Comment from Tim Malley

Dear Mr. Rogers: I am writing in response to NOAA request for comments on proposed rulemaking reference 0648-AX63. My comments will specifically address only swordfish importing data collection, but I suspect these comments can be extrapolated across the spectrum of HMS (Highly Migratory Species). This proposed rule will address the US government’s intention to collect information electronically through ITDS (International trade Data System). NOAA’s expressed hope is that in doing so, “the ACE Portal will reduce the public reporting burden” and “reduce the agency’s data collection costs…” While the latter may very well be true, it is our fear that it will be very much at the cost of the “reporting public”, specifically companies such as our own. The fact is that the reporting burden on us already exponentially exceeds the estimates currently provided by the PWRA (Paperwork Reduction Act) as footnoted on the Bi-weekly Dealer Report (BWDR). We believe the misperception derives from a lack of understanding of the nature and the volume of the transactions that need to be reported in this format. At considerable effort and expense, and through protracted negotiations with the agencies involved, we were able to devise a way to extract the needed data from our resident commercial software application and insert it into an acceptable format (basically mimicking the “spreadsheet” format provided by NMFS). Had we been unable to do this, we would have had to hire a full-time clerical person to comply with the need to fill in the 13 data fields’ times the hundreds of individual fish sold daily. As currently structured, this form is then mailed to the NMFS agency in Pascagoula, Mississippi. If the required method for transmitting this data becomes “electronic” only, it is unlikely that we will be able to “upload” our data into whatever the eventual “portal” configuration might be. If the BWDR is not part of this proposed rulemaking we may not have an issue with the proposed rule. We continue to have concerns about the effort required to comply with this reporting, and concerns with the evenhandedness with which compliance is being enforced (both concerns have been expressed and are on record from hearings held by HMS in Gloucester last year), but these issues do not If the impact of the proposed rule is limited to documents required for entry into the US (again, the issue for the purpose of my comments are limited to swordfish imports to the US) we still have grave concerns. These concerns were also expressed in the Gloucester hearings and are on the record but need to be emphatically restated as they apply to the proposed rule. The requirement that any swordfish being imported into the US be accompanied by a Swordfish Statistical Document (SSD) is reasonable; the implied goal of being able to deny entry to fish landed in contravention of ICCAT treaties, specifically by IUU, (illegal, unregulated and unreported) vessels is one which we wholeheartedly support. However, as explained to Mark Murray-Brown and others at the Gloucester hearings, as a practical matter some ICCAT member countries have had difficulty producing these documents in the time frame required. This is especially true with South Africa, where the location if the government agencies responsible for producing these documents are often great distances from the port of offloading. The documents frequently lag behind the actual shipment, often by several days. In all countries it is necessary to have officials from the relevant agency affix stamps and signatures to these documents; I wonder how electronic filing will address these factors. We have stressed to our shippers in South Africa (and elsewhere) the importance of getting up to speed in this regard. We will continue to press them on this, but the fact of the matter is that if these procedures are forced through an ACE portal too soon, we could lose a valuable source of product that is critical to commerce. Regards, Tim Malley, CEO Boston Sword and Tuna, Inc.