Vessel Rebuilt Determinations

[[Page 17290]]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 67

[CGD 94-040]

RIN 2115-AE85

Vessel Rebuilt Determinations

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to revise its rules regarding rebuilt

determinations to provide guidelines to clarify the standard for

determining when work on a vessel constitutes a rebuilding of that

vessel. The rebuilt standard has been criticized as too subjective to

provide guidance to vessel owners, who often must make critical

business planning decisions with the outcome of a potential rebuilt

determination by the Coast Guard in mind. The proposed guidelines, if

adopted, would establish clear upper and lower thresholds relevant to

rebuilt determinations and would provide for greater certainty to

vessel owners making business decisions regarding work to be performed

on their vessels.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 5, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine

Safety Council (G-LRA/3406) (CGD 94-040), U.S. Coast Guard

Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, or may

be delivered to room 3406 at the same address between 8 a.m. and 3

p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone

number is (202) 267-1477.

The Executive Secretary maintains the public docket for this

rulemaking. Comments will become part of this docket and will be

available for inspection or copying at room 3406, U.S. Coast Guard

Headquarters, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Laura Burley, Vessel Documentation

and Tonnage Survey Branch; (202) 267-1492.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in

this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments.

Persons submitting comments should include their names and addresses,

identify this rulemaking (CGD 94-040) and the specific section of this

proposal to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each

comment. Please submit two copies of all comments and attachments in an

unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for

copying and electronic filing. Persons wanting acknowledgment of

receipt of comments should enclose stamped, self-addressed postcards or

envelopes.

The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the

comment period. It may change this proposal in view of the comments.

The Coast Guard plans no public hearing. Persons may request a

public hearing by writing to the Marine Safety Council at the address

under ADDRESSES. The request should include the reasons why a hearing

would be beneficial. If it determines that the opportunity for oral

presentations will aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard will hold a

public hearing at a time and place announced by a later notice in the

Federal Register.

Drafting Information: The principal persons involved in drafting

this document are Ms. Laura Burley, Project Manager; Lieutenant

Commander Don M. Wrye, Attorney Advisor, Vessel Documentation and

Tonnage Survey Branch; and Mr. Nicholas Grasselli, Project Counsel,

Office of Chief Counsel.

Background and Purpose

When Congress enacted the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, popularly

referred to as the ``Jones Act,'' it included a provision to provide

for a protected cabotage trade. Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act,

1920 (46 U.S.C. app. 883), generally prohibited the transportation of

merchandise in the coastwise trade except in vessels built in and

documented under the laws of the United States and owned by citizens of

the United States. In 1956, Congress amended Section 27 by enacting

what is known as the ``Second Proviso.'' Under the proviso, as enacted,

a vessel of more than 500 gross tons entitled to engage in the

coastwise trade which is then rebuilt outside the United States

permanently loses the right to engage in the coastwise trade. Further,

the proviso required owners of vessels of more than 500 gross tons

documented in the United States which are rebuilt outside the United

States to make a report of the circumstances of the rebuilding to the

Secretary.

As originally proposed, the proviso contained a definition of

``rebuilt.'' However, the definition was determined to be problematic

and was deleted. The legislative history noted that a ``generally

accepted'' definition of the term as applied to vessels may be found in

the case of United States v. The Grace Meade, 25 F. Cas. 1387 (E.D. Va.

1876) (No. 15,243). That definition is that ``a vessel is considered

rebuilt if any considerable part of the hull of the vessel in its

intact condition, without being broken up, is built upon.'' Further,

the legislative history noted, the definition had been adopted by the

Supreme Court in New Bedford Dry Dock Co. v. Purdy (The Jack-

O'Lantern), 258 U.S. 96 (1922), and had been incorporated into the

regulations of the Bureau of Customs, which then administered the

vessel documentation program, as a regulatory standard.

In 1960, Congress amended the Second Proviso. (Pub. L. 86-583.) The

1960 amendment closed a loophole which permitted foreign-built

midbodies to be towed to the United States and then incorporated into

the domestic rebuilding of an existing vessel in an operation known as

``jumboizing.'' As amended, the Second Proviso provided that a vessel

of more than 500 gross tons eligible to engage in the coastwise trade

which was then rebuilt permanently lost the right to engage in the

coastwise trade unless the ``entire rebuilding, including the

construction of any major components of the hull or superstructure of

the vessel,'' was effected within the United States.

