Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 29941

provide services related to shipping and

seamen. Those they do perform are very

routine functions. While historically

important, protection of seamen is not

any longer a significant function

performed by consular officers.

In addition, there have been major

legislative changes since Chapters 81–88

were promulgated. Many of the current

regulations have been unchanged since

1957, and a good portion have become

obsolete. For example, 22 CFR section

87.1 authorizes consular officers to issue

a certificate of American Ownership or

a Provisional Certificate of Registry. In

fact, Provisional Certificates of Registry

have not been issued since 1981.

Another example is 22 CFR section

84.8(b), which refers to ‘‘shipping

commissioners.’’ There are no longer

any shipping commissioners. In

addition, some of the statutes on which

the regulations are based have been

repealed (e.g., 46 U.S.C. 593, and 46

U.S.C. 621 to 628) and replaced by new

and different legislation.

In repealing the regulations on

Shipping and Seamen, the Bureau of

Consular Affairs has consulted with the

Coast Guard and the United Seamen’s

Service. It was determined that many of

the current regulations merely restate

statutory or common law, or deal with

the internal policy of the Department of

State. As such, they are unnecessary and

can be removed.

If new regulations are proposed, they

will be much simpler and consistent

with the current State Department

dealings with shipping and seamen. The

core functions (responsibilities to

vessels, relief and repatriation of

individual seamen) will be spelled out

as necessary.

It is hereby certified that the repeal of

these regulations will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), because

the issues addressed are not of an

economic nature and a very small

number of U.S. vessels will be affected.

In addition, the repeal of these

regulations will not impose information

collection requirements under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. Nor

do these rules have federalism

implications warranting the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment in

accordance with E.O. 12612.

Review under E.O. 12988 is not

required, because no new regulations

are being proposed at this time. This

regulatory action is exempt from review

under E.O. 12866, but has been

undertaken consistent with the policies

and principles thereof. This action is

being taken as a final rule, pursuant to

the ‘‘good cause’’ provision of 5 U.S.C.

section 553 (b); notice and comment are

not necessary in light of the fact that

Department is merely repealing

regulations that are obsolete or

repetitive of other statutory or

procedural guidance. Moreover, the

Department will continue to have

authority to act with respect to shipping

and seamen by relying directly upon

existing statutory authority.

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Parts 81, 82,

83, 84, 85, 86, 87, and 88

Foreign Service, Seamen, Vessels.

Pursuant to the above authorities,

Title 22 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as set forth

below:

PARTS 81 THROUGH 88—[REMOVED]

1. Parts 81 through 88 are removed.

Dated: May 31, 1996.

Mary A. Ryan,

Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs.

[FR Doc. 96–14822 Filed 6–12–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–06–M

Bureau of Economic and Business

Affairs

[Public Notice 2396]

22 CFR Part 89

Foreign Prohibitions on Longshore

Work by U.S. Nationals

AGENCY: Bureau of Economics and

Business Affairs, State.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Immigration and Nationality Act of

1952, as amended, the Department of

State is issuing a 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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 13, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Office of Maritime and Land

Transport (EB/TRA/MA), Room 5828,

Department of State, Washington, D.C.

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 of the Immigration and Nationality

Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. 1288, determines

that alien crewmen may not perform

longshore work in the United States.

Longshore work is defined broadly to

include ‘‘any activity relating to the

loading or unloading of cargo, the

operation of cargo-related equipment

(whether or not integral to the vessel),

and the handling of mooring lines on

the dock when the vessel is made fast

or let go, in the United States or the

coastal waters thereof.’’ The Act goes

on, however, to define a number of

exceptions to the general prohibition on

such work.

Section 258(b)(2), in what is known as

the ‘‘Exception for Safety and

Environmental Protection,’’ excludes

from the definition of longshore work

under this statute ‘‘the loading or

unloading of any cargo for which the

Secretary of Transportation has, under

the authority contained in chapter 37 of

title 46, United States Code (relating to

Carriage of Liquid Bulk Dangerous

Cargoes), section 311 of the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.

1321), section 4106 of the Oil Pollution

Act of 1990, or section 105 or 106 of the

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act

(49 U.S.C. App. 1804, 1805) prescribed

regulations which govern—(A) the

handling or stowage of such cargo, (B)

the manning of vessels and the duties,

qualifications, and training of the

officers and crew of vessels carrying

such cargo, and (C) the reduction or

elimination of discharge during

ballasting, tank cleaning, handling of

such cargo.’’

