to 

the existing six NMFS type-approved 

VMS equipment providers and any 

companies wishing to obtain VMS typeapproval in the future. NMFS has 

received inquiries from three other 

companies about seeking type-approval 

in the past, but have not yet officially 

sought type-approval. 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 rule will impact three 

to six small entities. 

Section 604(a)(5) of the RFA requires 

that the Agency provide a description of 

the projected reporting, recordkeeping 

and other compliance requirements of 

the 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 

rule will involve reporting, record 

keeping, and other compliance 

requirements for the type-approval 

application process, notifications for 

any substantive changes, litigation 

support, periodic renewal, and possibly 

responses to revocation notices. 

The application process will require a 

vendor requesting type-approval of an 

EMTU, MCS, or bundle to make a 

written request to the NMFS. The 

written request will require 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 

capabilities; details of 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 fishery-specific 

regulations for 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, the application 

must include two EMTUs at no cost to 

the government for each NOAA region 

or Federal fishery for which the 

application is made for approximately 

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 inoffice 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 

will likely require engineering and 

product manager expertise for 

preparation of the application. 

This rule will also require typeapproval holders to notify NMFS within 

two calendar days of any substantive 

changes from the original submission 

for type-approval. 

As a condition of type-approval, the 

type-approval holder will 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 will 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 typeapproval period, a type-approval holder 

must request renewal of the typeapproval and demonstrate successful 

compliance with the type-approval 

standards and requirements. To do so, 

the type-approval holder must certify 

that the EMTU, MCS, or bundle remains 

in compliance with type-approval 

standards and complete a table or 

matrix documenting compliance with 

all applicable standards. This typeapproval renewal process will likely 

require engineering and product 

manager expertise for preparation of the 

renewal request. 

If NMFS issues a Notification letter 

indicating intent to revoke a typeapproval, the type-approval holder must 

respond, in writing, within 30 to 120 

calendar days from the date specified in 

the NMFS Notification Letter if the 

vendor believes the Notification is in 

error or can propose a solution to 

correct the issue. This response will 

likely require engineering and product 

manager expertise to develop. 

Section 604(a)(6) of the RFA requires 

a description of the steps the agency has 

taken to minimize the significant 

economic impact on small entities 

consistent with the stated objectives of 

applicable statutes. 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 action, 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 codifying the type-approval 

standards, specifications, procedures, 

and responsibilities for EMTU, MCS and 

bundle type-approval applicants and 

holders in this action. In addition, 

NMFS is implementing performance 

rather than design standard alternatives 

for messaging latency standards for 

EMTUs, MCSs or bundles. 

NMFS analyzed several different 

alternatives in the proposed action and 

provides the rationale for identifying the 

preferred alternatives to achieve the 

desired objective. 

Vessel Monitoring System TypeApproval Application Process 

Requestors of type-approval must 

submit a written request to NMFS OLE 

and a statement that the unit for which 

approval is sought meets NMFS OLE’s 

type-approval standards. The 

application process will likely require 

engineering and product manager 

expertise for preparation of the 

application. NMFS estimates that small 

entities will 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 77403 

meets the minimum national VMS 

standards as required by this rule. This 

estimate also includes 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 will be 

required to send two EMTUs for testing 

to each NMFS region for which typeapproval is sought. NMFS estimates that 

type-approval requestors will likely 

spend between $85 and $220 per NMFS 

region for shipping two units 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 will send units to five 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 will 

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 will 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. 

Latency Requirement 

NMFS considered 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’s review of 

several years of reports, NMFS has 

determined that the current 97-percent 

latency standard is not necessary to 

meet the needs of NMFS OLE and the 

USCG for near-real-time data. Also, the 

97-percent latency standard requirement 

is the most costly for vendors to 

achieve. Based on several years of 

reports, it is clear this latency 

requirement is difficult for typeapproval 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 

possible corrective actions 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 

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 OLE and the U.S. Coast Guard 

(USCG) have a need for near-real-time 

fishing vessel location data for 

enforcement of Federal fisheries laws 

and regulations. Successful NMFS and 

USCG enforcement efforts depend on 

near-real-time vessel location data to 

responsibly protect resources. For 

example, NMFS and USCG need to 

know when a vessel has entered a 

closed area or other protected or 

environmentally sensitive area. Receipt 

of near real-time data also ensures 

optimal and cost-effective dispatch of 

enforcement assets for at-sea 

interception, landing inspections, 

follow-up, and active investigations of 

already-suspect vessels. 

