# Longshoring and Marine Terminals; Proposed Rule DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-13058

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Uncategorized Document
- **Published:** June 2, 1994

## Text

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
proposes to revise its Safety and Health Regulations for Longshoring
and, to a far lesser extent, to amend its Safety and Health Regulations
for Marine Terminals. The proposed rule covers cargo handling and
related activities conducted aboard vessels and at Marine Terminals.
The proposed amendments to the Marine Terminals standard are intended
primarily to provide regulatory consistency with the proposed
Longshoring ship-board rules. The proposed rules would be ``vertical''
standards which apply to longshoring and marine terminal activities
only, except for those general industry provisions referenced within
this proposed rule.
This proposal contains requirements for longshoring and marine
terminal operations; the testing and certification of specific types of
cargo lifting appliances and associated auxiliary gear; other cargo
handling equipment such as conveyors and industrial trucks; access to
vessels; working surfaces; and personal protective equipment.
Additionally, specialized longshoring operations such as containerized
cargo, roll-on roll-off (Ro-Ro) and menhaden are specifically
addressed.
The principal hazards addressed by this proposal are injuries and
accidents associated with cargo lifting gear, vehicular cargo
transferral, manual cargo handling, hazardous atmospheres and
materials, and finally, those hazards posed by the more modern and
sophisticated cargo handling methods brought about by intermodalism.
This provides notice of OSHA's intent to schedule informal public
hearings on OSHA's proposed rulemaking on Longshoring and the related
Marine Terminal provisions.

DATES: Written comments on the standard must be postmarked on or before
September 23, 1994. Notices of intention to appear at the informal
public hearings must be postmarked by August 24, 1994.Written comments,
testimony, and all evidence which will be offered into the hearing
record must be postmarked by 21 days prior to the date of the hearing
to be attended. The hearings will begin at 9:30 a.m. and be held in the
following cities, beginning on the following dates:

Charleston, South Carolina on September 20, 1994;
Seattle, Washington on October 19, 1994; and
New Orleans, Louisiana on November 15, 1994.
Requests for public hearings in locations other than the above must
be received by July 11, 1994.
Parties who request more than 10 minutes for their presentation at
the informal public hearing and parties who will submit documentary
evidence at the hearing must submit the full text of their testimony
and all documentary evidence, postmarked on or before 21 days prior the
date of the hearing to be attended.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and requests for additional hearings should
be submitted to the Docket Office, Docket S-025, Room N-2625, U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. Telephone: (202)
219-7894. Comments of 10 pages or less may be faxed to the Docket
Office, if followed by a hard copy. The OSHA Docket Office fax number
is (202) 219-5046.
Notice of intention to appear, testimony and documentary evidence
to be submitted at the hearing are to be sent to Mr. Tom Hall, OSHA
Division of Consumer Affairs, Docket No. S-025, Room N-3647, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, DC
20210, telephone (202) 219-8615.
Actual addresses for the locations of the regional hearings in
Charleston, South Carolina, Seattle, Washington, and New Orleans,
Louisiana will be announced in a later Federal Register document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James F. Foster, Director, Office
of Information and Consumer Affairs, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor,
Room N-3647, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210.
Telephone (202) 219-8148.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

I. Background

As a result of the high number and serious nature of accidents
occurring to port workers in the United States, Congress, in 1958,
amended the Longshore and Harborworker's Compensation Act (LHWCA) (33
U.S.C. 901 et seq.) to provide a large segment of port based employees
with a safer work environment. The amendments (P.L. 85-742, 72 Stat.
835) significantly strengthened Section 41 of the LHWCA (33 U.S.C. 941)
by requiring employers covered by that Act to ``furnish, maintain and
use'' equipment, and to establish safe working conditions in accordance
with regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor. Two years
later, the Labor Standards Bureau (LSB) of the Department of Labor
issued the first set of safety and health regulations for longshoring
activities as 29 CFR part 9 (25 FR 1565). These standards were amended
on several occasions between 1960 and 1971. Since 1971, there have been
no substantive changes to these provisions.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act) (29 U.S.C.
650 et seq.), which established the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), directed the Secretary of Labor to adopt, under
the authority conferred by section 6(a) of the Act, ``Any established
Federal standard'' as an OSHA standard during the first 2 years of the
Act. The Longshoring standards, then codified as 29 CFR part 1504, were
adopted by OSHA under section 6(a) in 1971, and were recodified as 29
CFR part 1918.
The longshoring industry has changed dramatically since 1971. The
methods of cargo handling and the equipment associated with those
methods have undergone significant modification. Vessels designed
specifically for the carriage of intermodal containers, vehicular
rolling stock, and even barges, are now the most common types of ships
calling at U.S. ports. By contrast, the established Longshoring
standard was designed largely for activities being conducted using
methods and equipment that have been overshadowed or replaced by more
modern methods of cargo handling. The proposal being published today
will seek to modernize OSHA's regulatory approach to deal with these
changes in the industry. It is important to consider, however, that
some of the older, more conventional vessel configurations, equipped
with features and aspects that are addressed in the current standard,
continue to call at U.S. ports. For that reason, the Agency will retain
in this proposal a number of provisions whose utility, although
diminished, will continue to be necessary. Nevertheless, the Agency
requests the public to comment on certain provisions that it considers
obsolete and no longer in use. For example, the Agency is considering
deleting the provisions that address the manually lowering or topping
of booms based on a determination that these operations are no longer
performed as a part of longshoring work.
On July 5, 1983, OSHA published its final rule for Marine Terminals
(48 FR 30886)(Ex. 1-101). These rules were designed to address the
shoreside segment of marine cargo handling. Since the Marine Terminal
standards currently address equipment and situations (i.e., powered
industrial trucks; conveyors; passage between levels and across
openings; etc.) that have shipboard counterparts, appropriate
provisions from those standards are incorporated into this proposal for
shipboard cargo handling, as well. Accordingly, the Agency will rely
upon background material and data used to substantiate OSHA's rule for
Marine Terminals, and incorporates the docket (S-506) developed in that
rulemaking.
This proposal seeks to provide a practical continuity as it
addresses the more conventional and time proven methods of cargo
handling along with those more modern and revolutionary. The Agency
welcomes all suggestions on how to better meet this goal.

Longshoring Hazards

Traditionally, the longshore industry has been notable in terms of
its accident experience. The work environment found in the marine cargo
handling sector exposes workers to a greater risk of injury than is
true for most other industries. In fact, in the last calendar year for
which industrial illnesses and accidents are fully tabulated, this
industrial sector had one of the highest rate of lost workdays in the
nation. The following tables found in BLS reports (Exs. 1-109, 1-110,
1-111, 1-112, and1-113) are useful in making a comparative assessment:

Table A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total of lost workdays (rate per 100 full
time employees) 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private sector 64.9 65.8 69.9 76.1 78.7 84.0 86.5
Construction 129 134 136 142 143 148 148
SIC 446 (449) 350 405 422 436 343 284 329
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: These 1988 to 1991 figures are based on SIC Code 449, which includes water transportation. It should be
noted that the SIC Code for water transportation was changed from 446 to 499 in 1987.

Table B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cases (rate per 100 full-time
employees) 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private sector 7.9 7.9 8.3 8.6 8.6 8.8 8.4
Construction Trades 15.2 15.2 14.7 14.6 14.3 14.2 13.0
SIC 446 (449) 16.3 18.0 17.0 14.5 14.7 13.5 13.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: These 1988 to 1991 figures are based on SIC Code 449, which includes water transportation. It should be
noted that the SIC Code for water transportation was changed from 446 to 449 in 1987.

In 1985, OSHA requested the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to
initiate a survey that could be used to develop common aspects of
accidents occurring within the current longshore sector (Ex. 1-73).
This survey helped to point out that in spite of the increases in
automation that have occurred in the industry, injuries and lost
workday cases continue to remain high and the break bulk type of
operation still accounts for a major portion of the injuries that occur
aboard ship.
OSHA sought to validate even further the conclusions it could draw,
both from this survey and from regularly published BLS occupational
safety and health statistics. In so doing, the Agency reviewed data
published in Seafarer magazine (April 1987). In an article entitled
``WGMA reports safety statistics for 85-86 contract year'' (Ex. 1-14),
that periodical listed a number of pertinent figures that serve to
corroborate the other accident information OSHA has secured. The West
Gulf Report, prepared by Mr. Hal Draper, Director of Safety; Health and
Training for the West Gulf Maritime Association, addressed the accident
experience of several ports from Lake Charles, Louisiana to
Brownsville, Texas. Quoting directly from the article:

West Gulf Report. Draper's report on West Gulf longshore
accidents during the 1985-86 contract year covered a total of 1,192
incidents.
According to his analysis, 70% of the accidents occurred on
board ships; the remaining 30% on the dock or in the warehouse/
terminal. Cargo was involved in 30% of the accidents, 64% of which
involved sacks/bags, and 12% steel/pipe. Two hundred and forty of
the incidents (20%) involved the individual being struck by a moving
object; 221 (19%) resulted from lifting, pushing, pulling or bodily
reaction; 208 (17%) from falls from the same level-slip or trip; 142
(12%) from striking against, or stepping/jumping on an object; 130
(11%) from being struck by a falling object; and 109 (9%) from being
caught in, under, or between objects. Thirteen percent of all
accidents involved stevedore gear/equipment.

Another way the Agency attempted to identify the major sources of
longshoring accidents for rulemaking purposes was to examine a number
of fatal or near fatal accidents reported to OSHA from this industry
sector during the period July 1972-March 1992. In conducting this
analysis, OSHA examined these case files to determine the precise cause
of the accident. A brief summary of a few of the more than 250 such
accidents reviewed is provided below.
Boston, Massachusetts--August 1974. A longshoreman, seriously
injured while working in the hold of a bulk cargo vessel, was placed
aboard a stokes basket stretcher to be transported ashore by the
vessel's cargo hoisting gear. The stokes basket had no effective means
to secure the injured worker to the stretcher. While in transit, the
injured worker fell out of the litter, back into the hold (Ex. 1-90).
Port Elizabeth, New Jersey--June 1978. One employee was killed and
one seriously injured when an intermodal container lifting beam, being
lowered to hoist the container both men were standing on, suddenly
fell. The device, weighing in excess of 4 tons, crushed both employees.
Compliance with proposed Sec. 1918.81(k) would have prevented this
accident (Ex. 1-87).
Port Newark, New Jersey--August 1976. An employee aboard an
elevator Ro-Ro ship, while in the process of discharging automobiles,
drove into what was thought to be an available elevator to gain access
to the ramp or discharge deck. The elevator was actually at a higher
deck. The employee and vehicle fell into the shaft and down three
decks. Barricading of the open deck spaces could have prevented this
accident (Ex. 1-88).
San Juan, Puerto Rico--August 1978. An employee aboard a seagoing,
multi-deck Ro-Ro barge was run over and killed by a tractor trailer
while the trailer was being maneuvered into its stowage position. No
signalman was provided to protect employees from the hazard that
ultimately killed this lasher (an employee engaged in securing cargo).
Additionally, illumination was severely lacking within the confines of
the vessel's below deck cargo spaces. The use of proper illumination
and a signaller for this operation could have prevented the fatality
(Ex. 1-89).
Port Elizabeth, New Jersey--August 1984. Two workers, while driving
in a vehicle within a large Ro-Ro vessel, fell from the end of an
elevated internal ramp back down to deck level. These employees thought
the ramp could take them to the next higher deck, however, the ramp was
not so positioned. The car they were operating landed on its roof. One
employee was killed, the other was injured. Barricading of the ramp
could have prevented this accident (Ex. 1-86).
Houston, Texas--July 1987. Two longshoremen were killed while
positioned atop a deck stowed intermodal container. As they were
performing their work, an empty forty foot container being passed over
their heads became disengaged from the lifting gear and fell on them.
These fatalities could have been prevented if the employees had stayed
clear of the overhead drafts (Ex. 1-74).
Port of Los Angeles, California--March, 1992. One longshoreman was
killed while working on top of a stack of containers on the deck of a
container vessel. A container top safety device was available, but the
longshoreman was not attached to it. The safety device, which was
attached to the container crane spreader bar, moved and became hung up.
When it released, it catapulted the longshoreman off of the stack of
containers and onto the dock. This incident could have been prevented
if the employee had not been working on the top of the container, or
had been using fall protection if it were necessary to be working there
(Ex. 1-108).
Based on the BLS data, the West Gulf Maritime Association's
accident analysis, and OSHA's own analysis of fatal or near fatal
accidents in the cargo handling industry , OSHA concludes that
regulatory action is necessary in order to meet its mandate under the
Act. See Section III, Statutory Considerations, below, for a complete
discussion of OSHA's ``significant risk'' findings.