Section 258(c), in what is known as

the ‘‘Prevailing Practice Exception,’’

exempts particular activities of

longshore work in and about a local port

if there is a collective bargaining

agreement covering at least 30 percent

of the longshore workers in the area that

permits the activities or if there is no

such collective bargaining agreement

and the employer of the alien crew files

an appropriate attestation, in a timely

fashion, that the performance of the

activity by alien crewmen is permitted

under the prevailing practice of the

particular port. The attestation is not

required for activities consisting of the

use of an automated self-unloading

conveyor belt or vacuum-actuated

system on a vessel unless the Secretary

of Labor finds, based on a

preponderance of evidence which may

be submitted by any interested party,

that the performance of such particular

activity is not the prevailing practice in

the area or that certain labor actions are

underway.

Section 258(d), the ‘‘State of Alaska

Exception,’’ provides detailed

conditions under which alien

crewmembers may be allowed to

perform longshore activities in Alaska,

including the filing of an attestation
29942 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

with the Secretary of Labor at least 30

days before the performance of the work

setting forth facts and evidence to show

that the employer will make a bona fide

request for U.S. longshore workers who

are qualified and available, will employ

all such workers made available who are

needed, and has informed appropriate

labor unions, stevedores, and dock

operators of the attestation, and that the

attestation is not intended to influence

an election of bargaining

representatives.

Finally, Section 258(e), in what is

known as the ‘‘Reciprocity Exception,’’

allows the performance of activities

constituting longshore work by alien

crew aboard vessels flagged and owned

in countries where such activities are

permitted by crews aboard U.S. ships.

The Secretary of State is directed 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 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

13804). An updated list was last

published on December 13, 1993 (58 FR

65118).

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 of

countries in the past. The GAO

concluded that ‘‘with relatively small

changes in how it obtains information

and determines which countries to

place on the list, State can significantly

improve its data collection and

decision-making procedures.’’ With

respect to the statute’s use of the phrase

‘‘in practice’’, the GAO concluded that

differing interpretations were legally

supportable and observed that the

interpretation being followed tended to

maximize the number of countries

granted a reciprocity exception.

After giving notice on March 24, 1994

(59 FR 13904) that it was updating the

list, the Department issued a proposed

rule on November 24, 1995 (60 FR

58026) with a revised list. The proposed

rule reflected changes in methodology

recommended by the Government

Accounting Office and, in an effort to

ensure that the list reflects restrictive

practices in foreign countries fully and

accurately, standards for reciprocity

taking into account practices, whether

or not required or sanctioned by

governments. In response, the

Department received 79 written

comments and oral demarches from two

foreign governments.

Comments and Responses

General

Comment: Four commenters, all from

U.S. labor unions, supported the

Department’s interpretation of the term

‘‘in practice’’ as including restrictive

practices irrespective of government

involvement. The writers said that the

rule would protect American longshore

workers from incursions by foreign

mariners doing cargo handling as

distinguished from navigational duties.

A number of commenters, on the other

hand, took exception to the proposal to

consider private activities when

determining eligibility for the

reciprocity exemption and observed that

the Government Accounting Office

found the interpretation used in

previous rulemakings on this subject

legally supportable. Several of them

asserted that the legislative history did

not support the proposed rule. They

disputed the Department’s conclusion

that the reciprocity provision is a

limited exception.

Response: In its report, the GAO

concluded that the statutory phrase ‘‘in

practice’’ is susceptible to differing

interpretations and noted that the

language of the law and its legislative

history could support an interpretation

under which privately negotiated

collective bargaining agreements would

disqualify a country for a reciprocal

exception. On the basis of its review of

the statute, the Department concurs. The

impact on the list of this change is

modest, however; only six countries

have been added to the list solely

because of private collective bargaining

agreements. The Department’s

conclusion that the reciprocity

exception is a ‘‘limited exception’’ is

based on the statutory scheme embodied

in section 258, which prohibits

longshore work by alien seamen in

general, and then enumerates specific,

limited circumstances, including on the

basis of reciprocity, in which such work

may be performed.

