Portions of 33 CFR Subchapter N, Parts 140 thru 147;

46 CFR Subchapter I-A, Parts 107 (Subpart C, Plan Approval, §107.301 thru §107.317 only) and 108 (Design and Equipment);
46 CFR Subchapter F;
46 CFR Subchapter J; and
46 CFR Subchapter S (Parts relating to 'general' stability requirements and MODUs)

Specific applicability statements within each Subchapter must be reviewed to ensure the regulations listed will apply.

Published 05Sep2018.

Subchapter I-A: 33 CFR 143.120(c) > 46 CFR 107 Subpart C; 33 CFR 143.120(b) > 46 CFR 108
Subchapter F: 33 CFR 143.120(b) > 46 CFR Subchapter F
Subchapter J: 33 CFR 143.120(b) > 46 CFR Subchapter J
Subchapter S: 33 CFR 143.120(b) > 46 CFR 108.301 > 46 CFR Subchapter S

Published 05Sep2018.

Yes. While the required contents of the MOM are detailed under 46 CFR 109.121, the manual is required under 46 CFR 107.305(ii). The 'path' to the MOM is 33 CFR 143.120(a) > 46 CFR 107.305(ii). §107.305(ii) refers out to §109.121 as a way not to print the same requirements in two separate Parts of the CFR.

The following comment summary from 47 FR 9373 (04Mar1982) attests to the intent of how 46 CFR 107 Subpart C applies to FOFs. While the context of the comments are related to stability, the Coast Guard explains that all plans applicable to the facility are listed in Subpart C. This includes the MOM with the path that is explained above.

4(b) "Two comments suggested that stability plans be submitted for Coast Guard approval, in addition to the arrangement and construction plans called for in §143.120(a). Because it is the intention of the Coast Guard that all plans applicable to the facility that are listed in Subpart C of Part 107 be submitted and because Subpart C already lists stability plans, it is not necessary to refer to stability plans in this paragraph. Paragraph (a) has been revised to make it clear that all plans listed in Subpart C that relate to the facility to be constructed are to be submitted for Coast Guard approval."

Published 05Sep2018.

Short answer: Yes, ECA applies, however no certificate is needed (further discussion follows).

Why the ECA applies: Offshore platforms within the North American or U.S. Caribbean Sea ECAs must comply with MARPOL Annex VI but they are not required to have certificates because they do not engage "in voyages to waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of other Parties".

33 U.S.C. 1902(a) provides additional clarity on what ships⁽¹⁾ must comply with MARPOL Annex VI when in the waters of the USA, and specifically includes the ECAs.

While FOFs may not be flagged, neither MARPOL nor 33 U.S.C. limits the applicability to a vessel flying a specific flag.

Article 5(4) of MARPOL 73 states: "With respect to the ship of non-Parties to the Convention, Parties shall apply the requirements of the present Convention as may be necessary to ensure that no more favorable treatment is given to such ships." Similarly, 33 U.S.C. 1902(5)(D) states: "to any other ship, to the extent that, and in the same manner as, such ship may be boarded by the Secretary to implement or enforce any other law of the United States".

⁽¹⁾ 33 U.S.C. 1901 defines ships as: (12) ''ship'' means a vessel of any type whatsoever, including hydrofoils, air-cushion vehicles, submersibles, floating craft whether self propelled or not, and fixed or floating platforms.

How compliance is achieved: CG-543 Policy Letter 09-01 was written before the U.S. ECA was adopted and CVC Policy Letter 12-04 (superseded by CVC Work Instruction CVC-WI-022(1)) recognized ECA, but did not directly address the OCS. With that said, an inspector should consider a certificate of inspection as proof of compliance until such time that the policy is updated or more specific guidance is provided. There is a checklist entitled "U.S. inspected ships that do not engage in voyages to ports or offshore terminals", in the back of Policy Letter 09-01. This checklist can be referenced for general guidance, but does not include the provisions of Reg 3.3.1 of Annex VI exempting emissions from sea bed mineral activities. CG-543 Policy Letter 09-01 paragraph 3.c also states: "U.S. inspected ships that do not engage in voyages to ports or offshore terminals under the jurisdiction of other Parties to Annex VI need not hold a valid IAPP Certificate and will not be issued an Annex VI endorsement on its COI. As Annex VI requirements under this guidance are incorporated into the certification process, issuance of a COI is evidence of Annex VI compliance".

Ultimately the operator is responsible for complying with ECA requirements.

Published 05Sep2018; updated referenced cites 01Jul2022.

 All of 33 CFR Part 153, and portions of Parts 151 and 155 are applicable, while 33 CFR Parts 154, 156, 157, 158 and 159 are NOT applicable to FOFs.

The following definitions and linked charts will further explain how the answers were reached. The linked charts for Parts 151 and 155 denote the applicability of sections within those parts.

