Source: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/federalregister/2003-09-16
Timestamp: 2019-09-17 22:54:10
Document Index: 171609400

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1918', 'art 1918', 'art 1917', '§ 1917', '§ 1918', '§ 1917', '§ 1917', '§ 1917', '§ 1917', '§ 1918', '§ 1917', 'art 1918', 'art 1917', 'art 1918', 'art 1918', '§ 1918', '§ 1918', '§ 1917', '§ 1918', '§ 1918', '§ 1917', '§ 1918', '§ 1917', '§ 1917', '§ 1917', '§ 1917', '§ 1917', '§ 1918', '§ 1917', '§ 1917', '§ 1917', '§ 1917', '§ 1917', '§ 1918', '§ 1918', '§ 1917', '§ 1917', '§ 1917', '§ 1917', '§ 1917', '§ 1917', '§ 1918', 'arts 1917', '§ 11', 'art 1320', '§ 1917', '§ 1917', '§ 1320', '§ 1320', 'arts 1917', '§ 29', '§ 1917', '§ 1917', '§ 1917', '§ 1917', '§ 1917', '§ 41', '§ 29', '§ 1918', '§ 1918', '§ 1918', '§ 1918', '§ 1918']

Longshoring and Marine Terminals; Vertical Tandem Lifts; Proposed Rule | Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Longshoring and Marine Terminals; Vertical Tandem Lifts; Proposed Rule
68:54297-54318
SUMMARY: OSHA published a final standard on July 25, 1997, revising all of the Longshoring Standard and related sections of the Marine Terminals Standard. In the preamble to the final rule, OSHA discussed the practice, hereafter referred to as "vertical tandem lifts" (VTLs), of lifting two empty intermodal containers together, one on top of the other, connected by semi-automatic twistlocks (SATLs). The final standard did not cover this practice because the rulemaking record contained insufficient information to enable OSHA to determine how to regulate the practice. The proposed standard published today would permit VTLs of two containers with a combined weight of the containers and cargo not exceeding 20 tons.
DATES: Comments and hearing requests must be submitted by the following dates:
ADDRESSES: Written Comments and Hearing Requests:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical inquiries, contact Paul Rossi, OSHA, Office of Maritime, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3621, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2222. For general information and press inquiries, contact Ms. Bonnie Friedman, OSHA, Office of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3647, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1999. For additional copies of this Federal Register notice, contact OSHA, Office of Publications, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3101, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1888. Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice, as well as news releases and other relevant documents, are available at OSHA's Web page on the Internet at http://www.osha.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This preamble to the proposed rule for vertical tandem lifts in the Longshoring and Marine Terminals Standards discusses the events leading to the proposal, the necessity for the standard, and the rationale behind the specific provisions set forth in the proposal. The preamble also includes the Preliminary Economic Analysis, a summary of the paperwork issues under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and sections on other requirements necessary for an OSHA standard. The discussion follows this outline:
IV. Preliminary Economic Analysis and Preliminary Regulatory
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is a worldwide federation of national standards bodies whose mission is to promote the development of international standards to reduce technical barriers to trade. There are several ISO standards addressing the design and operational handling of intermodal containers and interbox connectors. In particular, ISO 3874 Freight Containers addresses the size and strength of containers and corner castings, the size and strength of the interbox connectors, and proper lifting techniques. During shipment, containers are secured by interbox connectors to each other and to the deck of the ship. In the conventional loading and unloading process, the container gantry crane lifts one container (either 20 or 40 feet long) at a time, using the crane's specially developed spreader beam. ISO 3874 Freight Containers also addresses the lifting of two 20-foot containers end to end but, until recently, it has not addressed the practice of vertical tandem lifts (VTLs). A VTL is the practice of a container gantry crane lifting two or more intermodal containers, one on top of the other, connected by a particular type of interbox connector known as a semi-automatic twistlock (SATL).
The issue of vertical tandem lifting was first raised to OSHA by Matson Terminals, Inc. In 1986, through a series of meetings and correspondence with OSHA (Exs. 40-1, 40-2, 40-3, 40-4, 40-5, 40-6, 40-6-1, 40-7), Matson asked to be permitted to lift two containers at a time, connected by SATLs, either empty or with one or both containers containing automobiles. At that time, OSHA regulations did not directly address or prohibit this practice. The container handling regulation § 1918.85(c) stated, "all hoisting of containers shall be by means which will safely do so without probable damage to the container, and using the lifting fittings provided." In November 1986, OSHA, in a letter to Matson (Ex. 40-8), allowed the company to lift containers, either empty or with one or both containers containing automobiles, in VTLs. The letter to Matson stated that:
At a 1998 OSHA public meeting on VTLs, a Matson representative testified that, since 1986, they had performed over 47,000 VTLs without incident (Tr. p. 173 ("Tr." refers to the transcript of the 1998 public meeting discussed below)).
In 1994, OSHA addressed VTLs briefly in a paragraph of the Preamble of the proposed revisions to the Marine Terminals and Longshoring Standards (59 FR 28602), stating: "In those situations where one container is used to lift another container, using twistlocks, then the upper container and twistlocks become, in effect, a lifting appliance and must be certified as such." OSHA received comments on this issue only from the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (Exs. 4, 5, and 6). Although these comments favored the proposed interpretation and requested the Agency to include it as a requirement in the regulatory text, they included no specific information regarding the hazards of VTLs of two containers using SATLs. Sea-Land submitted a detailed six-page comment (Ex. 7) addressing a number of the proposed changes to the Marine Terminals and Longshoring Standards, but did not address VTLs. OSHA received a late, post-hearing submission from the International Longshoremen's Association, however, that alerted the Agency to what might be a serious problem with this type of lift, citing several incidents at U.S. ports where failures had occurred (Ex. 8). OSHA did not rely on this last letter in issuing the final rule because it was not a timely submission to the record. However, the letter made OSHA aware of safety concerns that might need to be addressed through supplementary rulemaking. Because of a lack of information on the safety considerations, cost impacts, and productivity effects of VTLs, as well as on the capability of containers and SATLs to withstand such loadings, OSHA reserved judgment on the appropriate regulatory approach to this practice, pending further study (62 FR 40152).
