Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules 52671

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910, 1917, and 1918

[Docket No. S–025A]

RIN 1218–AA56

Longshoring and Marine Terminals

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Limited opening of the record;

Notice of informal public meeting.

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and

Health Administration (OSHA)

published a final rule on July 25, 1997,

revising all of 29 CFR part 1918 (the

Longshoring Standard) and related

sections of 29 CFR part 1917 (the

Marine Terminals Standard) (62 FR

40152). In the preamble of the final rule,

OSHA discussed the practice of lifting

two empty intermodal containers

together, one on top of the other,

connected by semi-automatic twist locks

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘piggybacking’’

of two containers using twist locks). To

secure them for shipping, containers

have twist locks placed between the

corner fittings of one container and the

bottom fittings of the container that rests

on top of the first. In a piggyback lift,

the bottom container’s weight is borne

by the top container and twist locks.

The force of lifting the bottom container

is also transferred through the twist

locks to the bottom fittings of the top

container. Although OSHA expressed

safety concerns regarding piggybacking,

the rulemaking record did not contain

enough information to enable OSHA to

determine how to regulate this practice.

Therefore, OSHA is reopening the

record to conduct a second phase of the

rulemaking to determine whether to

allow ‘‘piggybacking,’’ and if so, under

what conditions. Based on the

information gathered during this

extension of the rulemaking’s

proceedings, OSHA will issue a

proposal to address this practice.

This notice requests written comment

and schedules an informal public

meeting on safety issues and risks and

on the technological and economic

feasibility associated with piggybacking

of two containers using twist locks.

DATES: Written comments on the

proposed standard and notices of

intention to appear at the informal

public meeting on the proposed

standard must be postmarked by

December 8, 1997. Parties who request

more than 10 minutes for their

presentations at the informal public

meeting and parties who will submit

documentary evidence at the meeting

must submit the full text of their

testimony and all documentary

evidence postmarked no later than

January 13, 1998. The informal public

meeting will take place in Washington,

DC and is scheduled to begin on January

27, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

to the Docket Office, Docket S–025A,

Room N–2625, U.S. Department of

Labor, Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, 200 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.

Telephone: (202) 219–7894. Comments

on the proposal are to be submitted in

quadruplicate or 1 original (hard copy)

and 1 disk (51⁄4 or 31⁄2 inch) in WP 5.0,

5.1, 6.0 or ASCII. Comments of 10 pages

or less may be faxed to the Docket

Office, fax number (202) 219–5046, if

followed by a hard copy.

Send notices of intention to appear,

testimony, and documentary evidence

which will be introduced into the

meeting record to Mrs. Theda Kenney,

OSHA Office of Safety Standards,

Docket No. S–025A, Room N–3609, U.S.

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210,

telephone (202) 219–8061.

The informal public meeting will be

held in Washington, D.C., beginning

January 27, 1998 at 10 a.m. in the

Frances Perkins Building, U.S.

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Larry Liberatore, Director of the Office

of Maritime Safety Standards, or Paul

Rossi, Project Officer, Office of Maritime

Safety Standards, Occupational Safety

and Health Administration, Room N–

3609, U.S. Department of Labor, 200

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20210, (202) 219–7234.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1993,

OSHA received a letter from Sea-Land

Service, Inc. requesting that OSHA

interpret its existing longshoring

standards to allow the lifting of two

empty 40-foot International Standards

Organization (ISO) freight containers

that are vertically coupled using semiautomatic twist locks (Ex. 1, Docket S–

025A). OSHA’s existing standards did

not expressly prohibit this practice,

which utilizes the top container and

twist locks as a ‘‘lifting appliance’’ to lift

the bottom container. In its response,

OSHA allowed Sea-Land to continue

this practice, provided that certain

requirements were met (Ex. 2, Docket S–

025A). OSHA’s response from its

Compliance Office identified applicable

OSHA standards and related industry

practices associated with container

cargo handling operations. These

requirements addressed: Inspecting

containers for visible defects, verifying

that both containers are empty, assuring

that containers are properly marked,

assuring that twist locks operate in the

same manner, assuring that the load

does not exceed the capacity of the

crane, assuring that the top container is

vertically lifted, having available for

inspection manufacturers’ documents

that verify the capacities of the twist

locks and corner castings, and directing

employees to stay clear of the lifting

area.