33 CFR 151 – Vessels Carrying Oil, Noxious Liquid Substances, Garbage, Municipal or Commercial Waste, and Ballast Water (view the 33 CFR 151 Applicability Chart for FOFs by clicking here):

• §151.03 (applicability) states that this subpart applies to each ship that must comply with MARPOL Annex I, II or V.
• §151.05 defines a ship as "a vessel of any type whatsoever, operating in the marine environment. This includes hydrofoils, aircushion vehicles, submersibles, floating craft whether self-propelled or not, and fixed or floating drilling rigs and other platforms". [emphasis added]
• §151.05 defines fixed or floating drilling rigs and other platforms as "a fixed or floating structure located at sea which is engaged in the exploration, exploitation, or associated offshore processing of sea-bed mineral resources".
• §151.05 further defines oceangoing ship as a ship that:
     (1) Is operated under the authority of the United States and engages in international voyages;
     (2) Is operated under the authority of the United States and is certificated for ocean service;
     (3) Is operated under the authority of the United States and is certificated for coastwise service beyond three miles from land;
     (4) Is operated under the authority of the United States and operates at any time seaward of the outermost boundary of the territorial sea of the United States as defined in §2.22 of this chapter; or
     (5) Is operated under the authority of a country other than the United States.

FOFs would fall under (4) of the definition for an oceangoing ship, in addition to the definitions of ship and fixed or floating drilling rigs and other platforms.

33 CFR 155 – Oil or Hazardous Material Pollution Prevention Regulations for Vessels (view the 33 CFR 155 Applicability Chart for FOFs by clicking here):

• §155.100 (applicability) states that "subject to the exceptions provided for in paragraph (b) and (c) of this section, this part applies to each ship that:
     (1) is operated under the authority of the United States, wherever located; or
     (2) is operated under the authority of a country other than the United States while in the navigable waters of the United States, or while at a port or terminal under the jurisdiction of the United States."
• §155.110 discloses "except as specifically stated in a section, the definitions in part 151 of this chapter, except for the word “oil”, and in part 154 of this chapter, apply to this part".

Also see the definitions previously discussed, and found under §151.05, for ship and fixed or floating drilling rigs and other platforms that apply to Part 155.

Published 17Apr2019; links to cites added 01Jul2022.

The USCG regulations applicable to cranes on FOFs are referenced from 33 CFR 143.120(a) & (b) and are summarized in the following table:

The following cites are NOT required by USCG regulations for FOFs:

§107.258 (Crane certification),
§107.259 (Crane inspection and testing),
§107.260 (Rated load test for cranes),
§109.437 (Crane record book),
§109.439 (Crane certificates), and
§109 Subpart F (Cranes; general operations/maintenance, working loads and operator designation).

While the italicized cites above are not applicable via USCG regulatory requirements, they do provide guidelines that would contribute to increased safety surrounding crane inspection, maintenance, testing and operations. We highly encourage operator’s to voluntarily comply with the criteria listed in these non-applicable cites or with a newer edition of API’s Recommended Practice for Operation and Maintenance of Offshore Cranes (RP 2D). Please note that various aspects of these non-applicable USCG regulations may also be addressed by an operator’s SEMS plan under BSEE regulations.

CFR excerpts for reference:

§143.120(a) Before construction is started on a proposed floating OCS facility, the owner or operator of the facility must submit to the Coast Guard for approval all plans and information listed in subpart C of 46 CFR part 107 which relate to the facility. All plans and information must be submitted according to the procedures in that subpart. [emphasis added]

§143.120(b) The facility must comply with the requirements of subchapters F (Marine Engineering) and J (Electrical Engineering) of 46 CFR chapter I and 46 CFR part 108 (Design and Equipment). Where unusual design or equipment needs make compliance impracticable, alternative proposals that provide an equivalent level of safety may be accepted. These requirements do not apply to production systems on the facility. [emphasis added]

46 CFR 107.309 Crane Plans and Information
(a) Three copies of each of the following must be submitted:
   (1) Stress and arrangement diagrams, bill of materials, and supporting calculations for all structural components listed in API Spec. 2C, Second Edition, February 1972 (with supplement 2). [emphasis added]
   (2) Drawings of foundations and substructures with supporting calculations for support and stability of each crane under its rated load.
   (3) Plans showing the installation of the safety features required in §108.601.
   (4) Drawings of the means provided to stop motion and set brakes during a power failure.
Note to §107.309(a)(4): These plans must be submitted to the Coast Guard, if the crane is not certified. If the crane is to be certified, four copies must be sent to the American Bureau of Shipping or the International Cargo Gear Bureau, Inc.
(b) In addition to the plans and information required in paragraph (a), the following plans and information must be submitted to the Coast Guard only:
   (1) One line diagrams of the electrical power circuits of the electric power crane overload protection required in Subpart 111.50 of this chapter.
   (2) Diagrams of the hydraulic or pneumatic power and control systems, as required by Subpart 58.30-40 or 58.30-50 of this chapter, as applicable.

46 CFR 108.601 Crane Design
(a) Each crane and crane foundation on a unit must be designed in accordance with the American Petroleum Institute Specification for Offshore Cranes, API Spec. 2C, Second Edition, February, 1972 (with supplement 2). [emphasis added]
(b) In addition to the design requirements of paragraph (a), each crane must have the following:
   (1) Each control marked to show its function.
   (2) Instruments with built-in lighting.
   (3) Fuel tank fills and overflows that do not run onto the engine exhaust.
   (4) No gasoline engines.
   (5) Spark arrestors fitted on engine exhaust pipes.