In 1988, the Second Proviso was once again amended to eliminate the

500 gross ton parameter for vessels rebuilt outside the United States.

(Pub. L. 100-239.) Now, any vessel which has acquired the lawful right

to engage in the coastwise trade which is later rebuilt outside the

United States permanently loses coastwise trading privileges.

The Second Proviso is implemented by the Coast Guard primarily by

regulations at 46 CFR Sec. 67.177. The regulatory standard in

Sec. 67.177 states that a vessel is rebuilt when ``any considerable

part of its hull or superstructure is built upon or substantially

altered.'' While the wording of the regulatory standard has remained

stable over the years, the Coast Guard's administration of the standard

has changed.

Prior to September 1989, the Coast Guard evaluated whether work

performed on a vessel constituted a rebuilding under the regulatory

standard by focusing on whether the nature of the work was structural

or nonstructural. In September 1989, the Coast Guard issued a rebuilt

determination for work performed on the vessel Monterey. The Monterey

determination explained that application of the Coast Guard's

regulatory standard involves a two-step process. The first step is to

identify work which involves building upon or [[Page 17291]] alteration

of the hull or superstructure. Once the relevant work has been

identified, the second step is to determine whether that work involves

a considerable part of the hull or superstructure. If it does, then the

vessel has been rebuilt.

As a result of the regulatory requirement, the Coast Guard

frequently receives applications for preliminary determinations whether

work to be performed on a vessel outside the United States would

constitute a rebuilding. In support of an application for a preliminary

rebuilt determination, the applicant will generally enclose extensive

documentation addressing the character and scope of the work to be

performed including plans, drawings, contracts, work orders, and

materials lists. The applicant then attempts to show that the work will

not build upon or ``substantially'' alter ``any considerable part'' of

the vessel's hull or superstructure. Often, comparisons are made

between the before and after area of the hull and superstructure; the

weight of steel to be replaced or added to the vessel's total

steelweight; or the cost of the planned work to the overall value of

the vessel.

Sometimes, the vessel representative does not submit an application

for a rebuilt determination or any supporting documentation until after

the work is performed. While this approach is permissible, it assumes

the risk that the Coast Guard may determine that the vessel has been

rebuilt, with the disastrous consequence of loss of trading

entitlements. In other cases, the work actually done on the vessel

differs from or exceeds the planned work, with possible adverse effects

on the final determination. In any event, following completion of the

work, if the quantum of work involved raises a reasonable belief that

the vessel has been rebuilt, the vessel representative must apply for a

final rebuilt determination. Because of the wording of the standard and

the unique nature of each vessel, every rebuilt determination is

evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Because the regulatory standard contains a number of undefined

terms which could be problematic, the Coast Guard decided to seek

public input on the advisability of engaging in a rulemaking. Two

public meetings were held, both preceded by a notice in the Federal

Register. The first meeting was on November 16, 1993 (58 FR 51298), and

the second on February 15, 1994 (59 FR 725). The stated purpose of the

public meetings was to obtain public input concerning whether the Coast

Guard should undertake rulemaking to develop clearer standards for

vessel rebuilt determinations, whether a negotiated rulemaking

procedure would be appropriate, and to discuss problems encountered

under existing procedures and possible solutions.

On May 10, 1994, the Coast Guard published a policy statement in

the Federal Register (CGD 93-063; 59 FR 24060) announcing that it was

planning to undertake rulemaking regarding vessel rebuilt

determinations. Also, the policy statement concluded that, based on a

review of its rebuilt determinations since the Monterey determination,

work performed on a vessel which involved five percent or less of the

vessel's steelweight has never been determined to constitute a

rebuilding.

Discussion of Proposed Rules

The Coast Guard proposes to revise 46 CFR 67.177 regarding vessel

rebuilt determinations. Section 67.177 would first restate the existing

standard that a vessel is rebuilt ``when any considerable part of its

hull or superstructure is built upon or substantially altered.''

