[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 105 (Thursday, June 2, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-13058]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: June 2, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Labor
_______________________________________________________________________
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1917, and 1918
Longshoring and Marine Terminals; Proposed Rule
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1917, and 1918
[Docket No. S-025]
Longshoring and Marine Terminals
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; Notice of informal public hearings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
proposes to revise its Safety and Health Regulations for Longshoring
and, to a far lesser extent, to amend its Safety and Health Regulations
for Marine Terminals. The proposed rule covers cargo handling and
related activities conducted aboard vessels and at Marine Terminals.
The proposed amendments to the Marine Terminals standard are intended
primarily to provide regulatory consistency with the proposed
Longshoring ship-board rules. The proposed rules would be ``vertical''
standards which apply to longshoring and marine terminal activities
only, except for those general industry provisions referenced within
this proposed rule.
This proposal contains requirements for longshoring and marine
terminal operations; the testing and certification of specific types of
cargo lifting appliances and associated auxiliary gear; other cargo
handling equipment such as conveyors and industrial trucks; access to
vessels; working surfaces; and personal protective equipment.
Additionally, specialized longshoring operations such as containerized
cargo, roll-on roll-off (Ro-Ro) and menhaden are specifically
addressed.
The principal hazards addressed by this proposal are injuries and
accidents associated with cargo lifting gear, vehicular cargo
transferral, manual cargo handling, hazardous atmospheres and
materials, and finally, those hazards posed by the more modern and
sophisticated cargo handling methods brought about by intermodalism.
This provides notice of OSHA's intent to schedule informal public
hearings on OSHA's proposed rulemaking on Longshoring and the related
Marine Terminal provisions.
DATES: Written comments on the standard must be postmarked on or before
September 23, 1994. Notices of intention to appear at the informal
public hearings must be postmarked by August 24, 1994.Written comments,
testimony, and all evidence which will be offered into the hearing
record must be postmarked by 21 days prior to the date of the hearing
to be attended. The hearings will begin at 9:30 a.m. and be held in the
following cities, beginning on the following dates:
Charleston, South Carolina on September 20, 1994;
Seattle, Washington on October 19, 1994; and
New Orleans, Louisiana on November 15, 1994.
Requests for public hearings in locations other than the above must
be received by July 11, 1994.
Parties who request more than 10 minutes for their presentation at
the informal public hearing and parties who will submit documentary
evidence at the hearing must submit the full text of their testimony
and all documentary evidence, postmarked on or before 21 days prior the
date of the hearing to be attended.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and requests for additional hearings should
be submitted to the Docket Office, Docket S-025, Room N-2625, U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. Telephone: (202)
219-7894. Comments of 10 pages or less may be faxed to the Docket
Office, if followed by a hard copy. The OSHA Docket Office fax number
is (202) 219-5046.
Notice of intention to appear, testimony and documentary evidence
to be submitted at the hearing are to be sent to Mr. Tom Hall, OSHA
Division of Consumer Affairs, Docket No. S-025, Room N-3647, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, DC
20210, telephone (202) 219-8615.
Actual addresses for the locations of the regional hearings in
Charleston, South Carolina, Seattle, Washington, and New Orleans,
Louisiana will be announced in a later Federal Register document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James F. Foster, Director, Office
of Information and Consumer Affairs, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor,
Room N-3647, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210.
Telephone (202) 219-8148.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
I. Background
As a result of the high number and serious nature of accidents
occurring to port workers in the United States, Congress, in 1958,
amended the Longshore and Harborworker's Compensation Act (LHWCA) (33
U.S.C. 901 et seq.) to provide a large segment of port based employees
with a safer work environment. The amendments (P.L. 85-742, 72 Stat.
835) significantly strengthened Section 41 of the LHWCA (33 U.S.C. 941)
by requiring employers covered by that Act to ``furnish, maintain and
use'' equipment, and to establish safe working conditions in accordance
with regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor. Two years
later, the Labor Standards Bureau (LSB) of the Department of Labor
issued the first set of safety and health regulations for longshoring
activities as 29 CFR part 9 (25 FR 1565). These standards were amended
on several occasions between 1960 and 1971. Since 1971, there have been
no substantive changes to these provisions.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act) (29 U.S.C.
650 et seq.), which established the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), directed the Secretary of Labor to adopt, under
the authority conferred by section 6(a) of the Act, ``Any established
Federal standard'' as an OSHA standard during the first 2 years of the
Act. The Longshoring standards, then codified as 29 CFR part 1504, were
adopted by OSHA under section 6(a) in 1971, and were recodified as 29
CFR part 1918.
The longshoring industry has changed dramatically since 1971. The
methods of cargo handling and the equipment associated with those
methods have undergone significant modification. Vessels designed
specifically for the carriage of intermodal containers, vehicular
rolling stock, and even barges, are now the most common types of ships
calling at U.S. ports. By contrast, the established Longshoring
standard was designed largely for activities being conducted using
methods and equipment that have been overshadowed or replaced by more
modern methods of cargo handling. The proposal being published today
will seek to modernize OSHA's regulatory approach to deal with these
changes in the industry. It is important to consider, however, that
some of the older, more conventional vessel configurations, equipped
with features and aspects that are addressed in the current standard,
continue to call at U.S. ports. For that reason, the Agency will retain
in this proposal a number of provisions whose utility, although
diminished, will continue to be necessary. Nevertheless, the Agency
requests the public to comment on certain provisions that it considers
obsolete and no longer in use. For example, the Agency is considering
deleting the provisions that address the manually lowering or topping
of booms based on a determination that these operations are no longer
performed as a part of longshoring work.
On July 5, 1983, OSHA published its final rule for Marine Terminals
(48 FR 30886)(Ex. 1-101). These rules were designed to address the
shoreside segment of marine cargo handling. Since the Marine Terminal
standards currently address equipment and situations (i.e., powered
industrial trucks; conveyors; passage between levels and across
openings; etc.) that have shipboard counterparts, appropriate
provisions from those standards are incorporated into this proposal for
shipboard cargo handling, as well. Accordingly, the Agency will rely
upon background material and data used to substantiate OSHA's rule for
Marine Terminals, and incorporates the docket (S-506) developed in that
rulemaking.
This proposal seeks to provide a practical continuity as it
addresses the more conventional and time proven methods of cargo
handling along with those more modern and revolutionary. The Agency
welcomes all suggestions on how to better meet this goal.
Longshoring Hazards
Traditionally, the longshore industry has been notable in terms of
its accident experience. The work environment found in the marine cargo
handling sector exposes workers to a greater risk of injury than is
true for most other industries. In fact, in the last calendar year for
which industrial illnesses and accidents are fully tabulated, this
industrial sector had one of the highest rate of lost workdays in the
nation. The following tables found in BLS reports (Exs. 1-109, 1-110,
1-111, 1-112, and1-113) are useful in making a comparative assessment:
Table A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total of lost workdays (rate per 100 full
time employees) 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private sector 64.9 65.8 69.9 76.1 78.7 84.0 86.5
Construction 129 134 136 142 143 148 148
SIC 446 (449) 350 405 422 436 343 284 329
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: These 1988 to 1991 figures are based on SIC Code 449, which includes water transportation. It should be
noted that the SIC Code for water transportation was changed from 446 to 499 in 1987.
Table B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cases (rate per 100 full-time
employees) 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private sector 7.9 7.9 8.3 8.6 8.6 8.8 8.4
Construction Trades 15.2 15.2 14.7 14.6 14.3 14.2 13.0
SIC 446 (449) 16.3 18.0 17.0 14.5 14.7 13.5 13.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: These 1988 to 1991 figures are based on SIC Code 449, which includes water transportation. It should be
noted that the SIC Code for water transportation was changed from 446 to 449 in 1987.
In 1985, OSHA requested the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to
initiate a survey that could be used to develop common aspects of
accidents occurring within the current longshore sector (Ex. 1-73).
This survey helped to point out that in spite of the increases in
automation that have occurred in the industry, injuries and lost
workday cases continue to remain high and the break bulk type of
operation still accounts for a major portion of the injuries that occur
aboard ship.
OSHA sought to validate even further the conclusions it could draw,
both from this survey and from regularly published BLS occupational
safety and health statistics. In so doing, the Agency reviewed data
published in Seafarer magazine (April 1987). In an article entitled
``WGMA reports safety statistics for 85-86 contract year'' (Ex. 1-14),
that periodical listed a number of pertinent figures that serve to
corroborate the other accident information OSHA has secured. The West
Gulf Report, prepared by Mr. Hal Draper, Director of Safety; Health and
Training for the West Gulf Maritime Association, addressed the accident
experience of several ports from Lake Charles, Louisiana to
Brownsville, Texas. Quoting directly from the article:
West Gulf Report. Draper's report on West Gulf longshore
accidents during the 1985-86 contract year covered a total of 1,192
incidents.
According to his analysis, 70% of the accidents occurred on
board ships; the remaining 30% on the dock or in the warehouse/
terminal. Cargo was involved in 30% of the accidents, 64% of which
involved sacks/bags, and 12% steel/pipe. Two hundred and forty of
the incidents (20%) involved the individual being struck by a moving
object; 221 (19%) resulted from lifting, pushing, pulling or bodily
reaction; 208 (17%) from falls from the same level-slip or trip; 142
(12%) from striking against, or stepping/jumping on an object; 130
(11%) from being struck by a falling object; and 109 (9%) from being
caught in, under, or between objects. Thirteen percent of all
accidents involved stevedore gear/equipment.
Another way the Agency attempted to identify the major sources of
longshoring accidents for rulemaking purposes was to examine a number
of fatal or near fatal accidents reported to OSHA from this industry
sector during the period July 1972-March 1992. In conducting this
analysis, OSHA examined these case files to determine the precise cause
of the accident. A brief summary of a few of the more than 250 such
accidents reviewed is provided below.
Boston, Massachusetts--August 1974. A longshoreman, seriously
injured while working in the hold of a bulk cargo vessel, was placed
aboard a stokes basket stretcher to be transported ashore by the
vessel's cargo hoisting gear. The stokes basket had no effective means
to secure the injured worker to the stretcher. While in transit, the
injured worker fell out of the litter, back into the hold (Ex. 1-90).
Port Elizabeth, New Jersey--June 1978. One employee was killed and
one seriously injured when an intermodal container lifting beam, being
lowered to hoist the container both men were standing on, suddenly
fell. The device, weighing in excess of 4 tons, crushed both employees.
Compliance with proposed Sec. 1918.81(k) would have prevented this
accident (Ex. 1-87).
Port Newark, New Jersey--August 1976. An employee aboard an
elevator Ro-Ro ship, while in the process of discharging automobiles,
drove into what was thought to be an available elevator to gain access
to the ramp or discharge deck. The elevator was actually at a higher
deck. The employee and vehicle fell into the shaft and down three
decks. Barricading of the open deck spaces could have prevented this
accident (Ex. 1-88).
San Juan, Puerto Rico--August 1978. An employee aboard a seagoing,
multi-deck Ro-Ro barge was run over and killed by a tractor trailer
while the trailer was being maneuvered into its stowage position. No
signalman was provided to protect employees from the hazard that
ultimately killed this lasher (an employee engaged in securing cargo).
Additionally, illumination was severely lacking within the confines of
the vessel's below deck cargo spaces. The use of proper illumination
and a signaller for this operation could have prevented the fatality
(Ex. 1-89).
Port Elizabeth, New Jersey--August 1984. Two workers, while driving
in a vehicle within a large Ro-Ro vessel, fell from the end of an
elevated internal ramp back down to deck level. These employees thought
the ramp could take them to the next higher deck, however, the ramp was
not so positioned. The car they were operating landed on its roof. One
employee was killed, the other was injured. Barricading of the ramp
could have prevented this accident (Ex. 1-86).
Houston, Texas--July 1987. Two longshoremen were killed while
positioned atop a deck stowed intermodal container. As they were
performing their work, an empty forty foot container being passed over
their heads became disengaged from the lifting gear and fell on them.
These fatalities could have been prevented if the employees had stayed
clear of the overhead drafts (Ex. 1-74).
Port of Los Angeles, California--March, 1992. One longshoreman was
killed while working on top of a stack of containers on the deck of a
container vessel. A container top safety device was available, but the
longshoreman was not attached to it. The safety device, which was
attached to the container crane spreader bar, moved and became hung up.
When it released, it catapulted the longshoreman off of the stack of
containers and onto the dock. This incident could have been prevented
if the employee had not been working on the top of the container, or
had been using fall protection if it were necessary to be working there
(Ex. 1-108).
Based on the BLS data, the West Gulf Maritime Association's
accident analysis, and OSHA's own analysis of fatal or near fatal
accidents in the cargo handling industry , OSHA concludes that
regulatory action is necessary in order to meet its mandate under the
Act. See Section III, Statutory Considerations, below, for a complete
discussion of OSHA's ``significant risk'' findings.
II. General Format of the Standard
A. Vertical vs. Horizontal Standards
This proposed Longshoring standard has been drafted in a manner
that will allow it to stand by itself, i.e., to be a ``vertical''
standard. Vertical standards are those that apply specifically to a
given industry, in lieu of any other OSHA standard. In several areas of
coverage specified in the proposal's scope section, OSHA's General
Industry standards are incorporated by reference. This approach follows
OSHA's other marine cargo handling standard, Marine Terminals, 29 CFR
part 1917 (48 FR 30886). Vertical standards can encourage voluntary
compliance because they are directed to the particular problems of the
industry, and because they only contain provisions that are appropriate
to the industry in question. On the other hand, since many industries
covered by OSHA do in fact use the same or similar equipment and
processes, and therefore have employees who are exposed to the same
hazards, it is usually a more efficient use of the Agency's resources
to develop ``horizontal'' standards (those applying across industry
lines). It is also more efficient to train field personnel in general
safety programs tailored to the horizontal General Industry standards
than to train field staff in individual programs designed for specific
industries.
In 1983, OSHA promulgated a vertical standard for the shoreside
aspect of marine cargo handling (48 FR 30886)--OSHA's rules for Marine
Terminals. As was the case in that rulemaking, the Agency is proposing
the inclusion of a list of applicable General Industry standards which
will supplement the specific provisions in part 1918. This provides
coverage for hazards for which the marine cargo handling industry is
neither unique nor different from other industries. As an example, OSHA
proposes to adopt by reference Sec. 1910.95, titled ``occupational
noise exposure.'' The detrimental effects of prolonged high levels of
noise is the same whether the exposure takes place aboard a vessel or
in a factory. The exposure may not be as constant or the workforce may
not be subjected to the same type of noise day after day, however the
potential for overexposure is there. OSHA does not feel it is necessary
to write a ``vertical'' standard that covers exposure to noise when the
General Industry standard will suffice. This is entirely consistent
with the current coverage provided by OSHA rules for Marine Terminals
(part 1917).
The majority of this proposed Longshore standard is a ``vertical''
standard. The work environment aboard ship is unique in many respects.
Longshore workers must continually work in the harsh environment of the
waterfront, which requires exposure both to work-related hazards, such
as falling cargo, and to environmental hazards, such as drowning and
working around machinery in bad weather. Longshore workers perform some
of the same high-hazard tasks, and confront many of the same heavy-
industry hazards, as those typically associated with the construction
industry. Examples of such hazards include falls, and crushing and
caught-in injuries. Cargo handling and construction work are also both
weather-dependent and have a high proportion of part-time and transient
employees. The extremely high occupational injury and illness incidence
rates for the marine cargo handling industry, mentioned in the previous
section, testify to the hazardous nature of the longshoring industry.
OSHA has decided to continue a vertical standard for many aspects
of this high-hazard industry, supplemented by general industry
standards where necessary and appropriate. The Agency believes that
this approach is necessary to adequately address the unique hazards and
working conditions of this industry. OSHA also has a vertical standard
for the construction industry (29 CFR part 1926), another hazardous
industry with a large workforce.
OSHA solicits comments both as to the merits and the limitations of
a vertical standard for longshoring operations.
B. Performance vs. Specification
The format and substance of this standard reflect OSHA's effort to
eliminate unnecessary regulations and to simplify and update others. To
achieve these goals, the Agency has adopted a performance approach to
writing new rules and revising existing ones. A performance-based
standard identifies a hazard and the level of control required to
protect against the hazard, without specifying the precise means of
achieving such control, while a specification standard stipulates
design and construction criteria to be met to achieve a particular
safety objective. The lack of flexibility in many specification
standards fails to take into account the adequacy of many existing
operations and work practices and discourages innovation. In keeping
with OSHA's commitment to clarity, flexibility, and in order to
encourage employers to comply with the standards, this longshore
industry proposal has adopted the performance approach except in those
cases in which employee safety would be enhanced by more specific
requirements. The Agency is interested in receiving comments from
persons who feel that certain of the proposed provisions would benefit
from a greater degree of specification or from a more goal-oriented
approach.
III. Statutory Considerations
A. Introduction. Throughout this proposal, OSHA describes the
hazards confronted by employees who are engaged in longshoring
activities and the measures required to protect affected employees from
those hazards. The Agency is providing the following discussion of the
statutory mandate for OSHA rulemaking activity to explain the legal
basis for its determination that the Longshoring standard, as proposed,
is reasonably necessary to protect affected employees from significant
risks of injury and death.
Section 2(b)(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
authorizes ``the Secretary of Labor to set mandatory occupational
safety and health standards applicable to businesses affecting
interstate commerce'', and section 5(a)(2) provides that ``each
employer shall comply with occupational safety and health standards
promulgated under this Act'' (emphasis added). Section 3(8) of the OSH
Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 652(8)) provides that:
. . . the term `occupational safety and health standard' means a
standard which requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or
more practices, means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably
necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and
places of employment.
In two recent cases, reviewing courts have expressed concern that
OSHA's interpretation of these provisions of the OSH Act, particularly
of section 3(8) as it pertains to safety rulemaking, could lead to
overly costly or under-protective safety standards. In International
Union, UAW v. OSHA, 938 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1991), the District of
Columbia Circuit rejected substantive challenges to OSHA's lockout/
tagout standard and denied a request that enforcement of that standard
be stayed, but it also expressed concern that OSHA's interpretation of
the OSH Act could lead to safety standards that are very costly and
only minimally protective. In National Grain & Feed Association v.
OSHA, 866 F.2d 717 (5th Cir. 1989), the Fifth Circuit concluded that
Congress gave OSHA considerable discretion in structuring the costs and
benefits of safety standards but, concerned that the grain dust
standard might be under-protective, directed OSHA to consider adding a
provision that might further reduce significant risk of fire and
explosion.
OSHA rulemakings involve a significant degree of agency expertise
and policy-making discretion to which reviewing courts must defer. (See
for example, Building & Constr. Trades Dept. AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d
1258, 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Industrial Union Dept. AFL-CIO v. American
Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 655 n. 62 (1980).) At the same time, the
Agency's technical expertise and policy-making authority must be
exercised within discernable parameters. The lockout/tagout and grain
handling standard decisions sought from OSHA more clarification on the
agency's view of the scope of those parameters. In light of those
decisions, OSHA believes it would be useful to include in the preamble
to this proposed safety standard a statement of its view of the limits
of its safety rulemaking authority and to explain why it is confident
that its interpretive views have in the past avoided regulatory
extremes and continue to do so in this rule.
Stated briefly, the OSH Act requires that, before promulgating any
occupational safety standard, OSHA demonstrate based on substantial
evidence in the record as a whole that: (1) the proposed standard will
substantially reduce a significant risk of material harm; (2)
compliance is technologically feasible in the sense that the protective
measures being required already exist, can be brought into existence
with available technology, or can be created with technology that can
reasonably be developed; (3) compliance is economically feasible in the
sense that industry can absorb or pass on the costs without major
dislocation or threat of instability; and (4) the standard is cost
effective in that it employs the least expensive protective measures
capable of reducing or eliminating significant risk. Additionally,
proposed safety standards must be compatible with prior agency action,
must be responsive to significant comment in the record, and, to the
extent allowed by statute, must be consistent with applicable Executive
Orders. These elements limit OSHA's regulatory discretion for safety
rulemaking and provide a decision-making framework for developing a
rule within their parameters.
B. Congress concluded that OSHA regulations are necessary to
protect workers from occupational hazards and that employers should be
required to reduce or eliminate significant workplace health and safety
threats. At section 2(a) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 651(a)),
Congress announced its determination that occupational injury and
illness should be eliminated as much as possible: ``The Congress finds
that occupational injury and illness arising out of work situations
impose a substantial burden upon, and are a hindrance to, interstate
commerce in terms of lost production, wage loss, medical expenses, and
disability compensation payments.'' Congress therefore declared ``it to
be its purpose and policy ... to assure so far as possible every
working man and woman in the Nation safe ... working conditions [29
U.S.C. Sec. 651(b)].''
To that end, Congress instructed the Secretary of Labor to adopt
existing Federal and consensus standards during the first two years
after the OSH Act became effective and, in the event of conflict among
any such standards, to ``promulgate the standard which assures the
greatest protection of the safety or health of the affected employees
[29 U.S.C. Sec. 655(a)].'' Congress also directed the Secretary to set
mandatory occupational safety standards [29 U.S.C. Sec. 651(b)(3)],
based on a rulemaking record and substantial evidence [29 U.S.C. Sec.