II. General Format of the Standard

A. Vertical vs. Horizontal Standards

This proposed Longshoring standard has been drafted in a manner
that will allow it to stand by itself, i.e., to be a ``vertical''
standard. Vertical standards are those that apply specifically to a
given industry, in lieu of any other OSHA standard. In several areas of
coverage specified in the proposal's scope section, OSHA's General
Industry standards are incorporated by reference. This approach follows
OSHA's other marine cargo handling standard, Marine Terminals, 29 CFR
part 1917 (48 FR 30886). Vertical standards can encourage voluntary
compliance because they are directed to the particular problems of the
industry, and because they only contain provisions that are appropriate
to the industry in question. On the other hand, since many industries
covered by OSHA do in fact use the same or similar equipment and
processes, and therefore have employees who are exposed to the same
hazards, it is usually a more efficient use of the Agency's resources
to develop ``horizontal'' standards (those applying across industry
lines). It is also more efficient to train field personnel in general
safety programs tailored to the horizontal General Industry standards
than to train field staff in individual programs designed for specific
industries.
In 1983, OSHA promulgated a vertical standard for the shoreside
aspect of marine cargo handling (48 FR 30886)--OSHA's rules for Marine
Terminals. As was the case in that rulemaking, the Agency is proposing
the inclusion of a list of applicable General Industry standards which
will supplement the specific provisions in part 1918. This provides
coverage for hazards for which the marine cargo handling industry is
neither unique nor different from other industries. As an example, OSHA
proposes to adopt by reference Sec. 1910.95, titled ``occupational
noise exposure.'' The detrimental effects of prolonged high levels of
noise is the same whether the exposure takes place aboard a vessel or
in a factory. The exposure may not be as constant or the workforce may
not be subjected to the same type of noise day after day, however the
potential for overexposure is there. OSHA does not feel it is necessary
to write a ``vertical'' standard that covers exposure to noise when the
General Industry standard will suffice. This is entirely consistent
with the current coverage provided by OSHA rules for Marine Terminals
(part 1917).
The majority of this proposed Longshore standard is a ``vertical''
standard. The work environment aboard ship is unique in many respects.
Longshore workers must continually work in the harsh environment of the
waterfront, which requires exposure both to work-related hazards, such
as falling cargo, and to environmental hazards, such as drowning and
working around machinery in bad weather. Longshore workers perform some
of the same high-hazard tasks, and confront many of the same heavy-
industry hazards, as those typically associated with the construction
industry. Examples of such hazards include falls, and crushing and
caught-in injuries. Cargo handling and construction work are also both
weather-dependent and have a high proportion of part-time and transient
employees. The extremely high occupational injury and illness incidence
rates for the marine cargo handling industry, mentioned in the previous
section, testify to the hazardous nature of the longshoring industry.
OSHA has decided to continue a vertical standard for many aspects
of this high-hazard industry, supplemented by general industry
standards where necessary and appropriate. The Agency believes that
this approach is necessary to adequately address the unique hazards and
working conditions of this industry. OSHA also has a vertical standard
for the construction industry (29 CFR part 1926), another hazardous
industry with a large workforce.
OSHA solicits comments both as to the merits and the limitations of
a vertical standard for longshoring operations.

B. Performance vs. Specification

The format and substance of this standard reflect OSHA's effort to
eliminate unnecessary regulations and to simplify and update others. To
achieve these goals, the Agency has adopted a performance approach to
writing new rules and revising existing ones. A performance-based
standard identifies a hazard and the level of control required to
protect against the hazard, without specifying the precise means of
achieving such control, while a specification standard stipulates
design and construction criteria to be met to achieve a particular
safety objective. The lack of flexibility in many specification
standards fails to take into account the adequacy of many existing
operations and work practices and discourages innovation. In keeping
with OSHA's commitment to clarity, flexibility, and in order to
encourage employers to comply with the standards, this longshore
industry proposal has adopted the performance approach except in those
cases in which employee safety would be enhanced by more specific
requirements. The Agency is interested in receiving comments from
persons who feel that certain of the proposed provisions would benefit
from a greater degree of specification or from a more goal-oriented
approach.

III. Statutory Considerations

A. Introduction. Throughout this proposal, OSHA describes the
hazards confronted by employees who are engaged in longshoring
activities and the measures required to protect affected employees from
those hazards. The Agency is providing the following discussion of the
statutory mandate for OSHA rulemaking activity to explain the legal
basis for its determination that the Longshoring standard, as proposed,
is reasonably necessary to protect affected employees from significant
risks of injury and death.
Section 2(b)(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
authorizes ``the Secretary of Labor to set mandatory occupational
safety and health standards applicable to businesses affecting
interstate commerce'', and section 5(a)(2) provides that ``each
employer shall comply with occupational safety and health standards
promulgated under this Act'' (emphasis added). Section 3(8) of the OSH
Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 652(8)) provides that:

. . . the term `occupational safety and health standard' means a
standard which requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or
more practices, means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably
necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and
places of employment.

In two recent cases, reviewing courts have expressed concern that
OSHA's interpretation of these provisions of the OSH Act, particularly
of section 3(8) as it pertains to safety rulemaking, could lead to
overly costly or under-protective safety standards. In International
Union, UAW v. OSHA, 938 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1991), the District of
Columbia Circuit rejected substantive challenges to OSHA's lockout/
tagout standard and denied a request that enforcement of that standard
be stayed, but it also expressed concern that OSHA's interpretation of
the OSH Act could lead to safety standards that are very costly and
only minimally protective. In National Grain & Feed Association v.
OSHA, 866 F.2d 717 (5th Cir. 1989), the Fifth Circuit concluded that
Congress gave OSHA considerable discretion in structuring the costs and
benefits of safety standards but, concerned that the grain dust
standard might be under-protective, directed OSHA to consider adding a
provision that might further reduce significant risk of fire and
explosion.
OSHA rulemakings involve a significant degree of agency expertise
and policy-making discretion to which reviewing courts must defer. (See
for example, Building & Constr. Trades Dept. AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d
1258, 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Industrial Union Dept. AFL-CIO v. American
Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 655 n. 62 (1980).) At the same time, the
Agency's technical expertise and policy-making authority must be
exercised within discernable parameters. The lockout/tagout and grain
handling standard decisions sought from OSHA more clarification on the
agency's view of the scope of those parameters. In light of those
decisions, OSHA believes it would be useful to include in the preamble
to this proposed safety standard a statement of its view of the limits
of its safety rulemaking authority and to explain why it is confident
that its interpretive views have in the past avoided regulatory
extremes and continue to do so in this rule.
Stated briefly, the OSH Act requires that, before promulgating any
occupational safety standard, OSHA demonstrate based on substantial
evidence in the record as a whole that: (1) the proposed standard will
substantially reduce a significant risk of material harm; (2)
compliance is technologically feasible in the sense that the protective
measures being required already exist, can be brought into existence
with available technology, or can be created with technology that can
reasonably be developed; (3) compliance is economically feasible in the
sense that industry can absorb or pass on the costs without major
dislocation or threat of instability; and (4) the standard is cost
effective in that it employs the least expensive protective measures
capable of reducing or eliminating significant risk. Additionally,
proposed safety standards must be compatible with prior agency action,
must be responsive to significant comment in the record, and, to the
extent allowed by statute, must be consistent with applicable Executive
Orders. These elements limit OSHA's regulatory discretion for safety
rulemaking and provide a decision-making framework for developing a
rule within their parameters.

B. Congress concluded that OSHA regulations are necessary to
protect workers from occupational hazards and that employers should be
required to reduce or eliminate significant workplace health and safety
threats. At section 2(a) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 651(a)),
Congress announced its determination that occupational injury and
illness should be eliminated as much as possible: ``The Congress finds
that occupational injury and illness arising out of work situations
impose a substantial burden upon, and are a hindrance to, interstate
commerce in terms of lost production, wage loss, medical expenses, and
disability compensation payments.'' Congress therefore declared ``it to
be its purpose and policy ... to assure so far as possible every
working man and woman in the Nation safe ... working conditions [29
U.S.C. Sec. 651(b)].''
To that end, Congress instructed the Secretary of Labor to adopt
existing Federal and consensus standards during the first two years
after the OSH Act became effective and, in the event of conflict among
any such standards, to ``promulgate the standard which assures the
greatest protection of the safety or health of the affected employees
[29 U.S.C. Sec. 655(a)].'' Congress also directed the Secretary to set
mandatory occupational safety standards [29 U.S.C. Sec. 651(b)(3)],
based on a rulemaking record and substantial evidence [29 U.S.C. Sec.
655(b)(2)], that are ``reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide
safe ... employment and places of employment.'' When promulgating
permanent safety or health standards that differ from existing national
consensus standards, the Secretary must explain ``why the rule as
adopted will better effectuate the purposes of this Act than the
national consensus standard [29 U.S.C. Sec. 655(b)(8)].''
Correspondingly, every employer must comply with OSHA standards and, in
addition, ``furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of
employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or
are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees [29
U.S.C. Sec. 654(a)].''
``Congress understood that the Act would create substantial costs
for employers, yet intended to impose such costs when necessary to
create a safe and healthful working environment. Congress viewed the
costs of health and safety as a cost of doing business.... Indeed,
Congress thought that the financial costs of health and safety problems
in the workplace were as large as or larger than the financial costs of
eliminating these problems [American Textile Mfrs. Inst. Inc. v.
Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 519-522 (1981) (ATMI); emphasis was supplied in
original].'' ``[T]he fundamental objective of the Act [is] to prevent
occupational deaths and serious injuries [Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall,
445 U.S. 1, 11 (1980)].'' ``We know the costs would be put into
consumer goods but that is the price we should pay for the 80 million
workers in America [S. Rep. No. 91-1282, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970);
H.R. Rep. No. 91-1291, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970), reprinted in Senate
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Legislative History of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, (Committee Print 1971)
(`Leg. Hist.') at 444 (Senator Yarborough)].'' ``Of course, it will
cost a little more per item to produce a washing machine. Those of us
who use washing machines will pay for the increased cost, but it is
worth it, to stop the terrible death and injury rate in this country
[Id. at 324; see also 510-511, 517].''

[T]he vitality of the Nation's economy will be enhanced by the
greater productivity realized through saved lives and useful years
of labor. When one man is injured or disabled by an industrial
accident or disease, it is he and his family who suffer the most
immediate and personal loss. However, that tragic loss also affects
each of us. As a result of occupational accidents and disease, over
$1.5 billion in wages is lost each year [1970 dollars], and the
annual loss to the gross national product is estimated to be over $8
billion. Vast resources that could be available for productive use
are siphoned off to pay workmen's compensation and medical
expenses....Only through a comprehensive approach can we hope to
effect a significant reduction in these job death and casualty
figures. [Id. at 518-19 (Senator Cranston)] Congress considered
uniform enforcement crucial because it would reduce or eliminate the
disadvantage that a conscientious employer might experience where
inter-industry or intra-industry competition is present. Moreover,
``many employers--particularly smaller ones--simply cannot make the
necessary investment in health and safety, and survive
competitively, unless all are compelled to do so [Leg. Hist. at 144,
854, 1188, 1201].''

Thus, the statutory text and legislative history make clear that
Congress conclusively determined that OSHA regulation is necessary to
protect workers from occupational hazards and that employers should be
required to reduce or eliminate significant workplace health and safety
threats.