Comment: One commenter said that

the proposed rule would violate U.S.

treaty commitments with a number of

countries, since many U.S. treaties of

Friendship, Commerce and Navigation

accord vessels of the other party

national treatment and most-favorednation treatment.

Response: While many U.S. treaties of

Friendship, Commerce and Navigation

accord vessels of the other party, and

nationals of the other party engaged in

commercial activity, national treatment

and most-favored-nation treatment, such

treaties typically contain clauses which

subject the entry privileges granted

therein to the immigration laws of each

party and deny any right to engage in

gainful occupations in contravention of

limitations expressly imposed,

according to internal laws and

regulations, as a condition of their

admittance.

Comment: One commenter recalled

that the definition in Section 258 of the

Immigration and Nationality Act of

longshore work differs from the rules,

regulations and practice in other

countries and asserted that application

of the definition in the U.S. legislation

to foreign ships would hinder the

sovereignty a flag state exercises over a

ship in its register. In this connection,

several commenters expressed concerns

about U.S. citizens doing certain

longshore activities, such as handling of

ships’ stores, repairs to ships,

midstream loading, opening and closing

of cargo hatches, and fueling, which,

they said, the crew traditionally carries

out and can better do.

Response: The definition of longshore

work contained in Section 258 is indeed

broad, encompassing ‘‘any activity

relating to the loading or unloading of

cargo, the operation of cargo-related

equipment (whether or not integral to

the vessel), and the handling of mooring

lines on the dock when the vessel is

made fast or let go, in the United States

or the coastal waters thereof.’’ Under

this broad definition, the Department is

directed in the law to maintain the list

of countries ‘‘by particular activity.’’

Only those particular activities

restricted in a foreign country will be

restricted in the United States. Thus, in

no case will the application of the law

provide for restrictions broader than

those applied by the foreign country in

which the ship in question is flagged or

owned. Similarly, practices traditionally

performed by ships’ crews will not be

restricted in the U.S. unless the

performance of such practices is

restricted in a foreign country.

Comment: Several commenters

expressed fear that the proposed rule

would increase the danger of accidents

and environmental mishaps. The writers

said that transient port workers could

not acquire the level of experience and

training necessary to operate

sophisticated cargo transfer equipment,

which often differs from ship to ship.

The commenters expressed concerns

that at the high rates of cargo discharge

the equipment makes possible,

mishandling might cause serious injury

to personnel and create environmental

hazards.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 29943

Response: The law does not give the

authority to grant a reciprocity

exemption for safety or environmental

concerns, except for countries that

regulate longshore activities in their

ports and waters on this basis. Congress

separately addressed environmental and

safety issues regarding the handling of

certain types of hazardous cargo in

Section 258(b)(2) discussed earlier.

Comment: Several commenters

highlighted the practical difficulties of

applying a rule to longshore activities

that take place in private terminals,

many of which are in remote areas

where no shoreside labor is available or

where there may be no port facilities at

all.

Response: The Department notes that

the ‘‘Prevailing Practice Exception’’

described above would appear to cover

the circumstances described by these

commentators. In those cases where the

Department obtained particular

information about practices in private

terminals, that information has been

reflected in the list of countries.

Implementation Procedures

Comment: One commenter said that

the survey was too limited because it

did not take general labor laws into

account. Another commenter expressed

the fear that the standardized

methodology developed by the

Department would generate inaccurate

findings and overlook local rules in

foreign countries affecting specialized

vessels. The writer noted that

appropriate procedures for specialized

ships may not exist in many smaller

countries where such ships rarely call.

The commenter doubted whether the

follow-up procedures would be

thorough enough to make accurate or

fair determinations. Another commenter

recommended a provision for periodic

review to account for changes in

longshore work resulting from

technological change. Noting some

activities enumerated in the list, another

commenter asked for a procedure to

secure official interpretations of

authorized longshore work exemptions

for nations generally listed as ineligible

for the reciprocity exception. Several

commenters worried that the proposed

rule would overburden U.S.

immigration inspectors by making them

responsible for interpreting differing

customs and practice in each port.

