[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 226 (Friday, November 24, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58025-58032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28052]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 58026]]
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs
22 CFR Part 89
[Public Notice 2283]
Foreign Prohibitions on Longshore Work by U.S. Nationals
agency: Department of State.
action: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
summary: In accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act of
1952, the Department of State is issuing a proposed rule updating the
list, of longshore work by particular activity, of countries where
performance of such a particular activity by crewmembers aboard United
States vessels is prohibited by law, regulation, or in practice in the
country.
dates: Interested parties are invited to submit comments in triplicate
by December 26, 1995.
addresses: Comments may be mailed to the Office of Maritime and Land
Transport (EB/TRA/MA), Room 5828, Department of State, Washington, DC
20520-5816.
for further information contact: Richard T. Miller, Office of Maritime
and Land Transport, Department of State, (202) 647-6961.
supplementary information: Section 258(d) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. 1288, as amended by the Immigration
Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-649, directs the Secretary of State
(hereinafter the Secretary) to compile and annually maintain a list, of
longshore work by particular activity, of countries where performance
of such a particular activity by crewmembers aboard United States
vessels is prohibited by law, regulation, or in practice in the
country. The Attorney General will use the list to determine whether to
permit an alien crewmember to perform an activity constituting
longshore work in the United States or its coastal waters, in
accordance with the conditions set in the Act.
The Department of State (hereinafter the Department) published such
a list as a final rule on December 27, 1991 (56 FR 66970), corrected on
January 14, 1992 (57 FR 1384). An updated list was last published on
December 13, 1993 at 57 FR 65118. On March 24, 1994, an Advance Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (59 FR 13904) gave notice that the list would be
updated and invited comments on the subject, particularly with respect
to the Department's interpretation of Section 258.
Methodology
The Department bases the lists on reports from U.S. diplomatic
posts abroad and submissions from interested parties in response to the
notice-and-comment process. At the request of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs of the House of Representatives, the Government Accounting
Office (hereinafter the GAO) reviewed the Department's criteria and
methodology for compiling the list. See U.S. General Accounting Office,
State Department: Problems in Compiling List of Countries Restricting
Longshore Activities (1994) (hereinafter GAO Report). Noting that the
criteria and methodology followed by the Department in the past have
tended to limit the number of countries placed on the list, the GAO
concluded that the Department can ``significantly improve its data
collection and decision-making procedures.'' The GAO also concluded
that the language of Section 258, particularly the phrase ``in
practice,'' is susceptible to differing interpretations.
The GAO made five recommendations to improve data collection and
decision-making procedures:
1. Clearly and thoroughly state the criteria for determining which
countries to place on the list.
--Standards for the reciprocity exception are discussed below.
2. Determine specific data requirements and develop appropriate
questions designed to solicit required information. [and]
3. Design a standardized reporting format to facilitate analysis.
--In response to these two recommendations and to ensure greater
consistency in reports from U.S. diplomatic posts abroad, the
Department has drafted a more detailed questionnaire about different
types of restrictions in foreign countries on longshore work by U.S.
mariners. To the maximum extent possible, the questions can be answered
with a yes or no. The questionnaire covers general requirements for
work permits, laws and regulations specifically relating to longshore
work and collective bargaining agreements.
4. Obtain information on all seaport countries or clearly identify
in the Federal Register those countries for which no information was
obtained and the reason why.
--To determine which areas had ports, the Department consulted ``The
World Factbook,'' published annually by the Central Intelligence
Agency. According to ``The World Factbook,'' 172 geographic entities
have ports, including dependent areas associated in some way with
another country.
--The Department did not collect information about areas with a
population of less than 5,000 inhabitants. In addition, the following
entities with ports were not included in the instructions sent to
posts: Anguilla (a dependent territory of the United Kingdom), Mayotte
(a territorial collectivity of France), and Wallis and Fortuna (an
overseas territory of France). According to ``The World Factbook,''
none of these entities has a ship registry.
--U.S. Embassies did not receive any replies from host country
officials about the Cook Islands (a self-governing state in free
association with New Zealand), Macau (an overseas territory of
Portugal), Norfolk Island (a territory of Australia) and the French
dependencies surveyed: The French Antilles, French Guiana, French
Polynesia, New Caledonia, Reunion, and St. Pierre and Miquelon.
According to ``The World Factbook,'' none of the French dependencies
have separate ship registers; for the purposes of this rulemaking,
ships of these areas will be considered as French ships.