655(b)(2)], that are ``reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide
safe ... employment and places of employment.'' When promulgating
permanent safety or health standards that differ from existing national
consensus standards, the Secretary must explain ``why the rule as
adopted will better effectuate the purposes of this Act than the
national consensus standard [29 U.S.C. Sec. 655(b)(8)].''
Correspondingly, every employer must comply with OSHA standards and, in
addition, ``furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of
employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or
are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees [29
U.S.C. Sec. 654(a)].''
``Congress understood that the Act would create substantial costs
for employers, yet intended to impose such costs when necessary to
create a safe and healthful working environment. Congress viewed the
costs of health and safety as a cost of doing business.... Indeed,
Congress thought that the financial costs of health and safety problems
in the workplace were as large as or larger than the financial costs of
eliminating these problems [American Textile Mfrs. Inst. Inc. v.
Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 519-522 (1981) (ATMI); emphasis was supplied in
original].'' ``[T]he fundamental objective of the Act [is] to prevent
occupational deaths and serious injuries [Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall,
445 U.S. 1, 11 (1980)].'' ``We know the costs would be put into
consumer goods but that is the price we should pay for the 80 million
workers in America [S. Rep. No. 91-1282, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970);
H.R. Rep. No. 91-1291, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970), reprinted in Senate
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Legislative History of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, (Committee Print 1971)
(`Leg. Hist.') at 444 (Senator Yarborough)].'' ``Of course, it will
cost a little more per item to produce a washing machine. Those of us
who use washing machines will pay for the increased cost, but it is
worth it, to stop the terrible death and injury rate in this country
[Id. at 324; see also 510-511, 517].''
[T]he vitality of the Nation's economy will be enhanced by the
greater productivity realized through saved lives and useful years
of labor. When one man is injured or disabled by an industrial
accident or disease, it is he and his family who suffer the most
immediate and personal loss. However, that tragic loss also affects
each of us. As a result of occupational accidents and disease, over
$1.5 billion in wages is lost each year [1970 dollars], and the
annual loss to the gross national product is estimated to be over $8
billion. Vast resources that could be available for productive use
are siphoned off to pay workmen's compensation and medical
expenses....Only through a comprehensive approach can we hope to
effect a significant reduction in these job death and casualty
figures. [Id. at 518-19 (Senator Cranston)] Congress considered
uniform enforcement crucial because it would reduce or eliminate the
disadvantage that a conscientious employer might experience where
inter-industry or intra-industry competition is present. Moreover,
``many employers--particularly smaller ones--simply cannot make the
necessary investment in health and safety, and survive
competitively, unless all are compelled to do so [Leg. Hist. at 144,
854, 1188, 1201].''
Thus, the statutory text and legislative history make clear that
Congress conclusively determined that OSHA regulation is necessary to
protect workers from occupational hazards and that employers should be
required to reduce or eliminate significant workplace health and safety
threats.
C. As construed by the courts and by OSHA, the OSH Act sets a
threshold and a ceiling for safety rulemaking that provide clear and
reasonable parameters for agency action. OSHA has long followed the
teaching that section 3(8) of the OSH Act requires that, before it
promulgates ``any permanent health or safety standard, [it must] make a
threshold finding that a place of employment is unsafe--in the sense
that significant risks are present and can be eliminated or lessened by
a change in practices [Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. American
Petroleum Inst, 448 U.S. 607, 642 (1980) (plurality) (Benzene);
emphasis was supplied in original].'' When, as frequently happens in
safety rulemaking, OSHA promulgates standards that differ from existing
national consensus standards, it must explain ``why the rule as adopted
will better effectuate the purposes of this Act than the national
consensus standard [29 U.S.C. Sec. 655(b)(8)].'' Thus, national
consensus and existing federal standards that Congress instructed OSHA
to adopt summarily within two years of the OSH Act's inception provide
reference points concerning the least an OSHA standard should achieve
(29 U.S.C. Sec. 655(a)).
As a result, OSHA is precluded from regulating insignificant safety
risks or from issuing safety standards that do not at least lessen risk
in a significant way.
The OSH Act also limits OSHA's discretion to issue overly
burdensome rules, as the agency also has long recognized that ``any
standard that was not economically or technologically feasible would a
fortiori not be `reasonably necessary or appropriate' under the Act.
See Industrial Union Dept., v. Hodgson, [499 F.2d 467, 478 (D.C. Cir.
1974)] (`Congress does not appear to have intended to protect employees
by putting their employers out of business.') [American Textile Mfrs.
Inst. Inc., 452 U.S. at 513 n. 31 (a standard is economically feasible
even if it portends `disaster for some marginal firms,' but it is
economically infeasible if it `threaten[s] massive dislocation to, or
imperil[s] the existence of, the industry')].''
By stating the test in terms of ``threat'' and ``peril,'' the
Supreme Court made clear in ATMI that economic infeasibility begins
short of industry-wide bankruptcy. OSHA itself has placed the line
considerably below this level. (See for example, ATMI, 452 U.S. at 527
n. 50; 43 FR 27360 (June 23, 1978). Proposed 200 g/m\3\ PEL
for cotton dust did not raise serious possibility of industry-wide
bankruptcy, but impact on weaving sector would be severe, possibly
requiring reconstruction of 90 percent of all weave rooms. OSHA
concluded that the 200 g/m\3\ level was not feasible for
weaving and that 750 g/m\3\ was all that could reasonably be
required). See also 54 FR 29245-246 (July 11, 1989); American Iron &
Steel Institute, 939 F.2d at 1003. OSHA raised engineering control
level for lead in small nonferrous foundries to avoid the possibility
of bankruptcy for about half of small foundries even though the
industry as a whole could have survived the loss of small firms.)
Although the cotton dust and lead rulemakings involved health
standards, the economic feasibility ceiling established therein applies
equally to safety standards. Indeed, because feasibility is a necessary
element of a ``reasonably necessary or appropriate'' standard, this
ceiling boundary is the same for health and safety rulemaking since it
comes from section 3(8), which governs all permanent OSHA standards.
All OSHA standards must also be cost-effective in the sense that
the protective measures being required must be the least expensive
measures capable of achieving the desired end (ATMI, at 514 n. 32;
Building and Const. Trades Dept., AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1269
(D.C. Cir. 1988)). OSHA gives additional consideration to financial
impact in setting the period of time that should be allowed for
compliance, allowing as much as ten years for compliance phase-in. (See
United Steelworkers of America v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1278 (D.C.
Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 913 (1981).) Additionally, OSHA's
enforcement policy takes account of financial hardship on an
individualized basis. OSHA's Field Operations Manual provides that,
based on an employer's economic situation, OSHA may extend the period
within which a violation must be corrected after issuance of a citation
(CPL. 2.45B, Chapter III, paragraph E6d(3)(a), Dec. 31, 1990).
To reach the necessary findings and conclusions that a safety
standard substantially reduces a significant risk of harm, is both
technologically and economically feasible, and is cost effective, OSHA
must conduct rulemaking in accord with the requirements of section 6 of
the OSH Act. The regulatory proceeding allows it to determine the
qualitative and, if possible, the quantitative nature of the risk with
and without regulation, the technological feasibility of compliance,
the availability of capital to the industry and the extent to which
that capital is required for other purposes, the industry's profit
history, the industry's ability to absorb costs or pass them on to the
consumer, the impact of higher costs on demand, and the impact on
competition with substitutes and imports. (See ATMI at 2501-2503;
American Iron & Steel Institute generally.) Section 6(f) of the OSH Act
further provides that, if the validity of a standard is challenged,
OSHA must support its conclusions with ``substantial evidence in the
record considered as a whole,'' a standard that courts have determined
requires fairly close scrutiny of agency action and the explanation of
that action. (See Steelworkers, 647 F.2d at 1206-1207.)
OSHA's powers are further circumscribed by the independent
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, which provides a
neutral forum for employer contests of citations issued by OSHA for
noncompliance with health and safety standards (29 U.S.C. Secs. 659-
661; noted as an additional constraint in Benzene at 652 n. 59). OSHA
must also respond rationally to similarities and differences among
industries or industry sectors. (See Building and Construction Trades
Dept., AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1272-73 (D.C. Cir. 1988).)
OSHA safety rulemaking is thus constrained first by the need to
demonstrate that the standard will substantially reduce a significant
risk of material harm, and then by the requirement that compliance is
technologically capable of being done and not so expensive as to
threaten economic instability or dislocation for the industry. Within
these parameters, further constraints such as the need to find cost-
effective measures and to respond rationally to all meaningful comment
militate against regulatory extremes.
D. The proposed revisions of the Longshoring and Marine Terminal
standards comply with the statutory criteria described above and are
not subject to the additional constraints applicable to section 6(b)(5)
standards.
Standards that regulate hazards that are frequently undetectable
because they are subtle or develop slowly or after long latency
periods, are frequently referred to as ``health'' standards. Standards
that regulate hazards, like explosions or electrocution, that cause
immediately noticeable physical harm, are called ``safety'' standards.
(See National Grain & Feed Assn., v. OSHA (NGFA II), 866 F.2d 717, 731,
733 (5th Cir. 1989). As noted above, section 3(8) provides that all
OSHA standards must be ``reasonably necessary or appropriate.'' In
addition, section 6(b)(5) requires that OSHA set health standards which
limit significant risk ``to the extent feasible.'' OSHA has determined
that the proposed revisions of the Longshore and Marine Terminal
standards are safety standards, because these standards address
hazards, such as falling, falling objects and crushing, that are
immediately dangerous to life or health, not the longer term, less
obvious hazards subject to section 6(b)(5).
The OSH Act and its legislative history clearly indicate that
Congress intended for OSHA to distinguish between safety standards and
health standards. For example in section 2(b)(6) of the OSH Act,
Congress declared that the goal of assuring safe and healthful working
conditions and preserving human resources would be achieved, in part:
... by exploring ways to discover latent diseases, establishing
causal connections between diseases and work in environmental
conditions, and conducting other research relating to health
problems, in recognition of the fact that occupational health
standards present problems often different from those involved in
occupational safety. The legislative history makes this distinction
even clearer:
[The Secretary] should take into account that anyone working in
toxic agents and physical agents which might be harmful may be
subjected to such conditions for the rest of his working life, so
that we can get at something which might not be toxic now, if he
works in it a short time, but if he works in it the rest of his life
might be very dangerous; and we want to make sure that such things
are taken into consideration in establishing standards. [Leg. Hist.
at 502-503 (Sen. Dominick), quoted in Benzene at 648-49].
Additionally, Representative Daniels distinguished between
``insidious `silent killers' such as toxic fumes, bases, acids, and
chemicals'' and ``violent physical injury causing immediate visible
physical harm'' (Leg. Hist. at 1003), and Representative Udall
contrasted insidious hazards like carcinogens with ``the more
visible and well-known question of industrial accidents and on-the-
job injury'' (Leg. Hist. at 1004). (See also, for example, S.Rep.
No. 1282, 91st Cong., 2d Sess 2-3 (1970), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin.
News 1970, pp. 5177, 5179, reprinted in Leg. Hist. at 142-43,
discussing 1967 Surgeon General study that found that 65 percent of
employees in industrial plants ``were potentially exposed to harmful
physical agents, such as severe noise or vibration, or to toxic
materials''; Leg.Hist at 412; id. at 446; id. at 516; id. at 845;
International Union, UAW at 1315.)
In reviewing OSHA rulemaking activity, the Supreme Court has held
that section 6(b)(5) requires OSHA to set ``the most protective
standard consistent with feasibility'' (Benzene at 643 n. 48). As
Justice Stevens observed:
The reason that Congress drafted a special section for these
substances ... was because Congress recognized that there were
special problems in regulating health risks as opposed to safety
risks. In the latter case, the risks are generally immediate and
obvious, while in the former, the risks may not be evident until a
worker has been exposed for long periods of time to particular
substances. [Benzene, at 649 n. 54.] Challenges to the grain dust
and lockout/tagout standards included assertions that grain dust in
explosive quantities and uncontrolled energy releases that could
expose employees to crushing, cutting, burning or explosion hazards
were harmful physical agents so that OSHA was required to apply the
criteria of section 6(b)(5) when determining how to protect
employees from those hazards. Reviewing courts have uniformly
rejected such assertions. For example, the Court in International
Union, UAW v. OSHA, 938 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1991) rejected the view
that section 6(b)(5) provided the statutory criteria for regulation
of uncontrolled energy, holding that such a ``reading would
obliterate a distinction that Congress drew between 'health' and
'safety' risks.'' The Court also noted that the language of the OSH
Act and the legislative history supported the OSHA position
(International Union, UAW at 1314). Additionally, the Court stated:
``We accord considerable weight to an agency's construction of a
statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer, rejecting it only if
unreasonable'' (International Union, UAW at 1313, citing Chevron
U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984)).
The Court reviewing the grain dust standard also deferred to OSHA's
reasonable view that the Agency was not subject to the feasibility
mandate of section 6(b)(5) in regulating explosive quantities of grain
dust (National Grain & Feed Association v. OSHA (NGFA II), 866 F.2d
717, 733 (5th Cir. 1989)). It therefore applied the criteria of section
3(8), requiring the Agency to establish that the standard is
``reasonably necessary or appropriate'' to protect section 3(8),
requiring the Agency to establish that the standard is ``reasonably
necessary or appropriate'' to protect employee safety.
As explained in Section I, Background, above, and Section V,
Summary and Explanation of the Proposal and in Section VIII,
Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, below, OSHA has determined that marine cargo handling
activities pose significant risks to employees (18 fatalities and 7,593
injuries annually) and that the provisions of the proposed rule are
reasonably necessary to protect affected employees from those risks.
The Agency estimates that compliance with the proposed revisions of the
Longshoring and Marine Terminal standards will cost $4.7 million the
first year and $1.8 million annually thereafter and will reduce the
risk of the identified hazards (preventing 3 fatalities and 1,262
injuries annually). This constitutes a substantial reduction of
significant risk of material harm for the population at risk of
approximately 93,000 employees. The Agency believes that compliance is
technologically feasible because all of the provisions of the proposed
standard can be met by using currently available equipment, facilities,
supplies, and work practices. Additionally, OSHA believes that
compliance is economically feasible, because, as documented in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis, all regulated sectors can readily absorb or
pass on compliance costs during the standard's first five years, and
economic benefits will exceed compliance costs thereafter.
As detailed in Section VIII, Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis
and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Table 1, below, the standard's
costs, benefits, and compliance requirements are consistent with those
of other OSHA safety standards, such as the Hazardous Waste Operations
and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of
Final rule date (FR cite) deaths injuries Annual cost Annual cost
Standard (CFR cite) prevented prevented first five next five
annually annually yrs (mill) yrs (mill)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grain handling (1910.272) 12-31-87 (52 FR 49622) 18 394 5.9 to 33.4 5.9 to 33.4
HAZWOPER (1910.120) 3-6-89 (54 FR 9311) 32 18,700 153 153
Excavations (Subpt P) 10-31-89 (54 FR 45,954) 74 800 306 306
Process Safety Mgmt 2-24-92 57 FR 6356 330 1,917 880.7 470.8
(1910.119)
Permit-Required Confined 1-14-93 58 FR 4462 54 5,041 202.4 202.4
Spaces (1910.146)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA assessed employee risk by evaluating exposure to marine cargo
handling hazards. The Agency acknowledges that some industries covered
by the proposed revisions of the Longshoring and Marine Terminal
standards have more documented marine cargo handling injuries or
fatalities than do others. OSHA does not believe that the risk
associated with exposure to marine cargo handling related hazards
varies according to the number of incidents documented for a particular
SIC code. OSHA has set the scope of the proposed revisions of the
Longshoring and Marine Terminal standards to address those situations
where employees are exposed to marine cargo handling hazards,
regardless of the relative frequency of incidents. The Agency believes,
based on analysis of the elements of the hazards identified, there is
sufficient information for OSHA to determine that employees in the
covered sectors face significant risks marine cargo handling
activities. Therefore, the Agency has determined that all employees
within the scope of the proposed standard face a significant risk of
material harm and that compliance with the proposed revisions of the
Longshoring and Marine Terminal standards is reasonably necessary to
protect affected employees from that risk.
IV. Review of General Industry Standards for Longshoring Operations
Applicability
Of all the work environments OSHA regulates, the shipboard
workplace ranks high among those that do not track easily with many of
the regulations that comprise 29 CFR part 1910 (General Industry
standards). For instance, subjects such as scaffolding; powered
platforms; power presses; wood working machinery; abrasive wheels;
forging machines; pulp and paper mills; bakery equipment; laundry
machinery; sawmills; logging; telecommunications; and spray painting,
all of which receive comprehensive discussion within the text of part
1910, are virtually non-existent concerns in shipboard longshoring
operations. Essentially longshoring is a transport industry and, as
such, is free from many of the hazards found in general industry.
Accordingly, these provisions are not included in this proposed rule.
In some areas where there is current coverage in part 1918, there
is similar coverage in part 1910. OSHA's primary concern is to make
sure that the 1910 provisions needed to supplement the 1918 coverage
are included in the proposal. For instance, subjects such as ladders;
slings; conveyors; industrial trucks; cranes and personal protective
equipment, which are fully addressed within part 1910, are presently
addressed with a specific regard for the maritime workplace, within
OSHA's current Longshoring rules. This proposal seeks to update and
revise the existing part 1918 and in some instances has relied in
substantial measure upon part 1910 language. In other instances, such
as when addressing container and roll on/roll off operations, entirely
new concepts have been developed to take account of the sometimes
unique operational aspects of the modern stevedoring community.
Where the hazards present in shipside cargo handling are directly
parallel to those encountered in the shoreside aspect of marine cargo
handling, such as in sanitation considerations, OSHA is proposing that
the language of provisions designed to address such shoreside hazards
be the same as in the Marine Terminal standards in 29 CFR part 1917.
Interested parties are requested to submit any information related
to the coverage of this proposed revision of the Longshoring rules. For
example, are specific hazards adequately addressed in this proposal?
Are longshore worker exposed to safety and health hazards which this
proposal does not adequately address? Have unnecessary provisions been
included in the proposal? Are there any areas of general industry
coverage that have not been included in the proposal that should be?
OSHA would particularly appreciate information on these issues.
V. Summary and Explanation of the Proposal
Subpart A--Scope and Definitions
Section 1918.1 Scope and applicability. Proposed Sec. 1918.1
describes the scope and applicability of the Longshoring standard. The
Longshoring rules apply from the foot of the gangway up, to include all
cargo handling related activities aboard a given vessel. It is
important to remember, however, that in ship to shore/shore to ship
cargo transfer operations using shore based material handling devices,
all lifting device specific aspects of such transfers will be covered
by the part 1917 rules. When cargo transfer is accomplished using
ship's cargo gear, the part 1918 rules shall apply.
In keeping with the concept outlined in the foregoing section of
this preamble (II. General Format of the Standard), certain selected
provisions currently found in OSHA's part 1910 standards have been
identified to have application to shipboard longshoring operations.
Sections 1918.1(b)(1) through (4), (b)(6) through (8), and (b)(10)
through (12) provide coverage for hazards for which the marine cargo
handling industry is neither unique nor different from other
industries. These hazards are not otherwise addressed by existing
maritime standards. The hazards addressed by Sec. 1918.1(b)(5) (Tools)
and (b)(9) (Machine Guarding), on the other hand, are addressed by
existing maritime standards but do not receive the comprehensive
treatment afforded by part 1910, subpart P, (Hand and Portable Powered
Tools and Other Hand-Held Equipment) and subpart O, (Machinery and
Machine Guarding).
OSHA is proposing to delete the current requirements for hand
tools, Sec. 1918.72, titled Tools, and replace it with Subpart P of 29
CFR part 1910, titled Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-
Held Equipment. OSHA believes that the general Industry Subpart P
regulations are more comprehensive and afford better protection. OSHA
proposes to do the same in the Marine Terminal regulations by replacing
the paragraphs under the sections heading Hand tools, Sec. 1917.51 and
replacing them with 29 CFR 1910 subpart P.
For the same reasons, OSHA is also proposing to remove the
requirements under Sec. 1917.151 titled Machine guarding, and replace
them with Subpart O of the General Industry standards, part 1910,
titled Machinery and Machine Guarding. OSHA is also proposing to
include Subpart O, Machinery and machine guarding, to the Scope and
Applicability section of part 1918.
OSHA promulgated the hazardous waste operations and emergency
response (HAZWOPER) standard on March 6, 1989 (54 FR 9294). OSHA'S
decision to cover all emergency response was based upon the high risk
associated with emergency response by untrained and unprotected
employees and the need for proper training and equipment to be provided
for emergency response to hazardous substance releases. This standard
currently applies in its entirety to shipboard longshoring operations.
HAZWOPER divides emergency response into three separate areas: (1)
Response at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites (Sec. 1910.120(l)); (2)
response at Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as
amended, facilities (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) Sec. 1910.120(p)(8); and
(3) response to emergency hazardous substance releases not covered by
the previously noted paragraphs Sec. 1910.120(q). Since the activities
described in the first two areas of the HAZWOPER standard do not
represent marine cargo handling activities within the scope of part
1917 or part 1918, OSHA is proposing to only apply Sec. 1910.120(q) to
longshore (part 1918) and marine terminal operations (part 1917).
