Foreign Prohibitions on Longshore Work by U.S. Nationals

[[Page 58026]]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs

22 CFR Part 89

[Public Notice 2283]

Foreign Prohibitions on Longshore Work by U.S. Nationals

agency: Department of State.

action: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

summary: In accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act of

1952, the Department of State is issuing a proposed rule updating the

list, of longshore work by particular activity, of countries where

performance of such a particular activity by crewmembers aboard United

States vessels is prohibited by law, regulation, or in practice in the

country.

dates: Interested parties are invited to submit comments in triplicate

by December 26, 1995.

addresses: Comments may be mailed to the Office of Maritime and Land

Transport (EB/TRA/MA), Room 5828, Department of State, Washington, DC

20520-5816.

for further information contact: Richard T. Miller, Office of Maritime

and Land Transport, Department of State, (202) 647-6961.

supplementary information: Section 258(d) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. 1288, as amended by the Immigration

Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-649, directs the Secretary of State

(hereinafter the Secretary) to compile and annually maintain a list, of

longshore work by particular activity, of countries where performance

of such a particular activity by crewmembers aboard United States

vessels is prohibited by law, regulation, or in practice in the

country. The Attorney General will use the list to determine whether to

permit an alien crewmember to perform an activity constituting

longshore work in the United States or its coastal waters, in

accordance with the conditions set in the Act.

The Department of State (hereinafter the Department) published such

a list as a final rule on December 27, 1991 (56 FR 66970), corrected on

January 14, 1992 (57 FR 1384). An updated list was last published on

December 13, 1993 at 57 FR 65118. On March 24, 1994, an Advance Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking (59 FR 13904) gave notice that the list would be

updated and invited comments on the subject, particularly with respect

to the Department's interpretation of Section 258.

Methodology

The Department bases the lists on reports from U.S. diplomatic

posts abroad and submissions from interested parties in response to the

notice-and-comment process. At the request of the Committee on Foreign

Affairs of the House of Representatives, the Government Accounting

Office (hereinafter the GAO) reviewed the Department's criteria and

methodology for compiling the list. See U.S. General Accounting Office,

State Department: Problems in Compiling List of Countries Restricting

Longshore Activities (1994) (hereinafter GAO Report). Noting that the

criteria and methodology followed by the Department in the past have

tended to limit the number of countries placed on the list, the GAO

concluded that the Department can ``significantly improve its data

collection and decision-making procedures.'' The GAO also concluded

that the language of Section 258, particularly the phrase ``in

practice,'' is susceptible to differing interpretations.

The GAO made five recommendations to improve data collection and

decision-making procedures:

1. Clearly and thoroughly state the criteria for determining which

countries to place on the list.

--Standards for the reciprocity exception are discussed below.

2. Determine specific data requirements and develop appropriate

questions designed to solicit required information. [and]

3. Design a standardized reporting format to facilitate analysis.

--In response to these two recommendations and to ensure greater

consistency in reports from U.S. diplomatic posts abroad, the

Department has drafted a more detailed questionnaire about different

types of restrictions in foreign countries on longshore work by U.S.

mariners. To the maximum extent possible, the questions can be answered

with a yes or no. The questionnaire covers general requirements for

work permits, laws and regulations specifically relating to longshore

work and collective bargaining agreements.

4. Obtain information on all seaport countries or clearly identify

in the Federal Register those countries for which no information was

obtained and the reason why.

--To determine which areas had ports, the Department consulted ``The

World Factbook,'' published annually by the Central Intelligence

Agency. According to ``The World Factbook,'' 172 geographic entities

have ports, including dependent areas associated in some way with

another country.

--The Department did not collect information about areas with a

population of less than 5,000 inhabitants. In addition, the following

entities with ports were not included in the instructions sent to

posts: Anguilla (a dependent territory of the United Kingdom), Mayotte

(a territorial collectivity of France), and Wallis and Fortuna (an

overseas territory of France). According to ``The World Factbook,''

none of these entities has a ship registry.