Up to the publication of the final Longshoring and Marine Terminals Standards in 1997, OSHA viewed the lifting of one container by another container using SATLs as similar to a container spreader picking up a single container using the spreader's twistlocks. Although the terms "semi-automatic twistlocks" and "twistlocks" appear similar, they refer to two very distinct items. SATLs were designed to connect and secure intermodal containers that are stowed on the deck of a vessel. They are generally made of a cast metal with a surface that has not been finely honed. By contrast, a twistlock is an integral part of a gantry crane's container spreader. It has a similar appearance to a SATL, but is made of forged metal with a machined surface. These twistlocks are locked and unlocked with hydraulic power, and used as part of the gantry crane to lift and move containers.
A gantry crane's container spreaders are considered a "lifting appliance," according to the International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 152 Dock Work, portions of which OSHA incorporated or adopted in the Longshoring Standards in 29 CFR part 1918. The ILO is a specialized, independent agency in the United Nations which has a unique tripartite structure of business, labor, and government representatives. Its mandate is to improve working conditions (including safety), create employment, and promote workplace human rights, globally. Under ILO Convention 152, a lifting appliance, including the twistlocks, must be proof-load tested and inspected before initial use and periodically retested and re-inspected. However, applying that same requirement to a VTL situation would be much more difficult to accomplish. It would require a specific container (the one being used to lift another container) and four specific SATLs to be tested and inspected as a unit and to remain as a unit for retesting and reinspection. Given the millions of intermodal containers and millions more SATLs used in the maritime cargo handling industry, matching a specific container and four SATLs for VTL use over any length of time is nearly impossible. In view of this impracticality, OSHA sought an interpretation from the ILO, which is discussed below.
On October 9, 1997, OSHA re-opened the VTL record with a Federal Register notice that also announced a public meeting that was held in Washington, DC, on January 27, 1998 (62 FR 52671). The transcript for this public meeting is docket exhibit number "22x." The transcript will be referred to in this Preamble as "Tr." followed by a page number (that is, as "Tr. p. 33" rather than "Ex. 22x, p. 33"). At that public meeting, OSHA heard testimony from 25 witnesses, representing the U.S. Coast Guard, the ISO, national and international maritime safety associations, container and twistlock manufacturers, ship operators, stevedoring companies, and longshore unions.
b. Meet with the International Cargo Handling and Coordination Association (ICHCA)(1) about international safety aspects of VTLs;
On September 28, 1998, members of MACOSH's VTL workgroup met with ICHCA in Malmö, Sweden, to discuss the VTL issue. This was followed by a meeting with ILO in Geneva, Switzerland. The discussion with the ILO focused on the issue of determining whether the components of a VTL (the upper intermodal container and the SATLs) are either "a lifting appliance" or "loose gear." On October 21, 1998, an ILO official indicated to OSHA that the ILO considers SATLs used for lifting to be "loose gear" (Exs. 31 and 32). The significance of this decision is that loose gear, under ILO Convention 152, must be tested and inspected before initial use and re-inspected on an annual basis, as opposed to a "lifting appliance," which must be retested at least once every five years. Retesting of a lifting appliance in a VTL would require that a specific container and four specific SATLs used for VTLs be proof load tested before initial use and every five years thereafter. As mentioned previously, this would be almost impossible to do.
In January 2001, an ICHCA VTL workgroup met in London to begin drafting operational guidelines for VTLs as agreed to at the Cape Town meeting. The ICHCA workgroup finalized their VTL guidelines in September 2002, and received final approval by ICHCA's Board of Directors in January 2003. OSHA has given careful consideration to the ICHCA guidelines in the drafting of this proposed rule. A copy of the guidelines is available in the docket (Ex. 41). The guidelines are available for purchase through ICHCA's Web site: http://www.ichcainternational.co.uk/.
As with all Federal agencies whose regulations influence international trade, OSHA has developed this proposal in light of international considerations. Through domestic law and international agreements, the United States has indicated its intention that wherever possible, standards-related activities should not be a barrier to trade. The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) addresses technical barriers to trade regarding federal regulation. Section 2532 of this Act states the following:
OSHA's current longshoring and marine terminal standards do not prohibit VTLs of empty containers. The Agency's standards also allow for lifting of loaded containers, without specifying whether they are handled singly or as a VTL, if the containers are "handled using lifting fittings or other arrangements suitable and intended for the purpose * * *" (29 CFR 1918.85(f)(1)(iv)).
ISO concluded that VTLs with a 20-ton maximum weight would mean a "practical" limit for VTLs of three containers (Ex. 40-9). To the best of the Agency's knowledge, employers are not performing VTLs of more than two containers in the United States.
The ICHCA guidelines set forth a series of safe handling procedures. As discussed further below, OSHA's proposed rule incorporates many of these procedures, including: requiring annual and on-going inspections of liftlocks and containers; prohibiting spring- loaded latchlocks for VTLs; requiring stevedores to have a written VTL terminal plan for handling VTLs in the terminal; requiring each ship to use only a single type of liftlock; requiring LIDs on container gantry cranes; prohibiting VTLs when winds exceed 34 mph; and requiring pre- lifts to ensure that all liftlocks on the VTL are engaged and holding before raising the VTL unit higher.