Response: The GAO report urged the

Department to develop standardized

methodology to ensure consistent

treatment of countries. The Department

has made every effort to obtain full and

accurate information about the countries

listed, including general labor laws

where they affect the performance of

longshore work by U.S. seamen, and is

prepared to investigate information

supplied by interested parties and

adjust the list accordingly. The

Department is required to update the list

annually. The Department’s goal is to

maintain the list in a fashion that

reflects laws, regulations and practices

in foreign countries as accurately as

possible. Where technological change

results in a change in such laws,

regulations or practices, that will be

reflected in the list. The responsibility

for interpreting the list and authorizing

or denying the performance of activities

by alien members of foreign ships’

crews in specific instances lies with the

Immigration and Naturalization Service

(INS). The Department is prepared to

assist the INS in cases where more

detailed information about specific

practices in foreign countries would be

useful in their determination. While the

expansion of the list of countries in

which restrictions have been found may

change the determination by the INS in

specific cases, it is not anticipated that

the workload of the INS would expand

significantly as a result.

Comment: One commenter noted that

the Department has not placed countries

about which it has no information on

the list. The writer said that any country

should be on the list unless the country

can conclusively demonstrate its

eligibility for a reciprocity exemption.

Response: The law directs the

Department to maintain a list of

countries where restrictions exist. The

Department is not in a position to

assume such restrictions absent specific

information.

Comment: One commenter said that

countries whose ships are currently

prohibited from calling on U.S. ports

should be put on the list in case the

prohibition ends during the life of the

Department’s rule.

Response: The Department is

prepared to consider the situation with

respect to such countries at the time

their ships become eligible to enter U.S.

waters, and revise the list if necessary.

Comment: One commenter questioned

the Department’s decision not to survey

laws, regulations and practices in

countries, dependencies and other

geographic entities with a population of

less than 5,000 people. The writer noted

that there is nothing in the statute or the

legislative history to support this.

Response: The Department does not

believe that it has omitted areas whose

ships are likely to call in the United

States. Interested parties are encouraged

to provide the Department with

information concerning longshore rules,

regulations or practices in areas not on

the list.

Economic Impact

Comment: Several comments

questioned the rationale and

methodology leading to the

Department’s conclusion that the

benefits of the proposed rule for U.S.

longshore workers and seamen

outweigh the benefits to U.S. businesses

under the previous interpretation. The

writers generally agreed that the law is

intended to protect the jobs of U.S.

longshore workers but contended that

the proposed rule would require

longshore workers in many situations

where they are not needed. Many

commenters feared that the proposed

rule would have a negative impact on

business, in particular for shippers of

bulk commodities and exporters of

timber products. Other comments

suggested that the proposed rule would

have an impact on the budgets of state

and local governments in the snow belt

by raising the transport costs of road

salt, a heavy bulk commodity whose

transport costs can exceed the initial

acquisition costs. Some comments also

expressed concern that the rule would

discourage technological innovation.

One suggested that the proposed rule

would give foreign competitors an

advantage in the world market by

diverting modern, more efficient vessels

to other countries.

Response: In the Department’s view,

the economic rationale for Section 258

rests on the fact that all of the longshore

workers or seamen to whom benefits

may accrue are U.S. citizens, while the

businesses that may pay higher costs,

and their consumers, are often foreign.

In those cases where the effect of the

law is, ceteris paribus, to shift work

from foreign crews to U.S. longshore

workers, there will be an obvious gain

for the U.S. economy. In those cases

where the shift to U.S. longshore

workers results in higher loading or

unloading costs, but the activity

continues at the same levels, for

example in the case of the import of

road salt, there may still be an overall

net gain for the U.S. economy as a

whole. From a macroeconomic point of

view, increased costs to American

businesses, municipalities, or

consumers would be offset by the

increased income and spending of U.S.

longshore workers or seamen; in those

cases where at least part of the increased

cost was borne by foreign entities, there

would be a net gain for the U.S.

economy as a whole. A number of

companies have raised the possibility of

job losses or other external negative

effects in the United States. While it is

certainly possible that application of the

law could result in higher shipping
29944 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

costs in certain trades, and that such

higher costs could affect the level of

those trades, in general the Department

found such concerns to be based on

worst case scenarios focusing solely on

the reciprocity exception while

disregarding other measures that might

be taken to reduce costs. For example,

in a number of cases, concerns were

expressed about the loss of a reciprocity

exception in industries and situations

where, in the Department’s view, a

‘‘Prevailing Practice Exception’’ would

almost certainly apply. This is

particularly likely in the case of bulk

shippers operating in private ports or

terminals. In other cases, one or another

of the other exceptions in section 258

may apply.