Application of that standard would remain essentially a two-step

process.

The standard, by its terms, encompasses only work which involves

building upon or substantial alteration of a considerable part of the

hull or superstructure of the vessel. Therefore, the first step in

applying the standard must be to identify hull and superstructure work

as distinguished from other work on the vessel. Once the relevant work

has been identified, the second step in applying the standard is to

determine whether that work results in a ``considerable part'' of the

hull or superstructure being built upon or substantially altered. If it

does, the vessel will be deemed to have been rebuilt.

To identify work constituting building upon or a substantial

alteration of the hull or superstructure of a vessel, the hull and

superstructure must be defined. Both terms are defined in 46 CFR 67.3.

The hull is the shell, or outer casing, and internal structure below

the main deck which provide both the flotation envelope and structural

integrity of the vessel in its normal operations. The superstructure

includes the main deck and any other structural part of the vessel

above the main deck. Parts of the hull or superstructure include the

shell plating, keel, decks, supporting bulkheads, beams, frames,

girders, stringers, and other structural items.

On the other hand, the delivery, installation aboard the vessel,

and modification or overhaul of inventory, equipment, furnishings, and

stores are not included as parts of the hull or superstructure. Such

inventory, equipment, furnishings, and stores include: Office inventory

and equipment; medical stores and equipment; charts and flags;

navigation and signaling equipment; portable VHS radio sets and

rechargers; radio equipment; automatic telephone system; office

amplifiers and loudspeakers; public address system; spare parts;

mooring lines, towing lines, and manually operated rope storage wheels;

lifeboats and liferafts; lifesaving equipment; firefighting equipment;

CO2 systems; workshop tools and equipment; galley, pantry, and bar

equipment; plates, crockery, cutlery, and glassware; games, gambling

tables, and entertainment equipment; musical instruments; jacuzzis;

print shop, photo laboratory and projector room equipment; bedding;

table linens; window curtains; baggage handling equipment; steel

storage shelves; deck furniture; cabin pictures and works of art; and

furnishings for crew cabins, messes, recreation rooms, passenger

cabins, lounges, public spaces, and service rooms.

Also, the installation and modification or overhaul of machinery,

including foundations, that could be removed without affecting the

structural integrity of the vessel are not included as part of the hull

or superstructure. Among items of this type are: anchor windlass;

steering machinery; bow thruster (the bow thruster tunnel must be

constructed in the United States); elevator machinery; water systems

evaporators and pumps; ventilation and air conditioning system units,

motors, and compressors; garbage disposal system incinerator and

compactor; steam turbine alternators, transformers, and electric

motors; oily bilge separator; and sludge discharge pump.

Finally, many items involved in outfitting and maintaining the

vessel that could be performed without affecting the structural and

watertight integrity of the vessel are also not included as parts of

the hull or superstructure. Among items of this type are: installation

of windows and portholes; installation of partitions for interior

spaces; installation of interior stairs (stairway trunks constructed in

the United States); renewal of exterior stairways; renewal of handrails

on passenger decks; installation of glass panes; repairs of exterior

non-watertight steel doors; renewal of exterior fire hose lockers;

overhaul of existing side gates, portholes, or watertight doors;

cleaning and painting of the chain locker; sandblasting and painting of

anchor chain; reinstallation of radar masts and modification of radar

foundations; [[Page 17292]] overhaul of sound-powered telephone system;

installation of new navigation consoles; extension of general and fire

alarm system; installation of heat detectors; installation of new

lifeboat davits or the reinstallation of repaired lifeboat davits and

winches; installation of life-jacket lockers; installation or

modification of interior spaces such as cabins, lounges, and restrooms;

sandblasting, painting, or coating of decks; general sandblasting and

painting; renewal of drain pipes and gratings; installation of

scuppers; installation and extension of piping systems; installation of

insulation, linings, ceiling panels, floor coverings, and interior

doors; installation of prefabricated bathroom modules; installation of

signs, funnel marks, and name plates; overhaul of external cathodic

protection system; installation of electrical distribution and lighting

systems; and installation and overhaul of electrical cables.