Published 16Mar2021.

Yes. The District Eight OCS Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (D8 OCS OCMI) and representatives from Coast Guard Headquarters offices (Office of Operating and Environmental Standards (CG-OES), Office of Commercial Vessel Compliance (CG-CVC) and Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing (CG-MMC)) and the Outer Continental Shelf National Center of Expertise (OCSNCOE) answered a series of thirty-three questions posed by the Offshore Operators Committee (OOC) and their members in regards to these two policies and related CG actions.

The questions were answered via telephone/video conference hosted by OOC to their members on March 24, 2022. Those questions and answers are posted in the CG-OES Policy Letter 01-22 and CG-MMC Policy Letter 01-22 section of this FAQ page below.

Published 13Apr2022.

The CG has historically 'required' lifeboatmen on the vessel Certificates of Inspection (COI) that were previously issued to floating OCS facilities (FOFs). Recent policies (see CG-OES Policy Letter 01-22 and CG-MMC Policy Letter 01-22) have changed CG direction to align with applicable regulations. As such, the CG will not stipulate manning requirements, including lifeboatmen, on the FOF Certificate of Inspection Letter issued to FOFs that are determined not to be vessels.

The following guidance was previously used to determine the number of required lifeboatmen (included here for historical reference only):

Although not legally binding, COMDTINST 16000.76 (Marine Safety: OCS Activities that replaced Marine Safety Manual (MSM) Volume II Section G) 4.L.2.a (pg G4-20) refers lifeboatmen for FOFs back to 46 CFR 109.323. See the discussion for the same FAQ under MODUs (U.S. requirements near the bottom) for an explanation on the required number of lifeboatmen, compared to the number and capacity of the lifeboats. MSM Volume III/B.2.O.3 references back to MSM II/G (COMDTINST 16000.76) 4.L for FOF manning.

The guidance for FOFs and intent of requirements related to MODUs (used to shape FOF guidance) are aimed at providing lifeboatmen for the boats needed to accommodate evacuation of the persons onboard (100% capacity), not for providing lifeboatmen coverage for the redundant boats.

Published 01Jun2019; revised 13Apr2022 to align with 2022 FOF policies and applicable regulations.

A portable accommodation module (PAM) is considered any non-integral, enclosed space installed on a floating OCS facility and occupied by personnel for berthing, recreational, service, or industrial purposes. Examples include sleeping cabins, offices, hospitals, recreational spaces, dining spaces, lavatories, galleys, laundries, laboratories, workshops, wireline units, mudlogger rooms, ROV control rooms, dive control rooms, and any other similar spaces¹. The cognizant OCMI is responsible for making determinations on whether or not a module is considered a PAM.

¹ CG-ENG Policy Letter 01-16, Portable Accommodation Module Guidance, is the reference for this FAQ and contains detailed information to guide industry, authorized classification societies, and CG inspectors through the process, ranging from design and construction of the module to approval and installation.

Published 09Dec2020.

Short Answer: The cognizant OCMI approves PAM installations, but only after certain considerations have been satisfied per CG-ENG Policy Letter 01-16, Portable Accommodation Module Guidance. Some of these considerations are best satisfied prior to, and during, the PAM construction. PAMs that address these concerns during construction may affix data placards indicating Coast Guard approval.

Discussion: The PAM approval process, in total, begins with the approval of the module itself.

It is crucial to understand that installing a PAM, no matter the PAM size, is a modification and must comply with the same requirements as a permanent modification (plan approval, construction oversight, inspection, etc.). Policy Letter 01-16 provides a means for builders and operators of PAMs to streamline the inspection process by separating the pre-installation plan review from the installation plan review.

Modules approved under Policy Letter 01-16 are constructed using the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) Guide for Portable Accommodations Modules (May 2014) or, if approved by the Marine Safety Center (MSC), an equivalent, alternative standard. Each approved module has a unique data plate and corresponding MISLE (Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement) activity attesting to its construction oversight. See Policy Letter 01-16 Enclosure 3 for detailed guidance on the construction process and standards.

Once the module has been approved and certified for use, and before installation, the operator must submit an application for inspection to the cognizant OCMI stating the purpose, general arrangement, and intended period for which the module will be on the facility. Additionally, the OCMI shall ensure the engineering plans detailing the installation have been submitted to MSC. Engineering plans, distinctly separate from module construction plans, include, but are not limited to, items such as installation location and deck strength analysis and must have MSC approval before installation.

To remove a PAM, the operator must submit an application for inspection to the cognizant OCMI, stating the removal of the PAM and intention to return to "pre" PAM configuration. See Policy Letter 01-16 paragraph 5.c.vi for additional considerations.

It is incumbent upon OCMIs to engage with the installation and removal of PAMs, regardless of how "routine" it may seem to the operator or inspector.

NOTE: This FAQ addresses "new" and not "existing" PAMs. See Policy Letter 01-16 Enclosure 3 for guidance on existing PAMs.

Published 09Dec2020.

Short answer: Once every 12 consecutive months.

Discussion: All elements of the EEP must be exercised through a drill or series of drills on an annual basis.