VTLs have been performed in the United States since 1986. As noted earlier, Matson reported that they had performed almost 50,000 VTLs of two empty containers or two containers loaded with automobiles without an injury to employees or a documented accident between1986 and 1998 (Tr. p. 166). Sea-Land reported that by 1999, it had performed 300,000 VTLs of two empty containers without injury (Ex. 36). However, Sea-Land has reported three accidents. The cause of one was unrelated to the typical risk of VTLs -- the crane legs did not have sufficient clearance for VTLs and the containers struck the crane legs, causing the lower container to separate from the top container and fall. Sea-Land reported that the crane operator and superintendent violated company rules in this instance (Tr. p. 208). In the second accident, two containers "alligatored" without completely separating when the two SATLs on one end were not engaged in the top corner castings of the bottom container. Following this incident, Sea-Land reported that they instituted a pre-lift test when performing VTLs. In a pre-lift, the combined containers are lifted a few feet up to ensure that all liftlocks are engaged in the corner castings before continuing the lift. A third accident occurred when spring-loaded latchlocks were used to secure containers together. The design of those latchlocks leaves them susceptible to becoming fouled with dirt or other debris. If that occurs, they may not fully extend, causing them to have insufficient contact area with the corner casting. In the case of the third accident, there were no injuries and the accident would have been avoided by using regular SATLs which close positively when the containers are mated and have handles indicating their open or closed state (which is required by the Proposal). The Agency contracted with Robert Baron, an expert in the longshoring industry, to find other reported incidents or accidents involving VTLs, but none besides those mentioned above were found and verified (Exs. 42, 42-1, 42-2).
The Agency is concerned that lifting loaded containers in a VTL presents additional hazards to those involved with lifting empty ones. Loaded containers are more likely to have errors in weighing; so it is more likely that an overweight lift will be attempted -- one weighing more than 20 tons. Secondly, loaded containers have loads that could shift during ocean transit or while being lifted by the container gantry crane (VTLs of containers with bulk and liquid cargoes would be prohibited for this reason). The Agency seeks comment on these issues and any other issues that pertain to the risk of lifting loaded versus empty containers.
The Agency is aware that containers fail even in single lifts, although this is very rare. The Agency has preliminarily concluded that, when the proper work practice precautions as specified in the proposed standard are followed, employers who follow the proposal will be able to perform VTLs safely. The industry's experience with VTLs of two containers (about 350,000 over 15 years) is substantial but relatively small when compared to the 13 million single lifts performed annually. In addition, to OSHA's knowledge, all VTLs performed in the U.S. to date have consisted of only two containers. Although the Agency has preliminarily concluded, based on the information in the record of this rulemaking, that VTLs can be performed safely with 2 containers, it has concerns about whether additional containers would increase the risk to employees and necessitate the use of additional controls and work practices. The Agency seeks comment on the relative risk of lifting VTLs of two versus three containers. What are the additional sources of risk in lifting three containers? Are there additional safety measures that would reduce the risk of VTLs of three containers? If VTLs of three containers separated or failed, they potentially could fall much further from the crane; that is they would have a bigger "footprint" than VTLs with two containers, and thus would expand the area in which longshore workers are exposed to the risk of falling containers.
A. Part 1917 -- Marine Terminals Standards
In § 1917.2 and § 1918.2 Definitions, OSHA is proposing to add the definition of a VTL as "the operation of lifting two intermodal containers that are coupled together vertically (one on top of the other)." OSHA is also proposing to include the definition of "liftlock" to both parts. This definition differentiates liftlocks, which are certified and used for lifting, from SATLs or other inter-box connectors, which are not certified and only used for securing containers on a vessel.
In § 1917.3(c), Incorporation by Reference, OSHA is proposing to add parts of ISO Standard 3864 that apply to VTLs.
Section 1917.46(a)(1)(viii) does not currently require a load indicating device (LID) for container handling gantry cranes. This is because the safe working load (SWL) of these cranes does not vary with the location of the load. However, in using these cranes to perform VTLs, a LID is needed, both to prevent the crane from being overloaded by multiple containers and to assure the liftlocks and the containers used in the VTL are not overloaded. Accordingly, this proposal would revise paragraph 1917.46(a)(1)(viii) to require a LID when performing VTLs. OSHA has concluded this is necessary because if two containers weighing more than 20 tons are lifted in a VTL by mistake, the crane operator will realize this condition through the reading on the LID and be able to lower the load before overloading the liftlocks, upper container, or the crane itself. OSHA believes that the LID requirement is essential to the safe handling of VTLs.
Proposed paragraph 1917.71(b)(9) requires that a copy of the vessel cargo stowage plan be given to the crane operator. This paragraph also requires that the vessel cargo stowage plan be used to identify the location and characteristics of any VTLs to be lifted. Although crane operators may not be accustomed to referring to a vessel cargo stowage plan while handling containers, this requirement will help the crane operator to better anticipate and focus on the VTL operation. This provision would supplement existing § 1917.71(b)(1) and (b)(2)(ii), which require those in charge of loading to be notified of the location of all empty and loaded containers that are to be handled as VTLs.
Proposed § 1917.71(f)(3)(i) limits a VTL to two ISO series 1 containers (2), with a total weight of 20 tons, which includes the weight of the container directly under the spreader bar.
Proposed § 1917.71(f)(3)(ii) requires that VTLs be handled only by container gantry cranes. This is necessary because this type of crane is specifically designed to handle intermodal containers and has the precise control needed for such lifts. While this control is important for handling single containers, it is even more important when handling VTLs, because the volume of the load and the sail area created by the VTL are greater.
