1610 St. Etienne Road ● Broussard, LA 70518 ● Phone (337) 857-6178 ● Fax (337) 857-5910

Friday, December 04, 2009 

Docket Management Facility (M-30) 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 

Washington, DC 20590-0001 

RE: Standards for Living Organisms in Ships’ Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters; Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (USCG–2001–10486) 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

 

Cal Dive International owns and operates thirty-three self propelled vessels and barges engaged in marine 

construction and diving activities, the majority of which are operated domestically in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. 

We employ over two-hundred, fifty U.S. mariners aboard these vessels and are a member of the Offshore 

Marine Service Association (OMSA). We have worked with OMSA in developing comments related to the 

offshore marine industry and support their comments on the subject NPRM. Please accept our comments as 

follows: 

I. APPLICABILITY 

Issue: There is conflicting information in the NPRM as to exactly which vessels this will apply. 

o On page 35, under “Applicability”, it states that this rule would apply to all vessels discharging 

ballast water into U.S. waters. 

o On page 50 of the proposed rule, “Ballast water management requirement”, it appears that the 

Coast Guard gives vessel operators one of three options for managing their ballast water and not 

necessarily having to install a BWMS. 

Applicability: Vessels Not Included as Part of the Affected Population

Issue: On page 37 of the Preliminary Regulatory Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the 

NPRM, the Coast Guard states that they have not included vessels less than or equal to 100 feet, some 

towing vessels and crew boats as vessels that would incur additional costs for the BWMS. This is because 

these vessels either do not carry cargo or ballast water. 

Comment: The way that the current NPRM is written, these vessels above would have to install BWMS, 

regardless of the fact that the Coast Guard has stated that they do not carry ballast water. The companies 

that operate these vessels will still need to spend extreme amounts of money to install systems that they do 

not need. 
Page 2 of 4

Applicability: Coastwise Oil Tankers Exempt from Installing BWMS

Issue: On page 35, the Coast Guard states that “crude oil tankers engaged in coastwise trade” are exempt 

from having to install and operate BWMS, without any supplementing explanation. 

Comment: It is not fully explained why oil tankers operating in coastwise trade are exempt and not any 

other type of coastwise vessel. We urge the Coast Guard to make all vessels engaged in coastwise trade 

exempt from this rule. 

Comment: Applicability is confusing and it needs to be specifically defined and be consistent throughout 

the NPRM. 

II. GEOGRAPHIC CONCERNS FOR COASTWISE VESSELS 

Issue: The Coast Guard states that this would not apply to vessels that travel within one COTP Zone. 

Comment: The majority of our vessels have been operating in accordance with NVIC 07-04, CH 1 - Ballast 

Water Management for the Control of Aquatic Nuisance Species in the Waters of the U.S. 

This NVIC defines ballast water and outlines a few exemptions. 

Ballast Water as defined under 33 CFR 151.1504, means “any water and suspended matter taken on 

board a vessel to control or maintain trim, draft, stability, or stress of the vessel, regardless of how it is 

carried......Water taken into ballast tanks from commercial or municipal fresh water sources is also not 

considered ballast water for the purpose of these rules. Vessels which operate exclusively with permanent 

ballast water and/or water from commercial or municipal sources in ballast tanks are not subject to the 

requirements of 33 CFR parts C and D.” 

Vessels that operate exclusively within one COTP Zone

Issue: In NVIC 07-04, CH 1 it states that vessels that operate within a single COTP zone do not have to 

submit BWM reports. However, it also states that, “Vessels that operate in more than one COTP Zone, but 

conduct all ballast operations (ballast uptake and discharge) exclusively in one COTP zone, regardless of 

the number of voyages the vessel makes, are also not required to report or maintain BWM records.”

Comment: We contend that because this distinction was recognized and addressed as a specific 

operational characteristic in the reporting requirements, it should be carried forward in this rulemaking as 

well. It is unrealistic to expect coastwise vessels to install BWMS, if they stay within the Gulf of Mexico, 

irrespective of which COTP Zone they operate in. It is also unnecessary to require vessels to install BWMS 

if they have been operating under NVIC 07-04, CH 1 with regards to carrying municipal water only and/or 

take on municipal water in one COTP zone/dock. 

