July 8, 2003

Dockets Management Branch (HFA 305)

Food and Drug Administration

5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061

Rockville, MD 20852

Re: Docket No. 02N-0277\
Establishment and Maintenance of Records Under the Public Health
Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002

Dear Sir or Madam:

These comments are submitted on behalf of Matson Navigation Company,
Inc. ("Matson") in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in
Docket No. 02N-0277 published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2003.

Matson is an ocean common carrier that transports cargo, including food
subject to the proposed rule, principally between the U.S. Pacific Coast
and Hawaii. Our customers who ship food include a national supermarket
chain, grocery warehouses, food distributors, produce distributors, and
food freight forwarders. Matson transported about 45,000 freight
containers of food in 2002.

Assumptions that seem to be implicit in the proposed rule are (i) that
the information required to be maintained already exists and (ii) that
because people subject to the rule already have the information (or at
least most of it), and because the rules do not prescribe any particular
format or dictate how the information is to be maintained, the burden of
keeping it and furnishing it only upon request will be slight.

The principal purpose of this comment is to make the FDA aware that
those assumptions are not correct when applied to transporters. With the
exception of hazardous materials shipments, Matson and other
transporters by air, rail, and motor carrier typically do not receive,\
\
\
\
generate, or maintain detailed information about the food cargo being
transported. Food transported by Matson is typically identified only by
the applicable tariff item number and a brief description. The tariff
number establishes the freight rate for the particular commodity. As
examples, our tariff items and descriptions are: 1160 -- Foodstuffs All
Kinds, 2100-Foodstuffs All Kinds; Refrigerated; 2102A - Dairy; and
2076-Meat. The only information Matson has for about 95% of the food we
transport is the tariff number and brief description.

The principal point we want to make is that transporters of food in
enclosed containers \-- including transporters by water, rail, motor
carrier, and air \-- do not receive, generate, or maintain the detailed
information about food shipments that the proposed rules would require.
Any rules based on the premise that transporters already receive or
maintain that information will have been adopted on a mistaken premise.

For Matson, the cost of obtaining and maintaining the specified
information would be considerable. The fields in our computer system
reserved for describing cargo are too small to hold the information
called for by the rule. Matson would have to develop new electronic
processes and systems to capture and store the information.

Matson does not believe that it will be necessary for transporters to
have detailed information about food shipments in order to accomplish
the objectives of the proposed rule. The objectives of the rule will be
met even if transporters do not have detailed information about the
food, so long as transporters do have and maintain information about who
had the food before them and who had the food immediately after them, as
required under proposed Section 1.352(a) (1) and (2). Transporters
already routinely receive and maintain that information.

As noted above, hazardous materials are the only commodities for which
transporters currently capture and maintain detailed cargo information
during transportation. Transporters will agree that it is appropriate
and important to have detailed information about hazardous materials
shipments during transportation. The risks posed by hazardous materials
are inherent in the materials, and those risks can be expected to arise
in the course of transportation. In any transportation accident
involving hazardous materials, it is imperative that emergency
responders know that hazardous materials are present and what the
hazardous materials are.

We view potentially adulterated food as very different in that regard.
The risks posed by potentially adulterated food are not inherent in
every shipment; they will be present only in the rare circumstance that
food has been adulterated. Furthermore, the risks posed by adulterated
food will not arise in the course of transportation. Those risks arise
at the consumption stage, after the food has been transported,
delivered, and unloaded. Therefore, in contrast to hazardous materials,
it is not important for transporters to have detailed information about
potentially adulterated food shipments during transportation. What is
crucial in the case of food is that transporters have the required
information about who had the food before them and who had the food
immediately after them. With that information, the FDA will be able to
trace backwards and forwards to locate the shipper, who will have
detailed information about the contents, and the recipient, who will
know where the contents are.

In order to address the risks posed by potentially adulterated food,
transporters need to (i) be aware that a shipment is food and (ii) have
the specified information about who had the food before them and who had
the food immediately after them. For the most part, transporters already
have that information. Maintaining it will not impose an unreasonable
burden considering the important purposes to be served by the rule.
However, in view of the substantial additional cost for transporters to
comply with the cargo information requirements, in view of what we
perceive as the slight of the degree of risk posed by potentially
adulterated food during transportation, Matson recommends that
transporters be exempted from the information requirements of Section
1.352(a)(3), (4), (5), and (6).

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Very truly yours,\
\
/s/ David L. Hoppes

David L. Hoppes\
Director, Ocean Freight Services