OSHA’s existing longshoring

standards, which referenced ILO

Convention 32, did not require the

certification of ‘‘lifting appliances.’’

This term was not a part of the existing

Convention 32 which was adopted in

1932 before the advent of containers and

twist locks that were developed by the

marine cargo handling industry in the

1960s.

In the preamble to the proposed rule

(59 FR 28602), OSHA discussed

differences between ILO Convention 32

and ILO Convention 152, including the

requirement in the latter convention to

certify lifting appliances. Convention

152, Article 22, adopted June 25, 1979,

requires that proof load testing be

conducted every 5 years, and applies to

all ships’ lifting appliances. Within

Article 3 of ILO 152, paragraph (e),

defines the term ‘‘lifting appliance’’ 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 them

from one position to another while

suspended or supported (Ex. 3, Docket S–

025A). (emphasis added)

Thus, the term ‘‘lifting appliance’’ was

intended to cover all appliances used to

lift or move loads, with no exceptions.

OSHA carried this intention forward in

its proposal and did not propose to

except any lifting equipment from

certification.

OSHA stated in the proposed rule

that, under Convention 152, when a

container was used to lift another

container, the top container would fall

within the definition of ‘‘lifting

appliance’’:

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. (59 FR 28602)

In response to this proposed

interpretation of Article 3, paragraph (e)

of ILO Convention 152, OSHA received

comments only from the International
52672 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s

Union (ILWU) (Exs. 4, 5, and 6, Docket

S–025A). Although these comments

favored the proposed interpretation and

requested the Agency to include it as a

requirement in the regulatory text, these

commenters included no specific

information regarding the piggybacking

of two containers using twist locks. SeaLand Services Inc. submitted a detailed

six page comment (Ex. 7, Docket S–

025A) addressing a number of the

proposed changes to the Marine

Terminals and Longshoring Standards,

but did not address this issue. OSHA

received a late, post-hearing submission

from the International Longshoremen’s

Association (ILA), however, that alerted

the Agency to what might be a serious

problem with this type of lift, citing

several incidents at U.S. ports where

failures had occurred (Ex. 8, Docket S–

025A). OSHA was not able to rely on

this letter to support regulatory action in

the final rule because it was not a timely

submission to the record. However, the

letter made OSHA aware of safety

concerns that might need to be

addressed through supplementary

rulemaking. As a result of the dearth of

information about safety considerations

associated with the practice of

piggybacking two containers using twist

locks, as well as insufficient information

or elements relating to feasibility (such

as the capability of top containers and

twist locks to withstand such loading

and the cost impacts and productivity

effects of piggybacking), OSHA reserved

judgment on the appropriate regulatory

approach to this practice, pending

further study.

This notice reopens the record and

requests written comment on this

narrow issue, and schedules an informal

public meeting to consider whether

OSHA should allow the practice of

lifting vertically coupled containers,

and if so, under what circumstances.

OSHA solicits all relevant information,

including data on the following issues:

Have intermodal containers been

designed and tested for the purposes of

piggyback lifting?

Have the twist locks been designed

and tested for lifting containers?

What information do container and

twist lock manufacturers have regarding

the use of their products as lifting

appliances?

Do any international bodies currently

certify containers and twist locks as

‘‘lifting appliances?’

Is there any scientific or engineering

data that addresses maintenance testing

and ‘‘life’’ of the components used for

lifting purposes?

Has the impact of adverse weather

conditions been evaluated in both

design and operational concerns with

regard to double container lifts?

What precautions can be taken to

assure that the containers being lifted

are empty?

What precautions can be taken to

assure that the twist locks are all locked

properly when the lifting occurs?

What precautions can be taken to

assure that employees are not exposed

to the hazard of a falling container?

What precautions can be taken to

assure that defective or damaged

containers are not used to hoist other

containers?

To what extent are vertically coupled

containers currently being lifted and by

whom?

If the standard were to require the

employer to certificate the upper

container and twist locks for use as a

lifting appliance, how many containers

and twist locks would need to be

certificated? Would vessel sharing

agreements have any effect on the

ability of employers to do such

certification?

What would it cost to certify the

upper containers and twist locks for use

as lifting appliances?