C. As construed by the courts and by OSHA, the OSH Act sets a
threshold and a ceiling for safety rulemaking that provide clear and
reasonable parameters for agency action. OSHA has long followed the
teaching that section 3(8) of the OSH Act requires that, before it
promulgates ``any permanent health or safety standard, [it must] make a
threshold finding that a place of employment is unsafe--in the sense
that significant risks are present and can be eliminated or lessened by
a change in practices [Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. American
Petroleum Inst, 448 U.S. 607, 642 (1980) (plurality) (Benzene);
emphasis was supplied in original].'' When, as frequently happens in
safety rulemaking, OSHA promulgates standards that differ from existing
national consensus standards, it must explain ``why the rule as adopted
will better effectuate the purposes of this Act than the national
consensus standard [29 U.S.C. Sec. 655(b)(8)].'' Thus, national
consensus and existing federal standards that Congress instructed OSHA
to adopt summarily within two years of the OSH Act's inception provide
reference points concerning the least an OSHA standard should achieve
(29 U.S.C. Sec. 655(a)).
As a result, OSHA is precluded from regulating insignificant safety
risks or from issuing safety standards that do not at least lessen risk
in a significant way.
The OSH Act also limits OSHA's discretion to issue overly
burdensome rules, as the agency also has long recognized that ``any
standard that was not economically or technologically feasible would a
fortiori not be `reasonably necessary or appropriate' under the Act.
See Industrial Union Dept., v. Hodgson, [499 F.2d 467, 478 (D.C. Cir.
1974)] (`Congress does not appear to have intended to protect employees
by putting their employers out of business.') [American Textile Mfrs.
Inst. Inc., 452 U.S. at 513 n. 31 (a standard is economically feasible
even if it portends `disaster for some marginal firms,' but it is
economically infeasible if it `threaten[s] massive dislocation to, or
imperil[s] the existence of, the industry')].''
By stating the test in terms of ``threat'' and ``peril,'' the
Supreme Court made clear in ATMI that economic infeasibility begins
short of industry-wide bankruptcy. OSHA itself has placed the line
considerably below this level. (See for example, ATMI, 452 U.S. at 527
n. 50; 43 FR 27360 (June 23, 1978). Proposed 200 g/m\3\ PEL
for cotton dust did not raise serious possibility of industry-wide
bankruptcy, but impact on weaving sector would be severe, possibly
requiring reconstruction of 90 percent of all weave rooms. OSHA
concluded that the 200 g/m\3\ level was not feasible for
weaving and that 750 g/m\3\ was all that could reasonably be
required). See also 54 FR 29245-246 (July 11, 1989); American Iron &
Steel Institute, 939 F.2d at 1003. OSHA raised engineering control
level for lead in small nonferrous foundries to avoid the possibility
of bankruptcy for about half of small foundries even though the
industry as a whole could have survived the loss of small firms.)
Although the cotton dust and lead rulemakings involved health
standards, the economic feasibility ceiling established therein applies
equally to safety standards. Indeed, because feasibility is a necessary
element of a ``reasonably necessary or appropriate'' standard, this
ceiling boundary is the same for health and safety rulemaking since it
comes from section 3(8), which governs all permanent OSHA standards.
All OSHA standards must also be cost-effective in the sense that
the protective measures being required must be the least expensive
measures capable of achieving the desired end (ATMI, at 514 n. 32;
Building and Const. Trades Dept., AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1269
(D.C. Cir. 1988)). OSHA gives additional consideration to financial
impact in setting the period of time that should be allowed for
compliance, allowing as much as ten years for compliance phase-in. (See
United Steelworkers of America v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1278 (D.C.
Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 913 (1981).) Additionally, OSHA's
enforcement policy takes account of financial hardship on an
individualized basis. OSHA's Field Operations Manual provides that,
based on an employer's economic situation, OSHA may extend the period
within which a violation must be corrected after issuance of a citation
(CPL. 2.45B, Chapter III, paragraph E6d(3)(a), Dec. 31, 1990).
To reach the necessary findings and conclusions that a safety
standard substantially reduces a significant risk of harm, is both
technologically and economically feasible, and is cost effective, OSHA
must conduct rulemaking in accord with the requirements of section 6 of
the OSH Act. The regulatory proceeding allows it to determine the
qualitative and, if possible, the quantitative nature of the risk with
and without regulation, the technological feasibility of compliance,
the availability of capital to the industry and the extent to which
that capital is required for other purposes, the industry's profit
history, the industry's ability to absorb costs or pass them on to the
consumer, the impact of higher costs on demand, and the impact on
competition with substitutes and imports. (See ATMI at 2501-2503;
American Iron & Steel Institute generally.) Section 6(f) of the OSH Act
further provides that, if the validity of a standard is challenged,
OSHA must support its conclusions with ``substantial evidence in the
record considered as a whole,'' a standard that courts have determined
requires fairly close scrutiny of agency action and the explanation of
that action. (See Steelworkers, 647 F.2d at 1206-1207.)
OSHA's powers are further circumscribed by the independent
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, which provides a
neutral forum for employer contests of citations issued by OSHA for
noncompliance with health and safety standards (29 U.S.C. Secs. 659-
661; noted as an additional constraint in Benzene at 652 n. 59). OSHA
must also respond rationally to similarities and differences among
industries or industry sectors. (See Building and Construction Trades
Dept., AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1272-73 (D.C. Cir. 1988).)
OSHA safety rulemaking is thus constrained first by the need to
demonstrate that the standard will substantially reduce a significant
risk of material harm, and then by the requirement that compliance is
technologically capable of being done and not so expensive as to
threaten economic instability or dislocation for the industry. Within
these parameters, further constraints such as the need to find cost-
effective measures and to respond rationally to all meaningful comment
militate against regulatory extremes.

D. The proposed revisions of the Longshoring and Marine Terminal
standards comply with the statutory criteria described above and are
not subject to the additional constraints applicable to section 6(b)(5)
standards.
Standards that regulate hazards that are frequently undetectable
because they are subtle or develop slowly or after long latency
periods, are frequently referred to as ``health'' standards. Standards
that regulate hazards, like explosions or electrocution, that cause
immediately noticeable physical harm, are called ``safety'' standards.
(See National Grain & Feed Assn., v. OSHA (NGFA II), 866 F.2d 717, 731,
733 (5th Cir. 1989). As noted above, section 3(8) provides that all
OSHA standards must be ``reasonably necessary or appropriate.'' In
addition, section 6(b)(5) requires that OSHA set health standards which
limit significant risk ``to the extent feasible.'' OSHA has determined
that the proposed revisions of the Longshore and Marine Terminal
standards are safety standards, because these standards address
hazards, such as falling, falling objects and crushing, that are
immediately dangerous to life or health, not the longer term, less
obvious hazards subject to section 6(b)(5).
The OSH Act and its legislative history clearly indicate that
Congress intended for OSHA to distinguish between safety standards and
health standards. For example in section 2(b)(6) of the OSH Act,
Congress declared that the goal of assuring safe and healthful working
conditions and preserving human resources would be achieved, in part:

... by exploring ways to discover latent diseases, establishing
causal connections between diseases and work in environmental
conditions, and conducting other research relating to health
problems, in recognition of the fact that occupational health
standards present problems often different from those involved in
occupational safety. The legislative history makes this distinction
even clearer:
[The Secretary] should take into account that anyone working in
toxic agents and physical agents which might be harmful may be
subjected to such conditions for the rest of his working life, so
that we can get at something which might not be toxic now, if he
works in it a short time, but if he works in it the rest of his life
might be very dangerous; and we want to make sure that such things
are taken into consideration in establishing standards. [Leg. Hist.
at 502-503 (Sen. Dominick), quoted in Benzene at 648-49].
Additionally, Representative Daniels distinguished between
``insidious `silent killers' such as toxic fumes, bases, acids, and
chemicals'' and ``violent physical injury causing immediate visible
physical harm'' (Leg. Hist. at 1003), and Representative Udall
contrasted insidious hazards like carcinogens with ``the more
visible and well-known question of industrial accidents and on-the-
job injury'' (Leg. Hist. at 1004). (See also, for example, S.Rep.
No. 1282, 91st Cong., 2d Sess 2-3 (1970), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin.
News 1970, pp. 5177, 5179, reprinted in Leg. Hist. at 142-43,
discussing 1967 Surgeon General study that found that 65 percent of
employees in industrial plants ``were potentially exposed to harmful
physical agents, such as severe noise or vibration, or to toxic
materials''; Leg.Hist at 412; id. at 446; id. at 516; id. at 845;
International Union, UAW at 1315.)

In reviewing OSHA rulemaking activity, the Supreme Court has held
that section 6(b)(5) requires OSHA to set ``the most protective
standard consistent with feasibility'' (Benzene at 643 n. 48). As
Justice Stevens observed:

The reason that Congress drafted a special section for these
substances ... was because Congress recognized that there were
special problems in regulating health risks as opposed to safety
risks. In the latter case, the risks are generally immediate and
obvious, while in the former, the risks may not be evident until a
worker has been exposed for long periods of time to particular
substances. [Benzene, at 649 n. 54.] Challenges to the grain dust
and lockout/tagout standards included assertions that grain dust in
explosive quantities and uncontrolled energy releases that could
expose employees to crushing, cutting, burning or explosion hazards
were harmful physical agents so that OSHA was required to apply the
criteria of section 6(b)(5) when determining how to protect
employees from those hazards. Reviewing courts have uniformly
rejected such assertions. For example, the Court in International
Union, UAW v. OSHA, 938 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1991) rejected the view
that section 6(b)(5) provided the statutory criteria for regulation
of uncontrolled energy, holding that such a ``reading would
obliterate a distinction that Congress drew between 'health' and
'safety' risks.'' The Court also noted that the language of the OSH
Act and the legislative history supported the OSHA position
(International Union, UAW at 1314). Additionally, the Court stated:
``We accord considerable weight to an agency's construction of a
statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer, rejecting it only if
unreasonable'' (International Union, UAW at 1313, citing Chevron
U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984)).

The Court reviewing the grain dust standard also deferred to OSHA's
reasonable view that the Agency was not subject to the feasibility
mandate of section 6(b)(5) in regulating explosive quantities of grain
dust (National Grain & Feed Association v. OSHA (NGFA II), 866 F.2d
717, 733 (5th Cir. 1989)). It therefore applied the criteria of section
3(8), requiring the Agency to establish that the standard is
``reasonably necessary or appropriate'' to protect section 3(8),
requiring the Agency to establish that the standard is ``reasonably
necessary or appropriate'' to protect employee safety.
As explained in Section I, Background, above, and Section V,
Summary and Explanation of the Proposal and in Section VIII,
Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, below, OSHA has determined that marine cargo handling
activities pose significant risks to employees (18 fatalities and 7,593
injuries annually) and that the provisions of the proposed rule are
reasonably necessary to protect affected employees from those risks.
The Agency estimates that compliance with the proposed revisions of the
Longshoring and Marine Terminal standards will cost $4.7 million the
first year and $1.8 million annually thereafter and will reduce the
risk of the identified hazards (preventing 3 fatalities and 1,262
injuries annually). This constitutes a substantial reduction of
significant risk of material harm for the population at risk of
approximately 93,000 employees. The Agency believes that compliance is
technologically feasible because all of the provisions of the proposed
standard can be met by using currently available equipment, facilities,
supplies, and work practices. Additionally, OSHA believes that
compliance is economically feasible, because, as documented in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis, all regulated sectors can readily absorb or
pass on compliance costs during the standard's first five years, and
economic benefits will exceed compliance costs thereafter.
As detailed in Section VIII, Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis
and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Table 1, below, the standard's
costs, benefits, and compliance requirements are consistent with those
of other OSHA safety standards, such as the Hazardous Waste Operations
and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standard.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of
Final rule date (FR cite) deaths injuries Annual cost Annual cost
Standard (CFR cite) prevented prevented first five next five
annually annually yrs (mill) yrs (mill)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grain handling (1910.272) 12-31-87 (52 FR 49622) 18 394 5.9 to 33.4 5.9 to 33.4
HAZWOPER (1910.120) 3-6-89 (54 FR 9311) 32 18,700 153 153
Excavations (Subpt P) 10-31-89 (54 FR 45,954) 74 800 306 306
Process Safety Mgmt 2-24-92 57 FR 6356 330 1,917 880.7 470.8
(1910.119)
Permit-Required Confined 1-14-93 58 FR 4462 54 5,041 202.4 202.4
Spaces (1910.146)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OSHA assessed employee risk by evaluating exposure to marine cargo
handling hazards. The Agency acknowledges that some industries covered
by the proposed revisions of the Longshoring and Marine Terminal
standards have more documented marine cargo handling injuries or
fatalities than do others. OSHA does not believe that the risk
associated with exposure to marine cargo handling related hazards
varies according to the number of incidents documented for a particular
SIC code. OSHA has set the scope of the proposed revisions of the
Longshoring and Marine Terminal standards to address those situations
where employees are exposed to marine cargo handling hazards,
regardless of the relative frequency of incidents. The Agency believes,
based on analysis of the elements of the hazards identified, there is
sufficient information for OSHA to determine that employees in the
covered sectors face significant risks marine cargo handling
activities. Therefore, the Agency has determined that all employees
within the scope of the proposed standard face a significant risk of
material harm and that compliance with the proposed revisions of the
Longshoring and Marine Terminal standards is reasonably necessary to
protect affected employees from that risk.