--The Department does not have information at this time sufficient to
determine the status of Albania, Antigua, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau,
Lebanon, St. Kitts, Sao Tome and Principe, and Somalia.
--The following countries were excluded from this rulemaking procedure
because their vessels are currently prohibited from calling at U.S.
ports: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, and Syria. In
addition, Serbia and Montenegro was excluded because of the effects of
UN economic sanctions.
5. Develop a follow-up procedure to ensure that reports are
received from all tasked overseas post and to obtain any necessary
clarification.
--The Department has set up a data base to track the status of replies
and requests for clarification. At regular intervals, reminders are
sent to posts with replies outstanding.
In addition to the recommendations listed above, the GAO
recommended that the Secretary add to the list those countries with
restrictions on longshore work that were previously omitted on the
basis that no U.S. ships had called on their ports within the previous
year or that they did not enforce their restrictions. The Department
has
[[Page 58027]]
followed this recommendation and added countries to the list
accordingly.
Public Comments
In response to the notice published on March 24, 1994 at 59 FR
13904, twelve parties submitted comments. In general, ocean carriers,
port administrators and shippers expressed support for the Department's
previous application of Section 258, while representatives of organized
labor argued that the Department's previous application was
inappropriate.
In a letter dated April 11, 1994, Icicle Seafoods, Inc. supported
the original definition of practice and stated that any expansion of
this definition would be detrimental and confusing to its business.
In a letter dated April 19, 1994, the International Longshoremen's
Association took the position that the Department's definition of ``in
practice'' was improper and inaccurate and should have included
collective bargaining agreements and other local practices irrespective
of whether they were sanctioned by governmental authorities. The
Association urged implementation of the recommendations from the GAO
Report and agreed with the GAO position that various interpretations of
the term ``in practice'' were legally supportable. It enclosed and
referred to a previous letter to Undersecretary of State Joan Spero in
which the Association argued that Congress intended the legislation to
cover private as well as government restrictions.
In a letter dated April 19, 1994, the Council of European &
Japanese National Shipowners' Associations submitted that the
Department had correctly interpreted the language and intent of the Act
and that the Department should not change its original interpretation.
In a letter dated April 20, 1994, the Federation of American
Controlled Shipping stated that the Department had properly construed
the statutory phrase ``in practice'' as requiring some degree of
involvement by a foreign government. It asserted that denying
reciprocity to countries in which the foreign government plays no role
in restrictive labor practices is akin to holding the U.S. government
responsible for practices privately negotiated by unions in this
country. Since the law defers to U.S. collective bargaining agreements,
it would, the Federation argued, be inconsistent to treat similar
foreign agreements as impermissible. Finally, the Federation stated
that any other interpretation would be unrealistic from the point of
view of administrative practicality and cost effectiveness.
In a letter dated April 21, 1994, the Lake Carriers Association
expressed its support for regulations in which the Department confined
the list to countries in which crew members of U.S. vessels were
precluded from performing longshore work by virtue of specific laws,
regulations, or government imposition or approval of collective
bargaining agreements.
In a letter dated April 22, 1994, the International Longshoremen's
& Warehousemen's Union expressed its disagreement with the Department's
previous rulemaking on this issue. The Union stated that the
reciprocity exception was intended by Congress to be narrow, and that
the term ``in practice'' should cover any restrictive practice,
irrespective of whether a foreign government had prompted, adopted or
approved it. It noted that the language in the statute refers to
restrictions in the country rather than by the country. The Union also
argued that the original interpretation of the exception was deemed
wholly inconsistent with a major policy underlying immigration laws,
the protection of the interests of the American workforce. It cited
Congressional support for these views and provided an extensive
discussion of the GAO Report in support of its position.
In a letter dated April 22, 1994, American Great Lakes Ports saw no
reason to change the interpretation of the statute. It noted the GAO's
determination that while section 258(d) is susceptible to differing
interpretations, the interpretation that restrictions should apply only
in those cases where a foreign country has actively imposed or approved
restrictions is a legally supportable reading of the law.
In a letter dated April 22, 1994, CANAMCO fully and unequivocally
supported the Department's original interpretation. It cited the GAO's
conclusion that the interpretation is legally supportable and stated
that nothing has occurred that requires a change. CANAMCO expressed the
view that a broader interpretation of section 258(d) to include all
restrictive practices would present the Department with an impossible
definitional and administrative undertaking.