III. NUMBER OF U.S. VESSELS AFFECTED BY RULE UNDERESTIMATED 

Issue: The Coast Guard estimates that approximately 2,616 U.S. vessels will be affected by this rule and 

have to install BWMS. The Coast Guard gets these numbers from their Marine Information for Safety and 
Page 3 of 4

Law Enforcement (MISLE) system and Ballast Water Reporting Forms for 2007 submitted to the National 

Ballast Information Clearinghouse (NBIC). 

Comment: We submit that the Coast Guard’s estimated number of U.S. vessels affected is too low. There 

are approximately 1,200 vessels in the OMSA membership, with an overwhelming majority of those vessels 

who are not required to report to the NBIC because they are granted exemption under NVIC 07-04, CH 1 

and operate in one COTP Zone. Therefore, these 1,200 vessels may be unaccounted for in the Coast 

Guard’s U.S. vessel estimate and the Coast Guard needs to reevaluate the number of U.S. vessels that 

could be impacted by this rule. 

IV. DIVE SUPPORT VESSEL OPERATIONS 

As standard operation aboard our vessels, municipal water is the only type taken into ballast tanks for 

several reasons including: 

o The benefits of reduced corrosive effects on tank coatings and structural members of municipal 

water versus salt water 

o Consumption of the water onboard while the vessel is on location 

o Due to our proximity to land, normal sea state operating window and the fact that we are not 

carrying or discharging cargo, ballasting for the stability purposes is not required. Municipal water 

may be shifted between ballast tanks to adjust trim, but seawater is never taken on as ballast water. 

V. ENORMOUS FINANCIAL BURDEN 

To date, the only systems we have been able to locate exceed $500,000. This does not include installation; 

additional material costs for piping, valves, etc. This well exceeds Coast Guard’s estimates in their 

economic analysis. The total cost to procure and implement one of these systems in several cases with our 

smaller vessels exceeds the Net Book Value of the vessel itself. 

Annual operating costs are estimated between $25,000 and $75,000 depending on the type of unit 

installed. The average yearly maintenance costs of our vessel range from $60,000 to $800,000 per year. 

One can well appreciate that in several cases, the implementation of these systems potentially may 

increase the annual maintenance costs by as much as 40% and by 10% at best. 

By our research findings, the cost implications of this rulemaking are grossly underestimated in the 

economic analysis. If companies are forced to pay for the BWMS, those costs may be passed to the 

customer to compensate. If the cost of business increases, employee pay/day rates decreases and vessel 

operators may not be able to keep mariners. Additionally, these costs may be so crippling, that companies 

may be forced to fold entirely and go out of business. 

We highly recommend Coast Guard reevaluate the economic impact of this rulemaking on small vessel 

operators. 

Small Entities

On page 45 of the NPRM, the Coast Guard states: 
Page 4 of 4

“The term ‘small entities’ comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of 

less than 50,000. Based on available data, we determined that about 57% of the businesses affected are 

small by Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards. We discovered that these businesses 

operate almost entirely in coastwise trade and are not involved with larger scale trans-ocean shipping.” 

Herein the distinction is again drawn between “coastwise trade” and “larger scale trans-ocean shipping”. 

We highly encourage Coast Guard to focus on this distinction. 

VI. ISSUES WITH INSTALLATION OF TREATMENT SYSTEMS

Availability of BWMS vs. Meeting Compliance Deadline of 2014

Issue: During the Coast Guard’s public meeting in New Orleans on September 30th, 2009, one of the 

personnel from HQ stated that the manufacturers in the U.S. are currently not fully operational and will not 

be operating/building the BWMS until the Final Rule is published. 

Comment: Taking into account the number of vessels that would be required to install these systems, it is 

unrealistic to presume that all vessels can find an approved system, have it installed, tested, reviewed and 

approved by the Coast Guard by the 2014 – 2016 deadlines. 

Where Would the BWMS Be Installed?

As the size of our vessels is limited, the space available in which to install this equipment is limited as well. 

In many instances on our smaller vessels, there is virtually no space available in which to install these 

units, based on the physical size of the equipment we have found to date. We encourage Coast Guard to 

wait until further development and increased availability of approved systems. 

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important rulemaking. 

Sincerely, 

Cal Dive International, Inc. 

Steven J. Bellingham 

General Manager 

Marine Management