Proposed paragraphs 1917.71(f)(3)(iii), (iv), (v), and (vi) are a listing of "do nots" when handling VTLs. Proposed paragraph 1917.71(f)(3)(iii) would prohibit VTLs for containers with hazardous cargo, liquid or solid bulk cargoes, or flexible tanks that are full or partially full. Any failure of a container with a hazardous cargo poses a very significant risk to employees. Bulk cargoes can quickly shift inside the container, causing a free surface effect that can move the weight of the container to one end. This would quickly increase the weight on two of the four liftlocks and could lead to failure. Containers loaded with such cargo must be handled individually. Containers holding liquids pose a similar hazard of shifting or spilling cargo.Paragraph 1917.71(f)(3)(iv) addresses platform containers, or "flat racks." Platform containers are those that are open on the sides and top, but have panels on both ends. These end panels are either fixed or can be folded flat with the floor of the container, depending on the design of the flat rack. When the end panels are in the upright position, handling as a VTL is not allowed in proposed paragraph (iv) because the lack of sides and roof lessen the stability and strength of the container. However, under paragraph 1917.71(f)(3)(iv), if empty platform containers have the ends folded down, and have built-in connectors that are designed for the purpose of lifting multiple units, they may be handled in accordance with manufacturers' recommendations. This continues a current industry practice (Exs. 10-2, 10-2A, 10-2B, and 11-6C). Two flatracks with the ends folded down may be handled as a VTL if they are connected by liftlocks that are not built-in.
Proposed paragraph 1917.71(i) prohibits the movement of VTLs on flat bed trucks, chassis, bomb carts, or similar type equipment, unless the equipment is specifically designed to safely handle VTLs or has been evaluated by a qualified person and determined to be a safe mode of operation. Moving two containers on such equipment raises the center of gravity higher than the equipment was designed for, increasing the possibility of turning over. A study was conducted at the request of the ICHCA VTL work group to determine the safe turning radius and speed with which VTLs may be moved in a terminal (Ex. 41, Appendix 6). This study provides chassis stability calculations for determining the speed at which a fifth wheel and chassis carrying VTLs will overturn while making a turn. These calculations could be used by employers to determine the safe operating speeds for transporting VTLs at a terminal. Safe transport of VTLs and safe operating speeds are part of the VTL terminal plan required in the next paragraph. Proposed paragraph 1917.71(i) defines a qualified person as "one with a recognized degree or professional certificate and extensive knowledge and experience in the transportation of vertically connected containers who is capable of design, analysis, evaluation and specifications in that subject." This definition is similar to the one found in § 1918.85(k)(6) and (8) concerning fall protection systems.
Proposed § 1917.71(k) requires the employer establish a system that keeps damaged or defective liftlocks separate from working liftlocks. This is now typically done by having a separate storage bin marked for damaged or defective SATLs and instructing employees to put any that do not function normally into that bin. This will typically be part of regular, on-going inspections of liftlocks as they are handled.
Proposed 1917.71(l)(1)(viii) is a requirement for liftlocks that is not repeated in part 1918. It requires that the liftlocks that are used to connect containers to be loaded as a VTL be the same as the liftlocks on the vessel to which the connected containers will be transferred. This requirement will ensure that VTLs made up on the terminal under the requirements of part 1917 are using certified liftlocks that are the same as those used on the vessel onto which the VTLs will be loaded. This is to eliminate the danger of having more than one type of liftlock on a vessel. Mixing different types of liftlocks could result in mismatched liftlocks on a container that do not all lock (or unlock) in the same direction. Longshore employees and crane operators look for the "telltales" (a part of the liftlock that indicates whether the liftlock is locked or unlocked), or the handles of the liftlocks, all to be facing in the same direction to determine whether or not containers are free to be lifted or, in a VTL, are locked together for lifting. Mixing types of liftlocks could cause a VTL to separate when being lifted because different liftlocks with reverse locking indicators could mistakenly appear to be locked when they are in fact unlocked.
Proposed paragraph 1917.71(l)(2) defines a competent person as "a person familiar with the proper maintenance and use of liftlocks by training or experience. Such a person will be able to detect defects or weaknesses and be able to assess their importance in relation to the safe and continued use of the liftlocks." The proposed definition for competent person is more appropriate for VTL operations than the existing definition found in OSHA's shipyard standard, 29 CFR 1915.4, which is concerned with atmospheric hazards.
B. Part 1918 -- Longshoring
In 29 CFR part 1918, Safety and Health Regulations for Longshoring, OSHA proposes to add several definitions relating to VTL operations. In § 1918.2 Definitions, OSHA proposes to add the terms competent authority, liftlock, and vertical tandem lift.
For the purpose of this proposed VTL standard, OSHA is defining competent authority as "the appropriate government agency having jurisdiction over VTL operations in each port of call where such operations are proposed." OSHA or the U.S. Coast Guard would be the competent authority for certifications in the United States. Other countries would have their own competent authority that would have jurisdiction over VTL operations in that country. Certification of liftlocks, which is verified by certificates issued by agencies authorized by a competent authority, is the primary way an employer will determine that liftlocks on a vessel (or ashore) can be used for lifting. These certificates are found in the vessel's cargo gear register.
OSHA is proposing in § 1918.2 to include the same definitions for liftlock and vertical tandem lifts as proposed and discussed previously for § 1917.2.
In § 1918.3(c), Incorporation by Reference, OSHA is proposing to add parts of ISO Standard 3874 that apply to VTLs.
Proposed § 1918.85(f)(3)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), and (v) adopt provisions for liftlocks (as loose gear), including testing, inspection, and marking before initial use. Paragraph 1918.85(f)(3)(i) would require that liftlocks meet the applicable requirements found in ISO 3874. Paragraph 1918.85(f)(3)(ii) would require that each liftlock has "been inspected by a competent person, certificated, and individually tested in accordance with requirements for loose gear in ILO Convention 152 before being used for the first time and after any substantial alteration or repair." Testing means that each liftlock has been tested to a SWL of 10,000 kg as required in paragraph (iv) discussed below.
Proposed paragraph 1918.85(f)(3)(iii) would require that liftlocks be thoroughly examined at least once a year by a competent person. It also states what is required by this thorough exam: A visual exam for obvious structural defects; physical operation of the parts to determine that the lock is fully functional with adequate spring tension on each head or latch; a check for excessive corrosion and deterioration; and immediate removal from service when found to be defective. This is consistent with ILO Convention 152 regarding loose gear.
Proposed paragraph 1918.85(f)(3)(vii) addresses the characteristics of the liftlock. All liftlocks on a vessel shall lock and unlock in the same manner. Some liftlocks lock and unlock in a horizontal direction, others in a vertical direction. What is important and required is that all the liftlocks on a vessel work in the same manner to allow employees involved in VTLs to know whether or not the locks are locked or unlocked before a lift is performed. In order for an observer to visually determine whether the liftlocks are locked or unlocked, they must have a "telltale," which is typically a solid metal lever or a flexible wire, possibly painted to enhance visibility. This allows employees working with VTLs to see whether a liftlock is locked or unlocked.
Proposed paragraph 1918.85(f)(4) defines a competent person as "a person familiar with the proper maintenance and use of liftlocks by training or experience. Such a person will be able to detect defects or weaknesses and be able to assess their importance in relation to the safe and continued use of the liftlocks." The proposed definition for competent person is more appropriate for VTL operations than the existing definition found in OSHA's shipyard regulations, 29 CFR 1915.4, which is concerned with atmospheric hazards.
2. A fundamental issue of VTLs is the strength of the containers and liftlocks. As discussed above, OSHA contracted with another Federal agency, NIST, to conduct strength tests for SATLs. The report that NIST issued is Exhibit 40-10. It concluded that SATLs are very strong, noting that container corner castings fail before the SATLs (Ex. 40-10, pp. 43-44). Although the Agency has received considerable information on the topic, it welcomes further comments. Also, is there any scientific or engineering data that addresses maintenance testing and "life" of the components used for lifting purposes?
3. The NIST report also noted that a particular type of locking device known as a "single-sided latchlock" has insufficient surface area (that part of the lock that actually contacts the container corner casting and bears the weight of the lift) and that the strength of that kind of latchlock was less than that of a SATL. The design of the latchlock is such that the extent of the contact made by the lock relies on a spring that can become clogged by debris such as salt or grease which, in turn, can reduce significantly the contact area with the container corner casting (Ex. 20). In addition, by contrast with latchlocks, the handle of SATLs is designed as an integral part of the locking mechanism. The position of the handle allows the employees to be assured that, when the handle is in the locked position, the lock is engaged. Latchlocks are not designed in the same way. For these reasons, the NIST report, the ICHCA guidelines, and this proposal do not approve of the use of latchlocks for VTLs. OSHA realizes that there are also double-sided latchlocks that have more surface area than single-sided latchlocks; however, their locking mechanism is the same as that of single-sided latchlocks, with the same limitations for VTL purposes. OSHA seeks comment on whether double-sided latchlocks could be used for VTLs, and under what conditions.
5. Under the ICHCA guidelines, liftlocks can comply with the ILO Convention 152 loose gear requirement to be inspected annually by using an Approved Container Examination Program-type (ACEP) plan that is used to inspect containers. The ACEP program is a part of the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Convention for Safe Containers (CSC), which is enforced in the United States by the Coast Guard. Under the ACEP plan, containers are inspected frequently on an irregular basis as opposed to a set time period. This is generally done at the gate of a marine terminal, where containers are inspected as they are brought into the marine terminal, and the custody of the container is transferred from the over-the-road trucker to the marine terminal operator. The same inspection occurs when the over-the-road driver takes a container from the marine terminal, transferring custody of the container from the terminal operator to the truck driver. In both cases, the container is inspected for damage, and, when going out of the terminal, it is also inspected for "roadability," which is compliance with the Department of Transportation's regulations for equipment on public roads, such as brakes and lights. The OSHA proposal does not consider the ACEP program to be sufficient for liftlocks. Instead, it requires that liftlocks be inspected once every twelve months by a competent person. Liftlocks are subject to extreme weather conditions, exposure to salt water, cold temperatures, stresses through the movement of the vessel on the ocean, stresses when used for lifting, and rough handling when being removed during unloading operations. For these reasons, OSHA believes that an ACEP-type inspection program is inadequate and that the liftlocks must be inspected on an annual basis by a competent person. Vessel operators could use some kind of color coding to determine which liftlocks had been examined, as a positive visual indicator that a liftlock had been examined. OSHA seeks comment on this issue.
9. The Agency solicits comment on training that might be necessary for safe VTL operations. The current Marine Terminals and Longshoring Standards address crane operator training in § 1917.27(a)(1) and § 1918.98(a)(1), respectively. Those regulations require that only an employee "determined by the employer to be competent by reason of training or experience, and who understands the signs, notices and operating instructions and is familiar with the signal code in use, shall be permitted to operate a crane, winch, or other power-operated cargo handling apparatus, or any power-operated vehicle, or give signals to the operator of any hoisting apparatus." Thus far, VTLs have been performed by crane operators with no specific required off- site training in VTLs. In addition, making up and breaking down VTLs is little different from the work already performed by longshore employees. Is it necessary to provide specialized training for VTLs? How much, in what topics, and for whom?
11. What information (both recorded data and anecdotes) is available on incidents involving vertically coupled containers that have fallen? Have any employees been injured or killed in VTL incidents? Have there been "near-misses," and if so, what were the causes?
The Agency is proposing to incorporate provisions in its Marine Terminal and Longshoring Standards that permit VTLs of two containers with a total weight of 20 tons, and incorporate comprehensive VTL work practices that are similar to those developed by ICHCA. The changes that OSHA is proposing to make are expected to benefit the regulated community by increasing productivity for those who choose to make use of VTLs. In order to make use of VTLs, the affected employers will need to incur some additional costs. However, this action does not constitute a "significant regulatory action" for the purposes of Executive Order (EO) 12866. That is, this proposal does not impose costs or have benefits to the regulated community in excess of $100 million.
Table 1. -- Industrial Profile for the Proposed Standard
NAICS 488310 Port & Harbor Operations NAICS 483111 Deep Sea Freight Transportation NAICS 483113 Coastal & Great Lakes Freight Transportation Total all affected sectors
Profits (7%)
Establishments w/<20 Employees
Employees in Establishments with
Profits Per Establishment
Establishments w/100 to 499 Employees
Employees in Establishments with 100 to
Establishments w/500 Employees
Employees in Establishments with >500 Employees
Profits Per Establishment 212
$643,203,331
$45,024,233
$77,808,832
$5,446,618
$33,305,333
$2,331,373 507
$15,455,878,053
$1,081,911,464
$3,802,768
$155,591,006
$10,891,370
$21,112,000 301
$4,270,754,490
$298,952,814
$3,023,502
$39,740,515
$2,781,836
$357,800,000
$25,046,000 1,020
$20,369,835,874
$1,425,888,511
Only those companies operating in major ports will engage in transporting containers using VTLs. Thus, the Agency assumes, for the purposes of this preliminary estimate, that all of the establishments in NAICS 488310, 483111, and 483113 with greater than 100 employees will choose to incorporate VTLs into their workplaces. The resulting number and characteristics of establishments likely to adopt VTLs are shown in Table 2. However, nothing prevents others from using VTLs. The Agency seeks comment on these estimates concerning the number and kinds of establishment likely to adopt VTLs.
Table 2. -- Affected Establishments and Employees
Total Affected Establishments
1,052 6,575 3,293 10,920
$2,331,373 $155,591,006
$21,112,000 $39,740,515
$25,046,000 ...................
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis. Profit rates taken from Robert Morris Associates, 1998-1999 (RMA, 1998). Employees, establishments, and revenues taken from Dunn & Bradstreet, 2002.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) mandates that OSHA, when promulgating standards for protecting workers, consider the feasibility of the new workplace rules. Court decisions have subsequently clarified "feasibility" in economic and technological terms.
Table 3. -- Model Container Ship
Storage Using VTLs
Total Liftlocks2
Loading/Unloading VTL Profile3 1000
333 (2 at a time)
637 (1 at a time) 2000
2000 (1 at a time)
1 VTLs can only be used above deck.
2 Since liftlocks can only be used for VTLs, the Agency assumes that all locks used to store containers will be certified liftlocks.
3 The costing will be based on a full unloading of the ship.
Other gains in productivity will be the decreased land and crane rental time needed by the stevedoring companies, which is a direct result of the 3.7 hour decrease in time using VTLs. There may also be a cost saving from shorter dock or pier rental time for the ship.
The table below on productivity gains assumes that the containers are pre-stacked VTLs prior to the ships docking to ensure that the productivity gain stems solely from the act of moving the containers and not from any other source. Based on the table of productivity gains, moving two containers at one time would yield the highest marginal productivity gain. Based on the model and assumptions of cycle times, higher total productivity gains may be possible with VTLs of more than two containers. When moving more than two containers simultaneously, the gain diminishes for each added container. This diminishing gain stems solely from the assumptions in the model of the number of containers per hour and the minutes per lift variables. This analysis is dependent on the estimate of the number of containers per hour that can be moved. The "decreased lifts per hour" column captures a possible measure of where some effect on risk may occur. Fewer lifts may result in less risk. The Agency has preliminarily concluded that, when the proper work practice precautions as specified in the proposed standard are followed, the relative safety risk of two- container VTLs and single lifts are approximately the same. The Agency does not have any data to quantify this portion of risk. The Agency seeks comment on this approach.
Table 4b. -- Productivity Gains
Number of containers per lift Containers per hour Lifts per hour Minutes per lift Decreased lifts per hour Marginal gain from lifts (minutes)
4.0 ..............
1.3 ..............
Based on the model container ship profile, the Agency preliminarily estimates the benefits of using VTLs are $3,425 in direct cost savings for stevedoring costs for each VTL related operation. If, as estimated in the next section, VTLs are used for 156 jobs per year, then the total annual cost savings in stevedoring costs would be $534,300 per year. In addition, the shipper receives the cost saving associated with 3.7 hours less time needed to load or unload containers. This 3.7 hours translates into faster shipping service to shipper and improved productivity for shipping capital. The benefits also include decreased dock, or marine terminal, rental time and port fees associated with loading or unloading the ship. Due to the lack of data, the Agency has not quantified these benefits. The estimates are based on a "per job" basis; that is for a single loading or unloading operation of a container ship.
The most important provisions of the proposal are reviewed in the following paragraphs. Although many new provisions are being proposed, only five may create costs on the regulated community. A proposed provision in § 1917.46(a)(1)(viii)(A) requires container gantry cranes that handle VTLs to be fitted with a LID. This would allow the crane operator to know precisely the weight of the load.
Proposed § 1917.71(b)(9) requires the employer to notify the crane operator through a cargo stowage plan of the location and characteristics of all VTL units being handled. This is important so that the crane operator is aware of what he/she will be lifting and when.
Proposed § 1917.71(j) requires employers to develop and implement a plan for transporting VTLs in a terminal. This plan must include safe operating speeds; safe turning speeds; and any conditions unique to the terminal that could affect VTL operations.