Paragraph (q) covers employees engaged in toxic substance emergency
response no matter where it occurs. This paragraph, essentially,
requires employers to develop and implement an emergency response plan
to handle anticipated toxic substance emergencies prior to the
commencement of emergency response operations. If employers decide to
evacuate their employees from the danger area when an emergency occurs
and do not permit their employees to assist in handling the emergency,
they are exempt from the requirements of this paragraph if they provide
an emergency action plan and meet other requirements in accordance with
Sec. 1910.38(a) which states:
The emergency action plan shall be in writing * * * and shall
cover those designated actions employers and employees must take to
ensure employee safety from fire and other emergencies.
Simply stated, if an employer decides ``not to fight a fire''
(i.e., not to respond to an emergency), then Sec. 1910.120(q) does not
apply but Sec. 1910.38(a) does.
OSHA is proposing to delete the current requirements for hand
tools, Sec. 1918.72, titled Tools, and replace it with subpart P of 29
CFR Part 1910, titled Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-
Held Equipment. OSHA believes that the general Industry subpart P
regulations are more comprehensive and afford better protection. OSHA
proposes to do the same in the Marine Terminal regulations by replacing
the paragraphs under the sections heading Hand tools, Sec. 1917.51 and
replacing with 29 CFR part 1910 subpart P.
For the same reasons, OSHA is also proposing to remove the
requirements under Sec. 1917.51 titled Machine guarding, and replace
them with subpart O of the General Industry Standards, part 1910,
titled Machinery and Machine Guarding.
Proposed Sec. 1918.2 carries over many of the definitions from the
current Longshoring regulations. However, there are some new
definitions or some modifications to existing definitions that reflect
changes in current custom and practice in the Longshore industry.
For example, the term ``designated person'', which is not used in
the current longshore regulation, is used in this proposal. The term is
used to identify a person who has a special skill in a particular area
and has been so noted by the employer. Because of this skill, this
employee is assigned to perform specific tasks in this area of
expertise. While the concept of ``designated person'' is found
throughout the current requirements, it is expressed in many different
ways. This proposal tightens up the use of this concept by its
consistent use of the term ``designated person'' throughout the
standard. Some examples of the use of the term are: Sec. 1918.51(b)
requires that a designated representative, in lieu of the employer,
shall inspect vessel's cargo gear before use and at intervals during
use; and Sec. 1918.55 (c)(7) where a designated person is one with
knowledge in crane operations, specifically when using two or more
cranes to hoist in unison, along with knowledge in rigging.
In addition, the current references to the ``Federal maritime
jurisdiction'' and ``navigable waters'' in the definitions of
``employee'' in paragraph (e) and ``employer'' in paragraph (f) are
being dropped. The current rules were originally promulgated under the
Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941) for
which the navigable waters was a jurisdictional prerequisite. With the
promulgation of the OSH Act, which applies to private sector employment
in workplaces in a covered jurisdiction, however, such a prerequisite
was no longer necessary. Therefore, OSHA is proposing to update these
rules by eliminating the reference to navigable waters in this
definition.
Additionally, several new or substantially revised definitions are
found in paragraphs (d), (g), (h), (j), (k), and (n) of this section.
The definitions for enclosed space and fumigant are added to this
section for clarity since these terms are used in the standard. In
addition, they are virtually identical, with the exception of the
examples, to those found in the Marine Terminal standards. The term
``hazardous cargo'' has been expanded to reflect the Marine Terminal's
definition of ``hazardous cargo, materials, substance or atmosphere.''
This definition goes beyond the current part 1918 definition by
including references to subpart Z as well as oxygen-deficient
atmospheres. Additionally, it is, in turn, consistent with the
Hazardous Communication standard found at 29 CFR 1910.1200. Another new
definition is integral to the major impetus for revising part 1918, as
discussed above: ``intermodal container.'' The definition for
``intermodal container'' reflects both the definition found in the
International Labor Organization (ILO) Code of Practice for Safety and
Health in Dock Work, (Ex. 1-135) and the definition found in
International Standards Organization (ISO) Standard 830, Freight
Containers-Terminology, (Ex. 1-134). This definition is also being
proposed to replace the current definition for ``intermodal container''
found in the Marine Terminal standard, Sec. 1917.2(u).
The definitions of ``dockboards'' and ``ramps'', currently found in
the Marine Terminal standard, are being proposed for Longshoring, as
well, with minor modification.
Certain definitions currently in part 1918 would be deleted.
Existing definitions referring to the existing Sec. 1918.13,
certification of shore-based material handling devices were deleted
because they were superseded by the Marine Terminal standard. The
existing definition of the term ``shall'' is being deleted as
unnecessary.
Subpart B--Gear Certification
A. Section 1918.11 Gear certification. Since 1960, safety and
health regulations designed to protect U.S. dockworkers (with
particular regard to vessel's cargo handling gear) have relied upon the
documentary proofs of tests and examinations mandated by International
Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 32 (Ex. 1-34). In Article 9 of that
Convention, units and articles comprising ship's cargo handling gear
are enumerated and assigned an annual/quadrennial schedule of tests/
examinations that must be attended and attested to by individuals
judged to be ``competent'' by the national authorities of the vessel's
registry. Although not a signatory to that Convention, the United
States has conformed to this Convention via regulation promulgated by:
(1) the U.S. Coast Guard, with regard to inspected U.S. flag vessels;
and (2) OSHA, with regard to foreign flag vessels (Sec. 1918.12). The
Coast Guard has promulgated cargo gear regulations that exceed those
found in Convention 32, namely 46 CFR part 91, that promote safe and
unencumbered operations for U.S. flag vessels trading at foreign ports.
On foreign flag vessels trading at U.S. ports, however, OSHA has sole
responsibility for regulating and enforcing rules that address the
cargo gear U.S. longshore workers utilize.
Under Convention 32, proof load testing\1\ was only required
initially before being taken into service. Thereafter, components such
as derricks, goosenecks, mast bands, derrick bands and any other
difficult to disassemble fixed gear, were to be ``thoroughly examined''
every four years and ``inspected'' every 12 months. Other hoisting
machinery, such as cranes, winches, blocks, shackles, and any other
accessory gear, were to be ``thoroughly examined'' every 12 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Proof load testing, as used here, means lifting an known
weight that is in excess of the safe working load (SWL) of the
lifting appliance being tested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Convention 32, the vessel's cargo handling gear was proof
load tested initially, and then perhaps never again. After that initial
test, such gear received various degrees of visual scrutiny,
complemented on some occasions by non-destructive testing, i.e., a
hammer test.
Convention 152, adopted June 25, 1979, requires that such proof
load testing is to occur at least every five years, and applies to all
ship's lifting appliances. Within Article 3 of the new Convention, the
term ``lifting appliance'' is defined as follows:
Lifting appliance covers all stationary or mobile cargo-handling
appliances, including shore-based power-operated ramps, used on
shore or on board ship for suspending, raising or lowering loads or
moving from one position to another while suspended or supported.
(Ex. 1-5, pg.2)
Thus, the extent of cargo handling equipment found aboard ship
requiring testing and certification, heretofore restricted to specific
assemblies and components (i.e., derricks, cranes, winches, etc.) is
being expanded in this proposal to include all ``lifting appliances''
under the terms of the newer ILO Convention. This would include
forklifts and other powered industrial equipment used to handle cargo
that might be carried by a Ro-Ro vessel; and elevators found on Ro-Ro
vessels used to move cargo from one deck level to another--in addition
to vessel cranes and derricks. Under this proposal in Sec. 1918.11, all
this equipment would be required to be tested and thoroughly examined
initially before being put into use; retested and thoroughly examined
every five years; and thoroughly examined every 12 months.
In those situations where one container is used to lift another
container, using twist locks, then the upper container and twist locks
become, in effect, a lifting appliance and must be certified as such.
International Aspects
As is the case with all Federal agencies whose regulations impact
international trade, OSHA has developed this proposal in light of
international considerations. Through both law and policy, the United
States has decided that standards-related activities shall not
unnecessarily be a barrier to trade. The Trade Agreements Act of 1979
(19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq). addresses technical barriers to trade with
regard to federal regulation. This Act states in Title 19 of the U.S.
Code as follows:
Sec. 2532. Federal standards-related activities
No Federal Agency may engage any standards related activity that
creates unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States, * * *.
(1) Nondiscriminatory treatment. * * *
* * * * * * *
(2) Use of international standards.--
(A) In general. * * * each Federal agency, in developing standards,
shall take into consideration International standards and shall, if
appropriate, base the standards on International standards.
Additionally, and consonant with this country's position on
barriers to international trade, the United States is a signatory to
the Multilateral Convention on the Facilitation of International
Maritime Traffic (1965) (Ex. 1-3). As a contracting government, the
United States has agreed to:
* * * Undertake to cooperate in securing the highest practicable
degree of uniformity in formalities, documentary requirements and
procedures in all matters in which such uniformity will facilitate
and improve international maritime traffic and keep to a minimum any
alterations informalities, documentary requirements and procedures
necessary to meet special requirements of a domestic nature.
(Article 3)
Mindful of these international aspects, OSHA sought to formulate an
acceptable approach to the vessel's cargo handling gear issue, and to
other issues. The Agency requested the Department of State (Ex. 1-7) to
present OSHA's tentative approach to all foreign nations whose flags
may enter U.S. ports. This exercise was conducted in hope of
ascertaining global acceptance. Reports back from responding foreign
nations (Ex. 1-6) indicated overwhelming support for the Agency's
approach to these issues, and OSHA has incorporated it in this
proposal. Most nations, although stipulating that they had not as yet
ratified the more recent ILO Convention, indicated that national laws
recently ratified or those currently in the legislative process were at
least as strong, and in some cases more stringent, than Convention 152.
In consideration of this widespread international acceptance of ILO
Convention 152's approach to testing and certification of cargo gear,
OSHA has decided to propose it in this revision of the Longshoring
standards. The Agency is interested in any additional comment on this
issue that interested parties may be in a position to offer.
Subpart C--Means of Access
Section 1918.21 Gangways and other means of access. This proposed
section joins together two similar sections (Sec. 1918.11--Gangways and
Sec. 1918.21--Gangways and Other Means of Access) of OSHA's current
Longshoring rules. Clarity is improved in that rules addressing the
same specific issue will no longer be situated in two different
subparts of part 1918. As is the case in the current rules, gangway
dimensions and characteristics are set out in proposed paragraph (a) to
provide the safe access to vessels necessary for longshore workers. By
using a blend of specification with performance based alternatives, the
proposal lends the flexibility needed in accommodating foreign vessels.
Language has been added that allows the use of materials that have been
developed since the current rule was written, as long as the material
has a strength equivalent to those that are listed.
Proposed paragraph (b) carries over language from the current
rules, as well as the term ``trimmed'' found in the Joint Maritime
Safety Code of the New York Shipping Association/ International
Longshoremen's Association (NYSA/ILA Safety Code) (Ex. 1-2) part M,
paragraph 1), and requires that despite changing conditions brought
about by tides, cargo operations, etc., the gangway and its components
must be wholly serviceable.
Proposed paragraphs (c) through (k) are similar to the language
found in the current rules. Some paragraphs have been modified to
address some problems associated with the current language. Paragraph
(d) has been modified to require a safety net or suitable protection
when the gangway overhangs the water in such a manner that there is a
danger of employees falling between the ship and the dock. The net is
required to prevent an employee from falling to a lower level. This is
consistent with ILO'S ``Safety and Health in Dock Work,'' (Ex. 1-138).
A new paragraph (i) has been added to address the hazard associated
with slippery handrails and walking surfaces on gangways. Paragraph (j)
references Sec. 1918.92 for illumination requirements on a gangway. In
summary, these paragraphs address the requirement for a safe passage
from the dock to the deck.
Proposed paragraph (l) recognizes the U.S. Coast Guard's authority
relating to jurisdictional matters aboard vessels having a current and
valid certificate of inspection. Notwithstanding, for the purpose of
this rule, if access is attained other than by the vessel's regular
gangway, that access shall conform to the entirety of this section.
Proposed Sec. 1918.22 carries over language from the current rules.
Both paragraphs of this section contain the standard universal criteria
for rope ladders, also known as ``Jacob's ladders'', namely, that such
ladders be either double-runged or flat-treaded, so as to provide a
more substantial tread surface; that they be well maintained and
properly secured to available fittings; and that they not be permitted
to hang from their lashing points with slack in them.
It is often the case that such ladders are provided by the vessel
when a more traditional means of access cannot be utilized.
Notwithstanding, under these proposed rules the employer (who is often
a contractor rendering a service to the vessel) must comply with this
proposed section before employees are permitted to use these ladders.
Proposed Sec. 1918.23 also carries over language from the current
rules. Paragraph (a) sets out criteria for ramps used to gain vehicular
access to or between barges. Of primary importance is that such ramps
be of sufficient strength for the intended load. These ramps must be
equipped with sideboards that will prevent vehicles from falling. They
must also be well maintained and properly secured during use.
Paragraph (b) addresses employee passage to and from certain
floating craft. Under favorable conditions, it is sometimes possible to
pass to and from such vessels without the aid of any device. In other
than favorable conditions, however, this paragraph sets forth the
criteria to provide safe passage. Of significant importance is the
exception included at the end of the paragraph. That exception
recognizes practical difficulties encountered on the Mississippi River
system in providing traditional means of access on all occasions. When
originally promulgated in 1960, the longshore rules (Ex. 1-39) took no
cognizance of these special difficulties. In 1965, the Labor Standards
Bureau published the following proposed clarification, (Ex. 1-40):
In order to provide practical solutions in cases where current
requirements cannot be met, because of local river and bank
conditions (this section) should be amended by the addition of a
provision. (p.7609)
A provision to that effect was published in the Federal register in
final form on May 21, 1966 (Ex. 1-41). Historically (Ex. 1-98), this
exception has been based on tidal and current conditions on the
Mississippi system (see definition at proposed Sec. 1918.2(s)). OSHA's
experience has thus far concluded that such exceptional conditions
prevail only on this inland system; however, the Agency solicits
comments from interested individuals with other information on this
issue.
A sentence has been added to proposed Sec. 1924.23(c) that requires
no more than two Jacob's ladders for any single barge, raft, or log
boom being worked. This proposal is consistent with the requirements in
Sec. 1918.25(a) which requires a maximum of two access ladders in a
hatch. The term ``gang'' is used here and several other places in this
proposal. It refers to a group of longshore persons that are assigned
to a particular hold, deck, etc. on a ship for the purpose of loading
or discharging cargo.
A new paragraph (e) has been added to this section to address the
problem associated with the lower rungs of a Jacob's ladder being
crushed between the barge and another structure by requiring that a
spacer or equivalent means be used to prevent it from occurring. If the
lower rungs are crushed, this could cause an employee to fall between
the barge and other structure.
Another new paragraph (f) has been added to this section. This
paragraph requires the a net or equivalent protection if there is a
space between the vessel, barge or other structure when using a Jacob's
ladder to prevent an employee from falling into the water.
Proposed Sec. 1918.24 combines the current language of the existing
longshore provisions for bridge plates and ramps with the terms that
apply to similar shoreside equipment within 29 CFR part 1917 (Marine
Terminals, Sec. 1917.124).
In the adoption of such parallel rules, OSHA hopes to enhance the
uniformity of regulation that is critical to safety performance both
shipboard and shoreside. Throughout this proposal, the Agency has
attempted to foster such uniformity and requests comments as to how
this goal can be better achieved.
Paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) and (b)(1)(v) would be revised to require
sideboards that are at least 6 inches (.16 m) high. This height is the
same as found for bull rails that were in place at the time of the
effective date of the Marine Terminal standard, found in Sec. 1917.112.
OSHA believes that specifying the height of the sideboards will provide
the necessary protection to prevent vehicles and equipment from
accidently falling off the edge. OSHA requests comment from the public
concerning appropriateness of the height of the sideboards. OSHA is
also proposing to require the same 6 inch (.16 m) sideboards for
dockboards and ramps that are in the Marine Terminal standard,
Sec. 1917.124.
Proposed Sec. 1918.25 combines the current requirements for
portable ladders contained in the existing Longshoring rules with the
similar rules of Sec. 1917.119. For fixed ladders, however, there is a
distinction between the proposed and current Longshore standard which
has to do with clearance in back of the ladder rungs. The existing
requirement is 4 inches (.11 m), but the proposed clearance is 6 inches
(.16 m), which reflects the current ILO Standard.
Consistent with ILO's Guide to Safety and Health in Dock Work, (Ex.
1-129), OSHA is proposing that vessels built after December 5, 1981,
(the date when ILO Convention 152, Occupational Safety and Health in
Dock Work was put into effect), have a 6-inch (15 cm) clearance between
the ladder and the surface to which it is fastened. Vessels built prior
to December 5, 1981, however, may have a 4 inch (10 cm) clearance
between the ladder and the surface to which it is fastened. OSHA
encourages comment on this issue. (It should be noted where a fixed
ladder has inadequate clearance, a suitable portable ladder could be
used.)
Generally, proposed Sec. 1918.25 includes much of the current
language for ladders with some modifications. Provisions have been
added that reference ANSI standards for manufactured portable ladders.
There are also proposed provisions for ladder maintenance and usage
that are similar to what is in the Marine Terminals standard, but are
new to Longshoring.
In paragraphs Sec. 1918.25(c) and (e) the phrase ``positively
secured against shifting or slipping'' has been changed to ``positively
secured or held against shifting or slipping while in use''. This
change acknowledges that a worker(s) may hold a portable ladder in
place while another worker is climbing the ladder in situations where
the ladder cannot be secured and is consistent with the PMA-ILWU Safety
Code, Rule 1506 (Ex. 1-145).
In addition, for the purpose of clarifying paragraph (e), where the
employer can demonstrate that employees can safely use the cargo itself
to climb in and out of the hold (often referred to as ``safe cargo
steps''), a straight ladder is not necessary.
Paragraph (j)(8) on, ladder usage, acknowledges that while some
ladders may not have slip-resistant bases, they can be readily secured
by lashing them in place to prevent slipping or shifting when being
used.
Subpart D--Working surfaces
OSHA clearly understands that many of the falling hazards addressed
in part by this and other subparts, represent working environments and
physical characteristics no longer observed with the type of frequency
that was the case when the current Longshoring rules were last revised.
Nonetheless, conventional cargo handling methods together with more
traditional vessel designs are still encountered at U.S. ports. For
this reason, OSHA proposes to retain current provisions that still have
application.
As an example, proposed Sec. 1918.31(c) prohibits employers from
allowing work to be conducted on surfaces comprised of missing, broken
or poorly fitting hatch covers. Currently, it is relatively rare to
experience a vessel trading at U.S. ports, fitted with the type of
removable hatch covers this provision addresses. Despite that rarity,
such situations do arise.
Proposed Sec. 1918.31(d) prohibits the placing of poorly fitting
hatch covers and hatch beams that would constitute a work surface. As a
practical matter, it is rare to see vessels at U.S. ports fitted out
with hatch beams. In those instances, however, identifying marks are
usually permanently fixed to such equipment. Those marks correspond to
marks found on receptacle fittings on the vessel proper. In all cases,
notwithstanding the presence of corresponding marks, the employer must
make sure that all hatch beams and covers are seated securely,
providing a strong and stable work surface.
Proposed Sec. 1918.32(a) carries over language from the current
Longshoring rule. Frequently cargo must be landed on temporary
surfaces, generally presented by other cargo stows, prior to its
ultimate place of rest. When this is so, it is important that employees
have enough available space to work in safety upon such a surface, and
that the temporary table is strong enough to safely support the loads
being imposed. There are obviously many strength and size
possibilities, which will be dictated by the size and weight of the
drafts being landed.
Proposed Sec. 1918.32(b) has been revised to address changes that
have occurred in technology and work practices. Employees working on
the tops of containers are now covered by Sec. 1918.85(j), Container
top safety. (For a full discussion see the preamble to Sec. 1918.85(j)
below). When employees working in cargo holds, are exposed to falls of
more than 8 feet (2.4 m), the edge of the working surface must be
guarded by a safety net, or must be otherwise rendered safe (such as by
providing guardrails or fall arrest systems) to prevent employee
injury. It should be noted that proposed Sec. 1918.32(b) does not
include employees working on the top of intermodal containers in a hold
as this is also covered under Sec. 1918.85(j).
Of prime importance is that the intent of this provision is
satisfied, rather than providing just the appearance of compliance.
Many times, particularly when safety nets have been rigged, they have
been allowed to become very slack, and have sometimes been secured only
at their top ends. The improper rigging of safety nets compromises or
even removes the protection provided to falling employees. In these
very critical fall hazard situations, this provision insists that fully
considered precautions are taken. The Pacific Coast Marine Safety Code
(PCMSC) Rule 1016 (Ex. 1-145) is very similar in construction.
This paragraph has also been revised to distinguish between the
purpose and use of vertical safety nets, which rise at right angles at
the perimeter of a work surface thus preventing employees from falling,
and trapeze nets, which are designed to be placed horizontally below a
raised work surface to prevent falling employees from striking the
surface below. Additionally, this section requires that any nets used
for purposes of fall protection meet the applicable requirements.