IV. Review of General Industry Standards for Longshoring Operations
Applicability

Of all the work environments OSHA regulates, the shipboard
workplace ranks high among those that do not track easily with many of
the regulations that comprise 29 CFR part 1910 (General Industry
standards). For instance, subjects such as scaffolding; powered
platforms; power presses; wood working machinery; abrasive wheels;
forging machines; pulp and paper mills; bakery equipment; laundry
machinery; sawmills; logging; telecommunications; and spray painting,
all of which receive comprehensive discussion within the text of part
1910, are virtually non-existent concerns in shipboard longshoring
operations. Essentially longshoring is a transport industry and, as
such, is free from many of the hazards found in general industry.
Accordingly, these provisions are not included in this proposed rule.
In some areas where there is current coverage in part 1918, there
is similar coverage in part 1910. OSHA's primary concern is to make
sure that the 1910 provisions needed to supplement the 1918 coverage
are included in the proposal. For instance, subjects such as ladders;
slings; conveyors; industrial trucks; cranes and personal protective
equipment, which are fully addressed within part 1910, are presently
addressed with a specific regard for the maritime workplace, within
OSHA's current Longshoring rules. This proposal seeks to update and
revise the existing part 1918 and in some instances has relied in
substantial measure upon part 1910 language. In other instances, such
as when addressing container and roll on/roll off operations, entirely
new concepts have been developed to take account of the sometimes
unique operational aspects of the modern stevedoring community.
Where the hazards present in shipside cargo handling are directly
parallel to those encountered in the shoreside aspect of marine cargo
handling, such as in sanitation considerations, OSHA is proposing that
the language of provisions designed to address such shoreside hazards
be the same as in the Marine Terminal standards in 29 CFR part 1917.
Interested parties are requested to submit any information related
to the coverage of this proposed revision of the Longshoring rules. For
example, are specific hazards adequately addressed in this proposal?
Are longshore worker exposed to safety and health hazards which this
proposal does not adequately address? Have unnecessary provisions been
included in the proposal? Are there any areas of general industry
coverage that have not been included in the proposal that should be?
OSHA would particularly appreciate information on these issues.

V. Summary and Explanation of the Proposal

Subpart A--Scope and Definitions

Section 1918.1 Scope and applicability. Proposed Sec. 1918.1
describes the scope and applicability of the Longshoring standard. The
Longshoring rules apply from the foot of the gangway up, to include all
cargo handling related activities aboard a given vessel. It is
important to remember, however, that in ship to shore/shore to ship
cargo transfer operations using shore based material handling devices,
all lifting device specific aspects of such transfers will be covered
by the part 1917 rules. When cargo transfer is accomplished using
ship's cargo gear, the part 1918 rules shall apply.
In keeping with the concept outlined in the foregoing section of
this preamble (II. General Format of the Standard), certain selected
provisions currently found in OSHA's part 1910 standards have been
identified to have application to shipboard longshoring operations.
Sections 1918.1(b)(1) through (4), (b)(6) through (8), and (b)(10)
through (12) provide coverage for hazards for which the marine cargo
handling industry is neither unique nor different from other
industries. These hazards are not otherwise addressed by existing
maritime standards. The hazards addressed by Sec. 1918.1(b)(5) (Tools)
and (b)(9) (Machine Guarding), on the other hand, are addressed by
existing maritime standards but do not receive the comprehensive
treatment afforded by part 1910, subpart P, (Hand and Portable Powered
Tools and Other Hand-Held Equipment) and subpart O, (Machinery and
Machine Guarding).
OSHA is proposing to delete the current requirements for hand
tools, Sec. 1918.72, titled Tools, and replace it with Subpart P of 29
CFR part 1910, titled Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-
Held Equipment. OSHA believes that the general Industry Subpart P
regulations are more comprehensive and afford better protection. OSHA
proposes to do the same in the Marine Terminal regulations by replacing
the paragraphs under the sections heading Hand tools, Sec. 1917.51 and
replacing them with 29 CFR 1910 subpart P.
For the same reasons, OSHA is also proposing to remove the
requirements under Sec. 1917.151 titled Machine guarding, and replace
them with Subpart O of the General Industry standards, part 1910,
titled Machinery and Machine Guarding. OSHA is also proposing to
include Subpart O, Machinery and machine guarding, to the Scope and
Applicability section of part 1918.
OSHA promulgated the hazardous waste operations and emergency
response (HAZWOPER) standard on March 6, 1989 (54 FR 9294). OSHA'S
decision to cover all emergency response was based upon the high risk
associated with emergency response by untrained and unprotected
employees and the need for proper training and equipment to be provided
for emergency response to hazardous substance releases. This standard
currently applies in its entirety to shipboard longshoring operations.
HAZWOPER divides emergency response into three separate areas: (1)
Response at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites (Sec. 1910.120(l)); (2)
response at Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as
amended, facilities (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) Sec. 1910.120(p)(8); and
(3) response to emergency hazardous substance releases not covered by
the previously noted paragraphs Sec. 1910.120(q). Since the activities
described in the first two areas of the HAZWOPER standard do not
represent marine cargo handling activities within the scope of part
1917 or part 1918, OSHA is proposing to only apply Sec. 1910.120(q) to
longshore (part 1918) and marine terminal operations (part 1917).
Paragraph (q) covers employees engaged in toxic substance emergency
response no matter where it occurs. This paragraph, essentially,
requires employers to develop and implement an emergency response plan
to handle anticipated toxic substance emergencies prior to the
commencement of emergency response operations. If employers decide to
evacuate their employees from the danger area when an emergency occurs
and do not permit their employees to assist in handling the emergency,
they are exempt from the requirements of this paragraph if they provide
an emergency action plan and meet other requirements in accordance with
Sec. 1910.38(a) which states:

The emergency action plan shall be in writing * * * and shall
cover those designated actions employers and employees must take to
ensure employee safety from fire and other emergencies.

Simply stated, if an employer decides ``not to fight a fire''
(i.e., not to respond to an emergency), then Sec. 1910.120(q) does not
apply but Sec. 1910.38(a) does.
OSHA is proposing to delete the current requirements for hand
tools, Sec. 1918.72, titled Tools, and replace it with subpart P of 29
CFR Part 1910, titled Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-
Held Equipment. OSHA believes that the general Industry subpart P
regulations are more comprehensive and afford better protection. OSHA
proposes to do the same in the Marine Terminal regulations by replacing
the paragraphs under the sections heading Hand tools, Sec. 1917.51 and
replacing with 29 CFR part 1910 subpart P.
For the same reasons, OSHA is also proposing to remove the
requirements under Sec. 1917.51 titled Machine guarding, and replace
them with subpart O of the General Industry Standards, part 1910,
titled Machinery and Machine Guarding.
Proposed Sec. 1918.2 carries over many of the definitions from the
current Longshoring regulations. However, there are some new
definitions or some modifications to existing definitions that reflect
changes in current custom and practice in the Longshore industry.
For example, the term ``designated person'', which is not used in
the current longshore regulation, is used in this proposal. The term is
used to identify a person who has a special skill in a particular area
and has been so noted by the employer. Because of this skill, this
employee is assigned to perform specific tasks in this area of
expertise. While the concept of ``designated person'' is found
throughout the current requirements, it is expressed in many different
ways. This proposal tightens up the use of this concept by its
consistent use of the term ``designated person'' throughout the
standard. Some examples of the use of the term are: Sec. 1918.51(b)
requires that a designated representative, in lieu of the employer,
shall inspect vessel's cargo gear before use and at intervals during
use; and Sec. 1918.55 (c)(7) where a designated person is one with
knowledge in crane operations, specifically when using two or more
cranes to hoist in unison, along with knowledge in rigging.
In addition, the current references to the ``Federal maritime
jurisdiction'' and ``navigable waters'' in the definitions of
``employee'' in paragraph (e) and ``employer'' in paragraph (f) are
being dropped. The current rules were originally promulgated under the
Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941) for
which the navigable waters was a jurisdictional prerequisite. With the
promulgation of the OSH Act, which applies to private sector employment
in workplaces in a covered jurisdiction, however, such a prerequisite
was no longer necessary. Therefore, OSHA is proposing to update these
rules by eliminating the reference to navigable waters in this
definition.
Additionally, several new or substantially revised definitions are
found in paragraphs (d), (g), (h), (j), (k), and (n) of this section.
The definitions for enclosed space and fumigant are added to this
section for clarity since these terms are used in the standard. In
addition, they are virtually identical, with the exception of the
examples, to those found in the Marine Terminal standards. The term
``hazardous cargo'' has been expanded to reflect the Marine Terminal's
definition of ``hazardous cargo, materials, substance or atmosphere.''
This definition goes beyond the current part 1918 definition by
including references to subpart Z as well as oxygen-deficient
atmospheres. Additionally, it is, in turn, consistent with the
Hazardous Communication standard found at 29 CFR 1910.1200. Another new
definition is integral to the major impetus for revising part 1918, as
discussed above: ``intermodal container.'' The definition for
``intermodal container'' reflects both the definition found in the
International Labor Organization (ILO) Code of Practice for Safety and
Health in Dock Work, (Ex. 1-135) and the definition found in
International Standards Organization (ISO) Standard 830, Freight
Containers-Terminology, (Ex. 1-134). This definition is also being
proposed to replace the current definition for ``intermodal container''
found in the Marine Terminal standard, Sec. 1917.2(u).
The definitions of ``dockboards'' and ``ramps'', currently found in
the Marine Terminal standard, are being proposed for Longshoring, as
well, with minor modification.
Certain definitions currently in part 1918 would be deleted.
Existing definitions referring to the existing Sec. 1918.13,
certification of shore-based material handling devices were deleted
because they were superseded by the Marine Terminal standard. The
existing definition of the term ``shall'' is being deleted as
unnecessary.

Subpart B--Gear Certification

A. Section 1918.11 Gear certification. Since 1960, safety and
health regulations designed to protect U.S. dockworkers (with
particular regard to vessel's cargo handling gear) have relied upon the
documentary proofs of tests and examinations mandated by International
Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 32 (Ex. 1-34). In Article 9 of that
Convention, units and articles comprising ship's cargo handling gear
are enumerated and assigned an annual/quadrennial schedule of tests/
examinations that must be attended and attested to by individuals
judged to be ``competent'' by the national authorities of the vessel's
registry. Although not a signatory to that Convention, the United
States has conformed to this Convention via regulation promulgated by:
(1) the U.S. Coast Guard, with regard to inspected U.S. flag vessels;
and (2) OSHA, with regard to foreign flag vessels (Sec. 1918.12). The
Coast Guard has promulgated cargo gear regulations that exceed those
found in Convention 32, namely 46 CFR part 91, that promote safe and
unencumbered operations for U.S. flag vessels trading at foreign ports.
On foreign flag vessels trading at U.S. ports, however, OSHA has sole
responsibility for regulating and enforcing rules that address the
cargo gear U.S. longshore workers utilize.
Under Convention 32, proof load testing\1\ was only required
initially before being taken into service. Thereafter, components such
as derricks, goosenecks, mast bands, derrick bands and any other
difficult to disassemble fixed gear, were to be ``thoroughly examined''
every four years and ``inspected'' every 12 months. Other hoisting
machinery, such as cranes, winches, blocks, shackles, and any other
accessory gear, were to be ``thoroughly examined'' every 12 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\Proof load testing, as used here, means lifting an known
weight that is in excess of the safe working load (SWL) of the
lifting appliance being tested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under Convention 32, the vessel's cargo handling gear was proof
load tested initially, and then perhaps never again. After that initial
test, such gear received various degrees of visual scrutiny,
complemented on some occasions by non-destructive testing, i.e., a
hammer test.
Convention 152, adopted June 25, 1979, requires that such proof
load testing is to occur at least every five years, and applies to all
ship's lifting appliances. Within Article 3 of the new Convention, the
term ``lifting appliance'' is defined as follows:

Lifting appliance covers all stationary or mobile cargo-handling
appliances, including shore-based power-operated ramps, used on
shore or on board ship for suspending, raising or lowering loads or
moving from one position to another while suspended or supported.
(Ex. 1-5, pg.2)

Thus, the extent of cargo handling equipment found aboard ship
requiring testing and certification, heretofore restricted to specific
assemblies and components (i.e., derricks, cranes, winches, etc.) is
being expanded in this proposal to include all ``lifting appliances''
under the terms of the newer ILO Convention. This would include
forklifts and other powered industrial equipment used to handle cargo
that might be carried by a Ro-Ro vessel; and elevators found on Ro-Ro
vessels used to move cargo from one deck level to another--in addition
to vessel cranes and derricks. Under this proposal in Sec. 1918.11, all
this equipment would be required to be tested and thoroughly examined
initially before being put into use; retested and thoroughly examined
every five years; and thoroughly examined every 12 months.
In those situations where one container is used to lift another
container, using twist locks, then the upper container and twist locks
become, in effect, a lifting appliance and must be certified as such.