33 CFR 146.125(c)(1): "At least once a year, all the elements of the Emergency Evacuation Plan (EEP) under §146.140 relating to the evacuation of personnel from the facility must be exercised through a drill or a series of drills. The drill(s) must exercise all of the means and procedures listed in the EEP for each circumstance and condition described in the EEP under §146.140(d)(9)."

The wording is for a "year", rather than a "calendar year", and should be interpreted to mean a 12 consecutive month period. The EEP drill requirements were not part of the proposed rule (24Dec1987), but were added in the final rule (18May1989) as a response to industry comments as published at 54 FR 21568 where it was described as "annually":

"Four comments stated that the EEP regulations should contain a requirement for periodic evacuation drills. The comments stated that periodic interactive drills that test and exercise all the key elements of the EEP are needed to verify that the plan continues to be viable.
The Coast Guard agrees that the periodic drills are necessary to ensure that all personnel are familiar with the EEP. Therefore, a new § 146.125(c) has been added to require that abbreviated EEP drills be held monthly and that a comprehensive drill exercising all elements of the EEP be conducted annually. Also, a new § 146.140(e)(3) has been added to require the operator to ensure that the drills are conducted."

While some USCG operational regulations are specifically worded as a 12-month period, the majority of the types of USCG regulations are categorized as annual or "once in each year" and are treated as a consecutive 12-month period for compliance purposes. A once per "calendar year" requirement could give an extended window of time that would be outside of the intent of periodic training. As an example, a drill in Jan2019 followed by the next drill in Dec2020 could satisfy a once per calendar year requirement, but would clearly exceed the intent of annual, or once a year, training with nearly 24-months passing between drills.

Published 07Oct2021.

Short answer: Elements are the components that make up the EEP and yes, the annual drill includes "all" equipment that is listed in the EEP.

Discussion: The phrase "all elements of the Emergency Evacuation Plan" as listed in the emergency drill requirements has often been questioned as to what it really means. Let’s take a look…

33 CFR 146.125(c)(1): "At least once a year, all the elements of the Emergency Evacuation Plan (EEP) under §146.140 relating to the evacuation of personnel from the facility must be exercised through a drill or a series of drills. The drill(s) must exercise all of the means and procedures listed in the EEP for each circumstance and condition described in the EEP under §146.140(d)(9)." [emphasis added]

The term "element" was added to the regulation with the final rule (published 18Mar1989) by the USCG in an effort to address industry comments to the proposed rule (published 24Dec1987).

Please note that the first sentence in the cite states "elements of the EEP under §146.140 relating to the evacuation of personnel from the facility". The requirements of the EEP relating to personnel evacuation are detailed in §146.140(d)(9) through (12) and include recognized circumstances that would place the facility or its personnel in jeopardy and for which a mass evacuation would be recommended. Fires, blowouts, approaching hurricanes and ice floes are specifically mentioned as examples of circumstances that would recommend an evacuation and collisions are another circumstance that is often included in typical EEPs that would initiate an evacuation.

The second sentence in the referenced cite states that "the drill(s) must exercise all of the means and procedures listed in the EEP for each circumstance" [emphasis added] to further stipulate what is required to satisfy the drill requirement.

Means and procedures are listed at §146.140(d)(12) as those for:

1. retrieving persons from the water during an evacuation;
2. transferring persons from the facility to the designated type of evacuation method (e.g. designated standby vessels, lifeboats or other evacuation craft);
3. retrieving persons from the evacuation craft that they were transferred to in the previous requirement; and
4. the ultimate evacuation of all persons to land, another facility or other location reasonably out of danger for the specific circumstance for the evacuation.

The District Eight OCS OCMI (responsible for the OCS activities on the U.S. OCS in the Gulf of Mexico) has interpreted §146.125(c)(1) "to mean that all lifeboats aboard a facility, shall, at a minimum, be launched with assigned lifeboat crew in order to fulfill the requirements of the annual emergency evacuation drill" in section 5, paragraph a, of D8(OCS) Policy Letter 01-2020, dated 19May2020. The policy letter goes on to discuss alternatives to this requirement in paragraphs 5.d through 5.f.

In the context of lifeboats/capsules, some have questioned if there is a need to test "all" of the boats for units or facilities with multiple boats, or if demonstrating the means and procedures with one, or a sampling of boats, would satisfy the intent. Note that the referenced cite states "all of the means and procedures" and the D8 OCS OCMI has reiterated this in Policy Letter 01-2020.

Also note that while the focus tends to be on lifeboats with this annual requirement, the cite requires exercise of all of the means and procedures for each circumstance that are stipulated in the EEP.

Published 07Oct2021.

Short answer:
Fixed OCS Facilities and FOFs are required to demonstrate OSFR and MODUs are required to carry a COFR for a tank vessel or a non-tank vessel based on its operation.

Discussion:
The requirements for an OSFR are found in 30 CFR 553 and the requirements for a COFR are found in 33 CFR 138.

This is based on 30 CFR 553.10:
(a) This part applies to any COF [Covered offshore facility] on any lease or permit issued or on any RUE [Right-of-use and easement] granted under the OCSLA or applicable State law.
(b) For a pipeline COF that extends onto land, this part applies to that portion of the pipeline lying seaward of the first accessible flow shut-off device on land.