In a letter dated April 25, 1994, the Shipping Federation of Canada
noted that the terms of many Canadian and other nations' collective
bargaining agreements restrict certain work to unionized longshoremen,
and that a change in interpretation of the statute to include such
agreements would cause these nations to lose their reciprocity
exemption. It stated that a change would result in significant new
cargo handling costs and delays at U.S. ports and urged retention of
the Department's original interpretation.
In a letter dated April 25, 1994, Cargill, Incorporated supported
the original interpretation and described the language enacted by
Congress as a carefully crafted compromise designed to keep U.S.
exports competitive by limiting the unnecessary escalation of costs at
U.S. ports and fostering the use of innovative technology in cargo-
handling operation. Cargill argued that a revised definition of
reciprocity would cause cargos to be diverted to ports outside the
United States and provide a gain in long-term competitive advantage for
foreign agricultural and industrial exporters.
In a letter dated April 25, 1994, the American Federation of Labor
and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) described the
purpose of the law as to preserve and protect longshore work for United
States longshore workers. It noted that Congress was capable of
excluding private restrictions from consideration if it had wanted to,
but had not chosen to do so. It drew a parallel between the reciprocity
exception and the separate ``prevailing practice'' exception for U.S.
ports where foreign crewmembers normally perform longshore work, noting
that the prevailing practice exception takes collective bargaining
agreements into account. The AFL-CIO contended that there is no legal
barrier to a change in interpretation, citing the GAO Report in this
regard, and concluded that a wider interpretation would be neither
unbalanced nor unfair, reflecting the most natural meaning of
reciprocity.
In a letter dated April 1994, the Maritime Trades Department of the
AFL-CIO described the original interpretation as unwarranted and an
egregious wrong to U.S. longshore workers. It argued that the
interpretation had led to the loss of thousands of jobs in an industry
already suffering from widespread unemployment as a result of
containerization and other technological advancements. It expressed the
view that the reciprocity exception was intended to accommodate only a
relatively few countries.
Standards for Reciprocity Exception
Laws and Regulations
The Department previously listed those countries where restrictions
on longshore activities by crewmembers of U.S. ships are imposed by law
or
[[Page 58028]]
regulation of the foreign government on a national basis or by law or
regulation of a regional or local government, provided the laws and
regulations were actually enforced on U.S. ships which called at ports
in those countries. Taking note of the recommendations of the GAO, the
fact that ``general practice'' was the standard set forth in the
legislative conference report, and the practical difficulties of
determining the extent to which laws are enforced, the Department has
chosen to alter its consideration of ``laws and regulations'' for
purposes of section 258. Countries are now listed based on the
existence of restrictions imposed by national, regional or local laws
or regulations, provided such restrictions are pervasive enough to
constitute general practice, irrespective of whether the laws are
actually or consistently enforced or whether U.S. ships call at ports
in the country in question.
Practices
In earlier rulemakings, in addition to the countries listed because
of restrictive laws and regulations, the Department listed only those
countries with restrictions arising through collective bargaining
agreements directly negotiated by a foreign government with other
parties, or through restrictions in collective bargaining agreements
imposed or approved by a foreign government. In its study of the
Department's implementation of the legislation, the GAO concluded that
the statutory phrase ``in practice'' is susceptible to differing
interpretations. The GAO found that the Department's interpretation was
legally supportable, but noted that the language and legislative
history could support an interpretation under which privately
negotiated collective bargaining agreements would disqualify a country
for a reciprocal exception. The Department accepts the GAO's conclusion
that either interpretation is legally supportable.
In the absence of unequivocal statutory language, the Department
must interpret the ``in practice'' provision. Upon consideration of the
legislative history, comments from interested parties, the basic policy
reflected in the statutory scheme, and U.S. economic interests, the
Department has concluded that a longshore activity by alien crewmembers
cannot qualify for the reciprocity exception in section 258(d) if U.S.
mariners are prohibited from performing that activity in the country of
the foreign vessel due to restrictive practices, e.g. private
collective bargaining agreements, irrespective of governmental
involvement in those restrictions.
The purpose of section 258 is to protect U.S. longshore workers by
restricting foreign crewmembers from performing longshore work in the
United States, the performance of which had not been explicitly
prohibited prior to the enactment of the statute in 1990. Section 258
prohibits such work in general, and then provides limited exceptions to
that prohibition. The Department was guided by this basic purpose and
recognizes that to apply the exception to countries in which longshore
activity by U.S. mariners is restricted in any way would not further
that purpose. For example, applying the exception in such a case could
conceivably create a situation in which all longshore work in a country
was foreclosed to U.S. mariners by collective bargaining agreements,
but mariners from that country were permitted to engage in longshore
activity in the United States.