To determine whether any ``considerable part'' of the hull or

superstructure, as defined, has been built upon or altered, the

relevant work must be viewed in relation to the hull or superstructure

of the vessel as a whole. Generally, the weight of the material

involved in the relevant work is compared to the steelweight of the

vessel as a whole. In cases where steelweights are not readily

determined, as for work on a wooden or fiberglass vessel for example,

the surface area of the relevant work is compared to the surface area

of the vessel as a whole and, to the maximum extent practicable, a

comparable steelweight is determined for the work performed and for the

vessel as a whole. The term ``steelweight'' is generically used in the

proposed rule relative to the construction material of the vessel.

Paragraph (a) of proposed Sec. 67.177 would address the statutory

provision that a vessel, regardless of its material of construction, is

deemed rebuilt when a major component of the hull or superstructure not

built in the United States is added to the vessel.

Paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 67.177 would establish numerical

parameters for rebuilt determinations for vessels of which the hull and

superstructure are constructed of steel or aluminum. A vessel would be

deemed rebuilt if the relevant work performed constitutes more than 10

percent of the vessel's steelweight. Thus, 10 percent of the vessel's

steelweight would be set as the upper parameter, beyond which a

rebuilding would occur in every case.

A vessel may or may not be deemed rebuilt if the relevant work

performed constitutes more than 5 percent but not more than 10 percent

of the vessel's steelweight. In this case, the vessel owner bears the

burden to demonstrate that the nature of the work performed, its scope

in relation to the vessel as a whole, its cost as compared to the cost

of the vessel, or other such factors, justify a conclusion that the

vessel has not been rebuilt.

A vessel would not be considered rebuilt if the relevant work

performed constitutes 5 percent or less of the vessel's steelweight.

Thus, 5 percent of the vessel's steelweight would be set as the lower

parameter, at or below which a rebuilding would be deemed to not have

occurred in any case.

Paragraph (c) of proposed Sec. 67.177 would establish numerical

parameters for rebuilt determinations for vessels of which the hull and

superstructure are constructed of a material other than steel or

aluminum. The numerical parameters would be the same as those used in

paragraph (b). However, for the parameters to work for vessels of which

the hull and superstructure are constructed of a material other than

steel or aluminum, the concept of comparability is introduced.

The comparability concept requires that the applicant for a rebuilt

determination evaluate the vessel and, based on its overall size,

class, configuration, or other such factors, calculate to the maximum

extent practicable what the steelweight of the vessel as a whole would

be if it were constructed of steel or aluminum. The applicant would

also be required to evaluate the quantum of work performed on the

vessel and, based on its scope, area or square footage of sideshell,

decks, or bulkheads involved compared to the area or square footage of

similar surfaces on the entire vessel, or other such factors, calculate

to the maximum extent practicable what the steelweight of the work

performed would be if the material used was steel or aluminum. The

Coast Guard particularly solicits comment from vessel owners,

shipyards, repair facilities, and other interested parties concerning

the feasibility and practicality of the comparability concept.

Vessels of mixed construction, for example, a vessel the hull of

which is constructed of steel or aluminum and the superstructure of

which is constructed of fiberglass, would be addressed by paragraph (d)

of proposed Sec. 67.177. The applicant for a rebuilt determination

would, using the comparability concept, calculate to the maximum extent

practicable the total steelweight of the vessel and the steelweight of

the work performed on the non-steel/aluminum portion of the vessel. The

comparable steelweight of the work performed on the non-steel/aluminum

portion of the vessel would then be aggregated with the work performed

on the portion of the vessel constructed of steel or aluminum. The same

numerical parameters used in paragraph (b) would then be applied to the

aggregate of the work performed on the vessel to determine whether the

vessel had been rebuilt.

Pursuant to paragraph (e) of proposed Sec. 67.177, an application

for a rebuilt determination, where required, would have to be filed

within 30 days following completion of the work or redelivery of the

vessel, whichever occurs first. An application for a rebuilt

determination would be required if the work was performed outside of

the United States and it is determined to constitute or be comparable

to more than 5 percent of the vessel's steelweight, or if a major

component of the hull or superstructure which was not built in the

United States was added to the vessel. In addition, paragraph (e) would

state the items required to be submitted with an application for a

rebuilt determination. Generally, these materials consist of a

statement applying for the determination, a detailed statement of the

work performed and naming the place or places where the work was

performed, applicable steelweight calculations, sketches or blueprints

of the work performed, and any other material the Coast Guard may

request in support of the determination.