Covered Offshore Facility (COF) in 30 CFR 553.3 means a facility:
(1) That includes any structure and all its components (including wells completed at the structure and the associated pipelines), equipment, pipeline or device (other than a vessel or other than a pipeline or deepwater port licensed under the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)) used for exploring for, drilling for, or producing oil or for transporting oil from such facilities. This includes a well drilled from a mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) and the associated riser and well control equipment from the moment a drill shaft or other device first touches the seabed for purposes of exploring for, drilling for, or producing oil but it does not include the MODU; and…,

33 CFR 138.20(b) states:
For the purposes of applying the evidence of financial responsibility required under OPA 90 and this subpart and the limits of liability set forth in subpart B of this part, and in addition to any OPA 90 offshore facility evidence of financial responsibility requirements that may apply under 30 CFR part 553, a mobile offshore drilling unit is treated as -
   (1) A tank vessel when it is being used as an offshore facility; and
   (2) A vessel other than a tank vessel when it is not being used as an offshore facility.

33 CFR 138.230(d) states:
Offshore facilities. The OPA 90 limit of liability or offshore facilities other than deepwater ports, including for any offshore pipelines, is set forth at 30 CFR 553.702.

Published 08Oct2020; cites updated 01Jul2022 to reflect 01Dec2021 amendments to 33 CFR Part 138.

Short answer:
FOFs that have been determined not to be vessels by the OCMI are not subject to the COFR requirements of 33 CFR Part 138.

Discussion:
The question of whether a COFR applies to an FOF during the "tow-out" of the FOF from the quayside facility/construction yard to the installation location on the OCS has been a longstanding question. The Coast Guard revisited this question with internal discussions between the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC), Headquarters and District Eight legal offices, District Eight OCS OCMI staff and the OCSNCOE during February of 2023.

Research and discussion affirmed that the COFR requirements imposed by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), 33 U.S.C. 2701-2761, and 33 CFR Part 138 that implements COFR requirements apply to vessels. Therefore, if an FOF is determined not to be a vessel, as evidenced by the issuance of a non-vessel determination letter in accordance with CG-OES Policy Letter 01-22, the requirements of 33 CFR Part 138 do not apply to these facilities during the tow-out phase of their construction and installation.

Note that the definitions in 33 U.S.C. 2701 and 33 CFR Part 138.220 are specific in regard to "vessels" and types of facilities and are essential to the applicability of a COFR. These definitions differ from more inclusive definitions of "ship" (i.e., vessel) in 33 CFR Subchapter O and MARPOL.

This non-applicability only applies to the USCG's COFR regulations and requirements if the facility is determined to be a non-vessel. The OSFR is a separate coverage found in BOEM regulations at 30 CFR 553 and provides financial responsibilities associated with the lease and lease-related operations.

NPFC issues a COFR to vessels in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 2716(a) and the regulations that implement the statute. OCS facilities (i.e., offshore facilities) have their own set of requirements under 33 U.S.C. 2716(c).

If an FOF is determined to be a vessel, a COFR would apply and a further determination of the correct limit of liability would need to be considered. This would be in addition to any OSFR requirements for OCS facilities that are determined to be vessels.

Published 14Mar2023.

Short Answer: Yes.

Discussion:

Note: This answer is based on conventional incandescent-type light assemblies. Manufacturer’s instructions should be consulted for LED lanterns or retrofits to ensure compliance with advertised/intended characteristics and range.

Part 1: Leveling

The "ridges" of the Fresnel lens found on obstruction lights serve a very important purpose. These ridges condense the light to the center of the lens and send out a type of light beam to meet the required range. The range or visible distance for offshore structures depends on the structure classification and are summarized as follows (see 33 CFR 67.01-15 for requirements/information related to the classification of structures):

Class "A" structure - visible distance of at least 5 nautical miles (33 CFR 67.20-5).
Class "B" structure - visible distance of at least 3 nautical miles (33 CFR 67.25-5(a)).
Class "C" structure - visible distance of at least 1 nautical mile (33 CFR 67.30-5(a)).

If the light is not level the focal plane will either be above or below the vessel. Either condition could reduce the required range, resulting in non-compliance with regulations and not meeting charted characteristics. See the graphical depiction below.

The leveling of the lantern can be checked via the built-in bubble levels of some lanterns or with the method displayed below (utilized by U.S. Coast Guard short-range aids to navigation technicians).

Part 2: Focusing

There is another issue, especially on larger lights, that has to do with the “focus” of the light. For the light to be in focus, the lamp needs to be lined up with the center of the Fresnel lens. To check this, there are sighting marks (an "O" and "X" pair or two "X" pair) marked at 180° increments on the outside of the lens. When looking through the "O" to the "X" on the opposite side (180°) of the lens, the lamp should fall between the two sighting marks with the sighting marks aligned. The most common issue with the focus on certain model lights is when the bracket for the lamp changer mounts is installed upside down, which moves the lamp out of the focal plane of the lens.

The graphic below illustrates how to verify that a lantern is properly focused.

Published 19Apr2021.

In accordance with 33 CFR 67.10-10, sound signals required on Class "A", "B" or "C" structures have to be operated continuously, unless the sound signal can be controlled:

1. By an attendant on the structure;
2. Remotely by an attendant on a nearby structure; or
3. By a fog detection device that is capable of activating the sound signal when the visibility in any direction is reduced to the range required for the facility.

Note that the "attendant" referenced in options 1 and 2 above are intended to be personnel that are able to regularly monitor local conditions and activate the sound signal when conditions diminish to the point that the signal is required. The mere presence of personnel on the facility does not satisfy attendant requirements. The following examples should aid in the explanation:

1. If all personnel are asleep (i.e., no personnel are on tour/duty/watch), local conditions are not being monitored and the sound signal should be in operation.
2. Facilities with personnel awake/on tour throughout the course of a 24-hour day would easily be able to monitor visibility conditions and activate the sound signal when needed.

At any time visibility conditions diminish and the sound signal is not active, the facility is out of compliance with regulatory requirements and is a risk to both navigation of vessels in the area and their crew and to the crew on the facility.

Sound signals have to be operated in regards to visibility as follows:
Class "A" structure – when the visibility in any direction is less than 5 miles; and
Class "B" and "C" structures – when the visibility in any direction is less than 3 miles (unless the District Commander prescribes a greater or lesser distance, not to exceed 5 miles).

Published 28Apr2021.

The sound signal must:

• Sound a 2-second blast every 20 seconds (2 seconds of sound and 18 seconds of silence) (33 CFR 67.10-1(b));
• Be Coast Guard approved (33 CFR 67.10-1(f));
• Be audible over 360° in a horizontal plane for the required range (33 CFR 67.10-5(a)); and
• Be located at least 10 feet but not more than 150 feet above mean water level (33 CFR 67.10-5(b)).

Additional requirements, such as design and markings, are listed at 33 CFR 67.10-1.

Required ranges are as follows:
Class "A" structure – range of at least 2 miles
(unless the U.S. Coast Guard District Commander waives requirements due to the proximity to other structures);
Class "B" structure – at least one-half mile
(unless the District Commander increases the range due to proximity to navigational areas or waives/relaxes requirements due to the proximity to other structures or shoal areas); and
Class "C" structure – at least one-half mile
(for structures located near navigational areas and deemed necessary for safety of marine commerce by the District Commander)

Occasionally, sound signals are relocated (often relocated to a higher deck to minimize damages due to wave action, storm surge and/or sea spray) without taking into account equipment or structures that will reduce the effective range in the direction(s) of the obstruction(s). The graphic below demonstrates this example:

Large facilities, or facilities with known obstructions that impede the effectiveness of the sound signal to reach required range in all directions, will often install two sound signals on opposite sides of the facility and synchronize them to sound in unison. For these synchronized systems, the applicable general requirements, characteristics and ranges should still be met.

Please remember to contact the Private Aids to Navigation (PATON) Section at your respective U.S. Coast Guard District prior to equipment changes. CG-4143 application approval is required prior to all changes.
District Eight (Gulf of Mexico OCS facilities) – Email:  D8oanPATON@uscg.mil

Published 28Apr2021.

D8 OCS OCMI anticipates issuance of all FOF COI letters prior to the end of April 2022.

Supplemental D8 OCS OCMI actions related to issuance of the FOF COI letters:

D8(m) Policy Letter 03-2000 (CH-1), “Policy on Manning of Non-Self Propelled Floating Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Facilities” will also need to be cancelled. This policy references the licenses that will no longer be issued per CG-MMC Policy Letter 01-22. In order to cancel that D8 policy, D8 OCS OCMI anticipates issuing a new policy regarding training for offshore workers on FOFs and indicating how CG marine inspectors will verify that they are able to perform their duties and functions under the Emergency Evacuation Plan (EEP). Before signing these policies, the intent is to socialize them with OOC, BSEE, and certain CG offices for comment and recommendations. Once this policy is issued, FOF COI letters and non-vessel determination letters will be sent to operators.

Published 13Apr2022.

No. D8 OCS OCMI will initiate the FOF determination letter for all non-vessel FOFs. It has already been determined which FOFs are non-vessels. The only production facilities that will remain deemed to be vessels are Turritella, BW Pioneer, and Helix Producer I, as these are foreign vessels and will no longer be considered FOFs per the 33 CFR 140.10 definition.

​Published 13Apr2022.

Theoretically this could happen, but it is not likely.

Similar to a permanently moored craft, a vessel determination is based on objective evidence viewed through the lens of a reasonable observer. SCOTUS prescribed criteria determine whether a unit is a considered a vessel. To be deemed a vessel a unit must be practically – not merely theoretically – capable of "conveying things or persons from one place to another." Furthermore, the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit’s has directly asserted that TLPs, and Semi-Submersible FOFs are not vessels.

Important note: The context of the vessel/non-vessel determination for FOFs is for the application of regulations within 33 CFR Subchapter N and those referenced from 33 CFR 143.120 (i.e., inspection activities). MARPOL and/or applicable U.S. pollution regulations in 33 CFR Subchapter O use a different definition of “ship” that will typically include a non-vessel FOF. See the definitions and applicability for the respective pollution cites separately from those related to inspection activities regulated under 33 CFR Subchapter N.

Published 13Apr2022.