International Aspects

As is the case with all Federal agencies whose regulations impact
international trade, OSHA has developed this proposal in light of
international considerations. Through both law and policy, the United
States has decided that standards-related activities shall not
unnecessarily be a barrier to trade. The Trade Agreements Act of 1979
(19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq). addresses technical barriers to trade with
regard to federal regulation. This Act states in Title 19 of the U.S.
Code as follows:

Sec. 2532. Federal standards-related activities
No Federal Agency may engage any standards related activity that
creates unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States, * * *.
(1) Nondiscriminatory treatment. * * *
* * * * * * *
(2) Use of international standards.--
(A) In general. * * * each Federal agency, in developing standards,
shall take into consideration International standards and shall, if
appropriate, base the standards on International standards.

Additionally, and consonant with this country's position on
barriers to international trade, the United States is a signatory to
the Multilateral Convention on the Facilitation of International
Maritime Traffic (1965) (Ex. 1-3). As a contracting government, the
United States has agreed to:

* * * Undertake to cooperate in securing the highest practicable
degree of uniformity in formalities, documentary requirements and
procedures in all matters in which such uniformity will facilitate
and improve international maritime traffic and keep to a minimum any
alterations informalities, documentary requirements and procedures
necessary to meet special requirements of a domestic nature.
(Article 3)

Mindful of these international aspects, OSHA sought to formulate an
acceptable approach to the vessel's cargo handling gear issue, and to
other issues. The Agency requested the Department of State (Ex. 1-7) to
present OSHA's tentative approach to all foreign nations whose flags
may enter U.S. ports. This exercise was conducted in hope of
ascertaining global acceptance. Reports back from responding foreign
nations (Ex. 1-6) indicated overwhelming support for the Agency's
approach to these issues, and OSHA has incorporated it in this
proposal. Most nations, although stipulating that they had not as yet
ratified the more recent ILO Convention, indicated that national laws
recently ratified or those currently in the legislative process were at
least as strong, and in some cases more stringent, than Convention 152.
In consideration of this widespread international acceptance of ILO
Convention 152's approach to testing and certification of cargo gear,
OSHA has decided to propose it in this revision of the Longshoring
standards. The Agency is interested in any additional comment on this
issue that interested parties may be in a position to offer.

Subpart C--Means of Access

Section 1918.21 Gangways and other means of access. This proposed
section joins together two similar sections (Sec. 1918.11--Gangways and
Sec. 1918.21--Gangways and Other Means of Access) of OSHA's current
Longshoring rules. Clarity is improved in that rules addressing the
same specific issue will no longer be situated in two different
subparts of part 1918. As is the case in the current rules, gangway
dimensions and characteristics are set out in proposed paragraph (a) to
provide the safe access to vessels necessary for longshore workers. By
using a blend of specification with performance based alternatives, the
proposal lends the flexibility needed in accommodating foreign vessels.
Language has been added that allows the use of materials that have been
developed since the current rule was written, as long as the material
has a strength equivalent to those that are listed.
Proposed paragraph (b) carries over language from the current
rules, as well as the term ``trimmed'' found in the Joint Maritime
Safety Code of the New York Shipping Association/ International
Longshoremen's Association (NYSA/ILA Safety Code) (Ex. 1-2) part M,
paragraph 1), and requires that despite changing conditions brought
about by tides, cargo operations, etc., the gangway and its components
must be wholly serviceable.
Proposed paragraphs (c) through (k) are similar to the language
found in the current rules. Some paragraphs have been modified to
address some problems associated with the current language. Paragraph
(d) has been modified to require a safety net or suitable protection
when the gangway overhangs the water in such a manner that there is a
danger of employees falling between the ship and the dock. The net is
required to prevent an employee from falling to a lower level. This is
consistent with ILO'S ``Safety and Health in Dock Work,'' (Ex. 1-138).
A new paragraph (i) has been added to address the hazard associated
with slippery handrails and walking surfaces on gangways. Paragraph (j)
references Sec. 1918.92 for illumination requirements on a gangway. In
summary, these paragraphs address the requirement for a safe passage
from the dock to the deck.
Proposed paragraph (l) recognizes the U.S. Coast Guard's authority
relating to jurisdictional matters aboard vessels having a current and
valid certificate of inspection. Notwithstanding, for the purpose of
this rule, if access is attained other than by the vessel's regular
gangway, that access shall conform to the entirety of this section.
Proposed Sec. 1918.22 carries over language from the current rules.
Both paragraphs of this section contain the standard universal criteria
for rope ladders, also known as ``Jacob's ladders'', namely, that such
ladders be either double-runged or flat-treaded, so as to provide a
more substantial tread surface; that they be well maintained and
properly secured to available fittings; and that they not be permitted
to hang from their lashing points with slack in them.
It is often the case that such ladders are provided by the vessel
when a more traditional means of access cannot be utilized.
Notwithstanding, under these proposed rules the employer (who is often
a contractor rendering a service to the vessel) must comply with this
proposed section before employees are permitted to use these ladders.
Proposed Sec. 1918.23 also carries over language from the current
rules. Paragraph (a) sets out criteria for ramps used to gain vehicular
access to or between barges. Of primary importance is that such ramps
be of sufficient strength for the intended load. These ramps must be
equipped with sideboards that will prevent vehicles from falling. They
must also be well maintained and properly secured during use.
Paragraph (b) addresses employee passage to and from certain
floating craft. Under favorable conditions, it is sometimes possible to
pass to and from such vessels without the aid of any device. In other
than favorable conditions, however, this paragraph sets forth the
criteria to provide safe passage. Of significant importance is the
exception included at the end of the paragraph. That exception
recognizes practical difficulties encountered on the Mississippi River
system in providing traditional means of access on all occasions. When
originally promulgated in 1960, the longshore rules (Ex. 1-39) took no
cognizance of these special difficulties. In 1965, the Labor Standards
Bureau published the following proposed clarification, (Ex. 1-40):

In order to provide practical solutions in cases where current
requirements cannot be met, because of local river and bank
conditions (this section) should be amended by the addition of a
provision. (p.7609)

A provision to that effect was published in the Federal register in
final form on May 21, 1966 (Ex. 1-41). Historically (Ex. 1-98), this
exception has been based on tidal and current conditions on the
Mississippi system (see definition at proposed Sec. 1918.2(s)). OSHA's
experience has thus far concluded that such exceptional conditions
prevail only on this inland system; however, the Agency solicits
comments from interested individuals with other information on this
issue.
A sentence has been added to proposed Sec. 1924.23(c) that requires
no more than two Jacob's ladders for any single barge, raft, or log
boom being worked. This proposal is consistent with the requirements in
Sec. 1918.25(a) which requires a maximum of two access ladders in a
hatch. The term ``gang'' is used here and several other places in this
proposal. It refers to a group of longshore persons that are assigned
to a particular hold, deck, etc. on a ship for the purpose of loading
or discharging cargo.
A new paragraph (e) has been added to this section to address the
problem associated with the lower rungs of a Jacob's ladder being
crushed between the barge and another structure by requiring that a
spacer or equivalent means be used to prevent it from occurring. If the
lower rungs are crushed, this could cause an employee to fall between
the barge and other structure.
Another new paragraph (f) has been added to this section. This
paragraph requires the a net or equivalent protection if there is a
space between the vessel, barge or other structure when using a Jacob's
ladder to prevent an employee from falling into the water.
Proposed Sec. 1918.24 combines the current language of the existing
longshore provisions for bridge plates and ramps with the terms that
apply to similar shoreside equipment within 29 CFR part 1917 (Marine
Terminals, Sec. 1917.124).
In the adoption of such parallel rules, OSHA hopes to enhance the
uniformity of regulation that is critical to safety performance both
shipboard and shoreside. Throughout this proposal, the Agency has
attempted to foster such uniformity and requests comments as to how
this goal can be better achieved.
Paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) and (b)(1)(v) would be revised to require
sideboards that are at least 6 inches (.16 m) high. This height is the
same as found for bull rails that were in place at the time of the
effective date of the Marine Terminal standard, found in Sec. 1917.112.
OSHA believes that specifying the height of the sideboards will provide
the necessary protection to prevent vehicles and equipment from
accidently falling off the edge. OSHA requests comment from the public
concerning appropriateness of the height of the sideboards. OSHA is
also proposing to require the same 6 inch (.16 m) sideboards for
dockboards and ramps that are in the Marine Terminal standard,
Sec. 1917.124.
Proposed Sec. 1918.25 combines the current requirements for
portable ladders contained in the existing Longshoring rules with the
similar rules of Sec. 1917.119. For fixed ladders, however, there is a
distinction between the proposed and current Longshore standard which
has to do with clearance in back of the ladder rungs. The existing
requirement is 4 inches (.11 m), but the proposed clearance is 6 inches
(.16 m), which reflects the current ILO Standard.
Consistent with ILO's Guide to Safety and Health in Dock Work, (Ex.
1-129), OSHA is proposing that vessels built after December 5, 1981,
(the date when ILO Convention 152, Occupational Safety and Health in
Dock Work was put into effect), have a 6-inch (15 cm) clearance between
the ladder and the surface to which it is fastened. Vessels built prior
to December 5, 1981, however, may have a 4 inch (10 cm) clearance
between the ladder and the surface to which it is fastened. OSHA
encourages comment on this issue. (It should be noted where a fixed
ladder has inadequate clearance, a suitable portable ladder could be
used.)
Generally, proposed Sec. 1918.25 includes much of the current
language for ladders with some modifications. Provisions have been
added that reference ANSI standards for manufactured portable ladders.
There are also proposed provisions for ladder maintenance and usage
that are similar to what is in the Marine Terminals standard, but are
new to Longshoring.
In paragraphs Sec. 1918.25(c) and (e) the phrase ``positively
secured against shifting or slipping'' has been changed to ``positively
secured or held against shifting or slipping while in use''. This
change acknowledges that a worker(s) may hold a portable ladder in
place while another worker is climbing the ladder in situations where
the ladder cannot be secured and is consistent with the PMA-ILWU Safety
Code, Rule 1506 (Ex. 1-145).
In addition, for the purpose of clarifying paragraph (e), where the
employer can demonstrate that employees can safely use the cargo itself
to climb in and out of the hold (often referred to as ``safe cargo
steps''), a straight ladder is not necessary.
Paragraph (j)(8) on, ladder usage, acknowledges that while some
ladders may not have slip-resistant bases, they can be readily secured
by lashing them in place to prevent slipping or shifting when being
used.