Proposed § 1917.71(k) requires that the employer have a means of keeping damaged or defective liftlocks separate from operating liftlocks. This is currently being done for SATLs for lifts of single containers. Therefore, the Agency did not estimate additional compliance costs for this requirement.
The proposed § 1917.71(l) requires employers to ensure that liftlocks used to make up VTLs at a terminal are the same type of certified liftlocks that are on the vessel onto which VTLs will be loaded. This requirement will impose compliance costs not on the stevedore but on the ship owner. This cost is attributed to proposed § 1918.85(f)(3)(i) & (ii), which requires the ship owner to get the SATLs inspected prior to initial use as a liftlock for VTLs, and annually examined thereafter, based on ILO 152 convention requirements for loose gear. The requirements of initial testing, marking, and numbering the liftlocks with the safe working load (SWL) are tasks that will usually be done by the manufacturer, but for existing SATLs may be done by another company or the vessel owner. The logistics of testing, inspecting, and certifying liftlocks is difficult (for the employer/ stevedore) since the ship owner has control of the locks and most of the locks are in nearly continuous use. The Agency seeks comment on this issue. The overall breakdown of costs by sector are as follows:
Table 4c. -- Provisions With Potential Cost Implications by Sector
1917 Marine terminals 1918 Longshoring
§ 1917.46(a)(1)(viii)(A) -- Load Indicating Devices.
§ 1917.71(b)(9) -- Notify crane operator of cargo plan for VTLs.
§ 1917.71(j) -- Plan for transporting VTLs in the terminal.
§ 1917.71(k) -- Means for keeping damaged or defective liftlocks from operating liftlocks.
§ 1917.71(l)(a)(vii) and (viii) -- Liftlocks must be identical. § 1918.85(f)(3)(i) -- Initial Testing of SATLs.
§ 1918.85(f)(3)(ii) -- Annual inspection of liftlocks by a competent person.
For simplicity, the Agency is assuming that two container gantry cranes will load the empty model container ship with all 3,000 40-foot containers (the ship's full carrying capacity). Based on the specifications in Table 1, the containers being loaded will be a mix of 20 and 40-foot containers. (For purposes of space on container ships, two 20-foot containers, can be stored in the space of one forty-foot container.) However, for the purposes of this analysis, only the 40- foot containers will be used in VTLs. Forty-foot containers are more common and the analysis would not be essentially different with twenty- foot containers. Of the 3,000 40-foot containers, only 333 containers will be lifted in a VTL.
Also, the stevedoring supervisor must inform the crane operator of the vessel cargo stowage plan, which shows the location and characteristics of all VTL units to be handled (proposed in § 1917.71(b)(9)). The Agency estimates that it will take ten minutes (0.1667 hours) to perform this task. Thus, multiplying the hourly wage rate ($60.92) by this fraction of one hour, the cost is $10.
According to the proposed standard, employers are required to develop a plan for transporting vertically connected containers in a terminal (§ 1917.71(j)). The Agency assumes that this plan would be developed by the stevedoring supervisor along with information from the port authority (the owner of the land) prior to the ship's arrival in port. OSHA estimates that it will take four hours of supervisory time to develop this plan. The cost of this task is estimated by multiplying the supervisor's average wage rate of $60.92 per hour (PMA, 2003) by the four hours to complete this task. This totals $244 per establishment. In addition to the time to develop the plan, the Agency estimates that it will take employers one hour each to maintain and update the plan as necessary. The second and recurring cost year for this requirement is $61 annually per plan.
Table 5. -- Model Container Ship Operation Cost and Total Industry Compliance Costs
Model containership operation cost Estimate industry compliance cost1
§ 1917.46(a)(1)(viii)(A) -- Load Indicating Devices
§ 1917.71(b)(9) Notifying the crane operator of the VTL
§ 1917.71(j) Plan for transporting VTLs in the terminal
§ 1917.71(k) Means of Separating Damaged and Working Liftlocks2
§ 1918.85(f)(3)(i)&(ii) Testing and Examining Liftlocks
4,254 235,533
1These estimates were calculated mostly by multiplying the model container ship operation cost by 156 (estimate of the number of VTL jobs).
2This practice is already being done whether VTLs are being done or not, as discussed in the text.
Table 6. -- Estimated Annualized Compliance Cost per Establishment
NAICS 488310 Port and harbor operations NAICS 483111 Deep sea freight transportation NAICS 483113 Coastal and Great Lakes freight transportation
Affected Establishments Engaging in VTLs
Notifying the crane operator
Plan for Transporting VTLs
Means of Separating Damaged and Working Liftlocks
Testing and Examining Liftlocks
Total Annualized Compliance Cost
Annual Compliance Cost Per Affected Establishment 8
$233 41
1 This total represents the cost for developing the plans for transporting VTLs in the marine terminal ($1,949) discounted by a 7 percent rate over 10 years, which totals $278.
This proposed rule presents no issues of economic infeasibility. The use of VTLs is an option available to the employers. Any employer that finds that using VTLs would result in an increase in its costs need not adopt this option, and thus need not incur any costs. OSHA has examined the economic impacts for those who incur the costs of using VTLs.
Table 7. -- Estimated Economic Impacts for Affected Sectors
NAICS Description Compliance cost per establishment Compliance cost as a percentage percentage of revenues Compliance cost as a of pre-tax profits
483113 Port and Harbor Operations
Coastal & Great Lakes Freight Transportation $233
4,000 0.00
The economic impacts outlined in Table 7 of this analysis are based on using the lowest estimate of revenues and costs from either the 100 to 499 size class or the 500 size class (see Table 2). The costs of the proposal are extremely small, and the proposed standard is economically feasible.
