[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17289-17294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8386]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[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