--U.S. Embassies did not receive any replies from host country

officials about the Cook Islands (a self-governing state in free

association with New Zealand), Macau (an overseas territory of

Portugal), Norfolk Island (a territory of Australia) and the French

dependencies surveyed: The French Antilles, French Guiana, French

Polynesia, New Caledonia, Reunion, and St. Pierre and Miquelon.

According to ``The World Factbook,'' none of the French dependencies

have separate ship registers; for the purposes of this rulemaking,

ships of these areas will be considered as French ships.

--The Department does not have information at this time sufficient to

determine the status of Albania, Antigua, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau,

Lebanon, St. Kitts, Sao Tome and Principe, and Somalia.

--The following countries were excluded from this rulemaking procedure

because their vessels are currently prohibited from calling at U.S.

ports: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, and Syria. In

addition, Serbia and Montenegro was excluded because of the effects of

UN economic sanctions.

5. Develop a follow-up procedure to ensure that reports are

received from all tasked overseas post and to obtain any necessary

clarification.

--The Department has set up a data base to track the status of replies

and requests for clarification. At regular intervals, reminders are

sent to posts with replies outstanding.

In addition to the recommendations listed above, the GAO

recommended that the Secretary add to the list those countries with

restrictions on longshore work that were previously omitted on the

basis that no U.S. ships had called on their ports within the previous

year or that they did not enforce their restrictions. The Department

has

[[Page 58027]]

followed this recommendation and added countries to the list

accordingly.

Public Comments

In response to the notice published on March 24, 1994 at 59 FR

13904, twelve parties submitted comments. In general, ocean carriers,

port administrators and shippers expressed support for the Department's

previous application of Section 258, while representatives of organized

labor argued that the Department's previous application was

inappropriate.

In a letter dated April 11, 1994, Icicle Seafoods, Inc. supported

the original definition of practice and stated that any expansion of

this definition would be detrimental and confusing to its business.

In a letter dated April 19, 1994, the International Longshoremen's

Association took the position that the Department's definition of ``in

practice'' was improper and inaccurate and should have included

collective bargaining agreements and other local practices irrespective

of whether they were sanctioned by governmental authorities. The

Association urged implementation of the recommendations from the GAO

Report and agreed with the GAO position that various interpretations of

the term ``in practice'' were legally supportable. It enclosed and

referred to a previous letter to Undersecretary of State Joan Spero in

which the Association argued that Congress intended the legislation to

cover private as well as government restrictions.

In a letter dated April 19, 1994, the Council of European &

Japanese National Shipowners' Associations submitted that the

Department had correctly interpreted the language and intent of the Act

and that the Department should not change its original interpretation.

In a letter dated April 20, 1994, the Federation of American

Controlled Shipping stated that the Department had properly construed

the statutory phrase ``in practice'' as requiring some degree of

involvement by a foreign government. It asserted that denying

reciprocity to countries in which the foreign government plays no role

in restrictive labor practices is akin to holding the U.S. government

responsible for practices privately negotiated by unions in this

country. Since the law defers to U.S. collective bargaining agreements,

it would, the Federation argued, be inconsistent to treat similar

foreign agreements as impermissible. Finally, the Federation stated

that any other interpretation would be unrealistic from the point of

view of administrative practicality and cost effectiveness.

In a letter dated April 21, 1994, the Lake Carriers Association

expressed its support for regulations in which the Department confined

the list to countries in which crew members of U.S. vessels were

precluded from performing longshore work by virtue of specific laws,

regulations, or government imposition or approval of collective

bargaining agreements.

In a letter dated April 22, 1994, the International Longshoremen's

& Warehousemen's Union expressed its disagreement with the Department's

previous rulemaking on this issue. The Union stated that the

reciprocity exception was intended by Congress to be narrow, and that

the term ``in practice'' should cover any restrictive practice,

irrespective of whether a foreign government had prompted, adopted or

approved it. It noted that the language in the statute refers to

restrictions in the country rather than by the country. The Union also

argued that the original interpretation of the exception was deemed

wholly inconsistent with a major policy underlying immigration laws,

the protection of the interests of the American workforce. It cited

Congressional support for these views and provided an extensive

discussion of the GAO Report in support of its position.