In cases where no exception applies,

other measures that may be available to

businesses to mitigate any negative

effects from this ruling include the

employment of U.S. citizens aboard

foreign-owned or flagged vessels to

perform the work in question, the use of

U.S. flag ships, and the reflagging of

vessels in countries eligible for the

reciprocity exception. In all cases,

companies will be able, at a minimum,

to utilize the collective bargaining

process to seek cost structures that

maximize the collective economic

benefit for all concerned.

With respect to fears that companies

might have to employ unnecessary

labor, the Department notes that Section

258 is quite explicit in prohibiting the

performance of work by alien seamen.

The intent is to substitute U.S. labor for

foreign labor, not to add unnecessary

labor, although this would be allowed

on a reciprocity basis if it were an

accepted practice in the foreign country

in question.

As to the possible diversion of

modern more-efficient vessels to other

countries, companies may wish to

explore provisions in the Immigration

and Naturalization Act which allow

foreign workers with specialized skills

to work in the United States. The

Department notes, for example, that

operators of specialized equipment

connected with the log trade have

entered the United States, after

appropriate determinations, with

specialized visas other than those issued

to crew members. The Department is of

the view that such workers do not fall

within the scope of Section 258, which

relates specifically to persons eligible to

enter the United States under section

101(a)(15)(D)(i).

With respect to the specific industries

about which questions were raised, the

Department notes that in some cases it

was possible to confirm information

supplied about alleged restricted or

unrestricted practices in foreign

countries. Where necessary in these

cases, the list of countries has been

adjusted.

Specialized Vessels

Comment: Many comments

highlighted the effect of the proposed

rule on specialized vessels. Noting the

special training required for the safe and

efficient operation of equipment aboard

these ships, several commenters

requested a blanket exemption for selfunloading bulk vessels and log carriers.

Response: The Department does not

have the authority to grant a blanket

exception for self-loading/unloading

bulk vessels or log carriers, or, indeed,

any specific class of ships. Countryspecific reciprocity exceptions of this

type were sometimes possible, however.

The Department notes that the law

refers specifically to vessels with selfunloading conveyor belts and vacuumactuated systems in discussing the

‘‘Prevailing Practice Exception.’’

Comment: One commenter contended

that the law was not intended to apply

to passenger vessels.

Response: The Department agrees,

based on language in the Conference

Report, that the law was not intended to

apply to passenger vessels.

Status of Individual Countries

Canada: A large number of comments

discussed Canada’s eligibility for a

reciprocity exception. Referring to the

historically close links and free trade

commitments between Canada and the

U.S., several comments called for a

blanket exemption for the entire

country. One commenter contended that

Canada has a general regulation that the

Canadian Government might not be

enforcing which requires an

employment validation for foreign crew

members. The writer called for placing

Canada on the list because of this legal

requirement. Many comments went into

great detail about practices in different

parts of Canada. Twenty-six

commenters stressed the importance of

maintaining an exception for Canadian

bulk vessels in the Great Lakes. They

warned that elimination of the

exception would hurt the special trade

relationship between the United States

and Canada by raising transport costs

for a variety of bulk commodities. A

number of them noted that the crews of

U.S. bulk ships in Canadian Great Lakes

ports are free to carry out longshore

work. The writers offered technical

suggestions about the exception in the

listing for that region. Another

commenter reported that a collective

bargaining agreement in Vancouver,

British Colombia prevents the use of

belt self-unloading vessels.

In response, the Department has

consulted extensively with U.S.

diplomatic posts in Canada, U.S.

carriers operating into Canada, union

and industry officials, and the Canadian

government. The widespread existence

of restrictive collective bargaining

agreements at liner terminals and public

ports was confirmed, requiring the

inclusion of Canada on the list of

countries with restrictive practices.

However, the technical corrections to

the exceptions for bulk cargo at Great

Lakes ports were found to reflect actual

practice and have been incorporated in

the list. Two U.S. operators of

specialized self-loading/unloading log

carriers confirmed that they have been

able to operate in Canadian Pacific ports

and waters without restrictions on their

U.S. crews, and an exception has

therefore been added in this regard.

