Apparent in the Preliminary Regulatory Anal ysis document accompanying the NPRM contains analysis that would seem to cl early indicate that the USCG does not believe that the proposed regulations would apply to inla nd towing vessels and barges.

Specifically, on page 37 of that document, the USCG explains:

We have not included the follo wing vessels in the affected population that would incur additional costs from the proposed BWDS based on consultation with the ballast water program personnel and USCG expertise: ...

Vessels less than or equal to 100 ft. Vessels in this size range typically operate in more shelte red environments and do not load and discharge ballast. Their stab ility characteristics generally accommodate the amount and type of cargo they carry, precluding

the need to use ballast wate r as a stability enhancer.

Some towing vessels (tugs towing behind and general). These vessels do not carry cargo and, thus, do not experience drastic changes in draft that would affect their stability characteristics. Therefore, they do not typically lo ad and discharge ballast water.

River vessels. Rivers are usually very sheltered environments having limited wind and wave spect ra. While current conditions play a very large role in sail ing and towing characteristics, ballasting is not generally used to improve these. The operations of the river barge trade make installe d ballast water systems very rare and loading and discharging ball ast water through void tank main deck openings, without installe d piping and pumps, would be a costly and extremely time-consuming evolution.

On page 12 of this analysis the USCG stat es: “Approximately 7,575 vessels from the current vessel population, of which 2,616 are U.S. vessels, would be required to meet the BWDS” – a statistic which would clearly indi cate that the USCG does not belie ve that inland river towboats and barges should, or even would be subject to the new standards.

This USCG preliminary analysis obviously recognizes and agrees with our industry’s ballasting practices. In particular our barg es and towboats simply do not disc harge ballast water. Further, any inland river towboat owned or operated by Mc Ginnis which would carry ballast water would use only potable water when ballasting or they are otherwise expressl y prohibited by company policy from exchanging ballast wate r in different Captain of the Po rt Zones. Unfortunately, the text of the NPRM is not as clear on these point s as the supporting docu mentation, so additional

clarification in the final ru le would be beneficial.

To the extent that the USCG decides to apply th e new standards to inland towboats or barges, the final rule should provide the inland towing industry with sufficient flexibility to comply with the

23 new standards by means other than installing expe nsive treatment systems. Those alternative options should include the use of potable wa ter as ballast or comp any policies expressly prohibiting the exchange of ballast water in different Captain of the Port Zones.

Thank you for kindly consider ing these comments.

Sincerely,

Russell E. Painter Regulatory Affairs Manager

cc: Jennifer Carpenter, AWO