Comment on proposed rule - Krampe ATA

1 Tuna Lane
Suite 1
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-233-6407
Fax: 619-839-3643
Email: krampepaul@aol.com

June 19, 2009

William L. Robinson c/o
Federal eRulemaking Portal
http://www/regulations.gov
RE: Comments regarding RIN 0648-AV 63 International Fisheries; Western and
Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species; Initial Implementation
of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention – Proposed rule
Dear Mr. Robinson:
Our organization represents the large U.S. flag purse seiners operating in the tropical Pacific
Ocean. Our vessels have a long history of operating in the Pacific Ocean. We were instrumental
in the development of the eastern and western Pacific purse seine tuna fisheries. We have
continuously supported fair and effective conservation of tuna fisheries. Since our early
development of the Pacific tuna fishery, fleets of many other countries have also entered the
fishery. This has made the implementation of fair and effective management of the tuna fishery
across all fleets more difficult. The tuna based Regional Fishery Management Organizations
(RFMOs) have been struggling to manage these important fisheries effectively, fairly and equally
among the participants in the fishery.
The U.S. tuna purse seine fleet supports effective conservation and management measures for
the long term sustainability of tuna stocks. However, management of the fishery for the long term
sustainability of the stocks will not be accomplished if the U.S. fleet is the only one that fully
complies through effective monitoring and enforcement of regulations. It is vital to the survival of
the U.S. fleet that our country negotiates RFMO measures that impose a comparable burden on
all participants in the fishery. It is critical to the US fleet that US fishermen do not have to bear an
unfair amount of the conservation burden. It is also critical to our survival that the domestic
regulations implementing the RFMO measures not be significantly more burdensome on our fleet
than those imposed on our foreign competitors. We are very concerned that these proposed
regulations will be far more extensive, will be monitored much more closely and will be more
burdensome on the U.S. fleet than those imposed on fleets of other countries that are members
of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC).
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act requires our
government to address illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing and the bycatch of
protected living marine resources. We believe it is also the responsibility of our government to
monitor the actions of other governments to be sure that other governments implement
substantially similar rules and regulations. Our government should promptly give notice to the

1

appropriate RFMO of any shortcomings in regulation implementation and enforcement by other
member countries of the RFMO.
Following are specific comments about certain contents in the subject document:
Page 23967, 23977 300.212 (g) and 23978 300.213 (a)
2. Vessel information
This section calls for changes in vessel information to be submitted within 15 days of the
change. This requirement would be burdensome. Thirty (30) days would be a much more
manageable timeframe.
Page 23968
4. Vessel observer program
We have fully supported and have cooperated with the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries
Agency (FFA) observer program for about 20 years. The U.S. purse seine fleet has been the
leader in the use of observer programs in the Western Pacific. We support the observers
gathering the information truly needed to perform their required duties. We believe, however,
that a clear listing of questions that the observers should appropriately ask should be
developed and be provided to vessel management and operators and to observers. Certain
information is proprietary to the fishing vessel operations and is not required for the observer
to reasonably perform their duties. Having such a list is all the more critical with the expected
expansion of the WCPFC observer program. Vessel responsibilities are spelled out in detail,
but very little information is provided regarding the expected behavior and responsibilities of
observers. These comments also apply to Page 23969, 9. Facilitation of enforcement and
inspection and to Page 23978, 300.215 Observers (c) (1) (ii).
We would also like to take this opportunity to again express our strong belief that a debriefing
of observers take place at the end of each trip. This can be conducted by NMFS staff;
preferably also in the presence of the vessel Captain. The feedback to the vessel operators
from observer reports is incomplete and untimely. It is only through effective and timely
communications that vessel operators can improve their observer responsibilities to the
benefit of all involved. This is a process that has been used for many years in the Eastern
Pacific with IATTC observers.
Page 23976
Definition of Fishing
(5) Engaging in transshipment, either unloading or loading fish
Our vessels are required to transship in port. We believe that activities in port should not be
considered fishing. Fishing trips start counting when vessels leave port and not while they are in
port. This definition could improperly cause days in port to be counted against available fishing
days.
Definition of Fishing Vessel
There has been a continuing debate as to whether carriers and refueling vessels should properly
be treated as fishing vessels in virtually all ways. It is our position that they should not be treated
that way. These carrier and bunkering vessels used in association with the purse seine fishery
are used on an opportunistic basis and are not part of the regular fishing fleet. It is reasonable
that these vessels be registered and be identified by information clearly called for in WCPFC
regulations, but the U.S. should be careful to not impose more regulations on these vessels than

2

required. We hope that the US will continue to negotiate reasonable working arrangements for
these vessels.
.
Page 23980
Vessel monitoring system. § 300.219.c.3.iii:
“Prior to leaving port, receive verbal or written confirmation from NMFS that proper
transmissions are being received from the VMS unit”
There is concern that lack of availability of SAC staff will cause an unreasonable loss of
fishing time by fishing vessels. These are not 9 am to 5 pm operations. We would like to see
a system that would allow fishing vessels to confirm the proper operation of their VMS / MTU
units outside of regular office hours of the SAC. One suggestion is that a vessel be able to
contact a representative of the manufacturer of the involved VMS / MTU and to have them
confirm in writing the proper operation of the device. The vessel could then go fishing for that
weekend or holiday period and contact SAC after they open up to confirm that they are
properly receiving the signal from the fishing vessel. Fishing vessels operate every available
day and circumstances are often out of their control that would prevent finalization of a VMS /
MTU during SAC office hours. Differences in time zones among vessel operating hours
further exacerbate this problem.

Failure of VMS unit, § 300.219.c.4.ii
“If the vessel is at sea: The vessel owner, operator, or designee shall contact the SAC by
telephone, facsimile, or email at the earliest opportunity during the SAC’s business hours and
identify the caller and vessel. The vessel operator shall follow the instructions provided by the
SAC, which could include, but are not limited to: ceasing fishing, stowing fishing gear, returning to
port, and/or submitting periodic position reports at specified intervals by other means; and, repair
or replace the VMS unit and ensure it is operable before starting the next trip.”
We expect that SAC management will be reasonable in their directions given to fishing vessels in
the event of a failure of these units. It could easily cost a vessel several $100,000s if it is forced
to return to port to replace or repair a unit during active fishing operations. Equipment can break
down and the vessel should not be unreasonably penalized for an event that is out of its control.
It should also be noted that repair facilities, replacement equipment and technicians are not sitting
waiting at every port for a vessel to come in with a broken VMS. Replacement and repair of this
equipment often takes time to arrange. Vessels can be adequately monitored for at least 30 days
by manual position reporting for reasonable periods of time. Vessels should be allowed to make
necessary changes at the end of a fishing trip. Our purse seiners have for many years been
working closely in cooperating with the FFA on similar issues with virtually no significant problems
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,

Paul Krampe
Executive Director
American Tunaboat Association

3