Subpart D--Working surfaces

OSHA clearly understands that many of the falling hazards addressed
in part by this and other subparts, represent working environments and
physical characteristics no longer observed with the type of frequency
that was the case when the current Longshoring rules were last revised.
Nonetheless, conventional cargo handling methods together with more
traditional vessel designs are still encountered at U.S. ports. For
this reason, OSHA proposes to retain current provisions that still have
application.
As an example, proposed Sec. 1918.31(c) prohibits employers from
allowing work to be conducted on surfaces comprised of missing, broken
or poorly fitting hatch covers. Currently, it is relatively rare to
experience a vessel trading at U.S. ports, fitted with the type of
removable hatch covers this provision addresses. Despite that rarity,
such situations do arise.
Proposed Sec. 1918.31(d) prohibits the placing of poorly fitting
hatch covers and hatch beams that would constitute a work surface. As a
practical matter, it is rare to see vessels at U.S. ports fitted out
with hatch beams. In those instances, however, identifying marks are
usually permanently fixed to such equipment. Those marks correspond to
marks found on receptacle fittings on the vessel proper. In all cases,
notwithstanding the presence of corresponding marks, the employer must
make sure that all hatch beams and covers are seated securely,
providing a strong and stable work surface.
Proposed Sec. 1918.32(a) carries over language from the current
Longshoring rule. Frequently cargo must be landed on temporary
surfaces, generally presented by other cargo stows, prior to its
ultimate place of rest. When this is so, it is important that employees
have enough available space to work in safety upon such a surface, and
that the temporary table is strong enough to safely support the loads
being imposed. There are obviously many strength and size
possibilities, which will be dictated by the size and weight of the
drafts being landed.
Proposed Sec. 1918.32(b) has been revised to address changes that
have occurred in technology and work practices. Employees working on
the tops of containers are now covered by Sec. 1918.85(j), Container
top safety. (For a full discussion see the preamble to Sec. 1918.85(j)
below). When employees working in cargo holds, are exposed to falls of
more than 8 feet (2.4 m), the edge of the working surface must be
guarded by a safety net, or must be otherwise rendered safe (such as by
providing guardrails or fall arrest systems) to prevent employee
injury. It should be noted that proposed Sec. 1918.32(b) does not
include employees working on the top of intermodal containers in a hold
as this is also covered under Sec. 1918.85(j).
Of prime importance is that the intent of this provision is
satisfied, rather than providing just the appearance of compliance.
Many times, particularly when safety nets have been rigged, they have
been allowed to become very slack, and have sometimes been secured only
at their top ends. The improper rigging of safety nets compromises or
even removes the protection provided to falling employees. In these
very critical fall hazard situations, this provision insists that fully
considered precautions are taken. The Pacific Coast Marine Safety Code
(PCMSC) Rule 1016 (Ex. 1-145) is very similar in construction.
This paragraph has also been revised to distinguish between the
purpose and use of vertical safety nets, which rise at right angles at
the perimeter of a work surface thus preventing employees from falling,
and trapeze nets, which are designed to be placed horizontally below a
raised work surface to prevent falling employees from striking the
surface below. Additionally, this section requires that any nets used
for purposes of fall protection meet the applicable requirements.
Proposed Sec. 1918.33(a) and (b) are carried over from the current
Longshoring rules. As the heading of this section indicates, these
provisions address the safe performance of work on or around deck
loads. Provisions for work performed by employees atop deck-stowed
intermodal containers will be found at proposed Sec. 1918.85(j).
OSHA is proposing to change the title and text of Sec. 1918.34. The
current title of this section is ``Skeleton decks.'' OSHA has
consulted, without success, numerous individuals from the maritime
community and researched several maritime publications, textbooks, etc.
in an effort to define the terms ``skeleton deck'' and ``mechano
deck.'' OSHA feels that the use of these terms and the practice of
working cargo on these particular types of decks are obsolete. Since
the hazards remain even though these terms do not, OSHA is proposing to
change the title of the section to ``Other decks'' in order to group
unique or uncommon decks; using generic language to address the hazards
associated with landing cargo on such decks that are not designed for
such use. OSHA encourages the public to comment on whether the terms
``skeleton deck'' and ``mechano deck'' should be kept in the text of
the standard and on whether these provisions are necessary.
Proposed Sec. 1918.35 addresses hazards longshore workers face when
conducting operations around open weather deck hatchways. Vessels
calling at U.S. ports are of varied designs and capabilities. Some
vessels have coamings, which are the vertical structure that surrounds
the hatch opening on a ship, that are substantially higher than the
proposed section's minimum acceptable range (36 to 42 inches) (.92 to
1.07 m) other vessels may have no hatch coamings at all, but rather
flush decks or decks with an abbreviated sill, which present
substantial fall hazards to longshore workers. On such vessels, when
workers work around the perimeter of open hatchways, appropriate
guarding must be provided. This proposal stipulates that taut lines or
guardrails attaining the acceptable range be erected on all but the
working side of the hatch. This proposal mandates that stanchions or
uprights used in their construction be supported or secured in a manner
that will prevent them from coming accidentally loose.
Proposed Sec. 1918.37 addresses the fall hazards associated with
working on the decks of lighters and barges. Proposed paragraph (a)
retains language from the current rule. It prohibits the use of
marginal (less than 3 feet (.92 m) wide) deck space along the sides of
covered lighters or barges on all such vessels having coamings over 5
feet (1.5 m) high. Alternately, an employer must provide a taut
handline or, as is most often the case, the vessel must be fitted with
a serviceable grab rail.
Proposed paragraph (b), also retains language from the current
rule. It prohibits working or walking on unsound surfaces. This can be
a particularly important consideration on barges, in that powered
industrial trucks are often brought aboard to assist in operations. The
proposed rule requires a visual check of such decks before loading
operations begin. If during the course of discharge operations an
unsafe surface is discovered, work must be discontinued until
protective measures are taken (such as bridging the unsafe surface with
steel plate or barricading a deck section deemed unsafe).
Proposed Sec. 1918.38, as well as Sec. 1918.88 titled ``log
operations'' are entirely new sections addressing log loading
operations and reflect current industry practice. Section 1918.38 is
based on Rules 640 and 641 of the PCMSC (Ex. 1-145); on a report on log
operations submitted to OSHA's Maritime Safety Standards Office by
Region X (Ex. 1-146); and a training video on log operations produced
by the PMA and ILWU (Ex. 1-147). Loading logs from water presents very
serious falling and drowning hazards. Thus, safe walking working
surfaces are extremely important to longshore workers who are
positioned offshore during log loading operations. Sound footing is
essential during access to and while working on log rafts, which are in
fact the cargo. The proposed requirements provide for safe access to
the worksite and a safe working surface area. The working surface must
be wide enough to allow for stable footing, securely fastened together,
and substantial enough to support the weight of the employees on it.
OSHA has concluded that the basic requirements for providing such safe
surfaces should be included in this rulemaking, and seeks comment on
their completeness.

Subpart E--Opening and closing hatches

Proposed Sec. 1918.41 addresses coaming clearances and provides
requirements to protect longshore workers from fall hazards and from
being struck by falling cargo during the process of opening up and
closing hatches. Proposed paragraph (a) addresses weather deck
clearances. When a smooth-sided deck load is stowed within 3 feet (.92
m) of the hatch coaming, and the available coaming height is -TWA of 50 ppm and a
TLV-STEL of 400 ppm for (CO) (Ex. 3-8). NIOSH (Ex. 3-1)
recommends an 8-hour TWA limit of 35 ppm and a 200 ppm ceiling. For
both Longshoring and Marine Terminals, OSHA is proposing to lower the
PELs for CO to 35 ppm (8-hour TWA) and is proposing a 200 ppm (ceiling,
measured over 5 minutes) in outdoor, non-enclosed spaces. OSHA is
proposing to retain the 100 ppm ceiling for CO in enclosed spaces in
Marine Terminals and Longshoring. NIOSH concurs (Ex. 3-2) that the
proposed limits are appropriate.
Carbon monoxide is a flammable, colorless, practically odorless
gas. It is used as a reducing agent in metallurgical operations, in the
manufacture of metal carbonyls and zinc-based white pigments, and as a
chemical intermediate. Most occupational exposures to this ubiquitous
substance are the result of the incomplete combustion of organic
material (HSDB 1990; Ex. 3-18).
Carbon monoxide has caused a large number of industrial fatalities
as a result of its tendency to combine readily with hemoglobin to form
carboxyhemoglobin (COHb). The Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health
(IDLH) level for carbon monoxide is 1500 ppm (Ex. 3-3). At levels above
this, workers quickly lose consciousness; if exposure is not terminated
immediately, death by asphyxiation follows quickly.
In experimental animals, asphyxiation occurs when the air-borne
concentration of CO exceeds 3 percent (30,000 ppm) (HSDB 1990). CO also
causes reproductive and developmental effects in animals. The LD50
in rats is 1807 ppm for 4 hours (Ex. 3-4).
Excessive accumulations of COHb cause hypoxic stress in healthy
individuals as a result of the reduced oxygen carrying capacity of the
blood. In patients with cardiovascular disease, such stress can further
impair cardiovascular function. A number of studies show that 8-hour
TWA exposures to 50 ppm carbon monoxide generally results in COHb
levels of 8 to 10 percent. Such levels are not generally associated
with overt signs or symptoms of health impairment in healthy
individuals with strong cardiovascular systems who are working under
nonstressful conditions. However, the ACGIH believes that a
TLV-TWA of 25 ppm, which results in COHb levels of 4 percent
or less, may be necessary to protect workers with cardiovascular
disease, because this condition places workers at higher risk of
serious cardiovascular injury (Ex. 3-8, p. 1106). The NIOSH REL of 35
ppm TWA is also aimed at protecting workers with chronic heart disease
(CHD); NIOSH believes that such workers should not be allowed to have
carboxyhemoglobin levels that approach 5 percent. In the part 1910 air
contaminants rulemaking, several commenters questioned the need to
lower the 8-hour TWA and to add a STEL.In response to these commenters,
OSHA quoted the ACGIH (Id.):

Each molecule of CO combining with hemoglobin reduces the oxygen
carrying capacity of the blood and exerts a finite stress on man.
Thus, it may be reasoned that there is no dose of CO that is not
without an effect on the body. Whether that effect is physiologic or
harmful depends upon the dose of CO and the state of health of the
exposed individual. The body compensates for this hypoxic stress by
increasing cardiac output and blood flow to specific organs, such as
the brain or the heart. When this ability to compensate is
overpowered or is limited by disease, tissue injury results
[emphasis added].
Exposure to CO sufficient to produce COHb saturations in the 3-
5% range impairs cardiovascular function in patients with
cardiovascular disease and in normal subjects. * * * The primary
effect of exposure to low concentrations of CO on workmen results
from the hypoxic stress secondary to the reduction in the oxygen-
carrying capacity of blood. * * * Workmen with significant disease,
both detected and undetected, may not be able to compensate
adequately and are at risk of serious injury. For such workers, a
TLV of 25 ppm * * * might be necessary. Even such a concentration
might be detrimental to the health of some workers who might have
far advanced cardiovascular disease. * * * It would appear to the
Committee that the time-weighted TLV of 50 ppm for carbon monoxide
might also be too high under conditions of heavy labor, high
temperatures, or at high elevations (Ex. 3-8).