The Department also notes the ``prevailing practice'' exception of
section 258(c), which applies to private practices, whether or not any
governmental action requires or sanctions those practices. Likewise,
the Department recognizes that the statute emphasizes conditions that
actually prevail in ports, as well as formal governmental actions.
As observed by the GAO, the Department's original interpretation
tended to maximize the number of countries granted a reciprocity
exception. While the result may have been a benefit to shipping
companies, those benefits came at the expense of U.S. longshore
workers. The Department has concluded that, in the context of the
statutory scheme created by Congress, the benefits gained by U.S.
longshore workers through this new interpretation outweigh any benefits
to U.S. businesses under the Department's previous interpretation.
The Department has chosen this manner of applying section 258(d)
after thorough consideration of its previous position and the practical
difficulties of applying the statute accordingly. As a practical
matter, the Department's previous application required an often
difficult determination of the extent of government involvement in
restrictive labor practices. This inquiry was cumbersome and, in many
cases, indeterminate, since there was no guidance as to the level of
government involvement which would place a country on the list. Under
the Department's new position, however, the level of government
involvement need not be established. Thus, this manner of application
lends consistency and predictability to the process of listing
countries in which longshore work is restricted ``in practice.''
Voluntary Commercial Practice
Several comments submitted in connection with the original
rulemaking on this subject observed that carriers may use local
longshore workers as a matter of commercial choice. In the absence of
restrictive laws, regulations, collective bargaining agreements or
restrictions consistently imposed by national custom or practice as
described above, the Department does not list countries based on U.S.
carriers' voluntary commercial decisions.
Compensation of Port Workers
In several countries, the Department has found that the performance
of longshore work by U.S. crewmembers is permitted, but the ship is
required to pay for the services of local longshore workers even if
crewmembers are actually doing the work. In previous rulemaking the
Department considered such practices restrictive only if the
compensation exceeded ordinary market wages. However, because the
Department has found that such monetary charges, at whatever wage
level, have both a negative economic impact on the U.S. carrier and a
deterrent effect on the performance of such work by U.S. crewmembers,
the Department has decided to consider such practices as restrictive
for purposes of this rulemaking and to place countries where such
practices are in effect on the list.
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 89
Aliens, Crewmembers, Immigration, Labor, Longshore Work.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 22 CFR Chapter I is
amended as follows:
PART 89--PROHIBITIONS ON LONGSHORE WORK BY U.S. NATIONALS
1. The authority for part 89 is maintained to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1288, Public Law 101-649, 104 Stat. 4878.
2. Part 89 is amended by revising Sec. 89.1 to read as follows:
Sec. 89.1 Prohibitions on longshore work by U.S. nationals; listing by
country.
The Secretary of State has determined that, in the following
countries, longshore work by crewmembers aboard United States vessels
is prohibited by law, regulation, or in practice, with respect to the
particular activities noted:
[[Page 58029]]
Algeria
(a) All longshore activities.
Angola
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Argentina
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Cargo tiedown and untieing,
(2) When a disaster occurs,
(3) Provision of vessel supplies, and
(4) Opening and closing of hatches.
Australia
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) When shore labor cannot be obtained at rates prescribed by
collective bargaining agreements,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(3) Rigging of ship's gear.
Bahamas
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo related equipment on board the ship,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches,
(3) Rigging of ship's gear, and
(4) Use of specialized equipment which port workers cannot handle
alone, with the concurrence of the local longshore union.
Bangladesh
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo related equipment integral to the vessel
when there is a shortage of port workers able to operate the equipment
and with the permission of the port authority, and
(2) Opening and closing of hatches.
Barbados
(a) All longshore activities.
Belgium
(a) All longshore activities.
Belize
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo related equipment,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches and
(3) Rigging of ship's gear.
Benin
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo related equipment.
(2) Opening and closing of hatches and
(3) Rigging of ship's gear.
Bermuda
(a) Loading and discharge of cargo using cranes and loading
equipment situated on the docks or wharves.
(b) Line handling on the docks.
Brazil
(a) All longshore activities at public terminals.