In a letter dated April 22, 1994, American Great Lakes Ports saw no

reason to change the interpretation of the statute. It noted the GAO's

determination that while section 258(d) is susceptible to differing

interpretations, the interpretation that restrictions should apply only

in those cases where a foreign country has actively imposed or approved

restrictions is a legally supportable reading of the law.

In a letter dated April 22, 1994, CANAMCO fully and unequivocally

supported the Department's original interpretation. It cited the GAO's

conclusion that the interpretation is legally supportable and stated

that nothing has occurred that requires a change. CANAMCO expressed the

view that a broader interpretation of section 258(d) to include all

restrictive practices would present the Department with an impossible

definitional and administrative undertaking.

In a letter dated April 25, 1994, the Shipping Federation of Canada

noted that the terms of many Canadian and other nations' collective

bargaining agreements restrict certain work to unionized longshoremen,

and that a change in interpretation of the statute to include such

agreements would cause these nations to lose their reciprocity

exemption. It stated that a change would result in significant new

cargo handling costs and delays at U.S. ports and urged retention of

the Department's original interpretation.

In a letter dated April 25, 1994, Cargill, Incorporated supported

the original interpretation and described the language enacted by

Congress as a carefully crafted compromise designed to keep U.S.

exports competitive by limiting the unnecessary escalation of costs at

U.S. ports and fostering the use of innovative technology in cargo-

handling operation. Cargill argued that a revised definition of

reciprocity would cause cargos to be diverted to ports outside the

United States and provide a gain in long-term competitive advantage for

foreign agricultural and industrial exporters.

In a letter dated April 25, 1994, the American Federation of Labor

and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) described the

purpose of the law as to preserve and protect longshore work for United

States longshore workers. It noted that Congress was capable of

excluding private restrictions from consideration if it had wanted to,

but had not chosen to do so. It drew a parallel between the reciprocity

exception and the separate ``prevailing practice'' exception for U.S.

ports where foreign crewmembers normally perform longshore work, noting

that the prevailing practice exception takes collective bargaining

agreements into account. The AFL-CIO contended that there is no legal

barrier to a change in interpretation, citing the GAO Report in this

regard, and concluded that a wider interpretation would be neither

unbalanced nor unfair, reflecting the most natural meaning of

reciprocity.

In a letter dated April 1994, the Maritime Trades Department of the

AFL-CIO described the original interpretation as unwarranted and an

egregious wrong to U.S. longshore workers. It argued that the

interpretation had led to the loss of thousands of jobs in an industry

already suffering from widespread unemployment as a result of

containerization and other technological advancements. It expressed the

view that the reciprocity exception was intended to accommodate only a

relatively few countries.

Standards for Reciprocity Exception

Laws and Regulations

The Department previously listed those countries where restrictions

on longshore activities by crewmembers of U.S. ships are imposed by law

or

[[Page 58028]]

regulation of the foreign government on a national basis or by law or

regulation of a regional or local government, provided the laws and

regulations were actually enforced on U.S. ships which called at ports

in those countries. Taking note of the recommendations of the GAO, the

fact that ``general practice'' was the standard set forth in the

legislative conference report, and the practical difficulties of

determining the extent to which laws are enforced, the Department has

chosen to alter its consideration of ``laws and regulations'' for

purposes of section 258. Countries are now listed based on the

existence of restrictions imposed by national, regional or local laws

or regulations, provided such restrictions are pervasive enough to

constitute general practice, irrespective of whether the laws are

actually or consistently enforced or whether U.S. ships call at ports

in the country in question.