What are the potential productivity

gains, if any, associated with lifting

vertically coupled containers?

As noted above, OSHA currently

allows Sea-Land to perform

piggybacking in accordance with a

series of precautions set forth in Exhibit

2. Are these precautions sufficiently

protective?

What are the costs and cost-savings

(productivity gains) of piggybacking

under the current requirements of

Exhibit 2? How would they be affected

by certification or other requirements?

What information (both statistical and

anecdotal) is available on incidents

involving vertically coupled containers

that have fallen and hurt or killed

employees or caused ‘‘near-misses?’

Public Participation

Interested persons are requested to

submit written data, views and

arguments concerning the issues raised

by this notice. These comments must be

postmarked by December 8, 1997.

Comments are to be submitted in

quadruplicate or 1 original (hard copy)

and 1 disk (51⁄4 or 31⁄2) in WP 5.0, 5.1,

6.0 or ASCII. Note: Any information not

contained on disk, e.g., studies, articles,

etc., must be submitted in quadruplicate

to: Docket Office, Docket No. S–025A,

Room N–2625, U.S. Department of

Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20210, Telephone No.

(202) 219–7894.

All written comments received within

the specified comment period will be

made a part of the record and will be

available for public inspection and

copying at the above Docket Office

address.

Notice of Intention To Appear at the

Informal Meeting

An informal public meeting will be

held in the Frances Perkins Building,

U.S. Department of Labor, 200

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20210 on January 27, 1998,

beginning at 10 a.m. The exact location

of the meeting will be posted in the

lobby.

Persons who wish to participate at

this meeting must file a notice of

intention to appear by December 8,

1997. The notice of intention to appear

must contain the following information:

1. The name, address, and telephone

number of each person to appear;

2. The capacity in which the person

will appear;

3. The approximate amount of time

required for the presentation;

4. The issues that will be addressed;

5. A brief statement of the position

that will be taken with respect to each

issue; and

6. Whether the party intends to

submit documentary evidence and, if so,

a brief summary of it.

The notice of intention to appear must

be mailed to Mrs. Theda Kenney, OSHA

Office of Safety Standards, Docket No.

S–025A, U.S. Department of Labor,

Room N–3647, 200 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210,

Telephone (202) 219–8061.

A notice of intention to appear also

may be transmitted by facsimile to (202)

219–7477, by the same date, provided

that the original and 3 copies are sent

to the same address and postmarked no

later than 3 days later.

Filing of Testimony and Evidence Before

the Meeting

Any party requesting more than ten

(10) minutes for presentation at the

informal public meeting, or who intends

to submit documentary evidence, must

provide in quadruplicate the testimony

and evidence to be presented at the

informal public meeting. One copy must

not be stapled or bound and be suitable

for copying. These materials must be

provided to Mrs. Theda Kenney, OSHA

Office of Safety Standards at the address

above and be postmarked no later than

15 days prior to the date of the meeting.

Any party who has not substantially

complied with the above requirement

may be limited to a ten-minute

presentation and may be requested to

return for questioning at a later time.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules 52673

Any party who has not filed a notice of

intention to appear may be allowed to

testify for no more than 10 minutes as

time permits, at the discretion of the

Facilitator.

Notice of intention to appear,

testimony and evidence will be

available for inspection and copying at

the Docket Office at the address above.

Informal Public Meeting

The informal public meeting will

commence at 10 a.m. OSHA has

scheduled this meeting to enable

interested persons to address the

Agency on the issues discussed in this

notice. The meeting will be presided

over by a Facilitator designated by

OSHA.

Authority and Signature

This document has been prepared

under the direction of Greg R.

Watchman, Acting Assistant Secretary

of Labor for Occupational Safety and

Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20210. It is issued under sections 4,

6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and

Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,

657), section 41 of the Longshore and

Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33

U.S.C. 941), and 29 CFR part 1911.

Signed at Washington, DC this 3rd day of

October, 1997.

Greg Watchman,

Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor.

[FR Doc. 97–26819 Filed 10–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 183

[CGD 97–060]

Standards for Navigation Lights Used

on Recreational Boats

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Request for comments.

SUMMARY: This document solicits

comments concerning the desirability of

requiring manufacturers and importers

of navigation lights used on recreational

boats to construct and label their lights

in accordance with a recognized

industry standard. A request for public

input was the recommendation of the

National Boating Safety Advisory

Council.