Paragraph (f) of proposed Sec. 67.177 would provide an alternative

under which a vessel owner may submit a written statement to the

Commandant declaring a vessel rebuilt outside the United States. By

using this alternative, the owner who intends to forgo the restricted

trading privileges may avoid submitting the detailed materials required

for a rebuilt determination. A note would be added at the end of the

proposed section explaining that a statement submitted in accordance

with paragraph (f) does not constitute an application for a rebuilt

determination and, therefore, does not require payment of a fee.

Lastly, the materials required to be submitted for a preliminary

rebuilt determination would be specified in paragraph (g) of proposed

Sec. 67.177. Generally, these materials consist of a statement applying

for the preliminary determination, a detailed statement of the work to

be performed and naming the place or places where the work is to be

performed, projected applicable steelweight calculations, sketches or

[[Page 17293]] blueprints of the planned work, and any other material

the Coast Guard may request in support of the preliminary

determination.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposal is not a significant regulatory action under section

3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of

potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It

has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that

order. However, it is considered significant under the regulatory

policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44

FR 11040; February 26, 1979) due to the interests expressed by a

segment of the maritime industry and the Canadian Government. The Coast

Guard expects the economic impact of this proposal to be so minimal

that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory

policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This proposal would, if

adopted, merely clarify existing policies and practices followed in

evaluating rebuilt determinations. As such, the proposed changes would

be administrative in nature and provide better guidance to vessel

owners planning for work to be performed on their vessels. In fact, by

providing clearer guidance, the proposal, if adopted, would help vessel

owners to avoid costs associated with an unexpected, and unintended,

determination that their vessel has been rebuilt.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the

Coast Guard must consider whether this proposal, if adopted, will have

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities. ``Small entities'' may include (1) small businesses and not-

for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and

are not dominant in their fields and (2) governmental jurisdictions

with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposal to be

minimal because this proposal would, if adopted, merely clarify

existing policies and practices followed in evaluating rebuilt

determinations. As such, the proposed changes would be administrative

in nature and would provide better guidance to vessel owners planning

for work to be performed on their vessel. Because it expects the impact

of this proposal to be minimal, the Coast Guard certifies under 5

U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposal, if adopted, will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Collection of Information

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews each proposed rule that

contains a collection-of-information requirement to determine whether

the practical value of the information is worth the burden imposed by

its collection. Collection-of-information requirements include

reporting, recordkeeping, notification, and other similar requirements.

This proposal contains collection-of-information requirements in 46

CFR Sec. 67.177. However, these collection-of-information requirements

are the same as those contained in the existing regulations which have

been previously approved by OMB and assigned Control No. 2115-0110.

This proposal would add no new or additional collection-of-information

requirements. The proposed changes, if adopted, may even reduce

paperwork submissions by providing sufficiently clear guidance that

many of the applications for preliminary rebuilt determinations may

become unnecessary.

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposal under the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that

this proposal does not have sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this

proposal and concluded that, under paragraph 2.B.2 of Commandant

Instruction M16475.lB, this proposal is categorically excluded from

further environmental documentation. This proposal has been determined

to be categorically excluded because the changes proposed are

administrative in nature and clearly have no environmental impact. A

``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is available in the docket for

inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 67

Fees, Incorporation by reference, Vessels.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes

to amend 46 CFR part 67 as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 14 U.S.C. 664; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 9118; 46

U.S.C. 2103, 2107, 2110; 46 U.S.C. app. 841a, 876; 49 CFR 1.46.

2. Section 67.177 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 67.177 Application for rebuilt determination.

A vessel is rebuilt when any considerable part of its hull or

superstructure is built upon or substantially altered. In determining

whether a vessel is rebuilt, the following parameters apply.

(a) Regardless of its material of construction, a vessel is deemed

rebuilt when a major component of the hull or superstructure not built

in the United States is added to the vessel.