Exceptions were also added for a

number of shipboard activities found to

be generally excepted in Canadian

collective bargaining agreements.

Finally, U.S. carriers, Canadian

government and industry officials, and

labor union officials advised the U.S.

Consulates in Montreal, Halifax and

Vancouver that restrictions in collective

bargaining agreements do not apply to

U.S. self-loading/unloading bulk vessels

calling on private terminals, so an

exception was added for these vessels at

private terminals.

Chile: After reviewing the report from

the U.S. Embassy in Santiago, a

commenter questioned the decision not

to place Chile on the list because of a

provision in Chilean law allowing

authorities to restrict access to port

areas by any person.

The Department acknowledges the

existence of the law, but notes that it

does not require access to be restricted.

According to information provided by

the U.S. Embassy in Santiago, access by

U.S. mariners is not restricted.

Therefore, Chile has not been added to

the list.

Congo: A commenter notes that the

U.S. Embassy in Brazzaville did not find

any restrictions on longshore work, but

had reported in response to inquiries to

compile earlier lists that the Congo did

prohibit foreign mariners from carrying

out longshore work.

The Department has asked the U.S.

Embassy in Libreville Congo to

investigate further. Based on the most

current information, Congo will not be

added to the list at this time.

France: One commenter noted that

the U.S. Embassy in Paris did not find

any restrictions on longshore work, but

had reported in response to inquiries to
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 29945

compile earlier lists that France had

laws setting aside longshore activities

for local port workers.

At the Department’s request, the U.S.

diplomatic posts in France investigated

further and determined that French law

does in fact restrict longshore activities,

with certain exceptions, to registered

workers employed by a stevedore

company at a French port. France

therefore has been placed on the list.

Greece: The U.S. Embassy in Athens

had reported that there were not any

restrictions on longshore work, but the

Department received other reports that

local dockworkers have the exclusive

right to do longshore work.

The Department asked the U.S.

Embassy in Athens to investigate

further. The Embassy has confirmed that

foreign crew may not operate shorebased equipment to load/unload a

vessel, as a license is required to operate

such equipment. Greece is therefore

being added to the list of countries.

Greenland: The Government of

Denmark reported that Greenland does

not possess a separate ship registry and

asked that Greenland be treated the

same as Denmark for purposes of

possible inclusion in the list of

countries.

The U.S. Embassy in Denmark

confirmed the Danish Government’s

report and provided information

indicating that U.S. mariners were not

restricted in activities defined as

longshore work in the statute.

Greenland has therefore been dropped

from the list.

Italy: After reviewing reports from the

U.S. Embassy in Rome, a commenter

questioned whether Italy should be

placed on the list for line handling. The

commenter noted that Italian law does

not consider line handling as longshore

activity and requires authorization by

government authorities. The commenter

also questioned whether Italian law

only allows mariners from EU member

countries to perform longshore work.

At the request of the Department, the

U.S. Embassy in Rome investigated

further and determined that certain

longshore activities, including cargo

loading, discharge and transfer, may be

performed by EU and non-EU mariners

with authorization from the national

maritime authority or port authority

where a maritime office is not present.

Italian law, on the other hand, does not

allow foreign mariners to handle

mooring lines on the dock or do other

activities not immediately related to

cargo handling. Italy is therefore being

added to the list.

Norway: A commenter noted that the

U.S. Embassy in Oslo did not find any

restrictions on longshore work, but had

reported in response to inquiries to

compile earlier lists that Norwegian

laws not in force restrict most longshore

work to local port workers.

The Department has asked the U.S.

Embassy in Oslo to investigate further.

Pending further information, Norway is

not being added to the list.

Oman: One commenter pointed out

that information received in response to

the Department’s questionnaire differed

from that reported in the past.

The Department has asked the U.S.

Embassy in Muscat, Oman to investigate

further. Pending confirmation of its

initial report, the Department is not

adding Oman to the list.

Sierra Leone: One commenter pointed

out that information received in

response to the Department’s

questionnaire differed from that

reported in the past.

In response, the Department reviewed

conditions in Sierra Leone and

determined that the Sierra Leone Ports

Authority is the only agency designated

by the government to engage in

stevedoring services. Sierra Leone has

therefore been added to the list of

countries in which there are restrictions.