Thus, the ACGIH also regards a lower limit for CO as necessary to
protect workers with cardiovascular or pulmonary disease or those
working under stressful conditions.
OSHA believes that it is clearly necessary to set a CO level that
protects workers who have CHD because (1) a large percentage of
employees have it, (2) it is often not diagnosed or diagnosable, and
(3) it is frequently fatal. The 35 ppm 8-hour TWA is designed to
protect employees with asymptomatic CHD. The term CHD is generally used
to refer to the process of atherosclerosis of the coronary arteries,
which leads to disturbances in the myocardial blood supply.
The general worker population in the United States is composed of a
very significant number of persons with CHD. Since the identification
of such persons in the absence of overt clinical symptoms is virtually
impossible, it is necessary to assume that the average worker has
asymptomatic CHD, especially when his/her first clinical symptom may be
sudden death (Ex. 3-1). Several studies demonstrate the significant
risk associated with CO exposure, particularly with respect to coronary
heart disease. A study of firefighters in Los Angeles (Ex. 3-10)
suggests that CO exposure during firefighting may be responsible for
the high incidence of heart disease in firefighters. In some fires,
peak exposures were occasionally as high as 3000 ppm CO, with 40
percent of peak values in the 100-to 500-ppm CO range. However, in some
fires, the peak CO exposure was below 100 ppm. Although these peak
exposures in firefighters were high, firefighters are likely to be
exposed overall for fewer hours than the workers of concern in this
rulemaking.
A prevalence study was recently performed on angina pectoris, ECG
changes, and blood pressure that involved 1,000 workers from 20
foundries (Ex. 3-11). A clear dose-response was found with regard to
the prevalence of angina (as obtained by history on a World Health
Organization-recommended questionnaire) and CO exposure in workers
(both smokers and nonsmokers).
NIOSH conducted a prospective cohort mortality study among 1,558
white male motor vehicle examiners who were employed in New Jersey for
a minimum of 6 months between 1944 and 1973 (Ex. 3-12). Industrial
hygiene surveys indicated that the examiners were exposed to carbon
monoxide at a time-weighted-average (TWA) of 10 to 24 ppm. Using a
modified life table technique, the expected deaths were compared to the
expected deaths through August 1973. The overall deficit of mortality
observed (SMR180) in this occupational cohort during the first 10-year
period was to be expected as a result of the widely accepted ``healthy
worker effect.'' However, the component SMR for cardiovascular disease
deaths (134) was unexpected, since the ``healthy worker effect'' had
been most significantly associated with decreased cardiovascular
disease mortality (Ex. 3-13). This evidence suggests that slightly
elevated COHb may contribute to excess cardiovascular disease rates in
a healthy population that is of average fitness (since the work is not
physically hard).
A recent study (Ex. 3-14) reviewed the epidemiological evidence for
an association between carbon monoxide and heart disease and concluded
that carbon monoxide exerts acute and possibly reversible short-term
effects that can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.
In another recent study, male volunteers aged 35 to 75 with stable
exertional angina pectoris and positive exercise treadmill tests were
exposed to CO concentrations designed to cause 2.2 to 4.4 percent COHb
levels after exercise. The subjects performed a symptom-limited
exercise test on a treadmill, followed by exposure for 1 hour to CO,
and then performed a second treadmill test. All subjects who completed
the study (N=63) showed significant decreases in time to onset of
ischemic ST-segment changes; in the 2 percent COHb group, this change
equalled 5.1 percent, and in the 4 percent COHb group it averaged a
12.1 percent decrease (Allred, Bleecher, Chaitman, Dahms, Gottlieb,
Hackney et al. 1989, in Res. Rep. Hlth. Effect. Inst. 25:79).
As pointed out above, cardiovascular disease (detected or
undetected) and pulmonary impairment are widespread in the general
population in this country, in workers as well as other sub-
populations. In addition, OSHA is particularly concerned about the
adverse effects of CO because workers regularly encounter complex and
stressful situations at work, including heat stress, jobs demanding
heavy exertion, and tasks requiring both judgment and motor
coordination. OSHA standards are intended to protect workers of average
and below-average fitness and those who engage only intermittently in
heavy physical labor and who do not therefore receive the benefit of
physical conditioning.
OSHA thus has determined that, in Longshoring and Marine Terminals,
the proposed 8-hour TWA of 35 ppm for carbon monoxide is needed to
reduce the significantly increased risk of cardiovascular disease that
is associated with overexposure to CO. The Agency also believes that a
ceiling of 200 ppm in outdoors, non-enclosed spaces is necessary to
ensure that peak CO exposures are kept below the 1500 ppm IDLH level by
a reasonable safety factor. The ceiling limit will also assist in
keeping COHb levels below 5 percent; the ceiling will be measured over
5 minutes to permit the use of simpler monitoring techniques.
Based on this evidence, OSHA is proposing an 8-hour TWA of 35 ppm
and a ceiling of 200 ppm in outdoor, non-enclosed spaces as the PELs
for carbon monoxide in the longshoring and marine terminal industries.
In these industries, however, most employees regularly enter and work
in a compartment, hold, or other enclosed space, in which CO levels can
increase rapidly if uncontrolled. CO, therefore, presents an especially
great danger of death from IDLH levels of CO. Consequently, OSHA is
retaining the 100 ppm ceiling for CO in such spaces, as well as the
provision requiring monitoring of these spaces. The Agency would
continue to require that the employer monitor the ambient air within
any cargo space where internal combustion engines discharge their
exhaust. Therefore, when concentrations of CO in these enclosed spaces
reach 100 ppm, work shall be suspended and the workers removed from the
spaces. Work shall not resume until concentrations of CO, as determined
by actual monitoring, have been reduced to within the allowable limits.
The Agency believes that these limits will ensure that the COHb
levels of exposed workers (especially of non-smokers) in these sectors
are maintained at or below 5 percent, which will protect those workers
at greater risk because of cardiovascular or pulmonary impairment. In
addition, these revised limits will protect healthy workers in the
affected sectors who must work in environments involving intermittent
exertion, heat stress, or other strenuous conditions. OSHA believes
that these limits are necessary to substantially reduce the significant
occupational risk associated with both chronic and peak exposures to
carbon monoxide in the workplace. The hypoxic stress associated with
exposure to carbon monoxide clearly constitutes a material impairment
of health and functional capacity. For a more complete discussion of
these health effects see 57 FR 26371.
If natural or vessel supplied ventilation is not sufficient to
maintain levels within the allowable limits, the employer must utilize
supplemental methods until such levels are reached (generally
accomplished with portable blowers). It should be noted that the
proposed requirement deletes the language ``before work is resumed.''
This is to make the requirement reflect more clearly the actual
industry practices being employed to control exposure to CO through the
use of engineering controls. The longshoring work itself generates CO
through the use of the loading equipment. In reality, then, it is not
the circumstance that 100 ppm is routinely reached, the hold is cleared
of workers, supplemental blowers are used to clear the air and then the
workers return to work. Rather, when a sustained build-up of CO is
detected, even at much lower levels, the supplemental blowers or other
additional means are employed to maintain the exposures to within the
allowable limits.
Portable ventilating equipment must be guarded to prevent employee
injury, and they must be effectively grounded by a grounding conductor
run with or enclosing the circuit conductors. In situations where
portable ventilating equipment is run by vessel supplied power, the
grounding conductor must be bonded to the structure of the vessel.
Given the shipboard environment, careful attention must be paid to the
electric cords of portable equipment, making certain they are not worn
or otherwise unserviceable.
OSHA is proposing to retain the requirement for recording tests of
the atmosphere. The stevedoring community is successfully using such
testing logs as a frame of reference in assessing atmospheric
conditions from one point in time to the next.
In proposed paragraph (b), OSHA addresses the longshoring hazards
associated with handling grain that has been treated with fumigants.
Grain is subject to infestation by insects and rodents during storage
and shipping. Fumigants used to control infestation can be liquid or
solid compounds that release poisonous gases and can be applied in the
form of sprays, fogs or gases or by direct contact (Ex. 1-104).

* * * these gases are harmful, possibly fatal, to humans as long
as they remain potent. Therefore, they constitute a safety hazard
from the time of application throughout the duration of their
potency--which may last for several days. (Id. p.36).