Proposed Sec. 1918.33(a) and (b) are carried over from the current
Longshoring rules. As the heading of this section indicates, these
provisions address the safe performance of work on or around deck
loads. Provisions for work performed by employees atop deck-stowed
intermodal containers will be found at proposed Sec. 1918.85(j).
OSHA is proposing to change the title and text of Sec. 1918.34. The
current title of this section is ``Skeleton decks.'' OSHA has
consulted, without success, numerous individuals from the maritime
community and researched several maritime publications, textbooks, etc.
in an effort to define the terms ``skeleton deck'' and ``mechano
deck.'' OSHA feels that the use of these terms and the practice of
working cargo on these particular types of decks are obsolete. Since
the hazards remain even though these terms do not, OSHA is proposing to
change the title of the section to ``Other decks'' in order to group
unique or uncommon decks; using generic language to address the hazards
associated with landing cargo on such decks that are not designed for
such use. OSHA encourages the public to comment on whether the terms
``skeleton deck'' and ``mechano deck'' should be kept in the text of
the standard and on whether these provisions are necessary.
Proposed Sec. 1918.35 addresses hazards longshore workers face when
conducting operations around open weather deck hatchways. Vessels
calling at U.S. ports are of varied designs and capabilities. Some
vessels have coamings, which are the vertical structure that surrounds
the hatch opening on a ship, that are substantially higher than the
proposed section's minimum acceptable range (36 to 42 inches) (.92 to
1.07 m) other vessels may have no hatch coamings at all, but rather
flush decks or decks with an abbreviated sill, which present
substantial fall hazards to longshore workers. On such vessels, when
workers work around the perimeter of open hatchways, appropriate
guarding must be provided. This proposal stipulates that taut lines or
guardrails attaining the acceptable range be erected on all but the
working side of the hatch. This proposal mandates that stanchions or
uprights used in their construction be supported or secured in a manner
that will prevent them from coming accidentally loose.
Proposed Sec. 1918.37 addresses the fall hazards associated with
working on the decks of lighters and barges. Proposed paragraph (a)
retains language from the current rule. It prohibits the use of
marginal (less than 3 feet (.92 m) wide) deck space along the sides of
covered lighters or barges on all such vessels having coamings over 5
feet (1.5 m) high. Alternately, an employer must provide a taut
handline or, as is most often the case, the vessel must be fitted with
a serviceable grab rail.
Proposed paragraph (b), also retains language from the current
rule. It prohibits working or walking on unsound surfaces. This can be
a particularly important consideration on barges, in that powered
industrial trucks are often brought aboard to assist in operations. The
proposed rule requires a visual check of such decks before loading
operations begin. If during the course of discharge operations an
unsafe surface is discovered, work must be discontinued until
protective measures are taken (such as bridging the unsafe surface with
steel plate or barricading a deck section deemed unsafe).
Proposed Sec. 1918.38, as well as Sec. 1918.88 titled ``log
operations'' are entirely new sections addressing log loading
operations and reflect current industry practice. Section 1918.38 is
based on Rules 640 and 641 of the PCMSC (Ex. 1-145); on a report on log
operations submitted to OSHA's Maritime Safety Standards Office by
Region X (Ex. 1-146); and a training video on log operations produced
by the PMA and ILWU (Ex. 1-147). Loading logs from water presents very
serious falling and drowning hazards. Thus, safe walking working
surfaces are extremely important to longshore workers who are
positioned offshore during log loading operations. Sound footing is
essential during access to and while working on log rafts, which are in
fact the cargo. The proposed requirements provide for safe access to
the worksite and a safe working surface area. The working surface must
be wide enough to allow for stable footing, securely fastened together,
and substantial enough to support the weight of the employees on it.
OSHA has concluded that the basic requirements for providing such safe
surfaces should be included in this rulemaking, and seeks comment on
their completeness.
Subpart E--Opening and closing hatches
Proposed Sec. 1918.41 addresses coaming clearances and provides
requirements to protect longshore workers from fall hazards and from
being struck by falling cargo during the process of opening up and
closing hatches. Proposed paragraph (a) addresses weather deck
clearances. When a smooth-sided deck load is stowed within 3 feet (.92
m) of the hatch coaming, and the available coaming height is <24
inches, a taut handline shall be provided so that employees are able to
safely remove or replace hatch beams and covers. Similar language
covering such situations is found in the NYSA/ILA Joint Maritime Safety
Code--part C/Rule 38 (Ex. 1-2) and the PCMSC--Rule 1007 (Ex. 1-145).
Throughout this proposal, OSHA has specified that ``taut'' lines or
``taut'' handrails or guardrails be provided in certain situations
where available walking or working space is compromised because of
inevitable stowage or vessel design considerations. In using the term
taut, as with other terms commonly encountered in maritime safety
codes, OSHA is using language which is familiar in the industry under
current practices. Where necessary, OSHA is proposing definitions for
various terms used in the proposed standards, to ensure that these
terms are uniformly understood. To be as clear as possible with regard
to its intention in utilizing the term ``taut'' in connection with the
subject lines, handrails and guardrails, the Agency states that
``taut'' connotes tightly and securely drawn, and as length and
distance may warrant, securely fastened at intervals. The idea behind
providing these taut lines, etc., is to allow an employee to rely on
these objects in maintaining or regaining a stable balance in a
constrained work area.
Generally, guardrails successfully serve their purpose when their
height can stay within a serviceable range (42 to 36 inches) (1.07 m to
.92 m). ``Taut'' handrails and ``taut'' lines, however, are sometimes
required to be fitted to objects and structures of varying dimensions
(such as deck cargo and the sides of covered lighters) for the purpose
of enabling an employee to maintain balance and footing.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) addresses intermediate deck hatchway
clearance, and requires that a 3 foot (.91 m) clear work area be
provided between stowed cargo and hatch coaming at both sides and one
end of hatches with athwartship beams, and at both ends of hatches with
fore and aft beams, while employees are engaged in opening or closing
the hatchway. Proposed paragraph (b)(2) makes it clear that the 3-foot
(.91 m) working surface under proposed paragraph (b)(1), is not
required when a fall hazard is not present. Proposed paragraph (b)(3)
recognizes that fitted grating over-decking, such as the type used in
some perishables trades, can be considered part of the actual deck or
working space (for the purposes of assessing compliance with proposed
paragraph (b)(1)), if they are properly placed within the 3-foot
clearance area and if they are in good condition (flush fitting and
presenting a level work surface). OSHA has dropped the reference to
``banana'' gratings because OSHA feels it is an unnecessary reference.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require grab rails or taut hand lines
to be provided where, because of wing-space structures or spare parts
storage, coaming clearance is minimized. Proposed paragraph (d) advises
that this proposed section is inapplicable in situations that permit
the opening and closing of hatches without employees having to place or
remove individual sections manually. It cautions, however, that
whenever the 3-foot clearance is lacking, cargo which is likely to
shift or fall must be blocked or otherwise restrained.
Proposed Sec. 1918.42, similar to Sec. 1918.41, is carried over
substantively in its entirety from the current longshore rules,
although some editing has been done for clarity. Provisions in this
section addresses the hazards associated with handling hatch beams and
pontoons, such as falling into the hatch or being struck by these
removable items. Equivalent rules can be found on section 2 of the
PCMSC (Ex. 1-145) and parts C and O of the NYSA/ILA Joint Maritime
Safety Code (Ex. 1-2). In summary, it is proposed that hatch beam and
pontoon bridles be long enough to easily fit their attachment points.
Hatch beam bridles must be equipped with attachment devices that cannot
become accidentally dislodged, such as toggles. Pontoon bridles are
required to have the appropriate number of legs to conform to the
design of the cover. All such legs must be utilized when lifting. If
all legs of a bridle cannot be used due to the design of the cover, the
spare leg(s) must be prevented from free swinging. Finally, as for the
construction of these bridles, OSHA requires that for proper manual
guidance, at least two legs be fitted with a fibre rope lanyard, and
that the bridle end of the lanyard (the end attached directly to the
bridle) be constructed of chain or wire rope.
Proposed Sec. 1918.43 is generally carried over from the current
longshore rules, with some changes made for clarity, a revision to
paragraph (j), and the addition of a new paragraph (i). Provisions in
this section address the hazards associated with handling and stowing
of hatch boards, hatch beams, and pontoons, such as falling into the
hatch or being struck by improperly stowed items. Similar requirements
are found in Section X of the PCMSC (Ex. 1-145), part O of the NYSA/ILA
code (Ex. 1-2), and ILO Convention 152.
In revised paragraph (j), tarpaulins may be used to reduce the dust
emissions of bulk cargoes instead of night tents if the vessel lacks
cargo gear. In these situations, OSHA requires positive means, such as
placards or barricades, be taken to prevent employees from walking on
the tarpaulin that is covering an open or partially open hatch. Verbal
warnings or instructions do not satisfy this provision.
A new paragraph (i) is being proposed to address the hazards of
unsecured materials falling from hatch covers when they are being moved
overhead.
Subpart F--Vessel's Cargo Handling Gear
Proposed subpart F would apply to all gear and equipment used in
cargo handling that is the property of the vessel. Examples of this
type of equipment can include cranes, derricks, specialized bridles,
winches, wire rope, and shackles. This subpart addresses hazards
associated with the use of that gear. This would include such hazards
as using faulty gear, overloading or improperly rigging cargo gear, or
improper operation of cargo gear, which can result in serious injury or
death. (See Ex. 1-103.)
Proposed Sec. 1918.51 contains general requirements that apply to
all cargo handling equipment that is permanently attached to a vessel.
Proposed paragraph (a) stipulates that the safe working load of the
gear, whether marked on the lifting appliance itself or specified in
the required certificates/gear register, shall not be exceeded.
Proposed paragraph (b) requires that each component of ship's cargo
handling gear be inspected by the employer before use, and at intervals
during use. This requirement is more clearly worded than the existing
requirement by specifying the employer's obligation to perform a visual
inspection. Also, this new language more closely parallels the
shoreside requirement found in 29 CFR 1917.42(a)(2). The paragraph also
prohibits the use of unsafe gear. Proposed paragraph (c) provides
criteria for splicing wire rope and for wire rope configuration
characteristics. Additionally, the paragraph conforms the Longshore
regulations to some current use criteria for wire rope that appear in
OSHA's rules for the shoreside aspect of marine cargo handling (Marine
Terminals--29 CFR part 1917). Proposed paragraphs (d), (e), and (f),
also parallel the shore side rules. OSHA believes that the new language
in this section enhances the safety of the worker in several ways. In
paragraph (c), new and more stringent requirements are proposed for
wire rope that is part of the ship's cargo handling gear. In addition,
the new provisions (paragraphs (d), (e), and (f)) set replacement
criteria for wire rope slings, natural and synthetic fibre rope slings,
synthetic web slings, chains and chain slings, none of which are
addressed by the existing standard.
Proposed Secs. 1918.52, 1918.53, and 1918.54 and all address the
subject of rigging and operating vessel's cargo handling gear. By and
large, the requirements of these sections are found in the existing
rule. Some language modifications have been made to enhance clarity. In
addition, some paragraphs have new language that enhances the
understanding of the provision which promotes greater compliance and
eases enforcement burdens. For example, proposed Sec. 1918.53(e) adds
to the existing reporting requirement of a defective winch, the
following requirement ``... and the winch shall not be used until the
defect or malfunction is corrected.'' Similarly, paragraph (i) adds a
monitoring requirement during operation and (k) removes a feasibility
exception based on design that is no longer necessary today due to
technological improvements.
OSHA wishes to raise the issue and solicit comment from the public
regarding whether or not to delete Sec. 1918.52(b). This paragraph
addresses the use of chain topping lift stoppers and clamp type
stoppers that are used to manually lower and raise the boom. This
method of topping the boom is a potentially dangerous operation and has
been largely replaced by the use of electric topping lift winches,
which do not require the use of stoppers. However, OSHA understands
that as a result of the breakup of the Soviet Union, vessels which had
not been allowed to sail into the U.S. because of restrictions placed
on Soviet bloc countries, are now calling on various ports of the
United States. In some cases, these vessels are old, and have types of
cargo handling gear that had been largely replaced by more modern gear.
In light of this occurrence, OSHA solicits public comment on this
issue.
A new paragraph has been added, Sec. 1918.54(a), that addresses the
hazard associated with the poor practice of rigging guys or preventers
so that they chafe against other guys, preventers, or stays. This
practice can cause the vessels's cargo gear to fail as the chafing can
cause the wires to separate. This can lead to serious injury or death
as the gear and cargo fall down on the deck or into the hold.
Proposed Sec. 1918.55 covers deck cranes permanently affixed to a
vessel. The existing rule only addresses one of the hazards--the
guarding of the swing radius. The new requirements more completely
address the hazards encountered in the use of ship's cranes. These
rules become necessary due to the widespread replacement of winches and
booms by ship's cranes on newer vessels. In addition, the new
provisions closely parallel similar shoreside requirements in part 1917
and other OSHA crane standards.
This section prohibits the use of cranes which develop a visible or
known defect that impacts on its safe operation. In addition, the
operator's position must be well maintained, with good visibility
provided through the operator cab's glass. During cargo operations,
areas that are within the swing radius of the body of revolving cranes
and are accessible to employees must be guarded to prevent an employee
from being caught between the body of the crane and any fixed
structure, or between parts of the crane. Paragraph (c) of Sec. 1918.55
also addresses the danger of employees being caught between shipboard
gantry cranes, such as would be found on a LASH (Lighter aboard ship)
vessel or a self contained container ship, and fixed structures on deck
along the path of the cranes travel. (Ex. 1-103, cases 26 and 27).
Crane brakes must be monitored throughout the workshift. If they
are unable to hold the load, the crane must not be used. If cranes are
used in tandem, a designated person (see definitions) must direct the
operation with special emphasis on positioning, rigging and movement.
Subpart G--Cargo Handling Gear and Equipment Other than Ship's Gear
Proposed Subpart G applies to all cargo handling gear utilized in
cargo operations that is not part of the vessel (ship's gear). Proposed
Sec. 1918.61 is very broad in its coverage. In paragraph (a) it
stipulates that all gear and equipment brought aboard a vessel must be
inspected before and during its use by the employer or a designated
person to determine its condition. If, upon inspection, an unsafe
condition is found, the gear must not be used until deficiencies are
corrected.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) is carried over from the current
longshore rules and requires that the Safe Working Load (SWL) of the
gear not be exceeded. Proposed paragraph (b)(2) is new. This paragraph
requires the marking of the SWL on special stevedoring gear with a safe
working load (SWL) of over five short tons. OSHA believes that this is
a basic requirement (Ex. 1-151), and that most gear in use is already
marked with the SWL on it.
Paragraph (c), which is similar to the current language, stipulates
that the weight of any article of stevedoring gear that exceeds 2,000
pounds (1 short ton) must be plainly marked with the weight of that
article before being hoisted by the ship's gear. Examples of such
stevedoring gear are container handling lifting frames and certain
multi-point engagement bridles. It is important to consider the weight
of such articles when evaluating safe working loads of the ship's cargo
gear.This is because the weight of the gear must be added to the weight
of the load being lifted to determine the actual load, which together
cannot exceed the SWL.
Proposed paragraphs (d) and (e) remain unchanged and address
certification and certification procedures.
Proposed paragraph (f) addresses special stevedoring gear
fabricated of components that are not common, off-the-shelf type items.
For example, gear room constructed spreader bars for heavy lift cargo,
special lifting devices for unique pieces of cargo, or bar pallet
bridles will have some components that are not marketed or purchased
with a specific cargo handling use in mind. Such certification must be
performed in accordance with paragraphs (d) and (e) by an agency
accredited by the Department of Labor under 29 CFR part 1919 before
being put into use. Also, all intermodal container spreaders that are
supplied by the stevedore for hoisting afloat shall be similarly
inspected, tested, and certificated. Special stevedoring gear with a
SWL of five short tons or less can continue to be inspected and tested
as a unit by a designated person.
OSHA is also proposing that all cargo handling gear covered by
Sec. 1918.61(f) with a SWL greater than 5 short tons be inspected and
proof load tested every four years in accordance with the chart found
in paragraph (f) of this section. This inspection and proof load test
may be done by an agency accredited by the U.S. Department of Labor
under 29 CFR part 1919, or it can be done by a designated person.
This change to the existing longshore regulations parallels similar
requirements found in 29 CFR part 1917, Marine Terminals. For
consistency between the two parts, OSHA is proposing in this
rulemaking, to change Sec. 1917.50(b)(5) to reflect the 5 long ton
exemption that is being proposed in Sec. 1918.61 and to require the
periodic testing of special stevedoring gear and container spreaders
every four years by a designated person, shoreside as well as shipside.
OSHA feels that this will provide additional protection for those
employees that use special stevedoring gear and will eliminate any
confusion that may currently exist by requiring special stevedoring
gear with a SWL greater than five long tons and spreaders supplied by
the employer to be inspected, tested, and certificated whether it is
used by shore-based material handling equipment or by cargo handling
gear afloat.
Proposed Sec. 1918.62 covers all miscellaneous gear that is not
part of ship's gear, such as all slings, shackles, hooks, blocks and
pallets (loose gear), employed aboard a vessel for use in cargo
handling operations. The hazards addressed by this section are those
generally associated with an employee's being struck by falling
objects, i.e. dunnage, gear or cargo, when the gear fails. The
provisions in this section helps to assure that loose gear used in the
longshoring operation is both adequate in strength and size and in good
enough condition to safely perform the operation. To foster uniformity,
the Agency proposes the same requirements for miscellaneous gear as
required in shoreside cargo handling at 29 CFR 1917.42. (See 46 FR 4194
and 48 FR 30895 for a full discussion of the rationale for these
provisions.)
OSHA proposes a comprehensive system of tables (See Appendix II)
that will be utilized in the event that manufacturer's recommendations/
certificates are not immediately available at the worksite for safe
working load assessment. The tables are primarily based on ASME B30.9-
1990 (Slings), (Ex. 1-148), as well as requirements applying to wire
rope clips and shackles currently contained in the Agency's rules for
Marine Terminals. It is OSHA's position that the manufacturers's
recommended use and safe working load criteria, given the wide universe
of international fabrication of all miscellaneous gear, are the most
reliable factors to utilize in determining safe usage. However, the
Agency appreciates that certificates or manufacturers' use
recommendations may not be instantly available in certain
circumstances. For instance, when inbound pre-slung drafts of cargo are
ready for discharge at a given port, certificates or use
recommendations might not be found aboard the vessel. Because such
pieces of miscellaneous gear are not ``ship's gear,'' it is likely that
no data on them will appear within the ship's collection of
certificates. Likewise, such gear cannot be properly classified as
``stevedore supplied gear,'' for the stevedore will not have known the
characteristics of the slings until the hatch section is actually
observed. In these circumstances, the tables found in Appendix II can
be relied upon to provide a realistic safe working load.
In accordance with I.L.O. recommendation 160 (Ex. 1-8), OSHA, in
proposed requirement Sec. 1918.62(h)(5)(ii), has added wording to
prohibit the use of wrought iron in new parts of lifting appliances or
loose gear. As a practical matter, wrought iron is rarely seen on
vessels that are trading today. However, as with many of the
regulations in this rule that have reduced application, there is the
possibility that such conditions may still exist, and for that reason
the relevant standards are being left in the proposal. OSHA invites the
public to comment on this matter.
Finally, a new paragraph is proposed to be added, (g)(2)(vi), that
adds an additional criterion to cause a synthetic web sling to be
removed from service. If warning threads or markers that the
manufacturer has designed to indicate excessive wear or damage are
visible, than the sling must be removed from service. Proposed
Secs. 1918.63 and 1918.64 provide requirements for the use of chutes,
rollers and both gravity and mechanically powered conveyors. OSHA
proposes to bring into part 1918 the requirements that cover such
pieces of equipment within the shoreside (29 CFR 1917.48 and 1917.49)
rules. In this manner, no regulatory disparity will exist with
equipment that often physically originates on shore and extends onto
the ship. (See 46 FR 4208 and 48 FR 30900 for a full discussion of the
rationale for these provisions as adopted in the Marine Terminal
standard.) Notable among the changes brought about by bringing those
shoreside rules aboard vessels, is the requirement that powered
conveyors be locked out and tagged during most maintenance, repair, and
serving. Also, that same procedure would be required in most situations
that require the removal of a jam or overload on the powered conveyor
system.
Proposed Sec. 1918.65 covers the use of all mechanically powered
vehicles brought aboard vessels to conduct or assist in cargo handling
operations. Included in this category of equipment are all industrial
trucks and all bulk cargo moving vehicles. In that these same vehicles
are similarly utilized in the shoreside aspect of marine cargo
handling, the hazards are essentially the same. These would include,
among others, exceeding the safe working capacity of the vehicle; cargo
falling on the operator either from stowage on the vessel or from being
handled by the vehicle itself; improper maintenance which could lead to
unsafe operation of the vehicle; and the falling hazards associated
with the lifting of personnel by mechanically powered vehicles.