Vanuatu: Two commenters asserted

that there are no government rules,

regulations or collective bargaining

agreements restricting longshore work

by U.S. mariners in Vanuatu.

In response, the Department

reconfirmed with the U.S. Embassy in

Port Moresby that actual practice in

Vanuatu was restrictive in some

respects. Vanuatu has therefore been

retained on the list, in slightly modified

form.

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 89

Aliens, Crewmembers, Immigration,

Labor, Longshore and harbor workers,

Seamen.

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 citation for part 89

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1288, Public Law 101–

649 Stat. 4878

2. Part 89 is amended by revising

§ 89.1 to read as follows:

§ 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:

Algeria

(a) All longshore activities.

Angola

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Opening and closing of hatches

(2) Rigging of ship’s gear, and

(3) Loading and discharge of cargo on

board the ship if local labor is paid as

if they had done the work.

Argentina

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Cargo tiedown and untying,

(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.

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:
29946 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

(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:

(1) Opening and closing of hatches,

(2) Cleaning of holds and tanks,

(3) Loading of ship’s stores,

(4) Operation of onboard rented

equipment,

(5) Ballasting and deballasting,

(6) Rigging of ship’s gear,

(7) Exceptions in connection with

bulk cargo at Great Lakes ports only:

(i) Handling of mooring lines on the

dock when the vessel is made fast,

shifted or let go,

(ii) Moving the vessel to place it

under shoreside loading and unloading

equipment,

(iii) Moving the vessel in position to

unload the vessel onto specific cargo

piles, hoppers or conveyor belt systems,

and

(iv) Operation of cargo related

equipment integral to the vessel.

(8) Operation of self-loading/

unloading equipment and line handling

by the crews of bulk vessels calling at

private terminals, and

(9) Operation of specialized selfloading/unloading log carriers on the

Pacific Coast.

Cape Verde

(a) All longshore activities.

China

(a) Handling of mooring lines.

Colombia

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exception: 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, and

(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.

(b) Exception: Opening and closing of

hatches and rigging of ship’s gear if port

labor is paid as if it had done the work.

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

(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 of 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 of hatches,

and

(3) Rigging of ship’s gear.

France

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Loading and discharge of the

ship’s own material and provisions if

done by the ship’s own equipment or by

the owner of the merchandise using his

own personnel,

(2) Opening and closing of hatches,

(3) Rigging of ship’s gear,

(4) Operation of cargo-related

equipment to shift cargo internally,

(5) Handling operations connected

with shipbuilding and refitting, and

(6) Offloading fish by the crew or

personnel working for the ship owner.

Gabon

(a) All longshore activities.

(b) Exception: All longshore activities

if local workers are paid as if they had

done the work.

Georgia

(a) All longshore activities.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 29947

(b) Exception: All longshore activities

if local workers are paid as if they had

done the work.

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.

Greece

(a) Operation of shore-based

equipment to load/unload a vessel.

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) Operation 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.

Italy

(a) Cargo loading, discharge and

transfer without the permission of the

Maritime Administration or the local

port authority, if no office of the

Maritime Administration is present, and

a deposit for possible use of port

stevedoring services.

(b) Handling of lines on the dock and

other longshore activities not immediate

related to cargo handling.

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) Exceptions, when activities are

declined by 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) All longshore activities.

(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.

(b) Exception: Onboard activities if

local workers are paid as if they had

done the work.

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.

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Operation of ship’s gear which

port workers cannot operate,

(2) Opening and closing of hatches,

(3) Rigging of ship’s gear aboard ship,

and

(4) Fastening and unfastening

containers.
29948 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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.

(b) Exception: Shipboard activities if

local workers are paid as if they had

done the work.

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.

Sierra Leone

(a) All longshore activities.

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.

(b) Exception: All longshore activities

if local workers are paid as if they had

done the work.

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 29949

(b) Exceptions:

(1) Opening and closing of hatches, if

done automatically, and

(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 ship’s crew, including

operation of cargo-related equipment,

opening and closing of hatches and

rigging of ship’s gear.

Vanuatu

(a) All longshore activities on shore.

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 cargorelated equipment, when authorized by

the Port Authority.

Dated: May 16, 1996.

Alan P. Larson,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Economic and

Business Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 96–14821 Filed 6–12–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–07–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms

27 CFR Part 9

RIN 1512–AA07

[TD ATF–375 ]

The Malibu-Newton Canyon Viticultural

Area (95R–014P)

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms, Department of the

Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule, Treasury decision.

