VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION

December 4, 2009

Docket Management Facility U.S. Dep’t of Transportation West Bldg. Ground Floor

Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590

Re: Docket I.D. No.: USCG-2001-10486

Dear Sir or Madam:

E.N. Bisso & Son, Inc. (“E.N. Bisso”) is a Ne w Orleans based, family owned business with more than 100 years of service providing ship-assist using harbor tugs, offshore towing, and offering heavylift derrick services to a world-wi de customer base of ocean-going ve ssels. The crews who operate our 15 vessels have an unpa ralleled commitment to professi onal service focusing upon safety and environmental protection. Although some of our vessels provide services in th e offshore market from time to time, all of our vessels operate primarily upon the Lower Mississippi River and usually within one Captain of the Port Zone. The company is actively committed to ensuring the safe, efficient, secure and environmentally sound operati on of marine commer ce on our waterways.

E.N. Bisso is a member of the American Wate rways Operators and the Offshore Marine Service Association and adopts by referen ce their comments to the docket.

Responsible stewardship for protection of the mari ne environment must be balanced by practicality and expense as measured by a thorough cost/benefit an alysis. Likewise, the Co ast Guard’s effort to establish regulatory standards to minimize the effect of certain living organism s in ballast water should be driven by a meaningful cost/benefit analysis. It appears that in terms of small vessels such as our towing vessels, this was not done. There is no analysis, and hence no evidence, to the assertion that small vessels having only limited ballast water capac ity or those that operate in limited areas but burdened with these proposed rules would provide measurably less probability for the introduction of invasive species.

In our opinion, not one of the th ree proposed methods for complyi ng with the proposed rule is necessary for towing vessels operating in limited lo cal areas such as a singl e Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone as is presently the case in acco rd with 33 C.F.R. § 151.2035 and Navigation and Inspection Circular 07-04, Change 1. Moreover, the proposed regulations do not permit a common

scenario, which is the use of muni cipal fresh water or commercially-tre ated water as ballast in a tank that is kept clean as if it was f illed with potable water. Instead, such water must be treated as if it is infested with harmful living organisms requiring the use of a ballast water management system, 

### E.N. BISSO & SON, INC. HARBOR TUGS – OFFSHORE TOWING – HEAVY LIFT DERRIC K

Corporate Office: 3939 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 401, Metairie, LA 70002 Tel: (504) 828-3296 Fax: (504) 831-6701 Operations Office: Foot of Walnut St., New Or leans, LA 70118 Tel: (504) 861-3551 Fax: (504) 861-1403retaining it or performing a ballast water exchange more than 200 nauti cal miles from shore. This is unjustified.

Equally problematic is the proposed Ballast Water Discharge Standards (BWDS) as outlined in the draft form of 33 C.F.R. § 151.2030. In our opin ion, imposing a duty upon the master of a vessel to use a Ballast Water Management System (BWMS) in accordance with technical standards that are beyond the common comprehension of many mariners is misplaced. That the systems, which are Coast Guard/IMO type-approved, should confirm to thes e standards is not challenged. However, the master’s duty should be to keep the BWMS opera tional in conformance w ith these standards by ensuring that the system in compliance with the type-approval, which failure can be shown by an indicator panel or some other positive and simple means immediat ely obvious to the master. As written, the master could be subject to penalties of $27,500 per day for failure to conform to standards they may not be able to understand the meaning of without specialized bi o-engineering training.

In any event, there appears to be no existing ballast water management systems that will physically fit in the machinery spaces of many of our company’s towing vessels. The expense of such systems, assuming that the footprint can be phys ically accommodated, is prohibitive as measured against the overall value of our typical harbor tug. Thus, both simple economics and common sense militate against an install of a proposed BWMS. Instead, E.N. Bisso proposes that towing vessels engaged solely in domestic trade within a single CO TP Zone be allowed to continue to operate under the present regulations. Such vessels have a de minimus ballast water capacity as compared to the vessels studied as part of the regulatory and economic impact studies that have capacities in excess of 450,000 gallons.

To that end, we offer the following suggested changes ( in bold italics ):

§ 151.2015 (c) should be changed to read:

A vessel that operates excl usively within one Captai n of the Port (COTP) Zone is exempt from the requirements in §§ 151.2025 , 151.2060, and 151.2070 of this subpart.

§ 151.2015 Exemptions must add ( d ) to read:

(d) any domestic towing vessel th at has less than 100,000 gallons or le ss of ballast water capacity is exempt from the requirements of this subpart.

§ 151.2025 Ballast Water Manageme nt Requirements must add (h) to read:

(h) the use of commercially treated or municipal fresh water is permitted to be used as an environmentally sound alternative me thod of ballast water management.

E. N Bisso appreciates the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely yours,

Michael F. Vitt

General Counsel