Practices

In earlier rulemakings, in addition to the countries listed because

of restrictive laws and regulations, the Department listed only those

countries with restrictions arising through collective bargaining

agreements directly negotiated by a foreign government with other

parties, or through restrictions in collective bargaining agreements

imposed or approved by a foreign government. In its study of the

Department's implementation of the legislation, the GAO concluded that

the statutory phrase ``in practice'' is susceptible to differing

interpretations. The GAO found that the Department's interpretation was

legally supportable, but noted that the language and legislative

history could support an interpretation under which privately

negotiated collective bargaining agreements would disqualify a country

for a reciprocal exception. The Department accepts the GAO's conclusion

that either interpretation is legally supportable.

In the absence of unequivocal statutory language, the Department

must interpret the ``in practice'' provision. Upon consideration of the

legislative history, comments from interested parties, the basic policy

reflected in the statutory scheme, and U.S. economic interests, the

Department has concluded that a longshore activity by alien crewmembers

cannot qualify for the reciprocity exception in section 258(d) if U.S.

mariners are prohibited from performing that activity in the country of

the foreign vessel due to restrictive practices, e.g. private

collective bargaining agreements, irrespective of governmental

involvement in those restrictions.

The purpose of section 258 is to protect U.S. longshore workers by

restricting foreign crewmembers from performing longshore work in the

United States, the performance of which had not been explicitly

prohibited prior to the enactment of the statute in 1990. Section 258

prohibits such work in general, and then provides limited exceptions to

that prohibition. The Department was guided by this basic purpose and

recognizes that to apply the exception to countries in which longshore

activity by U.S. mariners is restricted in any way would not further

that purpose. For example, applying the exception in such a case could

conceivably create a situation in which all longshore work in a country

was foreclosed to U.S. mariners by collective bargaining agreements,

but mariners from that country were permitted to engage in longshore

activity in the United States.

The Department also notes the ``prevailing practice'' exception of

section 258(c), which applies to private practices, whether or not any

governmental action requires or sanctions those practices. Likewise,

the Department recognizes that the statute emphasizes conditions that

actually prevail in ports, as well as formal governmental actions.

As observed by the GAO, the Department's original interpretation

tended to maximize the number of countries granted a reciprocity

exception. While the result may have been a benefit to shipping

companies, those benefits came at the expense of U.S. longshore

workers. The Department has concluded that, in the context of the

statutory scheme created by Congress, the benefits gained by U.S.

longshore workers through this new interpretation outweigh any benefits

to U.S. businesses under the Department's previous interpretation.

The Department has chosen this manner of applying section 258(d)

after thorough consideration of its previous position and the practical

difficulties of applying the statute accordingly. As a practical

matter, the Department's previous application required an often

difficult determination of the extent of government involvement in

restrictive labor practices. This inquiry was cumbersome and, in many

cases, indeterminate, since there was no guidance as to the level of

government involvement which would place a country on the list. Under

the Department's new position, however, the level of government

involvement need not be established. Thus, this manner of application

lends consistency and predictability to the process of listing

countries in which longshore work is restricted ``in practice.''

Voluntary Commercial Practice

Several comments submitted in connection with the original

rulemaking on this subject observed that carriers may use local

longshore workers as a matter of commercial choice. In the absence of

restrictive laws, regulations, collective bargaining agreements or

restrictions consistently imposed by national custom or practice as

described above, the Department does not list countries based on U.S.

carriers' voluntary commercial decisions.

Compensation of Port Workers

In several countries, the Department has found that the performance

of longshore work by U.S. crewmembers is permitted, but the ship is

required to pay for the services of local longshore workers even if

crewmembers are actually doing the work. In previous rulemaking the

Department considered such practices restrictive only if the

compensation exceeded ordinary market wages. However, because the

Department has found that such monetary charges, at whatever wage

level, have both a negative economic impact on the U.S. carrier and a

deterrent effect on the performance of such work by U.S. crewmembers,

the Department has decided to consider such practices as restrictive

for purposes of this rulemaking and to place countries where such

practices are in effect on the list.