NMFS determined that the latency 

requirement can be lowered slightly 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 is revising this latency 

requirement to state that NMFS must 

receive no less than 90 percent of all 

messages within 15 minutes or less of 

the EMTU timestamp, for 10 out of 11 

consecutive days (24-hour time 

periods). This new latency requirement 

is less burdensome for all current typeapproval 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 OLE via EMTU/

MTU before leaving the dock, or a 

fisher’s days-at-sea were miscalculated 

due to the delayed reporting of 

Demarcation-Line crossings. This may 

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 has determined it is 

essential for VMS data to be delivered 

by the type-approved EMTU/MTUs, 

MCS and bundles in near real-time for 

enforcement purposes. Therefore, NMFS 

does not prefer the 50-percent standard. 

Changes or Modifications to TypeApprovals 

After a type-approval is issued, the 

type-approval holder must notify 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 the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

77404 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

receipt of such notice, OLE will notify 

the type-approval holder if an amended 

type-approval will be required, 

including additional testing or provide 

notice that 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. 

Renewal Process 

NMFS considered 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 typeapproval 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 OLE. 

A 10-year type-approval renewal 

process is seen as too long an interval 

between the time an initial typeapproval was issued and when NMFS 

would take an in-depth look at the typeapproval holder’s overall compliance 

record with the regulations set forth in 

this rule. Significant technological 

change might also occur over a 10-year 

period. While this alternative would 

minimize the economic impacts of 

preparing renewal applications, it does 

not meet NMFS objectives of 

maintaining compliance with the 

regulatory standards. 

NMFS prefers that a type-approval 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 

by demonstrating successful compliance 

with the requirements set forth in this 

final action. 

NMFS estimates that this renewal 

process will 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 will 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. NMFS estimates that 

there will be approximately two typeapproval renewals conducted each year 

for a total economic cost of 

approximately $2,288 annually. 

Revocation Process 

If a type-approved EMTU/MTU, MCS, 

or bundle is no longer meeting one or 

more of the specifications set out in the 

type-approved standards, NMFS will 

initiate the type-approval revocation 

process. If an EMTU, MCS, or bundle 

fails to meet the type-approval 

standards in this rule, or if an MTU fails 

to meet the specifications under which 

it was type-approved, NMFS will issue 

a letter to the vendor who holds the 

type-approval and identify the potential 

violation. NMFS will set a Response 

Date between 30 and 120 calendar days 

from the date of the Notification Letter. 

If the vendor believes that NMFS is in 

error, and/or that NMFS has incorrectly 

defined/described the issue or its 

urgency and impact, or that NMFS is 

otherwise in error, then the vendor can 

deliver its Objection, in writing, 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 to not 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 typeapproval 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. 

Small Entity Compliance Guide 

Section 212 of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 states that, for each rule or group 

of related rules for which an agency is 

required to prepare a FRFA, the agency 

shall publish one or more guides to 

assist small entities in complying with 

the rule, and shall designate such 

publications as ‘‘small entity 

compliance guides.’’ The agency shall 

explain the actions a small entity is 

required to take to comply with a rule 

or group of rules. Copies of the 

compliance guide for this final rule are 

available (see ADDRESSES). 

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: December 18, 2014. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR parts 

600 and 648 as follows: 

PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS 

ACT PROVISIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 600 

continues to read as follows: 

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

et seq. 

■ 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 typeapproval 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 typeapprovals. 

600.1512 Vessel Monitoring System typeapproval period. 

600.1513 Type-approval renewal. 

600.1514 Type-approval revocation process. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 77405 

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 typeapproval products. 

Subpart Q—Vessel Monitoring System 

Type-Approval 

§ 600.1500 Definitions and acronyms. 

In addition to the definitions in the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and in § 600.10, 

and the acronyms in § 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 typeapproval 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 

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. 

§ 600.1501 Vessel Monitoring System typeapproval process. 

(a) Application submission. A 

requestor must submit a written typeapproval 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. 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

77406 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section that 

require use of VMS. 

(iii) Provide a table with the typeapproval request that lists in one 

column each requirement set out in 

§§ 600.1502–600.1509 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 §§ 600.1502–600.1509 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 

§§ 600.1502–600.1509 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. 

(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. Unless additional 

time is required for EMTU testing, 

NMFS OLE will notify the requestor 

within 90 days after receipt of a 

complete type-approval request as 

follows: 

(1) If a request is approved or partially 

approved, NMFS OLE will provide 

notice as described under § 600.1510. 