SUMMARY: This final rule establishes a

viticultural area in the State of

California to be known as ‘‘MalibuNewton Canyon.’’ The petition for this

viticultural area was filed by Mr. George

Rosenthal, President of Rancho

Escondido, Inc.

The ‘‘Malibu-Newton Canyon’’

viticultural area comprises

approximately 850 acres within Newton

Canyon, a bowl-shaped valley located

on the south-facing side of the Santa

Monica Mountains. Vineyards currently

within the proposed viticultural area are

located on the Rancho Escondido Estate.

Rancho Escondido is comprised of

approximately 157 acres, all of which

lie within the proposed area.

Approximately 14 of these acres are

planted with premium wine producing

vineyards. Varietals include Cabernet

Savignon, Merlot, Cabernet Franc,

Chardonnay and Petite Verdot.

Currently, there are no wineries located

within the proposed ‘‘Malibu-Newton

Canyon’’ area.

ATF believes that the establishment of

viticultural area names as appellations

of origin in wine labeling and

advertising allows wineries to designate

the specific areas where the grapes used

to make the wine were grown and

enables consumers to better identify the

wines they purchase.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 13, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Brokaw, Wine, Beer and Spirits

Regulations Branch, Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms, 650

Massachusetts Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20226 (202–927–8230).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 23, 1978, ATF published

Treasury Decision ATF–53 (43 FR

37672, 54624) revising regulations in 27

CFR Part 4. These regulations allow the

establishment of definitive viticultural

areas. The regulations allow the name of

an approved viticultural area to be used

as an appellation of origin on wine

labels and in wine advertisements. On

October 2, 1979, ATF published

Treasury Decision ATF–60 (44 FR

56692) which added a new Part 9 to 27

CFR, for the listing of approved

American viticultural areas.

Section 4.25a(e)(1), Title 27 CFR,

defines an American viticultural area as

a delimited grape-growing region

distinguishable by geographical

features, the boundaries of which have

been delineated in Subpart C of Part 9.

Section 4.25a(e)(2) outlines the

procedure for proposing an American

viticultural area. Any interested person

may petition ATF to establish a grapegrowing region as a viticultural area.

The petition should include:

(a) Evidence that the name of the

proposed viticultural area is locally

and/or nationally known as referring to

the area specified in the petition;

(b) Historical or current evidence that

the boundaries of the viticultural area

are as specified in the petition;

(c) Evidence relating to the

geographical features (climate, soil,

elevation, physical features, etc.) which

distinguish the viticultural features of

the proposed area from surrounding

areas;

(d) A description of the specific

boundaries of the viticultural area,

based on the features which can be

found on United States Geological

Survey (U.S.G.S.) maps of the largest

applicable scale; and

(e) A copy of the appropriate U.S.G.S.

map(s) with the boundaries prominently

marked.

Petition

ATF received a petition from Mr.

George Rosenthal, President of Rancho

Escondido, Inc., proposing to establish a

new viticultural appellation in the

Malibu area of Los Angeles County,

California, to be known as ‘‘MalibuNewton Canyon.’’ The viticultural area,

comprising approximately 850 acres, is

located within Newton Canyon which is

a bowl-shaped valley located on the

south-facing side of the Santa Monica

Mountains. Vineyards currently within

the viticultural area are located on the

Rancho Escondido Estate. Rancho

Escondido is comprised of

approximately 157 acres, all of which

lie within the ‘‘Malibu-Newton Canyon’’

viticultural area. Approximately 14 of

these acres are planted with premium

wine producing vineyards. Varietals

include Cabernet Savignon, Merlot,

Cabernet Franc, Chardonnay and Petite

Verdot. Currently, there are no wineries

located within the ‘‘Malibu-Newton

Canyon’’ viticultural area.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

In response to Mr. George Rosenthal’s

petition, ATF published a notice of

proposed rulemaking, Notice No. 817, in

the Federal Register on December 22,

1995 [60 FR 66535], proposing the

establishment of the Malibu-Newton

Canyon viticultural area. The notice

requested comments from all interested

persons by February 20, 1996.

Comments on Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

ATF did not receive any letters of

comment in response to Notice No. 817.