Therefore, OSHA has proposed to track the requirements found in
Sec. 1917.43 that are applicable to this class of equipment. (See 46 FR
4197 and 48 FR 30896 for a full discussion of the rationale of these
provisions as adopted in the Marine Terminal standard.) Additionally,
the Agency is proposing a requirement for roll-over protection on bulk
cargo moving vehicles (such as the type used to trim and position bulk
cargo in underdeck spaces). Such protection is required on similar
pieces of equipment used in construction industry settings, where the
hazard posed by turnover also exists. OSHA seeks comment on whether
this provision provides adequate protection shipside and whether
similar protection is needed shoreside.
OSHA is proposing, in Sec. 1918.65(g), that vehicles purchased
after the effective date of the final rule shall be equipped with
parking brakes. OSHA believes that, although most older equipment may
not be equipped with parking brakes, equipment that is currently being
manufactured is generally equipped with such brakes. A parking brake is
especially important when working Ro-Ro type vessels where the ramps
can have a steep grade.
Proposed Sec. 1918.66 covers all cranes and derricks which are not
part of a vessel's permanent cargo handling gear, but are placed aboard
a vessel temporarily to conduct cargo operations. As an example, mobile
and crawler type cranes are at times positioned upon barges and
thereupon transported to locations adjacent to a vessel to load and
discharge cargo. Given that these hoisting devices are identical at
both the shoreside and shipboard location, the hazards associated with
the operation of this equipment are basically the same. These would
include, among others, exceeding the safe working capacity of the crane
or derrick; improper operation; improper maintenance; exposed
mechanical moving parts; falling hazards associated with lifting
personnel; and crushing hazards. Therefore, OSHA has relied upon its
rules for cranes and derricks found in 29 CFR 1917.45 to provide
regulatory consistency to the marine cargo handling industrial sector.
(See 46 FR 4201 and 48 FR 30897 for a full discussion of the rationale
of these provisions as adopted in the Marine Terminal standard.)
In one obvious departure from the foregoing principle, the Agency
has chosen not to propose requirements for load indicating devices
within this section for shipside cargo handling. Usually such devices
rely upon boom radius (outreach) as a component determinant in arriving
at a load indication. When afloat, however, boom radius can be
compromised by load and stability factors, resulting in indications
that are not accurate. OSHA seeks comment from interested persons as to
whether this approach provides adequate safety. In addition, the Agency
solicits comment on alternative means of preventing overloads of cranes
used aboard ships. Are there reliable alternate devices (that do not
use radius as a central component in arriving at a load indication)
that are sufficiently developed to accurately indicate the weight of
the load? Would load moment indicators provide equal or better
protection. Are some systems more precise than others? What other
procedures could be employed to prevent overload conditions?
Additionally, proposed Sec. 1918.66(c)(2) requires that the
hoisting mechanism of cranes and derricks, when being used to hoist
personnel, shall operate in the power up and power down mode with
automatic brake application when stopped. This provision is similar to
the requirements found in the personnel hoisting section of the OSHA
Construction standards at 29 CFR 1926.550(g)(ii)(D). Earlier OSHA had
proposed such a rule for all cranes in the Marine Terminal Proposal (46
FR 4237) but comments and other record evidence convinced OSHA that, at
the time, this would be infeasible for mobile cranes. The final Marine
Terminal standard, promulgated in 1983, therefore, only applied this
provision to overhead and container gantry cranes.
However, in 1988, OSHA issued its Construction standard for Crane
or Derrick Suspended Personnel Platforms, (29 CFR 1926.550(g); 53 FR
29116). This rulemaking reexamined the feasibility of the controlled
load lowering provision and, based on the record evidence, OSHA
determined that controlled load lowering was both feasible and
necessary when using cranes to hoist employees. For a detailed
discussion, see 53 FR 29122.
In light of these findings, OSHA is proposing to include the
controlled load lowering provision in this part, and to amend part 1917
(Sec. 1917.45(j)(2)) to cover all cranes and derricks, including mobile
cranes. OSHA wishes to emphasize that hoisting employees by crane is
not a safe practice and should be used only where other means are not
feasible. OSHA solicits comment on this issue.
Proposed Sec. 1918.66(c)(3) is a new requirement has also been
taken from the from OSHA's Construction Safety standards applicable to
hoisting personnel. This requires that a crane used to lift personnel
be equipped with an anti-two block device. This is a device which
prevents the hoist block from coming into contact with the head block
of the boom. Such ``two-blocking'' can occur when the operator is not
paying attention to how high the hoist block is in relation to the head
of the boom. After contact, continued hoisting of the block can cause
the block to separate from the load line, or break the load line
itself, causing the hoist block and load to fall. OSHA feels that this
requirement is necessary to prevent serious injury or death to
employees being hoisted by a crane. In the 1988 construction
rulemaking, this requirement was also found to be both necessary and
feasible.
Proposed Sec. 1918.67 carries over the exact requirements currently
found in OSHA's Longshoring rule at Sec. 1918.75. Paragraphs (a) and
(b) both provide that the employer must obtain permission from the
officer in charge of the vessel whenever internal combustion or
electrically powered tools, equipment or vehicles are brought aboard,
and whenever the ship's power is needed for operating the employer's
electrical tools or equipment. These requirements are prudent, in that
such employer-provided equipment may be incompatible with vessel
systems and could lead to electrical and ventilation problems, among
others.
Proposed Sec. 1918.68 provides for the effective grounding of all
portable electrical equipment, such as saws, drills, grinders, etc.,
through a separate equipment conductor that either runs with or
encloses both circuit conductors. This represents a clarification of
the current rule. Double-insulated tools and battery-operated tools are
excluded from the requirements.
Proposed Sec. 1918.69 is a section titled ``Tools.'' The current
requirements with the same title are found in Sec. 1918.72, which
addresses the safety devices that are required on portable tools,
generally, and portable circular saws specifically. OSHA believes that
the current OSHA General Industry standards, subpart P, titled ``Hand
and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-Held Equipment''
comprehensively address the subject of portable tools. The hazards
presented by these tools in this industry are no different than in
general industry. Rather than repeating these requirements here, OSHA
has decided to reference them in this proposal.
Subpart H--Handling Cargo
Proposed Subpart H specifically covers the cargo handling process.
These sections (Secs. 1918.81-89) address the hazards encountered by
longshore workers while loading and unloading cargo. The primary
hazards involve situations where the employee falls or is struck by
cargo during the operation. In this subpart, OSHA is proposing to
retain many of the rules currently found within subpart H of the
current Longshoring standards (part 1918); to carry over applicable
regulatory language from the Agency's rules for the shoreside segment
of marine cargo handling (part 1917); and to add new requirements to
account for occupational situations that are both unique to the
shipboard workplace setting and up to date in their coverage of
intermodal transport systems.
Sections 1918.81 through 1918.84 address those hazards common to
the handling of break bulk (or general) cargo. They require proper
slinging, building, bulling and stowing drafts of cargo in order to
prevent cargo from coming loose from the draft and falling on or
tipping over on workers.
Proposed paragraph (a) of Sec. 1918.81 is a general requirement for
safety in the hoisting of slung drafts (loads hoisted by a sling or
slings). Many factors can result in an unsafely slung draft. For
instance, the wires of the sling may be placed on or around the cargo
in a manner that causes a load to become unstable once it is hoisted.
Such a situation can be recognized and effectively handled simply by
rearranging the placement of the sling. Also, multi-tiered drafts are
sometimes hoisted in a very unstable condition that is caused by one
tier resting off center of another. Even a slight slacking of the gear
can cause drafts slung in this manner to come apart. Readjustment of
such drafts before hoisting can easily remedy that unsafe condition.
Proposed paragraph (b) requires that slings attached to the lifting
gear for handling more than one draft in succession be positively
engaged to the hoisting system. This is usually accomplished by
shackling the bridle (or sling) directly into the falls. Mousing
(closing off) the throat of the cargo hook assembly, is not permitted.
Proposed paragraph (c) provides protection for a common hazard
encountered in break bulk cargo operations; that of being struck by
sliding pieces of cargo or dunnage (shoring materials) that fall from
the draft while in transit. There are at least two ways to correct such
a situation: the first is to reconfigure the sling so that the top
layer of the cargo is effectively engaged; the second is to secure the
potential ``sliders'' to themselves (by banding them, for instance) or
to the more substantial part of the draft.
Proposed paragraphs (d), (e), and (h) are virtually identical to
the current rules but are modified somewhat for clarity. Proposed
paragraphs (f) and (g), on the other hand, are derived from the Marine
Terminal standard which address the hoisting of ``unitized loads.''
Unitized loads are loads that are banded or strapped together into a
unit. Hoisting hazards with such loads occur when the bands are used to
hoist the load but were not designed to do so; and when hoisting is
performed when the banding is damaged. (See full discussion at 46 FR
4189.)
Proposed paragraph (i) requires that loads not be hoisted unless
the crane or winch operator can clearly see the draft at all times, or,
alternatively, can clearly see the signals given by a signal person who
is observing the draft. This is particularly important in that many
break bulk vessels in current use and under construction are being
fitted with revolving deck cranes. When using booms rigged in union
purchase (the rigging of two booms together to be used as one lifting
unit) the position of the boom head (and thus the location of the
load's ultimate place of landing) is pre-determined, rarely changed,
and fairly reliable. By contrast, in using deck cranes, the position of
the boom bead can be varied easily. Loads, therefore, can be landed at
many more locations, causing increased exposure of personnel to being
struck by loads. Effective signaling requires a clear observation of
the load by the signalperson and of the signalperson by the operator.
Proposed paragraph (k) provides that the employer must require
employees to stay clear of the area beneath overhead drafts or
descending lifting gear. The employer is obligated to train certain
employees in correct and safe procedures associated with the job, and
to require that employees adhere to the well established and enforced
work rules that are contained in that training. (See full discussion at
46 FR 4194.) OSHA is also proposing to include the same language in the
Marine Terminal standard in Sec. 1917.13(h).
Proposed paragraph (l) prohibits riding of the load or the cargo
engaging means. This precludes the utilization of any cargo or any
cargo engaging device (hook, clamshell, grapple, etc.) as a personnel
conveyance. This proposed paragraph does not cover, however, the riding
of loaded intermodal container spreaders, which is addressed in
Sec. 1918.85(g). In accordance with proposed Sec. 1918.23(b), specific
latitude is afforded longshoring operations taking place on the
Mississippi river system, where the use of a personnel basket may be
used. However, careful consideration and consultation with the Agency
is important in the exercise of that latitude.
Proposed Secs. 1918.82 and 1918.83 (a) and (b) address the hazards
of cargo becoming inadvertently dislodged from an improperly built
draft or improper stowage and falling or shifting, thus striking
workers. The language is virtually identical to the current longshore
rule. Sec. 1918.83(c), however, addresses a different hazard--losing
workers in the hold of a ship. Such a hazard is greatly enhanced when
the worker is working alone or in an isolated area, such as in tanks or
reefer compartments. Also, workers trimming grain could be lost in the
cargo. To deal with these hazards, the proposed and current rules
require an employee check-in, check-out system or frequent checks
thereby accounting for the safety of employees working in these
conditions.
Proposed Sec. 1918.84 addresses the ``bulling'' of cargo. Bulling
is the horizontal dragging of cargo (across a deck space) with none of
the weight of the cargo supported by the hoisting wire(s). In practice,
this procedure is accomplished with power generally provided by the
cargo winch (with the hoist runner led out through the heel block), and
then to an angled system of ``fairleads'' that provide mechanical
advantage in achieving a horizontal pull on the cargo. The paragraphs
that comprise this section are all taken from the current part 1918
regulations, but have been somewhat clarified and reordered into a more
logical sequence. They are also covered (in part) within the NYSA-ILA
Safety Code (Ex. 1-2) and the PCMSC (Ex. 1-145).
Proposed Sec. 1918.85 applies to containerized cargo operations of
any form. The proposed paragraphs track both the current Longshoring
standards of part 1918, as well as the shoreside requirements found in
the Marine Terminals rule (part 1917). In summary, each intermodal
container (see definition at Sec. 1918.2(h)) must be marked with its
gross, net, and tare (empty) weights. Generally, containers must be
weighed before being hoisted aboard a vessel, to arrive at an actual
gross weight. No container is permitted to be hoisted aboard a vessel
if its actual gross weight exceeds either the maximum gross weight
marked on the container or the safe working load of the gear that is
being utilized to load the ship. In the case of containers coming from
foreign ports, container weights must be determined by utilizing data
provided in shipping documents or, as is most often the case, by
weights shown on cargo stow plans.
Proposed paragraph (b) addresses the topic of overloaded intermodal
containers. This issue has raised a good deal of international concern
(Exs. 1-120, 1-121, 1-122, 1-123, 1-124, 1-125, 1-126). The proposed
provisions largely reflect the current rules in both the Longshore and
Marine Terminal standards. OSHA feels that the protection afforded by
its rules as they pertain to outbound (export) containers, namely that
with few exceptions all are weighed before hoisting, will permit very
few overweight loads going out from U.S. ports. The reliability of
manifested or stow plan weights of containers coming into U.S. ports,
however, appears to be in serious question as documented by the
previous exhibits. The question then becomes, whether there is a better
method of determining the actual weights of these containers, and how
should such a method be implemented in the standards. The Agency
requests interested persons to submit comment into the record
concerning both as to the Agency's perception of the problem, and what
better regulatory approach OSHA may take in seeking resolution. For
instance, instead of relying upon the proposed language of this
section, should OSHA require that container handling gantry cranes
(currently exempted from the rule requiring a load indicating device--
Sec. 1918.74(a)(9)(viii)) be fitted with such a piece of equipment?
In addition, a new proposed Sec. 1918.85(b)(6) has been added as a
result of OSHA Instruction STD 2.2 dated July 3, 1989 (Ex. 1-114).
Prior to the issuance of this instruction, the rule required closed
containers loaded only with automobiles to be weighed. This instruction
(and the language of this paragraph) allows closed dry van containers
that have been loaded with vehicles to be loaded onto a vessel without
being weighed on a scale. By contrast, other loaded containers, other
than open top containers and containers solely used for the carriage of
compressed gases, have to be weighed on a scale before being loaded
onto a vessel. The reasoning behind the Instruction and this paragraph
is that the weight of the vehicles inside a container will not exceed
the net weight that the container itself is designed to carry. There
are, however, three conditions that must be met in order for this
exception to apply. First, the container must only contain assembled
vehicles and no other cargo; second, the container must be marked on
the outside so that an employee can readily discern that the container
is carrying vehicles; and finally, the vehicles must have been loaded
at the marine terminal. This paragraph is also to be proposed to be put
into the Marine Terminal standard as 29 CFR 1917.71(b)(6).
Proposed paragraph (d) addresses the hazard of handling a defective
container. Although existing Sec. 1918.85(d) addresses the inspection
of both outbound and inbound containers for visible defects, the
proposed language does not mention the limitation of outbound or
inbound. With regard to outbound containers, the hazards associated
with handling a defective container are effectively covered by
Sec. 1917.71(g) of the Marine Terminal standard. In this paragraph,
OSHA chooses not to limit the inspection requirement to only inbound
containers since certain other containers, including possibly defective
ones, may need to be shifted in order to discharge an inbound
container. Since a defective outbound container can create an identical
hazard to the worker as does a defective inbound container, this
proposal makes no distinction between the two. Finally, the provisions
for handling a defective container remain the same as the current
requirements: special safe handling or emptying of the container.
In proposed paragraph (e), the Agency would require that employees
be required to stay clear of the area beneath suspended containers.
Accidents of an extremely serious nature have occurred in recent years
(Ex. 1-37, 1-87) that highlight the need to propose this provision.
Additionally, the Agency has such a requirement in its shoreside rules
(Sec. 1917.71(d)(2)).
Proposed paragraph (f) on lifting fittings contains identical
language to that found in the Agency's shoreside rules
(Sec. 1917.71(f)). Discussion is warranted, however, on the need to
apply paragraph (f)(1)(i) on board ships. Often, particularly in below
deck stowage on conventional break bulk vessels, it may be tempting to
utilize ship's gear or shoreside mobile cranes and rig four leg bridles
with hooks (engaging the four top corner castings) to facilitate easier
stowage. In handling loaded containers, this practice is dangerous and
is prohibited. The International Cargo Handling Coordination
Association (ICHCA), has published a paper entitled ``The Safe Handling
of ISO Freight Containers with Hooks * * *'' that clearly outlines the
inherent dangers of this practice (Ex. 1-13) as well as methods to
accomplish stowage safely in such situations. Additionally, other
international standards exist (Exs. 1-115, 1-116 and 1-117) that
recommend that loaded containers only be lifted vertically when being
handled from the top. Any method of lifting containers that is not
vertical places undue stress which could lead to failure of the
container. OSHA believes that this regulatory approach is well taken
and reasonable.
In proposed paragraph (g), the Agency requires that a safe means of
access and egress be provided to each employee who, due to the nature
of the work, must work atop stowed containers--both above and below
deck. In practice, most employees gain such access by riding aboard
safety platforms installed on container crane lifting frames. Such
means are permissible when conducted in a manner consistent with design
requirements found in the shoreside rules (Sec. 1917.45(j)). While the
shoreside rules already apply whenever a shore-based crane acts as the
personnel conveyance, this proposed paragraph (which incorporates by
reference the shoreside design criteria) provides for the same
requirements to apply whenever shipboard equipment carries out the same
function.
Proposed paragraph (h) applies on vessels so equipped, to any
loaded intermodal container spreader. It is well known throughout the
industry that there are significant risks associated with riding a
loaded container spreader. ``Free falls'' (or the unintended release of
a container from a spreader), although infrequent, occur only while
under load (Exs. 1-25 and 1-26). Additionally, having riders aboard a
loaded spreader adds to the responsibilities of the crane operator, and
whose attention is already occupied with the task of getting the
containers to their intended location. The Agency is proposing a
similar prohibition for the shoreside aspect of marine cargo handling
(part 1917) as part of this proposal, proposed Sec. 1917.45(j)(9).
In proposed paragraph (i), OSHA would require (when safer methods
are available) that ladders not be used to gain access to the tops of
containers that are stowed greater than two high. The Agency deems
gaining access by means of a properly designed and conveyed personnel
platform (such as those often found on intermodal container spreaders)
as being safer than employing ladders in climbing to heights that can
attain 50. ft or more (Ex. 1-10).
Proposed paragraph (j) covers the hazard of falling from the tops
of intermodal containers. This hazard has long been recognized by the
stevedoring industry as both extremely dangerous and difficult to
prevent.
Although constituting a small percentage of the total number of
shipboard accidents in the United States, falls from the tops of
containers have resulted in a number of serious occupational injuries
and fatalities (Exs. 1-18, 1-19, 1-20, 1-21, 1-22, 1-23, 1-24, 1-43, 1-
67, 1-68, 1-100, 1-108). As early as 1968, U.S. terminal operators
recognized the need to improve container top safety. Matson Terminals,
Inc., in conjunction with their parent ocean operator, Matson
Navigation Company, developed the first system of container top fall
protection within the worldwide intermodal network (Ex. 1-53). In that
system, Matson provided for a ``D'' ring fixture to be installed within
the roof of each company-owned intermodal container. Employees working
aloft were provided with a safety belt and lanyard that could be
secured to the ``D'' ring anchorage. For a number of reasons, use of
the system proved to be difficult, and it is not widely used today.
In 1970, OSHA's predecessor agency, the Bureau of Labor Standards,
was contacted by the Coast Labor Relations Committee of the
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, who raised this
issue specifically. In their letter of August 24, 1970 (Ex. 1-50), the
Coast Committee asserted:
Consider if you will the dangers attendant to working atop
containers. They are not equipped with skidproof surfaces, there are
no protective railings, and there are no requirements that safety
belts be provided. In dry warm weather such work is dangerous
enough, but the dangers are critically compounded when workers must
labor atop these during windy and wet weather. At the very least,
BLS regulations ought to provide that * * * safety belts be
[required] for men working aloft.
As the containerized transport revolution progressed during the
1970's and into the 1980's, and intermodal containers become more
common in the cargo handling trades, container top exposures increased
proportionately. At that time, there was no specific container top
safety provision in the Longshoring standards. The Agency issued
citations under the General Duty Clause (Section 5(a)(190) of the Act
and Sec. 1918.32(b) of OSHA's rules for Longshoring (Exs. 1-139). The
latter provision states, in the context of applying to stowed cargo and
temporary landing platforms:
When the edge of a hatch section or stowed cargo more than 8
feet high is so exposed that it presents a danger of an employer
falling, the edge shall be guarded by a safety net of adequate
strength to prevent injury to a falling employee, or by other means
protection equal protection under the existing circumstances.
Although there were questions regarding the applicability of
Sec. 1918.32(b) to container operations, it was determined that the
provision did indeed have application to container top on-deck
exposures. In an Instruction to the Field (CPL 2-1.17) dated August 30,
1982, the Agency's policy on the issue was spelled out (Ex. 1-49). In
that instruction, OSHA determined that although the Sec. 1918.32(b)
provision applied, there would be situations where the abatement of the
container fall hazard was not feasible. In such situations, the
instruction noted:
A violation (of Sec. 1918.32(b)) shall not be issued; however,
OSHA should recommend and encourage the employer to work toward a
solution and assist the employer in every way possible to effect a
means of protection by advice, consultation and dissemination of
information obtained during other inspections.