(i) The type-approval letter will serve 

as official documentation and notice of 

type-approval. 

(ii) NMFS will also publish a notice 

in the Federal Register documenting the 

type-approval and the dates for which it 

is effective. 

(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. 

§ 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 typeapproval. 

(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. 

(7) Have messaging and 

communications that are completely 

compatible with NMFS vessel 

monitoring software. 

(b) In addition, messages and 

communications from an EMTU must be 

able to be parsed out to enable clear 

billing of costs to the government and to 

the owner of a vessel or EMTU, when 

necessary. Also, 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. 

§ 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 

§ 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. 

(3) Position fixed latitude and 

longitude, including the hemisphere of 

each, which comply with the following 

requirements: 

(i) The position fix precision must be 

to the decimal minute hundredths. 

(ii) 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. 

(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. 

(6) A request for EMTU status 

information such as configuration of 

programming and reporting intervals. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 77407 

§ 600.1504 Latency requirement. 

(a) Ninety percent of all preprogrammed 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 typeapproval 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. 

§ 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. 

(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. 

§ 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. 

(2) A user must be able to select forms 

from a menu on the EMTU. 

(3) A user must be able to populate a 

form based on the last values used and 

‘‘modify’’ or ‘‘update’’ a prior 

submission without unnecessary reentry 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. 

(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. 

§ 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. 

(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 installedsoftware. 

§ 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. 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

77408 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

purchase agreements, work orders or 

contracts. 

§ 600.1509 General. 

(a) An EMTU must have the durability 

and reliability necessary to meet all 

requirements of §§ 600.1502–600.1507 

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), 

as defined in the Department of 

Commerce Information Technology 

Privacy Policy. 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 typeapproval 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. 

(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. 

§ 600.1510 Notification of type-approval. 

(a) If a request made pursuant to 

§ 600.1501 (type-approval) or § 600.1513 

(renewal) is approved or partially 

approved, NMFS will issue a typeapproval 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 typeapproved EMTUs, MCSPs, and bundles 

on a publicly available Web site and 

provide copies of the list upon request. 

§ 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 typeapproval revocation process. 

§ 600.1512 Vessel Monitoring System typeapproval 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 § 600.1510, 

subject to the revocation process at 

§ 600.1514. All MTUs, EMTUs, MCSs, 

and bundles with valid type-approvals 

on January 23, 2015 will continue to be 

type-approved. However, if the typeapproval date is more than 3 years old, 

the type-approval will expire on 

February 23, 2015. The type-approval 

holder may request a type-approval 

renewal as provided in § 600.1513. 

§ 600.1513 Type-approval renewal. 

At least 30 days, but no more than six 

months, prior to the end of the typeapproval 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 §§ 600.1502– 

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 typeapproval or last renewal (whichever was 

later), there have been no modifications 

to or replacements of any functional 

component or piece of the typeapproved 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 §§ 600.1502– 

600.1509 and regulations described 

under paragraph (a)(2) of this section. 

For an MTU, instead of the 

requirements at §§ 600.1502–600.1509, 

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 typeapproved 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 typemstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 77409 

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 § 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 

§ 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. 

§ 600.1514 Type-approval revocation 

process. 

(a) If at any time, a type-approved 

EMTU, MCS or bundle fails to meet 

requirements at §§ 600.1502–600.1509 

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 

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 typeapproval 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 typeapproval 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 typeapproval 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 § 600.1501, and 

(ii) A revocation may be appealed 

pursuant to the process under 

§ 600.1515. 

§ 600.1515 Type-approval revocation 

appeals process. 

(a) If a type-approval holder receives 

a Revocation Letter pursuant to 

§ 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. 

§ 600.1516 Revocation effective date and 

notification to vessel owners. 

(a) Following issuance of a Revocation 

Letter pursuant to § 600.1514 and any 

appeal pursuant to § 600.1515, NMFS 

will provide notice to all vessel owners 

impacted by the type-approval 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

77410 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 typeapproval revocation will become 

effective; 

(3) Reimbursement of the cost of a 

new type-approved EMTU, should 

funding for reimbursement be available 

pursuant to § 600.1518. 

§ 600.1517 Litigation support. 

(a) All technical aspects of a typeapproved 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 typeapproval, 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. 

§ 600.1518 Reimbursement opportunities 

for revoked Vessel Monitoring System 

Type-approval 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 

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 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 648 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 4. In § 648.9, revise paragraph (a) and 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 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 part 600, 

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. 2014–30151 Filed 12–23–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES