One issue that appears to have been resolved is whether the Jones Act would apply to the repositioning of FPSOs. In a September 27, 2000 letter, the Customs Services indicated that the Jones Act does not apply to the repositioning of an FPSO with no oil onboard or to the emergency repositioning of an FPSO that is returned to the same site. Unresolved issues include the following.

• FPSO Double-Hull Requirement —As hinted by the EIS, the necessity for a double hull remains an open issue. In the MOU, the Coast Guard indicated that it considers an FPSO to be a "vessel" under the statutory definition because the stored oil is "cargo." As a tank vessel, an FPSO would therefore fall within the OPA '90 rubric. However, since FPSOs will not transport the oil, it is not necessarily clear that the oil constitutes "cargo" and whether OPA '90 applies.

• Use of Articulated Tug-Barges (ATBs) As Shuttle Tankers—The use of ATBs as shuttle tankers has been a running controversy. A number of commentators questioned whether appropriate standards are in place for a 500,000 barrel ATB. The Coast Guard provided a non-committal response. It indicated in a December 18, 2000 letter attached to the EIS that it continues to evaluate the appropriate regulatory regime to apply to ATBs and their appropriateness as shuttle tankers. The Coast Guard currently regulates ATBs as specialized Integrated Tug Barges (ITBs). In its letter, the Coast Guard indicated that "adjustments are possible" in the regulatory regime with respect to design, construction, and operation of ATBs, as well as with respect to manning.

• FPSO Manning—The EIS assumes, without analysis, that an FPSO will have eight marine operations personnel as well as nine "swing" personnel with marine skills in a overall crew of about 40 persons. The Coast Guard has not issued definitive guidance on this issue, which depends in part on whether the FPSO is in fact a "vessel." In any event, there is room for argument given the significant variation in Coast Guard work hour and watch requirements among various types of vessels.

• Oil Spill Response—Application of the OPA '90 requirement for an oil spill response plan flows from the presumption that the FPSO is a vessel. This issue remains unresolved.
• Necessity of an Attendant Vessel - In its December 18 letter, the Coast Guard noted that it does not currently require the presence of an attendant vessel during offshore lightering operations, but left open the issue of whether or not it would require such a vessel during FPSO offloading operations.

• Use of State Licensed Pilots—Several commentators expressed a preference for the use of state licensed pilots to assist shuttle tankers. The Coast Guard, in its December 18 letter, noted that the vessels are exempt from state pilot requirements, but require the use of federally licensed pilots.

BACK
HOME