With the onset of containerized cargo handling, it became necessary
to secure containers (not placed in cell guides) to each other to
prevent unintentional movement during transit. To achieve this
stability, workers placed stacking cones in the corner castings of the
container (``coning'') while the containers were being loaded on the
ship. While the containers were unloaded from the ship, workers removed
stacking cones from the corner castings of the container
(``deconing''). The original stacking cones were replaced in the early
1970's by conventional twistlocks which eliminated the need for some
lashing but still required workers to climb on top of the containers to
place or remove them. Today twistlocks are the most commonly used
fitting for securing freight containers onboard vessels (Ex. 1-140).
Semi-automatic twistlocks, developed in the mid 1980's, eliminate the
need for some lashing but also eliminate the need for workers to go on
top of the containers for the purposes of coning and deconing. While
some work performed on container tops remains unaffected by the use of
SATLs, most of the work that would otherwise require workers to go atop
containers could be eliminated. The use of these devices could,
effectively, ``engineer out'' exposure to container top falling
hazards.
Industry efforts to find feasible methods for container top fall
hazard abatement received a significant impetus when, on June 27, 1985,
Longshore Division members of the International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union (ILWU) called a work stoppage that put at a
standstill all container operations at the ports of Los Angeles and
Long Beach, California. The work stoppage (Ex. 1-42) punctuated the
ILWU's concern over a series of work related deaths that occurred over
a 14-month period. Although only one of these occupational fatalities
was attributable to container top exposure, the labor union insisted
that an effective work rule to minimize the hazards associated with
container top work be instituted, and asserted that such a work rule
was central to averting a continued work stoppage.
On July 1, 1985, the ILWU and the Pacific Maritime Association
(PMA), acting as management's representative, agreed upon a package of
25 work rules that were specifically designed to enhance safety at
container terminals. That successful management and labor agreement led
to the resumption of work.Internationally, a number of national and
multi-national organizations are aware of and have acted upon the
problem. The International Labor Organization, in its Code of Practice
for Safety and Health in Dockwork (Ex. 1-130) specifically requires
that:
A person gaining access to the top of a container should be
adequately protected against the danger of falling where appropriate
by wearing a suitable safety harness properly tethered, or by other
effective means, whilst on the container.
In its Directions for Safety in Dockwork, the National Swedish
Board of Occupational Safety and Health (Ex. 1-131) provides, in
pertinent part, that:
Work on top of a container is only permissible if measures have
been taken to prevent falling down.
In the Netherlands, the Inspectorate of Dock Labor notes (Ex. 1-44)
that:
For general containertop [sic] safety in most cases the
recommendations of I.L.O. and ICHCA are followed.
In the port of Hamburg, Germany, a ``lash basket'' designed by a
dockworker (Ex. 1-45) rides underneath the container spreader and moves
between container stows, minimizing containertop exposures. Also, in
the port of Bremerhaven, a specially designed ``rigger box,'' which is
similar in configuration to some U.S. designs, protects dockworkers who
go on top of containers in that port (Ex. 1-52).
In the wake of a fatal accident that occurred in a New Zealand port
in 1979, the New Zealand section of ICHCA responded by conducting and
publishing a study, entitled: ``Container Top Safety--An Overview''
(Ex. 1-46). In that study, ICHCA analyzed the problem and a number of
possible solutions, among them having the employee tethered to a fixed
anchorage. Other tentative solutions arrived at by a number of
worldwide locales were also discussed.
OSHA believes that longshore workers who work on container tops are
exposed to fall hazards that can cause serious injury or death.
Containers are typically stacked from one to nine below deck and one to
six above deck. The loading and unloading procedures typically require
a worker to place and remove container stacking alignment cones in and
from the container's corner castings. This means that workers
performing these tasks are regularly exposed to falling hazards of up
to 90 feet (27.3 m).
Within the last few years, advances have been made in the
technology of securing intermodal containers which have had a dramatic
effect on container top safety. The use of positive container securing
devices or systems, such as semi-automatic twistlocks (SATL) and above
deck cell guides, can nearly eliminate the need for workers to work on
the tops of containers thereby eliminating the falling hazard. Although
OSHA has participated in an ongoing dialogue with industry, labor, the
international cargo handling community, and others interested in how
these technologies can improve worker safety, actual record evidence is
somewhat limited. However, OSHA's information does include a
comprehensive study prepared by a safety expert under contract to OSHA
that addresses the hazards associated with containerized cargo handling
(Ex. 1-139); an ICHCA Safety Panel Research Paper addressing the use of
semi-automatic twistlocks (Ex. 1-140); a time-and-motion study
comparing the use of conventional twistlocks (also referred to as
manual twistlocks) with semi-automatic twistlocks (Ex. 1-141); safety
information produced by the United Kingdom (U.K.) addressing jammed
container fittings (Ex. 1-142); an article published by a U.K. terminal
association that addresses the freeing of jammed twistlocks (Ex. 1-
143); and a newsletter from an insurance company addressing container
twistlocks (Ex. 1-144).
The ICHCA study is the most comprehensive study on the SATL
experience (Ex. 1-140). This study defines SATL at page 3 as follows:
Semi-Automatic Twistlock (SATL)--A twistlock which will
automatically engage in the locked position when the locking
mechanism has been triggered by the weight of the container as it is
landed onto another container or deck foundation.
Since prototypes were first developed in Japan in the mid 1980's,
manufacturers around the world have made improvements on the design
which enhance both durability and reliability. (Id.) In fact, the ICHCA
study indicates the existence of approximately 22 different models of
SATLs (Id. P. 6). Manufacturers indicate that, with proper use and
maintenance, the average lifespan of the SATL in the marine environment
would be about the same as a conventional twistlock--about 10 years
(Id. p. 59).
As indicated in both the ICHCA study (Id.) and the OSHA study (Ex.
1-139), the use of SATLs is widespread throughout the world and the
United States. In fact, OSHA estimates that over 25 percent of ships
calling in U.S. ports are already utilizing SATLs. Proponents of the
use of SATLs argue that the device avoids accidents and saves money.
Unlike conventional twistlocks, which must be inserted by workers on
top of the container and manually locked, semi-automatic twistlocks are
inserted into the bottom of the container by workers standing on the
dock and lock automatically when placed upon another container. Both
SATLs and conventional twistlocks can be unlocked by workers standing
on the deck of the ship using an actuator pole. In the case of
unloading with the conventional twistlock, the upper container is then
removed leaving the twistlocks on the top of the lower container. The
major operational distinction is that workers must remove conventional
twistlocks from the top of a shipboard container before the spreader
can attach to the corner castings, while the SATL is designed to remain
attached to the bottom of the container being unloaded. SATLs are then
removed by workers standing on the dock. This operation using SATLs,
therefore, eliminates worker exposure to falling hazards. Finally,
proponents argue that the use of SATLs enhances productivity and
reduces lashing costs. (Ex. 1-140, p. 76; Ex. 1-141). In fact, a time-
and-motion study that compares the performance of conventional
twistlocks to that of SATLs indicates an increase in productivity in
the range of 25 to 29 percent. This translates to a 11.1 percent
reduction in stevedoring costs (Ex. 1-141, p. 4 and 5; Ex. 2). To the
extent that this study is representative of all container cargo
handling operations affected by this rule, it indicates substantial
reductions of fall hazards by the use of SATLs. OSHA seeks comment from
interested parties including any additional data or studies that
address this issue.
As indicated above, another advancement in securing containers in
transit that eliminates the need for workers to go on top of containers
is the development of above deck cell guides. Cell guides are rigid,
structural members that form cells where containers are stowed. These
cell guides allow for the ready placement of containers in a manner
that prevents movement once so placed. Although cell guides in the hold
are common in container ships, above deck cell guides are far less
common, constituting only 2 percent (Ex. 2, pgs. 2-19) of container
ships calling at U.S. ports.
In addition, OSHA is aware of the existence of positive container
securing devices other than those discussed above, such as the SeaLand
framing system (Ex. 1-57), OSHA believes that use of the term
``positive container securing devices'' is broad enough to allow for
innovative technological improvement.
While the use of SATLs is the most widespread method of positively
securing containers that eliminates the fall hazard, OSHA is aware of
certain problems that have been encountered with their application, use
and design. (Ex. 1-140, 1-142, 1-143,1-144). The Agency is working
closely with those international standards setting organizations
responsible for developing design and use specifications. In this
rulemaking, OSHA solicits relevant information regarding the use of
SATLs.
Proposed Sec. 1918.85(j) addresses the hazards associated with
working on the tops of containers. In keeping with OSHA's hierarchy of
controlling hazards, this paragraph requires the use of feasible
engineering controls. In proposed paragraph (j)(1) a definition for
``fall hazard'' is provided in a footnote. The definition seeks to
narrow the elevated work surfaces where fall hazards exist in order to
reflect the reality of a changing work surface. A longshore worker
working on the top of containers for the purpose of loading or
unloading a layer of containers is working on an elevated work surface
that can increase or decrease at the rate of 320 square feet (29.4
m\2\) every few minutes. OSHA believes that such a rapidly changing
elevated work surface is unique to this industry. For example, five 40-
foot containers stowed side by side present a work surface of
approximately 40 foot (12.2 m) by 40 foot (12.2 m) (1600 square
feet)(147.2 m\2\). According to this definition, falling hazards
(absent weather considerations) only exist within 3 feet (.92 m) of the
perimeter or 3 feet (.9 m) by 148 feet (45.1 m) (444 square feet) (40.8
m\2\). By contrast, the hazardous area on top of a single container is
252 square feet (23.4 m\2\) of the 320 square feet (29.4 m\2\). The
definition makes it clear that it is the unprotected edge where the
hazard exists, and not necessarily the entire work surface.
Additionally, any gap of 12 inches (.31 m) or more on a horizontal
surface formed by containers is considered an unprotected edge and a
falling hazard would exist under this definition. (For further
discussion of the gap issue see 51 FR 42685 and 53 FR 48186). Finally,
OSHA believes that any work within 3 feet (.92 m) of the unprotected
edge constitutes a hazard (See Ex. 1-139).
Another important element of this definition is the vertical
distance necessary to constitute a fall hazard. OSHA believes that, in
this industry and in this work operation, 10 feet (3.0 m) is the
appropriate vertical distance. There are several considerations that
leads OSHA to this conclusion. The height of the overwhelming majority
of intermodal containers range from 8 feet (2.4 m) to 9\1/2\ feet (2.7
m) (Ex. 1-139). Therefore, an employee working on top of a one-high
container where the surface is less then 10 feet (3.04 m) would not, by
definition, be exposed to a fall hazard. However, such containers are
usually worked off ladders, not the top. Also, if such a container is
stowed on a raised surface, such as a hatch cover or pedestal, that
puts the top of the container at 10 feet or over, then any workers on
top would, by definition, be exposed to fall hazards. The unique
working surface in this operation coupled with heightened awareness of
the longshore worker and the absence of accident data at this distance
further assures OSHA that 10 foot is the appropriate height.
OSHA is aware that an opposing view exists. Labor is of the opinion
that OSHA should make this vertical height 8 feet (2.4 m) to be
consistent with the proposed requirement Sec. 1918.32(b) where a fall
hazard is considered to exist over 8 feet (2.4 m) when handling non-
containerized cargo (Ex. 1-150). OSHA wishes to fully assess all
factors attendant to this issue, and solicits all pertinent views and
data on the appropriate height for fall protection.
Two final considerations in the definition of a fall hazard are
with regard to the elements and the ``adjoining surface.'' When weather
conditions are such that the vision or footing of workers on top of
containers is impaired then a fall hazard will, by definition, exist.
The proposed standard requires such workers to be protected by fall
protection, regardless of the fall distance or their proximity to the
edge. OSHA notes that unsure footing on container top work surfaces
created by oil or grease is addressed in the housekeeping section,
Sec. 1918.91, of this proposed standard. In addition, in the Marine
Terminal standard, OSHA defers to adverse weather conditions by
prohibiting terminal crane operations in high-wind conditions
(Sec. 1917.45(g)).
The other consideration involves the measurement of the vertical
distance from ``the adjoining surface.'' Informal discussions between
OSHA staff and various affected parties have indicated concern that
this phrase must be carefully defined in order to avoid confusion in
the maritime community. An enforcement concern is a that vertical
height measurement might be made from the elevated surface to an
adjoining surface which would not be the landing surface in the event
of a fall. Should the term, ``adjoining surface'' be further clarified
by adding either performance or specification language? For example,
the term could read, ``adjoining landing surface (in the event of a
fall)''; or ``adjoining surface with a minimum 8 by 8-foot area (2.4 m
by 2.4 m).'' OSHA solicits comment on this issue.
In view of the recent technological improvements in positive
container securing devices indicated above, OSHA feels that many work
operations, notably coning and deconing, that exposed workers to
container top fall hazards can now be eliminated. As noted above, SATLs
have proven to be particularly effective when container gantry cranes
are utilized (Ex. 1-140). In fact, the use of these devices in these
circumstances can, in most instances, eliminate the need for workers to
go on top of containers. In light of this, three years after the date
of publication of this proposal, proposed Sec. 1918.85(j)(1) would
prohibit the performance of any work, notably coning and deconing, on
top of containers that can be eliminated by the proper use of these
devices. OSHA has estimated that over 25 percent of ships calling at
U.S. ports already utilize SATLs (Ex. 2). Since it is OSHA's policy to
allow a reasonable time to come into compliance with final standards,
the proposed compliance date for the implementation of engineering
controls would be three years.
OSHA is optimistic that exposures to container top fall hazards
will significantly decrease with the expanded deployment of positive
container securing devices worldwide. At the same time, the Agency is
sensitive to the magnitude of a phase-in process for SATLs.
Consequently, OSHA is proposing a lengthy effective date of this
section of three years from the date the proposed standard is issued.
Consonant also with the Agency's policy, OSHA will continue to
disseminate information to employers and employees in this industrial
sector, as to how other operations throughout the nation and the world
are approaching the problem.
OSHA recognizes that positive container securing devices will not
entirely eliminate the need for workers to go on the top of containers.
Certain container placement or securing tasks, in addition to coning or
deconing, must be performed. In these situations (e.g., securing bridge
clamps or releasing jammed twistlocks), a comprehensive fall protection
program must be implemented.
Where cranes other than container gantry cranes are used to handle
containers, OSHA recognizes that the use of SATLs may not be feasible.
Precise placement capabilities of a container gantry crane are far
superior to other lifting devices, thus facilitating the use of SATLs.
This enhanced capability is due to the four point suspension system of
the gantry crane, which provides greater stability and control of the
container being handled, enabling the crane operator to place the
container without assistance. Container operations where the spreader
is suspended from a single point, on the other hand, have far less
stability and control and typically requires the assistance of other
employees in the placement of containers. In these circumstances,
employees can frequently be exposed to fall hazards. In light of the
discussion above, even when the use of SATLs is feasible when other
than gantry cranes are being utilized, the need for employees to work
on container tops in the handling of containers may not be eliminated.
Therefore, OSHA would not require the use of positive container
securing devices when containers are not being handled by container
gantry cranes.
Nonetheless, there is nothing in the proposed standard that would
prohibit an employer from employing SATLs where a single point
suspension is in use. However, under these circumstances, SATLs in the
container being placed have been shown to jam or puncture the top of
the container below with improper alignment (Ex. 1-140). OSHA solicits
all pertinent views and information on all issues.
With regard to the feasibility of fall protection, OSHA recognizes
that, in this industry, there may be particular instances when even
fall protection may not be feasible. An example of circumstances where
fall protection may not be feasible is the placement of an overheight
container on a chimney stow using gear that requires the manual release
of hooks. In these situations the proposed standard requires the
employer to:
1. Make a determination that an employee will be exposed to a fall
hazard but that the use of fall protection is not feasible;
2. Alert the exposed employee about the hazards involved; and
3. Instruct the exposed employee how to best minimize the hazard.
OSHA wishes to emphasize that such a situation is not common and
that when they occur, the burden is on the employer to fully comply
with these requirements prior to the actual exposure. In fact, the OSHA
study indicated that a ``specific set of circumstances could not be
framed'' where fall protection might not be feasible (Ex. 1-139, p. 1).
Furthermore, situations that will be considered infeasible for fall
protection will be narrowly construed in the enforcement context. A
footnote in the standard refers to non-mandatory Appendix III which
provides examples of situations where it may be considered infeasible
to use fall protection. Where feasible, however, OSHA will require that
fall protection be provided.
Proposed Sec. 1918.85(k) establishes the technical requirements
necessary to provide a fall protection system that is tailored to the
handling of containers. Most of the requirements in this paragraph are
basic to any occupationally related fall protection system. These
include all of the paragraphs with the exception of (k)(7) and (k)(10),
and are based on the PCMSC (Ex. 1-145), American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) consensus standard Z359.1-1992 and the OSHA standards
Secs. 1910.66 and 1926.104. Essentially, these requirements address the
design, selection, care and proper use of a personal fall protection
system. In addition, Sec. 1918.85(k)(7) and (10) have been specially
crafted for the container top situation. Paragraph (k)(7) addresses the
situation where a container gantry crane, or its extension, is being
used as the anchorage point for the fall protection system in use.
Under these circumstances, the crane must be placed in the slow speed
mode and equipped with a remote shut-off switch in the control of the
tied off employee. In addition, an indicator must be present to inform
the employee when the remote is operational. OSHA seeks comment on
whether the indicator should reflect that both the slow speed mode and
the remote shut-off are operational.
The other proposed requirement unique to this work operation,
paragraph (k)(10), addresses the situation where the employee is being
transported by a device, such as a safety cage, attached to a container
gantry crane spreader. Such a device is required to have a means of
attachment to the spreader in place in addition to the primary
attachment mechanism of the spreader (hydraulic twistlock mechanism) to
prevent accidental disengagement. OSHA is aware of several instances
where accidental disengagement of a load has occurred (Ex. 1-25, 1-26).
This secondary means of attachment is intended to minimize the
potential for injury if accidental disengagement were to occur.
A final issue for discussion in this section is Paragraph (k)(13)
where an employee retrieval procedure in the case of a fall must be
established. It has been suggested that local emergency response
personnel be consulted in the development of this procedure in order to
assure that rescue or retrieval efforts do not exacerbate any injury.
OSHA believes that such a consultation would be prudent.
OSHA invites comment on all issues related to container top safety
and encourages the submission of relevant views and information.
Proposed Sec. 1918.85(l) addresses container operations that
require employees to work along unguarded edges other than on container
tops. In these situations, fall protection meeting the requirements of
paragraph (k) of this section must be provided where the fall distance
is greater than 8 feet (2.4 m). This primarily addresses work
operations such as lashing or locking and unlocking twist locks from
other surfaces, or signalling to direct the placement of containers.
Frequently, this work operation requires employees to work in elevated
positions that remove the fall protection that would have normally been
provided by the ship's coaming or railings. OSHA recently investigated
a fatality where an employee fell 34 feet (10.3 m) from a lashing
platform that was inadequately guarded (Ex. 1-149).
Proposed Sec. 1918.86 is a new section that addresses operations
aboard vessels that accommodate Ro-Ro (Roll-on/Roll-off) traffic.The
emergence of Ro-Ro vessels is a fairly recent development and were not
addressed in the current rules. Along with container operations, this
section proposes new provisions that address advances in modern
technology in the marine cargo handling industry. Examples of such
vessels are car carriers, which facilitate the import and export
automobile trades, and stern or side port combination carriers, which
provide water carriage for wheel mounted as well as containerized
cargo. Commonly such vessels are fitted with ramps that extend to the
dock or wharf, and are fitted with ramps internally or, alternatively,
are fitted with cargo elevators (lifts). In this manner, cargo is
either driven through the vessel from deck to deck until reaching its
final stowage location, or hoisted by cargo elevator to its proper deck
and then driven to its final stowage location. Once positioned in its
stowage location, the wheeled cargo is lashed to securing fittings that
are provided on the deck. In such operations, lashing personnel are
exposed to being struck by vehicular traffic. In addition, other
workers involved with loading or unloading wheeled cargo, both drivers
and pedestrians, are exposed to traffic hazards. OSHA is aware of a
number of accidents (Ex. 1-78, 1-89) that are attributable to this
process, wherein employees are interspersed with vehicles in a closely
confined, marginally illuminated and poorly traffic managed space.
In proposed paragraph (a), OSHA would require an organized system
of traffic control to be established and maintained at each entrance
and exit ramp. The confluence of vehicular and pedestrian traffic in
Ro-Ro operations, and thus the area where substantial accident
potential is most pronounced, is the area on and around access ramps.
With this mode of cargo carriage on the increase, accident potential is
expected to increase proportionately. Ramps inside the vessel, although
generally not as congested as ship-to-shore access lanes, must also be
addressed by the traffic control system if they experience a periodic
traffic flow that warrants such control. In developing this rule, OSHA
considered positions taken by the International Labor Organization in
their Code of Practice for Dock Work (Ex. 1-106), which provides that:
A system of movement control of vehicles used in loading and
unloading ships should be effectively and continuously applied.