Bulgaria
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions
(1) Operation of cargo related equipment,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches,
(3) Rigging of ship's gear,
(4) Mooring and line handling, and
(5) Operation of special equipment and discharge of dangerous
cargo, with the preliminary authorization of the Port Administration
and Harbor Master.
Burma
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Cameroon
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Canada
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions in connection with bulk cargo at Great Lakes ports
only:
(1) Handling of mooring lines on the dock when the vessel is made
fast or let go,
(2) Moving the vessel to place it under shoreside unloading
equipment,
(3) Moving the vessel in position to unload the vessel onto
specific cargo piles, hoppers or conveyor belt systems, and
(4) Operation of cargo related equipment integral to the vessel.
Cape Verde
(a) All longshore activities.
China
(a) Handling of mooring lines.
Colombia
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions: When local workers are unable or unavailable to
provide longshore services.
Comoros
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo related equipment,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches,
(3) Rigging of ship's gear,
(4) Other activities, with government authorization.
Costa Rica
(a) Operation of equipment fixed to the ground.
Cote d'Ivoire
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches and
(2) Rigging of automated ship's gear.
Croatia
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo related equipment on board the ship when
outside of port, and
(2) Operation of specialized unloading equipment.
Cyprus
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Djibouti
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exception: Operation of cranes aboard ship.
Dominica
(a) All longshore activities.
Dominican Republic
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exception: Operation of equipment with which local port workers
are not familiar.
Ecuador
(a) All longshore activities.
Egypt
(a) Cargo loading and unloading activities not on board the ship.
El Salvador
(a) All longshore activities.
Eritrea
(a) All longshore activities.
Estonia
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) On-board mooring activities,
(2) Replacement of lines,
(3) Lifting and movement of ladders,
(4) Movement of vessel's equipment,
(5) Loading of food and vessel's equipment by cargo-related
equipment of the vessel, and
[[Page 58030]]
(6) Securing of general cargo, vehicles and containers to the
vessel.
Fiji
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo related equipment, except for discharging
cargo,
(2) Opening and closing hatches, and
(3) Rigging of ship's gear.
Finland
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions, when not related to cargo loading and discharge:
(1) Operation of cargo related equipment,
(2) Opening and closing hatches, and
(3) Rigging of ship's gear.
Gabon
(a) All longshore activities.
Georgia
(a) All longshore activities.
Germany
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Ghana
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo related equipment,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(3) Rigging of ship's gear.
Greenland
(a) Cargo handling activities on shore.
(b) Exception: Loading and discharging of cargo between vessel and
dock by use of ship's gear.
Guatemala
(a) All longshore activities.
Guinea
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Guyana
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo related equipment aboard ship,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(3) Rigging of ship's gear.
Haiti
(a) All longshore activities.
Honduras
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operations of cargo related equipment,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(3) Rigging of ship's gear.
Hong Kong
(a) Operation of equipment on the pier.
Iceland
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exception: Operation of shipboard equipment and cranes.
India
(a) All longshore activities
(b) Exception: Operation of shipboard equipment that local port
workers cannot operate.
Indonesia
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) With the permission of the port administrator, when no local
port workers with requisite skills are available, and
(2) In the event of an emergency.
Ireland
(a) All longshore activities.
Israel
(a) All longshore activities.
Jamaica
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of equipment integral to the vessel,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches, jointly with local port
workers, and
(3) Rigging of ship's gear, jointly with local port workers.
Japan
(a) All longshore activities.
Jordan
(a) All longshore activities.
Kenya
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches,
(2) Rigging of ship's gear,
(3) In an emergency declared by the port authority, and
(4) Direct transfer of cargo from one ship to another.
Korea
(a) All longshore activities.
Kuwait
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exception, when activities are declined by the port workers:
(1) Operation of cargo related equipment,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(3) Rigging of ship's gear.
Liberia
(a) Longshore activities on shore.
Lithuania
(a) The following activities in harbor:
(1) Loading and discharge of cargo,
(2) Maintenance of port equipment,
(3) Receiving and fixing of dock ropes to harbor equipment,
(4) Transportation of cargo within the port, and
(5) Warehousing and security.
(b) Exception: Opening and closing of hatches.
Madagascar
(a) All longshore activities.
Malaysia
(a) Longshore activities on shore.
(b) Exception: Loading and discharge of hazardous materials.