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 89

Aliens, Crewmembers, Immigration, Labor, Longshore Work.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 22 CFR Chapter I is

amended as follows:

PART 89--PROHIBITIONS ON LONGSHORE WORK BY U.S. NATIONALS

1. The authority for part 89 is maintained to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1288, Public Law 101-649, 104 Stat. 4878.

2. Part 89 is amended by revising Sec. 89.1 to read as follows:

Sec. 89.1 Prohibitions on longshore work by U.S. nationals; listing by

country.

The Secretary of State has determined that, in the following

countries, longshore work by crewmembers aboard United States vessels

is prohibited by law, regulation, or in practice, with respect to the

particular activities noted:

[[Page 58029]]

Algeria

(a) All longshore activities.

Angola

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Opening and closing of hatches and

(2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Argentina

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Cargo tiedown and untieing,

(2) When a disaster occurs,

(3) Provision of vessel supplies, and

(4) Opening and closing of hatches.

Australia

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) When shore labor cannot be obtained at rates prescribed by

collective bargaining agreements,

(2) Opening and closing of hatches, and

(3) Rigging of ship's gear.

Bahamas

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Operation of cargo related equipment on board the ship,

(2) Opening and closing of hatches,

(3) Rigging of ship's gear, and

(4) Use of specialized equipment which port workers cannot handle

alone, with the concurrence of the local longshore union.

Bangladesh

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Operation of cargo related equipment integral to the vessel

when there is a shortage of port workers able to operate the equipment

and with the permission of the port authority, and

(2) Opening and closing of hatches.

Barbados

(a) All longshore activities.

Belgium

(a) All longshore activities.

Belize

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Operation of cargo related equipment,

(2) Opening and closing of hatches and

(3) Rigging of ship's gear.

Benin

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Operation of cargo related equipment.

(2) Opening and closing of hatches and

(3) Rigging of ship's gear.

Bermuda

(a) Loading and discharge of cargo using cranes and loading

equipment situated on the docks or wharves.

(b) Line handling on the docks.

Brazil

(a) All longshore activities at public terminals.

Bulgaria

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions

(1) Operation of cargo related equipment,

(2) Opening and closing of hatches,

(3) Rigging of ship's gear,

(4) Mooring and line handling, and

(5) Operation of special equipment and discharge of dangerous

cargo, with the preliminary authorization of the Port Administration

and Harbor Master.

Burma

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Opening and closing of hatches and

(2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Cameroon

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Opening and closing of hatches and

(2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Canada

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions in connection with bulk cargo at Great Lakes ports

only:

(1) Handling of mooring lines on the dock when the vessel is made

fast or let go,

(2) Moving the vessel to place it under shoreside unloading

equipment,

(3) Moving the vessel in position to unload the vessel onto

specific cargo piles, hoppers or conveyor belt systems, and

(4) Operation of cargo related equipment integral to the vessel.

Cape Verde

(a) All longshore activities.

China

(a) Handling of mooring lines.

Colombia

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions: When local workers are unable or unavailable to

provide longshore services.

Comoros

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Operation of cargo related equipment,

(2) Opening and closing of hatches,

(3) Rigging of ship's gear,

(4) Other activities, with government authorization.

Costa Rica

(a) Operation of equipment fixed to the ground.

Cote d'Ivoire

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Opening and closing of hatches and

(2) Rigging of automated ship's gear.

Croatia

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Operation of cargo related equipment on board the ship when

outside of port, and

(2) Operation of specialized unloading equipment.

Cyprus

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and

(2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Djibouti

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exception: Operation of cranes aboard ship.

Dominica

(a) All longshore activities.

Dominican Republic

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exception: Operation of equipment with which local port workers

are not familiar.

Ecuador

(a) All longshore activities.

Egypt

(a) Cargo loading and unloading activities not on board the ship.

El Salvador

(a) All longshore activities.

Eritrea

(a) All longshore activities.