In assessing other national requirements, the Agency found that
Sweden in its Dock Work Directions issued by the National Board of
Occupational Safety and Health (Ex. 1-136), also requires that:
A traffic guard shall be stationed wherever motor vehicles need
to be directed, e.g., on roll on-roll off ramps, narrow wharves and
places where there is traffic crossing and the view is limited.
Clearly, shipside traffic control is just as necessary as it is in
the shoreside environment. In OSHA's preamble to the Marine Terminals
standard, the Agency emphasized (46 FR 4200) in its assessment of the
importance of traffic control at the shoreside marine terminal setting:
* * * the importance of these practices to employee safety
cannot be over estimated.
Given the close relationship between shoreside and shipboard
vehicular utilization, it is appropriate that OSHA's rules addressing
the two be complementary.
Proposed paragraph (b) addresses the hazard of exceeding the
capacity of the ramp used to transfer cargo. As a result of ramp
failure, the likely injury to occur is drowning or being crushed in the
vehicle. Ramps must be plainly marked with their load capacity and
these capacities must not be exceeded (Ex. 1-5).
Proposed paragraph (c) provides protection for employees that use
the ship's ramp for access. In such situations, OSHA proposes that a
physical separation, i.e., a barrier, be provided to separate the
employee and the vehicles. Often vessels are fitted out in this manner
(Ex. 1-84). However, should it be the case that a particular vessel is
not so fitted, it is a matter that is easily rectified. When the design
of the ramp prevents physical separation of pedestrians from vehicles,
a signalperson shall direct traffic, and shall not allow concurrent
use. Additionally, OSHA proposes to require that such ramps utilized
for pedestrian access be fitted out in the same manner as would a
traditional pedestrian gangway (see Sec. 1918.21).
Proposed paragraph (d) requires that ramps be properly maintained
and secured. This is consistent with Sec. 1918.24(b) which addresses
maintaining and securing portable ramps.
Proposed paragraph (e) recognizes that in many of the modern
generations of Ro-Ro vessels, internal ramps are elevatable. Such a
construction feature allows for multiple access destinations, depending
upon the placement of the ramp. If a ramp is placed in such a manner as
to allow access to a given deck, thereby creating a void in another
access route (that could perhaps lead to a substantial drop or fall),
this paragraph provides that the incomplete route be clearly identified
and barricaded. OSHA has investigated at least one (Ex. 1-86)
occupational fatality in which this circumstance was apparent.
Paragraph (f) requires that all brake air lines be connected and
tested prior to commencing operations. The proper operation of brakes
is necessary when operating inside a Ro-Ro vessel that typically has
ramps with steep grades.
Proposed paragraph (g) requires that flat bed and low boy trailers
be marked with their cargo capacity and not be overloaded. These
operations typically employ the use of trailers not designed for over-
the-road use such as low boy trailers (sometimes referred to as
``mafi's'') that allow access to low deck height spaces found in Ro-Ro
vessels.
Proposed paragraph (h) is analogous to OSHA's current weight
requirement for intermodal containers. It would require that cargo to
be handled via the ship's ramp be either marked with its weight or have
such weight clearly marked in a written record.As a practical matter,
vessel stow plans most always contain such data.
Proposed paragraph (i) requires tractors to have sufficient power
and braking capacity to safely operate on Ro-Ro vessels.As previously
noted, this is especially important in negotiating tight spaces and
steep grades on Ro-Ro vessels.
Proposed paragraph (k) would require that internal combustion
engine vehicles only be operated when adequate ventilation exists or is
provided. It also provides guidance in determining acceptable levels of
air contaminants generated by the internal combustion process, by
referring the reader to the appropriate section of this part and part
1910, subpart Z (which is referenced in subpart A of this proposal. In
most situations, the vessels themselves are fitted out with ventilation
systems at all decks. It has been the Agency's observation that a
number of purpose built Ro-Ro vessels possess ventilation systems that
function remarkably well (Ex. 1-72), monitoring ambient air for various
air contaminants as well as explosive properties.
Proposed paragraph (l) would require that cargo be secured to
prevent sliding loads. This addresses the specific hazard of cargo
falling off trailers while in transit on Ro-Ro vessels.
Proposed paragraph (m) would require that authorized persons,
equipped with high visibility vests (or equivalent protection), be the
only employees permitted on any deck where Ro-Ro operations are being
conducted. Requiring only high visibility vests (or equivalent
protection) and eliminating the allowance of using decals or reflectors
is a departure from what has been allowed in the Marine Terminal
standard. As is noted in Section VI of this preamble, OSHA proposes to
eliminate the allowance of decals or reflectors in Sec. 1917.71(e)
because of problems experienced with the use of decals, reflectors, and
similar items. The reflective area of a decal on a hard hat is
obviously less than that of a vest. Also, the reflective value is lost
during daylight hours or whenever the wearer takes off the hard hat. A
number of serious accidents (Exs. 1-78, 1-89) have occurred in the past
due to the nature of the work involved in such cargo operations. This
paragraph, along with the signalling requirements in proposed paragraph
(n) that follow, are expected to enable employers to avoid vehicle-
related accidents onboard ships. Paragraph (n) addresses signalling
requirements for maneuvering vehicles into stowage positions while
other personnel are in the adjacent vicinity.
In proposed Sec. 1918.87, OSHA sets out requirements for the
utilization of shipboard elevators (lifts). Elevators are most common
on a number of different Ro-Ro and Combination carrier vessel designs.
The hazards addressed by this section are cargo falling from an
improperly loaded elevator; and from wheeled cargo or employees falling
into open spaces in the deck created by a moving elevator. In
approaching the issue of elevator usage, the Agency remained mindful of
foreign vessel design prerogatives. Consequently, the four paragraphs
proposed within this section, are protective of U.S. longshore workers
obliged to use such installations, but are not expected to have an
impact on any other nation's vessel designs.
In summarizing this section, OSHA would require that safe working
loads of elevators be determined and adhered to. As a ``lifting
appliance,'' shipboard elevators are part of a complement of gear that
comes under considerable discussion in ILO Convention No. 152 (see
discussion of Subpart B--Gear Certification). As such, shipboard
installations of elevators will require certification of safe working
loads as well as the posting of elevator capacity. In practical terms,
the employer's responsibility with regard to this paragraph is
relatively simple to discharge. The requirement for evenly distributing
the weight(s) to be lifted, particularly when considering the various
drive mechanisms providing power to the elevator platforms, is an
important provision.
Proposed paragraph (c) also is an important requirement that, while
allowing the driver of a vehicle to remain at the vehicle's controls,
prohibits other persons from riding the elevator to other decks. Of
necessity, the sides of many shipboard elevators are unguarded while in
transit. Riders, therefore, would be exposed to falls from sometimes
significant heights. The ILO's Code of Practice for Dock Work (Ex. 1-
107) addresses this issue in much the same manner.
In proposed paragraph (d), OSHA addresses a problem that both this
Agency and the earlier Labor Standards Bureau have recognize as needing
attention (Ex. 1-82). This provision would require that if fall hazards
are created by open decks during the operation of shipboard elevators,
the decks shall be barricaded. OSHA believes that under current
international practice most installations will already be effectively
guarded. In those situations, however, where the installation falls
short in providing this safeguard, the employer must take the
initiative in acquiring and effectively utilizing the required barrier
protection.
Proposed Sec. 1918.88, ``Log operations,'' as previously mentioned
in the preamble discussion of proposed Sec. 1918.38 ``Log rafts,'' is
also an entirely new section addressing the hazards associated with
loading logs from the water into a vessel. This is a particularly
hazardous operation both because of the location where it occurs (on
the water) and the nature of the cargo. Logs that are loaded from the
water usually have been in the water for a long period of time, causing
them to absorb water. The extra water adds to their weight and also
loosens the bark, making the log surface very unsure and slippery. The
proposed provisions of this section have been taken from both existing
longshore regulations and from the ILWU-PMA Pacific Coast Marine Safety
Code (PCMSC) (Ex. 1-145). In addition, these new requirements are
supported by record evidence developed by OSHA personnel in Region 10
(Ex. 1-146).
Proposed paragraph (a) is taken from PCMSC Rule 417 (Ex. 1-145) and
addresses the hazards associated with unstable logs that could be in
the hold of a vessel creating a situation where employees could be
injured or killed should the logs shift. Employees must not be in
spaces in the hold when and where logs being loaded could strike them.
Proposed paragraph (b) addresses the hazard associated with the
physical condition of the log surface, which may be slippery if there
is no bark, or otherwise hazardous if the bark is loose and slides off
the log as the employee is stepping on it. Employers must provide
appropriate footwear to employees that have to climb on the log. Such
footwear typically are spiked, also known as ``caulked'' shoes, may be
styled like a sandal that attaches to existing footwear, and
specifically designed for working logs (Ex. 1-146, pp.13-14).
Proposed paragraph (c), which is taken from the current longshore
1918.96(f), requires that lifelines be furnished and hung over the side
when working log booms or cribs.
Proposed paragraph (d) is also taken from the current longshore
regulation Sec. 1918.23(c), and requires that a Jacob's ladder be
provided for each gang when working a log boom. However, in accordance
with the provision in proposed Sec. 1918.23(c), no more than two
Jacob's ladders are required for each log boom being worked.
Proposed paragraph (e) has also been taken from the current
longshore regulations, Sec. 1918.96(e), and requires that a U.S. Coast
Guard approved life ring with at least 90 feet (27.4 m) of line be in
the vicinity of the work area.
The final paragraph, (f), requires that a rescue boat be available
when employees are working on log rafts or booms. This requirement is
similar to that found in Rule 638 of the PCMSC (Ex. 1-145). This
addresses the hazard of employees falling into the water while loading
logs and being carried away by the river current and possibly drowning.
The requirement of a rescue boat would allow an employee who falls into
the water to be quickly rescued.
Much of the proposed language in this section is based on rules
found in the Pacific Coast Marine Safety Code (PCMSC) (Ex. 1-145),
which has been negotiated by the Pacific Maritime Association and the
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union. In addition,
OSHA believes that the proposed requirements reflect the current safe
industry practice.
OSHA requests comment from the public concerning the completeness
of these proposed regulations pertaining to handling logs from the
water.
Proposed Sec. 1918.89, addressing hazardous cargo, is carried over
from the existing Longshore standard (Sec. 1918.86). The same language
is found addressing this issue when at shoreside cargo handling
operations (Sec. 1917.22). Proposed Sec. 1918.89 and the Hazard
Communication rule that is referenced in the ``Scope and
Applicability'' paragraph, Sec. 1918.1(b)(6), complement one another in
covering employee notification and procedures for handling hazardous
cargo. OSHA requests comment from the public on whether Sec. 1918.89(a)
and (c), and similar language in Sec. 1917.22(a) and (c) is repetitious
in light of the Hazard Communication rule, keeping in mind that HazCom
is referenced in both Parts. (In addition, the exposure of employees to
toxic and hazardous substances is addressed in subpart B of part 1917,
in proposed subpart I of part 1918 and in subpart Z of part 1910.)
Subpart I--General Working Conditions
In 1987, OSHA extended the coverage of the Hazard Communication
standard (HazCom) (29 CFR 1910.1200) to all employers with employees
exposed to hazardous chemicals in their workplaces. As a result,
subpart I of part 1918 was amended to include the requirements of that
standard as Sec. 1918.90. Basically the HazCom standard requires such
employers to provide information to their employees concerning
hazardous chemicals by means of hazard communication programs. These
programs would include the use of labels, material safety data sheets
(MSDS), training and access to written records. In addition,
distributors of hazardous chemicals are required to ensure that
containers they distribute are properly labeled, and that a material
safety data sheet is provided to their customers.
On August 24, 1987, OSHA, in expanding the coverage of this rule,
also made certain revisions that address the handling of sealed
containers of hazardous materials, such as is usually done in
longshoring work. Specifically, OSHA stated at 52 FR 31861:
There are a number of work situations where employees only
handle sealed containers of chemicals, and under normal conditions
of use would not open the containers and would not expect to
experience any measurable exposure to the chemicals. Such work
operations include, for example, warehousing, retail sales, marine
cargo handling, and trucking terminals. (Emphasis added.)
OSHA recognized, nonetheless, that even under these circumstances,
the potential for a hazardous exposure could occur.
It is reasonable to assume, however, that all such containers
are subject to leakage and breakage, and these employees are in fact
potentially exposed by virtue of the presence of these hazardous
chemicals in their workplaces. Because of this potential exposure,
they need information to protect themselves form the hazards of
these chemicals in the event such an emergency situation occurs.
(Id.)
Proposed Sec. 1918.90 consists solely of a cross-reference to the
Scope and Applicability section of the proposal, specifically
Sec. 1918.1(b)(6), which references the Hazardous Communication
standard, Sec. 1910.1200. OSHA has decided to reference the Hazard
Communication standard in the scope section of this proposal as one of
the part 1910 provisions applicable to longshoring. This would have no
effect on either the enforceability or the applicability of HazCom to
longshoring. OSHA proposes to do the same in the Marine Terminals
standard (part 1917).
The primary HazCom obligations that apply to longshoring are found
in Sec. 1910.1200(b)(4). This paragraph sets out the basic duties of
employers: (1) not to remove or deface labels affixed to containers of
hazardous chemicals; (2) to maintain and provide access to any MSDS's
that are received for hazardous chemicals while the chemicals are in
the workplace; and (3) to obtain an MSDS when one is not received but
an employee requests one. In addition, the employer must train
employees in accordance with the provisions of the rule to ensure they
are protected in the event of a spill or leak. The Agency seeks comment
on this different approach.
Proposed Sec. 1918.91 addresses housekeeping. In assessing the
types of accidents that most occur in shipboard cargo handling, one
fact has remained constant: many involve slips, trips, and falls (Exs.
1-14, 1-73). Housekeeping factors cause a substantial number of such
accidents. Staying with the principle of providing a uniform regulatory
approach to shipboard and shoreside occupational safety and health,
OSHA proposes, in this section, to bring into part 1918 those
applicable provisions of part 1917 that cover the same hazards on
shore. Those remaining provisions, which are vessel-specific, would be
retained from the current part 1918. In addition, OSHA considers
lashing gear that is used with containers, roll-on, roll-off cargo,
and, in particular, automobiles, to be ``equipment,'' as referred to in
paragraph (a).
Proposed Sec. 1918.92 provides illumination requirements for cargo
handling work aboard vessels. Here again, OSHA remains consistent with
its shoreside rules in requiring 5 footcandles (average) (54 lux) of
illumination at cargo operations. In proposing this standard, OSHA
believes that it will not only remain uniform with its shoreside rule
(Sec. 1917.123), but also remain consistent with good illumination
safety principles. (Ex. 1-152)
In crossing from one location to another, in this case shore to
ship, it is a well-recognized safety practice to provide uniform
lighting. On this topic, the American National Standard practice for
Industrial Illumination (ANSI/IES RP-7-1991) (Ex. 1-152) states the
following:
Alternate areas of extreme luminance differences are undesirable
because it tires the eyes to adjust to them.
.... uniformity permits flexibility of functions and equipment
and assures more uniform luminances.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require that lighting provided aboard
ship does not shine into the eyes of personnel in key positions of
cargo control, such as crane and winch operators. Certainly it is
extremely important to allow a clear and unencumbered view to those
that are in control of the cargo transit. With the same principle in
mind, it would also be required that stationary lights (those not
mounted on vehicles) on Ro-Ro vessels not shine into the eyes of
drivers. In addition, the proposed requirements for portable lights and
entry into dark areas closely parallel the provisions in the existing
standard.
Proposed Sec. 1918.93, Hazardous atmospheres and substances, is
designed to provide protection from atmospheric hazards which are not
specifically addressed in other proposed sections. In as much as these
hazards are virtually identical to those found in marine terminals, the
language of this section largely tracks the requirements found in
Sec. 1917.23. Since the promulgation of the Marine Terminal standard,
OSHA has promulgated a Permit-Required Confined Spaces standard for
General Industry (58 FR 4462, Jan. 14, 1993). Since both the Marine
Terminal and Longshoring standards currently addressed hazards
associated with confined spaces, OSHA did not intend the General
Industry standard to apply to these workplaces. However, OSHA also had
planned, in its ongoing development of this longshore proposal, to
conform the relevant longshore requirements to the more explicit and
protective marine terminal requirements. Furthermore, this approach is
consistent with the vertical nature of these maritime standards.
The use of the phrase ``the employer is aware'' that a hazardous
condition exists means that the employer is or should be aware of the
hazardous condition. This section establishes requirements for the
determination of the hazard, the testing during ventilation, and the
procedures for entry into hazardous atmospheres. In addition, the
hazards associated with emergency entry, inadvertent entry and asbestos
spills are also addressed.
Proposed Sec. 1918.94 provides requirements for ventilation and
atmospheric workplace conditions. Proposed paragraph (a) specifically
addresses the hazards associated with carbon monoxide (CO) aboard ship.
Longshoring work frequently involves the use of internal combustion-
powered equipment to facilitate the stowage and removal of cargo. This
equipment would include fork lift trucks, bulk cargo movers and the
cargo itself (vehicles on Ro-Ro ships). Occupational fatalities and
disabling illnesses still appear on the waterfront (Exs. 1-76, 1-77,
and 1-81) due to high levels of (CO) accumulating from these sources in
cargo spaces.
Currently OSHA's limit for (CO) in General Industry, Construction,
and Shipyards is 50 ppm as an 8-hour TWA. The limits in Marine
Terminals and Longshoring are a 50 ppm and, in confined spaces, a 100
ppm ceiling. The ACGIH-1986 has a TLV-TWA of 50 ppm and a
TLV-STEL of 400 ppm for (CO) (Ex. 3-8). NIOSH (Ex. 3-1)
recommends an 8-hour TWA limit of 35 ppm and a 200 ppm ceiling. For
both Longshoring and Marine Terminals, OSHA is proposing to lower the
PELs for CO to 35 ppm (8-hour TWA) and is proposing a 200 ppm (ceiling,
measured over 5 minutes) in outdoor, non-enclosed spaces. OSHA is
proposing to retain the 100 ppm ceiling for CO in enclosed spaces in
Marine Terminals and Longshoring. NIOSH concurs (Ex. 3-2) that the
proposed limits are appropriate.
Carbon monoxide is a flammable, colorless, practically odorless
gas. It is used as a reducing agent in metallurgical operations, in the
manufacture of metal carbonyls and zinc-based white pigments, and as a
chemical intermediate. Most occupational exposures to this ubiquitous
substance are the result of the incomplete combustion of organic
material (HSDB 1990; Ex. 3-18).
Carbon monoxide has caused a large number of industrial fatalities
as a result of its tendency to combine readily with hemoglobin to form
carboxyhemoglobin (COHb). The Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health
(IDLH) level for carbon monoxide is 1500 ppm (Ex. 3-3). At levels above
this, workers quickly lose consciousness; if exposure is not terminated
immediately, death by asphyxiation follows quickly.
In experimental animals, asphyxiation occurs when the air-borne
concentration of CO exceeds 3 percent (30,000 ppm) (HSDB 1990). CO also
causes reproductive and developmental effects in animals. The LD50
in rats is 1807 ppm for 4 hours (Ex. 3-4).
Excessive accumulations of COHb cause hypoxic stress in healthy
individuals as a result of the reduced oxygen carrying capacity of the
blood. In patients with cardiovascular disease, such stress can further
impair cardiovascular function. A number of studies show that 8-hour
TWA exposures to 50 ppm carbon monoxide generally results in COHb
levels of 8 to 10 percent. Such levels are not generally associated
with overt signs or symptoms of health impairment in healthy
individuals with strong cardiovascular systems who are working under
nonstressful conditions. However, the ACGIH believes that a
TLV-TWA of 25 ppm, which results in COHb levels of 4 percent
or less, may be necessary to protect workers with cardiovascular
disease, because this condition places workers at higher risk of
serious cardiovascular injury (Ex. 3-8, p. 1106). The NIOSH REL of 35
ppm TWA is also aimed at protecting workers with chronic heart disease
(CHD); NIOSH believes that such workers should not be allowed to have
carboxyhemoglobin levels that approach 5 percent. In the part 1910 air
contaminants rulemaking, several commenters questioned the need to
lower the 8-hour TWA and to add a STEL.In response to these commenters,
OSHA quoted the ACGIH (Id.):
Each molecule of CO combining with hemoglobin reduces the oxygen
carrying capacity of the blood and exerts a finite stress on man.
Thus, it may be reasoned that there is no dose of CO that is not
without an effect on the body. Whether that effect is physiologic or
harmful depends upon the dose of CO and the state of health of the
exposed individual. The body compensates for this hypoxic stress by
increasing cardiac output and blood flow to specific organs, such as
the brain or the heart. When this ability to compensate is
overpowered or is limited by disease, tissue injury results
[emphasis added].
Exposure to CO sufficient to produce COHb saturations in the 3-
5% range impairs cardiovascular function in patients with
cardiovascular disease and in normal subjects. * * * The primary
effect of exposure to low concentrations of CO on workmen results
from the hypoxic stress secondary to the reduction in the oxygen-
carrying capacity of blood. * * * Workmen with significant disease,
both detected and undetected, may not be able to compensate
adequately and are at risk of serious injury. For such workers, a
TLV of 25 ppm * * * might be necessary. Even such a concentration
might be detrimental to the health of some workers who might have
far advanced cardiovascular disease. * * * It would appear to the
Committee that the time-weighted TLV of 50 ppm for carbon monoxide
might also be too high under conditions of heavy labor, high
temperatures, or at high elevations (Ex. 3-8).