As noted in CG-MMC Policy Letter 01-22, the CG will continue to renew endorsements that are restricted to FOFs (FOIs). Original endorsements restricted to FOFs (FOIs) will not be issued after this date.

Personnel that wish to renew their non-restricted endorsements may have their time on non-vessel FOFs counted as “closely related service” in accordance with the provisions of 46 CFR 10.227.

Published 13Apr2022.

No. The COI letter will be issued for perpetuity and will remain valid as long the unit remains in compliance with applicable design and equipment specifications. It will not include an expiration date.

Note: The letter may be reissued if conditions change on the facility that warrant the issuance of a revised letter (e.g. changes to lifesaving capacity or other equipment specified on the letter).

Published 13Apr2022.

Yes, the CG will continue to conduct inspections at least once per year. 43 U.S.C. § 1348 mandates a “scheduled onsite inspection, at least once a year... [on] each [OCS] facility in addition to a “periodic onsite inspection without advance notice to the operator.”

Given they are yearly inspections, the 90+/- day dictates of 46 U.S.C. do not apply. Accordingly, the intent is to adopt an inspection schedule that ensures yearly attendance at each FOF with revolving unannounced inspections.

Operators do not need to request an inspection, but may propose dates if they would like to do so.

The scope and means of the inspection will be determined by the OCMI on a case-by-case basis. D8 OCS Division intends to continue refining the risk-based approach to inform frequency and scope of inspections, and intend to revise the D8 policy letter on risk-based inspections in the future.

Published 13Apr2022.

Yes, D8 OCS OCMI intent is to discontinue the use of the CG-835V to document deficiencies on FOFs. Neither OCSLA nor 33 Subchapter N specify the form and method of documenting of noncompliance. The record of attendance will be annotated to document inspection findings. We are exploring options for how to thoroughly document deficiencies in more detail than the space allotted on the Record of USCG Attendance. It will likely be in the form of a letter to the operator, and perhaps to BSEE if appropriate.

Note: CG-CVC, D8 OCS Division and the OCSNCOE are in continued internal discussions related to the deficiency documentation method that will aid in tracking and analyzing deficiency trends.

Published 13Apr2022.

No. Given the COI letter will be issued for perpetuity, short-term deviations will be addressed via separate documentation (e.g. EEP supplement, separate letter, etc.) on a case-by-case basis. POB limitations will be governed primarily by widely separated primary lifesaving capacity.

Hydrocarbon presence will no longer be used as a singular determinative factor for adjusting POB limitations when requested (e.g. during "turnaround" maintenance periods). The cessation of hydrocarbon production could be one consideration, but is not the sole factor to consider and other risk factors and/or mitigations proposed by operators will also be considered.

Published 13Apr2022.

Each level of the organization can initiate policies and changes to policies within their purview. Several D8 policies are already being looked at for revision (e.g. Risk Based Methodology, Manning, Structural Integrity Management, Post-Hurricane Inspection Requirements, etc.).

Published 13Apr2022.

Yes. The intent is to cancel D8(m) Policy Letter 03-2000 (CH-1) and replace it with a policy that addresses competency assurance via performance assessment (i.e., training-focused) versus prescriptive licensing.

Published 13Apr2022.

Yes. The intent is to replace D8(ocs) Policy Letter 02-16 with a policy that speaks to post-construction structural inspections. COIs will no longer prescribe dry-dock requirements or dictate dry-dock alternatives. COMDTINST 16000.76 requirements for a periodic dry-dock exams, or related alternatives, will no longer be enforced as they lack regulatory backing. COMDTINST 16000.76 is under review for revision.

ISIP and SIM cannot be enforced, but operators will still have to prove that they are maintaining the structural integrity of a floating OCS facility to the CG. This will give the operator some flexibility in how they demonstrate how they maintain structural integrity for CG purposes.

Published 13Apr2022.

Yes. This is another policy that is slated for review, taking into account existing duplicative BSEE reporting requirements. Any damage to equipment within the CG's purview should still be reported to the CG during operators' post-hurricane inspections.

Published 13Apr2022.

Yes, D8 OCS OCMI Policy Letter 03-16 is marked for review and revision. Input from industry is welcomed in order to help the CG allocate limited resources to the areas of highest risk.

Published 13Apr2022.

No revisions to the Marine Operating Manual are anticipated to be necessary as a result of these policy changes. The CG is currently reviewing the applicability/intent of the Marine Operating Manual as it would pertain to a floating OCS facility. Input is welcomed from industry to ensure that applicable regulations are properly applied.

Published 13Apr2022.

The primary method of internal instruction and guidance to marine inspectors is through Mission Management System (MMS) work instructions. Additional training on changing policies and procedures can also be facilitated by the OCSNCOE.

Published 13Apr2022.

33 CFR 143.120 design and equipment, as well as the provisions for alternatives, substitutions and exemptions still apply and there are currently no plans to deviate. §143.120 allows the application of the vessel regulations of the incorporated/referenced vessel subchapters.

The OCSNCOE has developed an analysis of 46 CFR Subchapters F and J for FOFs, as well as how the individual sections have been historically applied. While the first phase of realigning FOF policies with existing regulations have focused on COI, manning and ISIP, a proposed portion of the next phase would be to take a closer look at clarifying how/what in the child subchapters apply to FOFs.

