[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29941-29949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14821]



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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE
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

[[Page 29942]]

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-favored-nation 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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 29944]]

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 self-unloading 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. Country-specific 
reciprocity exceptions of this type were sometimes possible, however. 
The Department notes that the law refers specifically to vessels with 
self-unloading conveyor belts and vacuum-actuated 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

[[Page 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 
shore-based 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 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:
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:

[[Page 29946]]

    (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 self-loading/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.

[[Page 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.

[[Page 29948]]

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.

[[Page 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 cargo-related 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