Estonia

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) On-board mooring activities,

(2) Replacement of lines,

(3) Lifting and movement of ladders,

(4) Movement of vessel's equipment,

(5) Loading of food and vessel's equipment by cargo-related

equipment of the vessel, and

[[Page 58030]]

(6) Securing of general cargo, vehicles and containers to the

vessel.

Fiji

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Operation of cargo related equipment, except for discharging

cargo,

(2) Opening and closing hatches, and

(3) Rigging of ship's gear.

Finland

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions, when not related to cargo loading and discharge:

(1) Operation of cargo related equipment,

(2) Opening and closing hatches, and

(3) Rigging of ship's gear.

Gabon

(a) All longshore activities.

Georgia

(a) All longshore activities.

Germany

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and

(2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Ghana

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Operation of cargo related equipment,

(2) Opening and closing of hatches, and

(3) Rigging of ship's gear.

Greenland

(a) Cargo handling activities on shore.

(b) Exception: Loading and discharging of cargo between vessel and

dock by use of ship's gear.

Guatemala

(a) All longshore activities.

Guinea

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and

(2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Guyana

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Operation of cargo related equipment aboard ship,

(2) Opening and closing of hatches, and

(3) Rigging of ship's gear.

Haiti

(a) All longshore activities.

Honduras

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Operations of cargo related equipment,

(2) Opening and closing of hatches, and

(3) Rigging of ship's gear.

Hong Kong

(a) Operation of equipment on the pier.

Iceland

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exception: Operation of shipboard equipment and cranes.

India

(a) All longshore activities

(b) Exception: Operation of shipboard equipment that local port

workers cannot operate.

Indonesia

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) With the permission of the port administrator, when no local

port workers with requisite skills are available, and

(2) In the event of an emergency.

Ireland

(a) All longshore activities.

Israel

(a) All longshore activities.

Jamaica

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Operation of equipment integral to the vessel,

(2) Opening and closing of hatches, jointly with local port

workers, and

(3) Rigging of ship's gear, jointly with local port workers.

Japan

(a) All longshore activities.

Jordan

(a) All longshore activities.

Kenya

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Opening and closing of hatches,

(2) Rigging of ship's gear,

(3) In an emergency declared by the port authority, and

(4) Direct transfer of cargo from one ship to another.

Korea

(a) All longshore activities.

Kuwait

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exception, when activities are declined by the port workers:

(1) Operation of cargo related equipment,

(2) Opening and closing of hatches, and

(3) Rigging of ship's gear.

Liberia

(a) Longshore activities on shore.

Lithuania

(a) The following activities in harbor:

(1) Loading and discharge of cargo,

(2) Maintenance of port equipment,

(3) Receiving and fixing of dock ropes to harbor equipment,

(4) Transportation of cargo within the port, and

(5) Warehousing and security.

(b) Exception: Opening and closing of hatches.

Madagascar

(a) All longshore activities.

Malaysia

(a) Longshore activities on shore.

(b) Exception: Loading and discharge of hazardous materials.

Maldive Islands

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Operation of cargo related equipment aboard ship,

(2) Opening and closing of hatches,

(3) Rigging of ship's gear, and

(4) Other longshore activities within port limits, when authorized

by the port authority in cases when the port authority is unable to

provide longshore workers.

Malta

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and

(2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Mauritania

(a) All longshore activities on shore.

Mauritius

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and

(2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Mexico

(a) All longshore activities.

Micronesia

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Operation and rigging of gear which local port workers cannot

do, and

(2) When no qualified citizens are available.

Morocco

(a) All longshore activities.

[[Page 58031]]

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Operation of ship's gear which port workers cannot operate,

(2) Opening and closing of hatches,

(3) Rigging of gear aboard ship, and

(4) Fastening and unfastening containers.

Mozambique

(a) All longshore activities on shore.

Namibia

(a) Longshore activities on shore.

Nauru

(a) All longshore activities.

Netherlands

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exception: Regular crew activities on board ship, including

operation of cargo related equipment, opening and closing of hatches

and rigging of ship's gear.