DATES: Comments must be received by

April 7, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

the Executive Secretary, Marine Safety

Council (G–LRA/3406) (CGD 97–060),

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100

Second Street SW., Washington, DC

20593–0001, or may be delivered to

room 3406 at the above address between

8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. The

telephone number is (202) 267–1477.

The Executive Secretary maintains the

public docket for this notice. Comments

will become a part of this docket and

will be available for inspection or

copying at room 3406, U.S. Coast Guard

Headquarters.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Randolph Doubt, Project Manager,

Recreational Boating Product Assurance

Division, (202) 267–0984.

You may obtain a copy of this notice

by calling the U.S. Coast Guard Infoline

at 1–800–368–5647, or read it on the

Internet at the Web Site for the Office of

Boating Safety at URL address

www.uscgboating.org/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages you to

submit comments about this document.

Please include your name and address,

identify this notice (CGD 97–060) and

the specific section of this document to

which each comment applies, and give

the reason for each comment. Please

submit two copies of all comments and

attachments in an unbound format, no

larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, to assist us

with copying and electronic filing. If

you want us to acknowledge receiving

your comments, please enclose a

stamped, self-addressed postcard or

envelope.

Background Information

Prior to April 1997, manufacturers of

navigation lights for recreational vessels

could voluntarily apply for a Coast

Guard ‘‘letter of acceptance’’ for each

light fixture placed on the market, and

if granted, the manufacturer could state

that the light was ‘‘USCG Accepted’’ on

the package. The letter of acceptance

was an indication that the Coast Guard

had reviewed a laboratory report

submitted by the light manufacturer and

that based on a comparison of the report

with the navigation rules, the Coast

Guard did not object to the item being

offered for sale to the boating public.

Since letters of acceptance were never a

requirement, were not equivalent to

‘‘USCG Approval’’ and were therefore a

source of confusion, as of April 1997,

letters of acceptance are no longer

issued. Currently there is no way for

boat manufacturers and the boating

public to determine whether navigation

light fixtures they purchase comply

with applicable requirements in the

Navigation Rules, except for light

manufacturers’ statements in that

regard.

In contrast to Coast Guard practice

with regard to recreational vessels,

existing regulations applicable to

commercial vessels in 46 CFR 111.75–

17 require each navigation light to meet

the technical details of the applicable

navigation rules and to be certified by

an independent laboratory to the

requirements of Underwriters

Laboratories Standard UL 1104 or an

equivalent standard. The commercial

vessel regulations further require that

navigation lights be labeled to indicate:

(1) The name or number of the standard

to which the light was type-tested; (2)

the name or registered certification mark

of the independent laboratory that

tested the fixture; (3) the fixture

manufacturer’s name; (4) the model

number of the fixture; (5) the visibility

of the light in nautical miles; (6) the

date on which the fixture was typetested; and (7) the identification of the

bulb used in the compliance test. The

independent laboratory must be

accepted by the Commandant for the

testing and listing or certification of

electrical equipment.

The National Boating Safety Advisory

Council (NBSAC) is a Federal advisory

committee which provides advice and

makes recommendations to the Coast

Guard regarding regulations and other

boating safety matters. At its April 1997

meeting several National Boating Safety

Advisory Council members noted that

while Annex I to the Navigation Rules

in 33 CFR Part 84 specifies technical

details for proper cutoff angles, color

specifications, and the intensity of

navigation lights and Coast Guard

regulations require certification of

navigation lights installed on

commercial vessels, there are no similar

regulations for lights offered for sale to

recreational boat manufacturers and the

boating public.

The NBSAC therefore recommend

that the Coast Guard solicit comments

on the benefits of, and objections to,

requiring navigation light manufacturers

and importers to demonstrate that lights

offered for sale to boat manufacturers

and the boating public comply with

applicable requirements in the

Navigation Rules. Under 46 USC 4302,

4303, and 33 USC 2071, the Coast Guard

has the authority to establish

requirements for the installation,

carrying, or use of associated equipment

on recreational vessels. All comments

received during the comment period

will be placed in the public docket for

review by NBSAC and the Coast Guard

in considering the formulation of any