Table 8. -- Estimated Small Firm Impacts
NAICS Number of small firms potentially affected Compliance cost per firm Compliance cost as a percentage of revenues Compliance cost as a percentage of profits
488310 -- Port & Harbor Operations
483113 -- Coastal & Great Lakes Freight Transportation 3
15 $233
The revisions and additions to 29 CFR parts 1917 and 1918 focus on the reduction of employee death and injury. OSHA will achieve this reduction through the updating of its regulations for longshoring and marine terminal operations to provide safe practices for employers who choose to perform VTLs. The new language of these rules does not affect air, water, or soil quality, plant or animal life, the use of land, or other aspects of the environment. Therefore, the new rules are categorized as "excluded actions" according to § 11.10(a)(1), of the DOL NEPA regulations.
The proposed rule for VTLs for longshoring and marine terminals contains two new collections of information (paperwork) that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 95), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and its regulation at 5 CFR part 1320. In addition, the proposal redesignates a currently approved collection of information, § 1917.71(f)(4) to § 1917.71(f)(5). The collection of information is approved under OMB control number 1218-0196. PRA 95 defines collection of information to mean, "the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public of facts or opinions by or for an agency regardless of form or format" (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)).
The title, description of the need for and proposed use of the information, summary of the collections of information, description of respondents, and frequency of response of the information collection are described below with an estimate of the annual cost and reporting burden as required by § 1320.5(a) (1)(iv) and § 1320.8(d)(2). The reporting burden includes the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Copies of the referenced information collection request are available for inspection and copying in the OSHA Docket Office and will be provided to persons who request copies by telephoning Todd Owen at (202) 693-1941 or Theda Kenney at (202) 693-2444. For electronic copies of the Vertical Tandem Lifts in Longshoring and Marine Terminals information collection request, contact the OSHA Web page on the Internet at http://www.osha.gov/. Copies of the information collection request are also available at the OMB docket office.
Interested persons who have objections to various provisions or have changes to recommend may, of course, make those objections and their recommendations in their written comments and OSHA will fully consider them. There is only a need to file formal "objections" separately if the interested person requests a public hearing.
This Federal Register document issues a proposal for new and revised rules addressing the handling of VTLs in marine cargo handling regulated in 29 CFR parts 1917 and 1918. The rules when final will be codified into the applicable section of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The 26 States or U.S. Territories with their own OSHA approved occupational safety and health plans must develop comparative standards applicable to both the private and public (State and local government employees) sectors within six months of the publication date of a permanent final Federal rule or show OSHA why there is no need for action, e.g., because an existing state standard covering this area is already "at least as effective as" the new Federal standard. Three States and territories cover only the public sector (Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey).
Freight, Incorporation by reference, Longshore and harbor workers, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Freight, Incorporation by reference, Longshore and harbor workers, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.
Section 1917.29, also issued under § 29, Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5 U.S.C. 553).
2. In § 1917.2, add the definitions of Liftlock and Vertical tandem lift (VTL) in alphabetical order to read as follows:
3. In § 1917.3, revise the first sentence of paragraph (a)(3) and the second sentence of paragraph (a)(4), and add new paragraph (c) to read as follows:
(1) ISO 3874, Freight Containers, Amendment 2, Vertical tandem lifting (2002); IBR approved for § 1917.71(l)(1)(i).
4. In § 1917.46, add a sentence to the end of paragraph (a)(1)(viii)(A) to read as follows:
§ 1917.46 Load indicating devices.
(ii) Is inspected by a competent person, certificated, and individually tested in accordance with requirements for loose gear in ILO Convention 152 before being used for the first time and after any substantial alteration or repair ("certificated" means that the liftlock is accompanied by a certificate, issued by a recognized body that is approved by the competent authority, to conduct appropriate testing and thorough examination of liftlocks);
(vii) Locks and releases in an identical direction and manner as all other liftlocks on the vessel onto which the VTLs will be loaded. They shall have a "telltale" incorporated in the design that indicates whether the liftlock is locked or unlocked in the corner fittings. This "telltale" shall be visible from deck level; and
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; § 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 941; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 6-96 (62 FR 111) or 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), as applicable.
Section 1918.100 also issued under § 29, Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5 U.S.C. 553).
2. In § 1918.2, add the definitions for Competent authority, Liftlock, and Vertical tandem lift (VTL), in alphabetical order, to read as follows:
1918.2 Definitions
3. In § 1918.3, revise the first sentence of paragraph (a)(3), revise the second sentence of paragraph (a)(4), and add new paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 1918.3 Incorporation by reference.
(1) ISO 3874, Freight Containers, Amendment 2, Vertical tandem lifting (2002); IBR approved for § 1918.85(f)(3)(i).
4. In § 1918.85, add paragraphs (f)(3), (f)(4), and (f)(5) to read as follows:
Vertical tandem lifting. Prior to a vertical tandem lift, the employer shall assure, using the vessel's liftlock certificate(s), that the liftlocks used in a VTL:
(ii) Have been inspected by a competent person, certificated, and individually tested in accordance with requirements for loose gear in ILO Convention 152 before being used for the first time and after any substantial alteration or repair ("certificated" means that the liftlock is accompanied by a certificate, issued by a recognized body that is approved by the competent authority, to conduct appropriate testing and thorough examination of liftlocks);
(vii) Locks and releases in an identical direction and manner as all other liftlocks on the vessel. They shall have a "telltale" incorporated in the design that indicates whether the liftlock is locked or unlocked in the corner fittings. This "telltale" shall be visible from deck level.
Footnote 1 ICHCA is an independent, non-political international membership organization established in 1952, whose membership spans some 85 countries and comprises corporations, individuals, academic institutions and other organizations involved in, or concerned with, the international transport and cargo handling industry. (Back to text)
Footnote 2 An ISO series 1 container is one that is intended for intercontinental use and is in compliance with relevant ISO standards. (Back to text)