Published 13Apr2022.

The intent is to provide D8 policy updates that state that ISIP "requirements" will no longer be enforced. CG-CVC is currently revising guidance that is intended to allow the operator flexibility in how to demonstrate structural integrity requirements as previously discussed for Question 11.

Published 13Apr2022.

This question would need to be referred to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Published 13Apr2022.

Although in current CG policy under COMDTINST 16000.76, a QH letter may no longer be necessary with the changes related to the new FOF COI, but may be considered on a case-by-case basis if specifically requested by an operator.

Published 13Apr2022.

The new construction plan submittal process has not changed. CG-ENG Policy Letter 01-13 continues to provide useful guidance regarding alternate design and equipment standards for FOFs. Although they primarily apply to U.S. flag vessel construction projects, the concepts of NVIC 10-82 and NVIC 10-92 have also been applied to oversight of FOF construction projects at the request of several operators and may continue to be considered.

Published 13Apr2022.

CG-OES Policy Letter 01-22 and CG-MMC Policy Letter 01-22 were issued to provide guidance and clarity to the field and to industry, as a result of Supreme Court rulings as well as other regulatory and legal interpretations. A rulemaking was not necessary to implement these changes, as the changes bring the CG into alignment with the language in current laws and regulations.

Published 13Apr2022.

Yes, the certificate will no longer be required unless an individual chooses to renew their credential. The medical certificate is required as part of the credential renewal process.

Published 13Apr2022.

User fees specified in 46 CFR Subpart 2.10 are not applicable to non-vessel FOFs.

Published 13Apr2022.

Please see the existing financial responsibility FAQ at https://www.dco.uscg.mil/OCSNCOE/FAQ/General/ or https://www.dco.uscg.mil/OCSNCOE/FOF/FAQs/. Coverage requirements during the tow-out/construction phase of a new facility will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Published 13Apr2022.

As previously stated, the parent cite of 33 CFR 143.120 invokes the "child" cites mentioned in the question. That being said, the CG stakeholders in management of OCS activities and FOFs do realize the need to develop clarity when an invoked cite seems to pertain to a specific vessel-related requirement that may not fit or address the design of a floating OCS facility.

Published 13Apr2022.

The CG recommends that MARAD is contacted directly to ensure that the circumstance/scenario is appropriately answered.

Published 13Apr2022.

Yes. As previously stated in the answer to Question 10, the intent is to cancel D8(m) Policy Letter 03-2000 (CH-1) and replace it with a policy that is intended to address how an operator assures competence of key personnel and how the CG may verify the same.

Voluntarily holding/renewing a merchant mariner credential could be accepted as a way to demonstrate competence in a specific position (e.g. lifeboatmen, ballast control operator), but a performance evaluation (i.e., drill) could be used to ascertain competency at more of an operational level.

Published 13Apr2022.

Continued discussion with BSEE may shape policy revisions, interagency coordination and applicable oversight, but the interagency discussion on this particular matter has just begun.

Published 13Apr2022.

The CG works with BSEE frequently. There is no definitive answer on MOA revisions, but the CG is currently working with BSEE to identify which MOAs need to be updated and the path forward for the respective updates.

Published 13Apr2022.

Yes, but with a caveat. Certain 46 CFR Part 16 requirements would apply to personnel that retain a merchant mariner credential and for renewal purposes of that credential.

If an individual chooses to retain his or her MMC, that individual is responsible to meet the regulations for renewal of their credential. This includes the requirement found in 46 CFR 10.227(d)(5), which requires that the applicant provides evidence of passing a chemical test for dangerous drugs or of a qualifying exemption from testing in accordance with §16.220. The exemption allowed by §16.220(c) requires evidence that an applicant has passed chemical testing per §16.220(c)(1) covering an annual period or evidence that the applicant is subject to a random testing program per §16.220(c)(2).

Published 13Apr2022.

The CG’s longstanding policy has been, to the extent possible, not to remove authority from mariners that have been issued a credential. The policy has also been developed to account for the possibility of FOFs that are determined to be a vessels as well as the time associated with COI/manning changes associated with non-vessel FOFs.

Published 13Apr2022.

Service on a non-vessel FOF may be considered as "closely related service" to count towards credential renewals. Renewing a credential with closely related service is found in 46 CFR 10.227(e)(1)(iv).

For the first MMC renewal following the issuance of CG-MMC Policy Letter 01-22, applicants may meet the requirements of 46 CFR 10.227(e)(1) with twelve (12) months of service on a non-vessel FOF (46 CFR 10.227(e)(1)(i)). Subsequent renewals will revert to the three (3) years of closely related service for FOI/FOF-specific endorsements due to the implementation of the new policy.

The March 7, 2022 date in paragraph 5.a of CG-MMC Policy Letter 01-22 specifies the date on which the Coast Guard will no longer issue original MMC officer endorsements that are restricted to service on specific types of FOFs (FOIs).

Published 13Apr2022.

CG marine inspectors will likely require drills during an inspection as a way to evaluate/verify crew ability perform their assigned duties. Drills under 33 CFR Part 146 are still applicable.

Published 13Apr2022.