(b) For a vessel of which the hull and superstructure is

constructed of steel or aluminum--

(1) A vessel is deemed rebuilt when work performed on its hull or

superstructure constitutes more than 10 percent of the vessel's

steelweight.

(2) A vessel may be considered rebuilt when work performed on its

hull or superstructure constitutes more than 5 percent but not more

than 10 percent of the vessel's steelweight.

(3) A vessel is not considered rebuilt when work performed on its

hull or superstructure constitutes 5 percent or less of the vessel's

steelweight.

(c) For a vessel of which the hull and superstructure is

constructed of material other than steel or aluminum--

(1) A vessel is deemed rebuilt when work performed on its hull or

superstructure constitutes a quantum of work determined, to the maximum

extent practicable, to be comparable to more than 10 percent of the

vessel's steelweight, calculated as if the vessel was wholly

constructed of steel or aluminum.

(2) A vessel may be considered rebuilt when work performed on its

hull or superstructure constitutes a quantum of work determined, to the

maximum extent practicable, to be comparable to more than 5 percent but

not more than 10 percent of the vessel's steelweight, calculated as if

the vessel was wholly constructed of steel or aluminum.

(3) A vessel is not considered rebuilt when work performed on its

hull or superstructure constitutes a quantum of work determined, to the

maximum extent practicable, to be comparable to 5 percent or less of

the vessel's steelweight, calculated as if the vessel was wholly

constructed of steel or aluminum.

(d) For a vessel of mixed construction, such as a vessel the hull

of which is constructed of steel or aluminum and the superstructure of

which is [[Page 17294]] constructed of fibrous reinforced plastic, the

steelweight of the work performed on the portion of the vessel

constructed of a material other than steel or aluminum will be

determined, to the maximum extent practicable, and aggregated with the

work performed on the portion of the vessel constructed of steel or

aluminum. The numerical parameters described in paragraph (b) of this

section will then be applied to the aggregate of the work performed on

the vessel compared to the vessel's steelweight, calculated as if the

vessel was wholly constructed of steel or aluminum, to determine

whether the vessel has been rebuilt.

(e) The owner of a vessel currently entitled to coastwise, Great

Lakes, or fisheries endorsements which is altered outside the United

States and the work performed is determined to constitute or be

comparable to more than 5 percent of the vessel's steelweight, or which

has a major component of the hull or superstructure not built in the

United States added, must file the following information with the

Commandant within 30 days following the earlier of completion of the

work or redelivery of the vessel to the owner or owner's

representative:

(1) A written statement applying for a rebuilt determination,

outlining in detail the work performed and naming the place(s) where

the work was performed;

(2) Calculations showing the actual or comparable steelweight of

the work performed on the vessel, the actual or comparable steelweight

of the vessel, and comparing the actual or comparable steelweight of

the work performed to the actual or comparable steelweight of the

vessel;

(3) Accurate sketches or blueprints describing the work performed;

and

(4) Any further submissions requested by the Commandant.

(f) Regardless of the extent of actual work performed, the owner of

a vessel currently entitled to coastwise, Great Lakes, or fisheries

endorsements may, as an alternative to filing the items listed in

paragraph (e) of this section, submit a written statement to the

Commandant declaring the vessel rebuilt outside the United States. The

vessel will then be deemed to have been rebuilt outside the United

States with loss of trading privileges.

(g) A vessel owner may apply for a preliminary rebuilt

determination by submitting:

(1) A written statement applying for a preliminary rebuilt

determination, outlining in detail the work planned and naming the

place(s) where the work is to be performed;

(2) Calculations showing the actual or comparable steelweight of

work to be performed on the vessel, the actual or comparable

steelweight of the vessel, and comparing the actual or comparable

steelweight of the planned work to the actual or comparable steelweight

of the vessel;

(3) Accurate sketches or blueprints describing the planned work;

and

(4) Any further submissions requested by the Commandant.

Note: A statement submitted in accordance with paragraph (f) of

this section does not constitute an application for a rebuilt

determination and does not require payment of a fee.

Dated: October 21, 1994.

J. C. Card,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Marine Safety,

Security and Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 95-8386 Filed 4-4-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-14-P