Here, OSHA would require that the employer determine whether or not
grain to be loaded or discharged aboard a vessel had been fumigated.
Such a determination shall be based on direct communication with
knowledgeable persons from both the grain elevator and the vessel.
When a cargo has been fumigated, an employer shall designate a
person (see Sec. 1918.2(c)), who is thoroughly familiar with the
characteristics of the fumigant being used and how to properly assess
contaminant levels; fully aware of the manufacturer of the fumigant's
use recommendations and warnings; and knowledgeable about the proper
personal protective equipment which must be worn to safely guard
against the possible effects of the fumigant. The designated person
must test the vessel's compartments after loading begins, but before
longshore employees (generally trimmers) enter. Subsequent tests must
be made to ensure that fumigant concentrations to exposed personnel
never attain levels that are beyond the allowable limits. Records of
those tests are retained by the employer for a period of 30 days.
Whenever the concentration in any compartment reaches the level
specified as hazardous by the fumigant manufacturer or by subpart Z of
29 CFR part 1910, whichever is lower, all employees shall be removed
from such compartments and shall not be permitted to re-enter until
such time as tests demonstrate that the atmosphere is within allowable
limits.
Consistent with Sec. 1917.25 of the Marine Terminal standard,
during emergencies or while tests are being undertaken in compartments
that have hazardous or unknown concentrations of fumigant, the
designated person entering the compartment must be properly outfitted
with personal protective equipment, (See criteria at proposed
Sec. 1918.94(b)(3)(v)), and must be observed while conducting such
tests by two standby employees, who are themselves properly outfitted.
The personal protective equipment used by the designated person and the
observers, will be required to be readily available wherever fumigated
grains are handled.
In situations where it is necessary to carry out insecticide or
pesticide treatment of a localized nature, such as in rodent control,
paragraph (b)(4) would require that employees conducting the treatment
and those that may be exposed to the chemical(s) applied, be equipped
with personal protective equipment that meets the specifications set
out by the manufacturer of the chemical(s) being used.
In proposing these rules covering fumigated grain cargoes, the
Agency has relied upon the existing rule for longshore employment (Ex.
1-39) but has also utilized the Agency's experience in promulgating the
general industry Permit-required Confined Space standard (29 CFR
1910.146, 58 FR 4549), together with accident data (Ex. 1-104) relating
to fumigated grain cargoes aboard ship. Finally, these rules are
further supported by similar provisions found in the Pacific Coast
Marine Safety Code (Ex. 1-145) and the U.S. Coast Guard's ``Interim
Regulations for Shipboard Fumigation,'' 46 CFR-147A (Ex. 1-105).
In proposed paragraph (c), the Agency proposes requirements for
handling cargoes of fumigated tobacco. Tobacco cargoes, both ported and
exported, are shipped most typically in bales, in hogsheads, and in
intermodal containers. OSHA's proposed Longshoring requirements apply
when cargoes are break-bulk, i.e., piece lots of bales or in hogsheads.
When such cargoes are containerized, OSHA addresses employee exposure
in the Marine Terminal standard (29 CFR 1917.25(g)).
In the case of break-bulk fumigated tobacco cargoes, the employer
would be required to determine (by written notification) if the cargo
has in fact been fumigated. If so, the employer would be further
required to obtain a written warranty from the fumigator(s) that the
cargo has been sufficiently aerated (concentration of fumigant is
within allowable limits.) OSHA notes that this practice is currently in
place at all longshore operations in the U.S. handling tobacco. In the
case of containerized shipments of fumigated tobacco, OSHA is proposing
new language that can be found in the proposed changes to the Marine
Terminal regulations, Sec. 1917.25(g), which is part of this proposal
and which is discussed in Section VI of this rulemaking.
Proposed paragraphs (d) and (e) remain virtually identical to the
existing provisions. Paragraph (d) involves a work practice to discover
hazardous exposures to fumigants of any cargo other than grain and
tobacco while paragraph (e) involves the use of personal protective
equipment to protect against heavy concentrations of dust.
Proposed paragraph (f) addresses operations aboard vessels engaged
in the menhaden trade. Menhaden is a term that refers to several
species of trash fish. Menhaden is used to produce, among other
products, fertilizer, pet food and fish oil. (See 46 FR 4213.) As cargo
to specialized menhaden marine terminals, menhaden presents a health
hazard to longshore workers when it decomposes, generating hydrogen
sulfide (H2S). As recently as 1987, a hydrogen sulfide incident
aboard a menhaden vessel led to serious injury and a fatality (Ex. 1-
80). OSHA's current limit for hydrogen sulfide in Marine Terminals is
20 ppm as an 8-hour TWA; the current Longshore standard is silent with
regard to both H22S and menhaden. The 1986 ACGIH TLVs
for hydrogen sulfide are 10 ppm as an 8-hour TWA and 15 ppm as a 15
minute STEL (Ex. 3-8); NIOSH has a 10-ppm, 10-minute REL for this
substance (Ex. 3-3). OSHA is proposing an 8-hour TWA of 10 ppm in
Longshoring and Marine Terminals with a STEL of 15 ppm. Promulgation of
these PELs will make OSHA's limits for hydrogen sulfide consistent with
the best available evidence on the hazards of H2S exposure.
Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless, flammable gas with the odor of
rotten eggs. It is widely used as a chemical intermediate, an
analytical reagent, and in the manufacture of ``heavy water''
(H2O2) in the utilities sector. In agriculture, it is used as
a disinfectant (HSDB 1985). It is also generated by the fermentation of
animal manure. Many farm workers have been exposed to this substance
while working in the vicinity of liquid manure storage pits and have
been asphyxiated as a consequence (Ex. 4-1). Hydrogen sulfide also is
encountered in natural oil and gas deposits and in sewers, caissons,
tunnels, and other construction sites (Grant 1986, p. 495). When used
in pesticidal applications and as directed on the label, this substance
is regulated by the EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In longshoring, the hazard is brought about by
the generation of hydrogen sulfide gas, caused by the decomposition of
the menhaden (and similar species) catch.
Hydrogen sulfide's effects on experimental animals are similar to
those seen in exposed workers: conjunctivitis, pulmonary irritation,
acute poisoning, and death by chemical asphyxiation (Ex. 4-2). The
LD50 in mice is 673 ppm for 1 hour (Ex. 4-3). A number of
experiments have demonstrated that exposure to hydrogen sulfide
concentrations of 50 to 100 ppm for several hours (or sometimes longer)
causes damage to the corneal epithelium of dogs, cats, rabbits, and
guinea pigs; animals are believed to be somewhat less sensitive than
humans to hydrogen sulfide's ocular effects but may be more sensitive
to its pulmonary effects (Grant 1986, p. 1496).
When inhaled at concentrations exceeding 500 ppm, exposure to
hydrogen sulfide has caused respiratory paralysis and death. Acutely
poisoned individuals who recover may experience headaches, fatigue,
dizziness, and nystagmus; eventually, however, recovery is usually
complete (Ex. 4-4). The 1986 ACGIH Documentation (Ex. 1-3, p. 1318)
cites several reports (Ex. 4-6) of the occurrence of adverse ocular
effects, including conjunctivitis, caused by exposure to 20 ppm or less
of hydrogen sulfide. A study by Poda and Aiken (Ex. 4-7) reports that
the adoption of a voluntary limit of 10 ppm in two heavy-water plants
eliminated exposure problems at those facilities. An early study by
Flury and Zernik (1931f) reports that the conjunctivitis caused by the
exposure of volunteers to 10 to 15 ppm of hydrogen sulfide for six
hours endured for several days; however, this substance is not known to
have caused irreversible eye damage.The author of the best-known
general source on the toxicology of the eye (Grant 1986) states that
``where the concentration [of hydrogen sulfide] is regularly kept below
10 ppm in air, it is rare to have any irritation of the eyes'' (p.
1496). OSHA believes that the proposed STEL will ensure that
concentrations are maintained close to the 8-hour TWA and that
excursions above irritant levels are thus minimized.
Based on this evidence, OSHA believes that the current 10-ppm 8-
hour TWA limit alone does not adequately protect workers in Longshoring
and Marine Terminals against the adverse ocular effects associated with
exposure to concentrations of hydrogen sulfide above 10 ppm. OSHA
believes that the eye irritation and conjunctivitis associated with
such exposures represent a significant risk of material health
impairment to these workers because they may experience pain and other
ocular effects and be forced to seek medical treatment after such
exposures. OSHA is accordingly proposing an 8-hour TWA limit of 10 ppm
for hydrogen sulfide with a short-term limit of 15 ppm in these parts
1917 and 1918. Based on available information, the Agency has
determined that these limits are necessary to provide protection from
the significant risk of exposure-related ocular effects, including
conjunctivitis, corneal edema, and distortion of vision, associated
with occupational exposure to hydrogen sulfide.
Since the hazard this paragraph seeks to avoid is brought about by
the generation of hydrogen sulfide gas, caused by the decomposition of
the menhaden (and similar species) catch, the requirements are not
applicable to operations aboard vessels with operable refrigerated
compartments used to hold the catch. Paragraph (f) requires that tests
be performed before and during discharge, by designated personnel who
are trained and competent in their understanding of the potential
hazards involved within the catch hold(s). The test would include
assessments of hydrogen sulfide and oxygen content of the atmosphere(s)
within the hold(s). Employers would be prohibited from sending
employees into the hold(s) unless the hydrogen sulfide level was kept
below 10 parts per million on a time weighted average with a short term
exposure limit of 15 ppm measured over a 15 minute sampling period.
Oxygen levels must be maintained to at least 19.5 percent.
In arriving at these proposed requirements, OSHA utilizes
information that supported similar requirements for the shoreside
aspect of menhaden operations in the Agency's rules for Marine
Terminals (Sec. 1917.73; See discussion at 46 FR 4213). Also, in the
development of the proposed requirements, the National Fish Meal & Oil
Association was clearly supportive of the proposed regulatory posture.
In communications between that group and the Department of Labor, and
in memoranda to the association's membership (Ex. 1-56), it is clear
that industry practice is quite consistent with OSHA's proposal.
Proposed Sec. 1918.95 contains requirements for sanitary
considerations at all longshoring operations. OSHA believes that the
hazards associated with poor sanitation and sanitary practices are well
established and need not be elaborated here. The proposed provisions
are fully consistent with the current regulations for shoreside cargo
handling (Sec. 1917.127), providing the uniformity that is necessary
between the two segments of marine cargo handling. OSHA is proposing in
both Secs. 1917.127 and 1918.95 to include tables which specify the
number of toilet facilities according to the number of employees at the
worksite. This table has been taken from the sanitation section in
OSHA's Construction Safety Regulations, 29 CFR 1926.51(c). OSHA
requests the public to comment on the inclusion of this table in this
proposal.
Summarizing the section, OSHA would require that employers provide
their workers with washing and toilet facilities that are equipped with
hot and cold (or tepid) running water; soap; clean hand towels (or warm
air blowers); clean and functional toilets (that offer separate
compartments with a latched door), and clean drinking water (with no
common cups). The consumption of food or drink would continue to be
prohibited wherever hazardous materials are stowed or being handled
(see definition at Sec. 1918.2(g)). Additionally, cargo handling
operations are to be separated (by barriers) from the vessel's
uncovered refuse and, in the unlikely event of a sanitary line
overboard discharge, from it as well. Since longshoring work is
performed adjacent to a marine terminal, if the marine terminal's
sanitation facilities are available for longshore employees' use, this
would constitute compliance with Sec. 1918.95. (Section 1917.127, which
covers sanitation at marine terminals, is virtually identical to
proposed Sec. 1918.95.)
Because longshoring operations generally take place in a location
with restricted space, i.e., aboard a ship, other non-associated but
often necessary work (such as ship's maintenance and repair) must be
conducted carefully, with due deference to the cargo handling being
performed. In such circumstances, employees may be exposed to hazards
associated with excessive noise leading to impaired communications,
excessive light or heat from hot work, overspray from abrasive blasting
or spray painting, or non-ionizing radiation. In OSHA's current rules
for Longshoring (Sec. 1918.95), the Agency has prescribed requirements
to account for the hazards that can be anticipated when maintenance and
repair work are concurrently undertaken with cargo handling. Those same
rules are proposed in Sec. 1918.95 (with very minor change) to be
included in the revision of this part. Summarizing them, longshoring
operations would be prohibited when noise produced by such concurrent
work interferes with the communication of warnings or instructions;
when falling objects could fall on cargo handlers from such work being
conducted overhead; when welding slag, burning sparks or welding rod
flash could injure cargo handlers; and when abrasive blasting or spray
painting is being performed in the vicinity of cargo operations.
Additionally, OSHA is proposing to prohibit cargo handling
operations where the employees are exposed to electromagnetic (non-
ionizing) radiation that is emitted from the radio and radar equipment
on the vessel. This could be especially dangerous when employees are
working on the tops of containers while work is being done to the radar
or radio equipment. OSHA is also aware of the dangers associated with
non-ionizing radiation emitted from radio and television towers that
are close to marine cargo handling facilities and has included the
words ``or from radio or television transmitting towers ashore'' in
this paragraph. OSHA issued a Hazard Information Bulletin on September
5, 1990, concerning a non-ionizing radiation incident caused by radio
transmitting towers that were near a cargo handling facility. The radio
frequency emissions were aimed in the direction of the cargo handling
operation and the radiation caused longshore workers touching the crane
wires and hooks to be burned. This situation was corrected by having
the transmissions directed away from the cargo handling area, however
other options were available such as, insulating the cargo hook, or
providing proper personal protective equipment (Ex. 1-137).
Proposed Sec. 1918.97 sets out requirements for first aid and
lifesaving, and parallels closely the same considerations set out by
OSHA in its rules for the shoreside aspect of marine cargo handling
(Sec. 1917.26). The hazards that this section is meant to address are
those that would occur in the absence of first aid or rescue; that is,
following an accident, this section is intended to mitigate the extent
of injury to the employee.
In summarizing this proposed section, the employer would be
required to direct all employees to report all injuries. A first aid
kit would be required to be available at each vessel being worked, with
at least one person holding a valid first aid certificate also
available to administer first aid. OSHA does not stipulate who the
certificate's issuing organization must be, but remains consistent with
its position taken while developing the Marine Terminals rule, wherein
the agency stated at 46 FR 4193:

No particular first aid course or approving agency is
designated, so long as the certificate is issued by a responsible
organization which requires successful completion of a course as
evidence of qualification.

OSHA sets out no specific criteria for the contents of the required
first aid kit(s). The Agency does, however, propose to have those needs
individualized by a physician who, in consultation with the employer,
can customize first aid kit contents to the hazards to be encountered.
This is consistent with the approach taken by OSHA in its General
Industry (Sec. 1910.151(b)) and its Construction standards
(Sec. 1926.50(d)(1)). OSHA believes this approach to be not only more
flexible, but more protective as well. It should be noted that OSHA is
proposing to amend the Marine Terminal regulations to read the same as
what is being proposed in this draft in regards to first aid kits and
emergency stretchers. Requiring weekly checks of the contents of first
aid kits is again consistent with OSHA's Safety and Health Regulations
for Construction, Sec. 1926.50(d)(2).
Additionally, OSHA proposes to include more specific requirements
addressing strength and design characteristics of emergency stretchers
(Stokes baskets). These requirements reflect the terms of an agreement
between the West Gulf Maritime Association and individual locals of the
I.L.A. operating on the Gulf of Mexico, which OSHA considers to be
appropriate for inclusion in the proposal. The requirement that the
stretcher have at least four sets of ``effective'' patient restraints
means that the restraints must be able to secure the patient to the
stretcher even if the stretcher and patient is being lifted vertically.
In an accident cited earlier in the preamble, (Ex. 1-90), where the
employee was being carried vertically in the stretcher, the restraints
were not effective and the patient fell off.
In proposed Sec. 1918.98, OSHA sets out requirements for the
qualifications of machinery operators, i.e., crane or winch operators,
industrial truck drivers, conveyor operators, etc., and provides
proposed language to require the training of supervisory personnel,
i.e., gang foremen, stevedore superintendents, etc., in accident
prevention. The hazards addressed by this section arise from
inexperienced, untrained or inappropriate operators of cargo handling
machinery; and hazards created by improperly trained supervisory
personnel. These hazards can readily lead to accidental injury or
death.
Both topics originate in the shoreside rules (Sec. 1917.27), and
focus on very important aspects indisputably tied to safe cargo
operations. The proposed provisions would require that all employees
(except supervised trainees) be familiar with signs, signals and
operating instructions before operating cargo handling machinery or
before giving signals to operators. OSHA would require that employee
competency to perform such work be determined by the employer, using
training and experience as criteria in making such a determination. The
employer would be prohibited from allowing employees with a known
incapacitating ailment, such as heart disease or epilepsy, or employees
with defective uncorrected hearing or eyesight, from operating that
equipment. Because supervisory training is considered to be essential
to reducing the amount of accidents in any industrial setting, the
Agency proposes to set requirements for the shipboard cargo handling
workplace that will complement such requirements already in place for
shoreside work. OSHA asks the public to comment on the effectiveness of
the shoreside supervisory programs and benefits that have been derived.
In proposing this requirement, the Agency notes that the great majority
of supervisory persons already trained in accident prevention under the
part 1917 rules, are those same individuals who would be covered by the
training requirement under this proposal. The Agency requests
interested persons to submit comment on the proportion of supervisory
employees for whom such training would actually be required. The same
built-in transition periods established for training within the Marine
Terminals rule (two years after the promulgation of the final rule and
after that date 90 days after supervisory assignment), are proposed
also for shipboard application. The criteria for course content is
performance-based, allowing for instruction to be tailored to the
particular operation(s). The recommended topics included as a footnote
are considered to be rudimentary to most shipboard cargo handling
operations.
It should be noted that current Sec. 1918.98 entitled ``Grain
fitting'' is being deleted by this proposal. OSHA believes that this
type of longshoring operation is obsolete and no longer exists. OSHA,
however, recognizes that i

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-13058. Public record. Not legal advice.