Maldive Islands
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo related equipment aboard ship,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches,
(3) Rigging of ship's gear, and
(4) Other longshore activities within port limits, when authorized
by the port authority in cases when the port authority is unable to
provide longshore workers.
Malta
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Mauritania
(a) All longshore activities on shore.
Mauritius
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Mexico
(a) All longshore activities.
Micronesia
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation and rigging of gear which local port workers cannot
do, and
(2) When no qualified citizens are available.
Morocco
(a) All longshore activities.
[[Page 58031]]
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of ship's gear which port workers cannot operate,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches,
(3) Rigging of gear aboard ship, and
(4) Fastening and unfastening containers.
Mozambique
(a) All longshore activities on shore.
Namibia
(a) Longshore activities on shore.
Nauru
(a) All longshore activities.
Netherlands
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exception: Regular crew activities on board ship, including
operation of cargo related equipment, opening and closing of hatches
and rigging of ship's gear.
Netherlands Antilles
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of ship's gear,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(3) Rigging of ship's gear.
New Zealand
(a) All longshore activities.
Nicaragua
(a) All longshore activities.
Pakistan
(a) Longshore activities on shore.
(b) Handling of mooring lines.
(c) Exception: Operation of equipment which dock workers are not
capable of operating.
Panama
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Rigging of ship's gear,
(2) Cargo handling operations with ship's gear, when port authority
equipment is not available to load or unload a vessel.
Papua New Guinea
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Peru
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Handling of certain types of hazardous cargo, and
(2) Operation of shipboard equipment requiring special training.
Philippines
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Activities on board ship, except for loading and discharge of
cargo,
(2) Longshore activities for hazardous or polluting cargoes, and
(3) Longshore activities on government vessels.
Poland
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo-related equipment,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(3) Rigging of ship's gear.
Portugal (including Azores)
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Military operations,
(2) Operations in an emergency, when under the supervision of the
maritime authorities,
(3) Security or inspection operations,
(4) Loading and discharge of supplies for the vessel and its crew,
(5) Loading and discharge of fuel and petroleum products at special
terminals,
(6) Loading and discharge of chemical products if required for
safety reasons,
(7) Placing of trailers and similar material in parking areas when
done before loading or after discharge,
(8) Cleaning of the vessel, and
(9) Loading, discharge and disposal of merchandise in other boats.
Qatar
(a) All longshore activities.
Romania
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of specialized shipboard equipment, and
(2) Loading and discharge of cargo requiring special operations.
St. Lucia
(a) All longshore activities.
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
(a) All longshore activities.
Saudi Arabia
(a) All longshore activities.
Senegal
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches,
(2) Rigging of ship's gear, and
(3) Cargo handling when necessary to ensure the safety or stability
of the vessel.
Seychelles
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Slovenia
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Solomon Islands
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
South Africa
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Spain
(a) All longshore activities.
Sri Lanka
(a) Longshore activities on shore.
Sweden
(a) Loading and discharge of cargo.
(b) Rigging of cargo nets, straps and wires to make ready for
loading by the crane.
(c) Cargo handling.
(d) Line handling on the dock.
Taiwan
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo-related equipment which local longshoremen
cannot operate, and
(2) Opening and closing of hatches operated automatically.
Tanzania
(a) All longshore activities.
Thailand
(a) Longshore activities on shore.
(b) Exception: Longshore activities in private ports.
Togo
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo-related equipment on board the ship, and
(2) Opening and closing of hatches, upon the agreement of the port
officer on duty.
Trinidad and Tobago
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, if done automatically, and
[[Page 58032]]
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Tunisia
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exception: When the number of local dock workers is
insufficient or when the workers are not qualified to do the work.
Uruguay
(a) Stowing, unstowing, loading and discharge, and related
activities on board ships in commercial ports.
(b) Cargo handling on the docks and piers of commercial ports.
(c) Exception: Activities usually performed by the ships crew,
including operation of cargo related equipment, opening and closing of
hatches and rigging of ship's gear.
Vanuatu
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Venezuela
(a) Longshore activities in private ports and terminals.
Western Samoa
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Yemen
(a) All longshore activities.
Zaire
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exception: Operation of cargo related equipment, when
authorized by the Port Authority.
(8 U.S.C. 1288, Pub. L. 010-649, 104 Stat, 4878)
Dated: October 27, 1995.
Daniel K. Tarullo,
Assistant Secretary, Economic and Business Affairs, Department of
State.
[FR Doc. 95-28052 Filed 11-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-M