Netherlands Antilles

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Operation of ship's gear,

(2) Opening and closing of hatches, and

(3) Rigging of ship's gear.

New Zealand

(a) All longshore activities.

Nicaragua

(a) All longshore activities.

Pakistan

(a) Longshore activities on shore.

(b) Handling of mooring lines.

(c) Exception: Operation of equipment which dock workers are not

capable of operating.

Panama

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Rigging of ship's gear,

(2) Cargo handling operations with ship's gear, when port authority

equipment is not available to load or unload a vessel.

Papua New Guinea

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and

(2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Peru

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Handling of certain types of hazardous cargo, and

(2) Operation of shipboard equipment requiring special training.

Philippines

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Activities on board ship, except for loading and discharge of

cargo,

(2) Longshore activities for hazardous or polluting cargoes, and

(3) Longshore activities on government vessels.

Poland

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Operation of cargo-related equipment,

(2) Opening and closing of hatches, and

(3) Rigging of ship's gear.

Portugal (including Azores)

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Military operations,

(2) Operations in an emergency, when under the supervision of the

maritime authorities,

(3) Security or inspection operations,

(4) Loading and discharge of supplies for the vessel and its crew,

(5) Loading and discharge of fuel and petroleum products at special

terminals,

(6) Loading and discharge of chemical products if required for

safety reasons,

(7) Placing of trailers and similar material in parking areas when

done before loading or after discharge,

(8) Cleaning of the vessel, and

(9) Loading, discharge and disposal of merchandise in other boats.

Qatar

(a) All longshore activities.

Romania

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Operation of specialized shipboard equipment, and

(2) Loading and discharge of cargo requiring special operations.

St. Lucia

(a) All longshore activities.

St. Vincent and the Grenadines

(a) All longshore activities.

Saudi Arabia

(a) All longshore activities.

Senegal

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Opening and closing of hatches,

(2) Rigging of ship's gear, and

(3) Cargo handling when necessary to ensure the safety or stability

of the vessel.

Seychelles

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and

(2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Slovenia

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and

(2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Solomon Islands

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and

(2) Rigging of ship's gear.

South Africa

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and

(2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Spain

(a) All longshore activities.

Sri Lanka

(a) Longshore activities on shore.

Sweden

(a) Loading and discharge of cargo.

(b) Rigging of cargo nets, straps and wires to make ready for

loading by the crane.

(c) Cargo handling.

(d) Line handling on the dock.

Taiwan

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Operation of cargo-related equipment which local longshoremen

cannot operate, and

(2) Opening and closing of hatches operated automatically.

Tanzania

(a) All longshore activities.

Thailand

(a) Longshore activities on shore.

(b) Exception: Longshore activities in private ports.

Togo

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Operation of cargo-related equipment on board the ship, and

(2) Opening and closing of hatches, upon the agreement of the port

officer on duty.

Trinidad and Tobago

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Opening and closing of hatches, if done automatically, and

[[Page 58032]]

(2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Tunisia

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exception: When the number of local dock workers is

insufficient or when the workers are not qualified to do the work.

Uruguay

(a) Stowing, unstowing, loading and discharge, and related

activities on board ships in commercial ports.

(b) Cargo handling on the docks and piers of commercial ports.

(c) Exception: Activities usually performed by the ships crew,

including operation of cargo related equipment, opening and closing of

hatches and rigging of ship's gear.

Vanuatu

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and

(2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Venezuela

(a) Longshore activities in private ports and terminals.

Western Samoa

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and

(2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Yemen

(a) All longshore activities.

Zaire

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exception: Operation of cargo related equipment, when

authorized by the Port Authority.

(8 U.S.C. 1288, Pub. L. 010-649, 104 Stat, 4878)

Dated: October 27, 1995.

Daniel K. Tarullo,

Assistant Secretary, Economic and Business Affairs, Department of

State.

[FR Doc. 95-28052 Filed 11-22-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-07-M