Thus, the ACGIH also regards a lower limit for CO as necessary to
protect workers with cardiovascular or pulmonary disease or those
working under stressful conditions.
OSHA believes that it is clearly necessary to set a CO level that
protects workers who have CHD because (1) a large percentage of
employees have it, (2) it is often not diagnosed or diagnosable, and
(3) it is frequently fatal. The 35 ppm 8-hour TWA is designed to
protect employees with asymptomatic CHD. The term CHD is generally used
to refer to the process of atherosclerosis of the coronary arteries,
which leads to disturbances in the myocardial blood supply.
The general worker population in the United States is composed of a
very significant number of persons with CHD. Since the identification
of such persons in the absence of overt clinical symptoms is virtually
impossible, it is necessary to assume that the average worker has
asymptomatic CHD, especially when his/her first clinical symptom may be
sudden death (Ex. 3-1). Several studies demonstrate the significant
risk associated with CO exposure, particularly with respect to coronary
heart disease. A study of firefighters in Los Angeles (Ex. 3-10)
suggests that CO exposure during firefighting may be responsible for
the high incidence of heart disease in firefighters. In some fires,
peak exposures were occasionally as high as 3000 ppm CO, with 40
percent of peak values in the 100-to 500-ppm CO range. However, in some
fires, the peak CO exposure was below 100 ppm. Although these peak
exposures in firefighters were high, firefighters are likely to be
exposed overall for fewer hours than the workers of concern in this
rulemaking.
A prevalence study was recently performed on angina pectoris, ECG
changes, and blood pressure that involved 1,000 workers from 20
foundries (Ex. 3-11). A clear dose-response was found with regard to
the prevalence of angina (as obtained by history on a World Health
Organization-recommended questionnaire) and CO exposure in workers
(both smokers and nonsmokers).
NIOSH conducted a prospective cohort mortality study among 1,558
white male motor vehicle examiners who were employed in New Jersey for
a minimum of 6 months between 1944 and 1973 (Ex. 3-12). Industrial
hygiene surveys indicated that the examiners were exposed to carbon
monoxide at a time-weighted-average (TWA) of 10 to 24 ppm. Using a
modified life table technique, the expected deaths were compared to the
expected deaths through August 1973. The overall deficit of mortality
observed (SMR180) in this occupational cohort during the first 10-year
period was to be expected as a result of the widely accepted ``healthy
worker effect.'' However, the component SMR for cardiovascular disease
deaths (134) was unexpected, since the ``healthy worker effect'' had
been most significantly associated with decreased cardiovascular
disease mortality (Ex. 3-13). This evidence suggests that slightly
elevated COHb may contribute to excess cardiovascular disease rates in
a healthy population that is of average fitness (since the work is not
physically hard).
A recent study (Ex. 3-14) reviewed the epidemiological evidence for
an association between carbon monoxide and heart disease and concluded
that carbon monoxide exerts acute and possibly reversible short-term
effects that can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.
In another recent study, male volunteers aged 35 to 75 with stable
exertional angina pectoris and positive exercise treadmill tests were
exposed to CO concentrations designed to cause 2.2 to 4.4 percent COHb
levels after exercise. The subjects performed a symptom-limited
exercise test on a treadmill, followed by exposure for 1 hour to CO,
and then performed a second treadmill test. All subjects who completed
the study (N=63) showed significant decreases in time to onset of
ischemic ST-segment changes; in the 2 percent COHb group, this change
equalled 5.1 percent, and in the 4 percent COHb group it averaged a
12.1 percent decrease (Allred, Bleecher, Chaitman, Dahms, Gottlieb,
Hackney et al. 1989, in Res. Rep. Hlth. Effect. Inst. 25:79).
As pointed out above, cardiovascular disease (detected or
undetected) and pulmonary impairment are widespread in the general
population in this country, in workers as well as other sub-
populations. In addition, OSHA is particularly concerned about the
adverse effects of CO because workers regularly encounter complex and
stressful situations at work, including heat stress, jobs demanding
heavy exertion, and tasks requiring both judgment and motor
coordination. OSHA standards are intended to protect workers of average
and below-average fitness and those who engage only intermittently in
heavy physical labor and who do not therefore receive the benefit of
physical conditioning.
OSHA thus has determined that, in Longshoring and Marine Terminals,
the proposed 8-hour TWA of 35 ppm for carbon monoxide is needed to
reduce the significantly increased risk of cardiovascular disease that
is associated with overexposure to CO. The Agency also believes that a
ceiling of 200 ppm in outdoors, non-enclosed spaces is necessary to
ensure that peak CO exposures are kept below the 1500 ppm IDLH level by
a reasonable safety factor. The ceiling limit will also assist in
keeping COHb levels below 5 percent; the ceiling will be measured over
5 minutes to permit the use of simpler monitoring techniques.
Based on this evidence, OSHA is proposing an 8-hour TWA of 35 ppm
and a ceiling of 200 ppm in outdoor, non-enclosed spaces as the PELs
for carbon monoxide in the longshoring and marine terminal industries.
In these industries, however, most employees regularly enter and work
in a compartment, hold, or other enclosed space, in which CO levels can
increase rapidly if uncontrolled. CO, therefore, presents an especially
great danger of death from IDLH levels of CO. Consequently, OSHA is
retaining the 100 ppm ceiling for CO in such spaces, as well as the
provision requiring monitoring of these spaces. The Agency would
continue to require that the employer monitor the ambient air within
any cargo space where internal combustion engines discharge their
exhaust. Therefore, when concentrations of CO in these enclosed spaces
reach 100 ppm, work shall be suspended and the workers removed from the
spaces. Work shall not resume until concentrations of CO, as determined
by actual monitoring, have been reduced to within the allowable limits.
The Agency believes that these limits will ensure that the COHb
levels of exposed workers (especially of non-smokers) in these sectors
are maintained at or below 5 percent, which will protect those workers
at greater risk because of cardiovascular or pulmonary impairment. In
addition, these revised limits will protect healthy workers in the
affected sectors who must work in environments involving intermittent
exertion, heat stress, or other strenuous conditions. OSHA believes
that these limits are necessary to substantially reduce the significant
occupational risk associated with both chronic and peak exposures to
carbon monoxide in the workplace. The hypoxic stress associated with
exposure to carbon monoxide clearly constitutes a material impairment
of health and functional capacity. For a more complete discussion of
these health effects see 57 FR 26371.
If natural or vessel supplied ventilation is not sufficient to
maintain levels within the allowable limits, the employer must utilize
supplemental methods until such levels are reached (generally
accomplished with portable blowers). It should be noted that the
proposed requirement deletes the language ``before work is resumed.''
This is to make the requirement reflect more clearly the actual
industry practices being employed to control exposure to CO through the
use of engineering controls. The longshoring work itself generates CO
through the use of the loading equipment. In reality, then, it is not
the circumstance that 100 ppm is routinely reached, the hold is cleared
of workers, supplemental blowers are used to clear the air and then the
workers return to work. Rather, when a sustained build-up of CO is
detected, even at much lower levels, the supplemental blowers or other
additional means are employed to maintain the exposures to within the
allowable limits.
Portable ventilating equipment must be guarded to prevent employee
injury, and they must be effectively grounded by a grounding conductor
run with or enclosing the circuit conductors. In situations where
portable ventilating equipment is run by vessel supplied power, the
grounding conductor must be bonded to the structure of the vessel.
Given the shipboard environment, careful attention must be paid to the
electric cords of portable equipment, making certain they are not worn
or otherwise unserviceable.
OSHA is proposing to retain the requirement for recording tests of
the atmosphere. The stevedoring community is successfully using such
testing logs as a frame of reference in assessing atmospheric
conditions from one point in time to the next.
In proposed paragraph (b), OSHA addresses the longshoring hazards
associated with handling grain that has been treated with fumigants.
Grain is subject to infestation by insects and rodents during storage
and shipping. Fumigants used to control infestation can be liquid or
solid compounds that release poisonous gases and can be applied in the
form of sprays, fogs or gases or by direct contact (Ex. 1-104).
* * * these gases are harmful, possibly fatal, to humans as long
as they remain potent. Therefore, they constitute a safety hazard
from the time of application throughout the duration of their
potency--which may last for several days. (Id. p.36).
Here, OSHA would require that the employer determine whether or not
grain to be loaded or discharged aboard a vessel had been fumigated.
Such a determination shall be based on direct communication with
knowledgeable persons from both the grain elevator and the vessel.
When a cargo has been fumigated, an employer shall designate a
person (see Sec. 1918.2(c)), who is thoroughly familiar with the
characteristics of the fumigant being used and how to properly assess
contaminant levels; fully aware of the manufacturer of the fumigant's
use recommendations and warnings; and knowledgeable about the proper
personal protective equipment which must be worn to safely guard
against the possible effects of the fumigant. The designated person
must test the vessel's compartments after loading begins, but before
longshore employees (generally trimmers) enter. Subsequent tests must
be made to ensure that fumigant concentrations to exposed personnel
never attain levels that are beyond the allowable limits. Records of
those tests are retained by the employer for a period of 30 days.
Whenever the concentration in any compartment reaches the level
specified as hazardous by the fumigant manufacturer or by subpart Z of
29 CFR part 1910, whichever is lower, all employees shall be removed
from such compartments and shall not be permitted to re-enter until
such time as tests demonstrate that the atmosphere is within allowable
limits.
Consistent with Sec. 1917.25 of the Marine Terminal standard,
during emergencies or while tests are being undertaken in compartments
that have hazardous or unknown concentrations of fumigant, the
designated person entering the compartment must be properly outfitted
with personal protective equipment, (See criteria at proposed
Sec. 1918.94(b)(3)(v)), and must be observed while conducting such
tests by two standby employees, who are themselves properly outfitted.
The personal protective equipment used by the designated person and the
observers, will be required to be readily available wherever fumigated
grains are handled.
In situations where it is necessary to carry out insecticide or
pesticide treatment of a localized nature, such as in rodent control,
paragraph (b)(4) would require that employees conducting the treatment
and those that may be exposed to the chemical(s) applied, be equipped
with personal protective equipment that meets the specifications set
out by the manufacturer of the chemical(s) being used.
In proposing these rules covering fumigated grain cargoes, the
Agency has relied upon the existing rule for longshore employment (Ex.
1-39) but has also utilized the Agency's experience in promulgating the
general industry Permit-required Confined Space standard (29 CFR
1910.146, 58 FR 4549), together with accident data (Ex. 1-104) relating
to fumigated grain cargoes aboard ship. Finally, these rules are
further supported by similar provisions found in the Pacific Coast
Marine Safety Code (Ex. 1-145) and the U.S. Coast Guard's ``Interim
Regulations for Shipboard Fumigation,'' 46 CFR-147A (Ex. 1-105).
In proposed paragraph (c), the Agency proposes requirements for
handling cargoes of fumigated tobacco. Tobacco cargoes, both ported and
exported, are shipped most typically in bales, in hogsheads, and in
intermodal containers. OSHA's proposed Longshoring requirements apply
when cargoes are break-bulk, i.e., piece lots of bales or in hogsheads.
When such cargoes are containerized, OSHA addresses employee exposure
in the Marine Terminal standard (29 CFR 1917.25(g)).
In the case of break-bulk fumigated tobacco cargoes, the employer
would be required to determine (by written notification) if the cargo
has in fact been fumigated. If so, the employer would be further
required to obtain a written warranty from the fumigator(s) that the
cargo has been sufficiently aerated (concentration of fumigant is
within allowable limits.) OSHA notes that this practice is currently in
place at all longshore operations in the U.S. handling tobacco. In the
case of containerized shipments of fumigated tobacco, OSHA is proposing
new language that can be found in the proposed changes to the Marine
Terminal regulations, Sec. 1917.25(g), which is part of this proposal
and which is discussed in Section VI of this rulemaking.
Proposed paragraphs (d) and (e) remain virtually identical to the
existing provisions. Paragraph (d) involves a work practice to discover
hazardous exposures to fumigants of any cargo other than grain and
tobacco while paragraph (e) involves the use of personal protective
equipment to protect against heavy concentrations of dust.
Proposed paragraph (f) addresses operations aboard vessels engaged
in the menhaden trade. Menhaden is a term that refers to several
species of trash fish. Menhaden is used to produce, among other
products, fertilizer, pet food and fish oil. (See 46 FR 4213.) As cargo
to specialized menhaden marine terminals, menhaden presents a health
hazard to longshore workers when it decomposes, generating hydrogen
sulfide (H2S). As recently as 1987, a hydrogen sulfide incident
aboard a menhaden vessel led to serious injury and a fatality (Ex. 1-
80). OSHA's current limit for hydrogen sulfide in Marine Terminals is
20 ppm as an 8-hour TWA; the current Longshore standard is silent with
regard to both H22S and menhaden. The 1986 ACGIH TLVs
for hydrogen sulfide are 10 ppm as an 8-hour TWA and 15 ppm as a 15
minute STEL (Ex. 3-8); NIOSH has a 10-ppm, 10-minute REL for this
substance (Ex. 3-3). OSHA is proposing an 8-hour TWA of 10 ppm in
Longshoring and Marine Terminals with a STEL of 15 ppm. Promulgation of
these PELs will make OSHA's limits for hydrogen sulfide consistent with
the best available evidence on the hazards of H2S exposure.
Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless, flammable gas with the odor of
rotten eggs. It is widely used as a chemical intermediate, an
analytical reagent, and in the manufacture of ``heavy water''
(H2O2) in the utilities sector. In agriculture, it is used as
a disinfectant (HSDB 1985). It is also generated by the fermentation of
animal manure. Many farm workers have been exposed to this substance
while working in the vicinity of liquid manure storage pits and have
been asphyxiated as a consequence (Ex. 4-1). Hydrogen sulfide also is
encountered in natural oil and gas deposits and in sewers, caissons,
tunnels, and other construction sites (Grant 1986, p. 495). When used
in pesticidal applications and as directed on the label, this substance
is regulated by the EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In longshoring, the hazard is brought about by
the generation of hydrogen sulfide gas, caused by the decomposition of
the menhaden (and similar species) catch.
Hydrogen sulfide's effects on experimental animals are similar to
those seen in exposed workers: conjunctivitis, pulmonary irritation,
acute poisoning, and death by chemical asphyxiation (Ex. 4-2). The
LD50 in mice is 673 ppm for 1 hour (Ex. 4-3). A number of
experiments have demonstrated that exposure to hydrogen sulfide
concentrations of 50 to 100 ppm for several hours (or sometimes longer)
causes damage to the corneal epithelium of dogs, cats, rabbits, and
guinea pigs; animals are believed to be somewhat less sensitive than
humans to hydrogen sulfide's ocular effects but may be more sensitive
to its pulmonary effects (Grant 1986, p. 1496).
When inhaled at concentrations exceeding 500 ppm, exposure to
hydrogen sulfide has caused respiratory paralysis and death. Acutely
poisoned individuals who recover may experience headaches, fatigue,
dizziness, and nystagmus; eventually, however, recovery is usually
complete (Ex. 4-4). The 1986 ACGIH Documentation (Ex. 1-3, p. 1318)
cites several reports (Ex. 4-6) of the occurrence of adverse ocular
effects, including conjunctivitis, caused by exposure to 20 ppm or less
of hydrogen sulfide. A study by Poda and Aiken (Ex. 4-7) reports that
the adoption of a voluntary limit of 10 ppm in two heavy-water plants
eliminated exposure problems at those facilities. An early study by
Flury and Zernik (1931f) reports that the conjunctivitis caused by the
exposure of volunteers to 10 to 15 ppm of hydrogen sulfide for six
hours endured for several days; however, this substance is not known to
have caused irreversible eye damage.The author of the best-known
general source on the toxicology of the eye (Grant 1986) states that
``where the concentration [of hydrogen sulfide] is regularly kept below
10 ppm in air, it is rare to have any irritation of the eyes'' (p.
1496). OSHA believes that the proposed STEL will ensure that
concentrations are maintained close to the 8-hour TWA and that
excursions above irritant levels are thus minimized.
Based on this evidence, OSHA believes that the current 10-ppm 8-
hour TWA limit alone does not adequately protect workers in Longshoring
and Marine Terminals against the adverse ocular effects associated with
exposure to concentrations of hydrogen sulfide above 10 ppm. OSHA
believes that the eye irritation and conjunctivitis associated with
such exposures represent a significant risk of material health
impairment to these workers because they may experience pain and other
ocular effects and be forced to seek medical treatment after such
exposures. OSHA is accordingly proposing an 8-hour TWA limit of 10 ppm
for hydrogen sulfide with a short-term limit of 15 ppm in these parts
1917 and 1918. Based on available information, the Agency has
determined that these limits are necessary to provide protection from
the significant risk of exposure-related ocular effects, including
conjunctivitis, corneal edema, and distortion of vision, associated
with occupational exposure to hydrogen sulfide.
Since the hazard this paragraph seeks to avoid is brought about by
the generation of hydrogen sulfide gas, caused by the decomposition of
the menhaden (and similar species) catch, the requirements are not
applicable to operations aboard vessels with operable refrigerated
compartments used to hold the catch. Paragraph (f) requires that tests
be performed before and during discharge, by designated personnel who
are trained and competent in their understanding of the potential
hazards involved within the catch hold(s). The test would include
assessments of hydrogen sulfide and oxygen content of the atmosphere(s)
within the hold(s). Employers would be prohibited from sending
employees into the hold(s) unless the hydrogen sulfide level was kept
below 10 parts per million on a time weighted average with a short term
exposure limit of 15 ppm measured over a 15 minute sampling period.
Oxygen levels must be maintained to at least 19.5 percent.
In arriving at these proposed requirements, OSHA utilizes
information that supported similar requirements for the shoreside
aspect of menhaden operations in the Agency's rules for Marine
Terminals (Sec. 1917.73; See discussion at 46 FR 4213). Also, in the
development of the proposed requirements, the National Fish Meal & Oil
Association was clearly supportive of the proposed regulatory posture.
In communications between that group and the Department of Labor, and
in memoranda to the association's membership (Ex. 1-56), it is clear
that industry practice is quite consistent with OSHA's proposal.
Proposed Sec. 1918.95 contains requirements for sanitary
considerations at all longshoring operations. OSHA believes that the
hazards associated with poor sanitation and sanitary practices are well
established and need not be elaborated here. The proposed provisions
are fully consistent with the current regulations for shoreside cargo
handling (Sec. 1917.127), providing the uniformity that is necessary
between the two segments of marine cargo handling. OSHA is proposing in
both Secs. 1917.127 and 1918.95 to include tables which specify the
number of toilet facilities according to the number of employees at the
worksite. This table has been taken from the sanitation section in
OSHA's Construction Safety Regulations, 29 CFR 1926.51(c). OSHA
requests the public to comment on the inclusion of this table in this
proposal.
Summarizing the section, OSHA would require that employers provide
their workers with washing and toilet facilities that are equipped with
hot and cold (or tepid) running water; soap; clean hand towels (or warm
air blowers); clean and functional toilets (that offer separate
compartments with a latched door), and clean drinking water (with no
common cups). The consumption of food or drink would continue to be
prohibited wherever hazardous materials are stowed or being handled
(see definition at Sec. 1918.2(g)). Additionally, cargo handling
operations are to be separated (by barriers) from the vessel's
uncovered refuse and, in the unlikely event of a sanitary line
overboard discharge, from it as well. Since longshoring work is
performed adjacent to a marine terminal, if the marine terminal's
sanitation facilities are available for longshore employees' use, this
would constitute compliance with Sec. 1918.95. (Section 1917.127, which
covers sanitation at marine terminals, is virtually identical to
proposed Sec. 1918.95.)
Because longshoring operations generally take place in a location
with restricted space, i.e., aboard a ship, other non-associated but
often necessary work (such as ship's maintenance and repair) must be
conducted carefully, with due deference to the cargo handling being
performed. In such circumstances, employees may be exposed to hazards
associated with excessive noise leading to impaired communications,
excessive light or heat from hot work, overspray from abrasive blasting
or spray painting, or non-ionizing radiation. In OSHA's current rules
for Longshoring (Sec. 1918.95), the Agency has prescribed requirements
to account for the hazards that can be anticipated when maintenance and
repair work are concurrently undertaken with cargo handling. Those same
rules are proposed in Sec. 1918.95 (with very minor change) to be
included in the revision of this part. Summarizing them, longshoring
operations would be prohibited when noise produced by such concurrent
work interferes with the communication of warnings or instructions;
when falling objects could fall on cargo handlers from such work being
conducted overhead; when welding slag, burning sparks or welding rod
flash could injure cargo handlers; and when abrasive blasting or spray
painting is being performed in the vicinity of cargo operations.
Additionally, OSHA is proposing to prohibit cargo handling
operations where the employees are exposed to electromagnetic (non-
ionizing) radiation that is emitted from the radio and radar equipment
on the vessel. This could be especially dangerous when employees are
working on the tops of containers while work is being done to the radar
or radio equipment. OSHA is also aware of the dangers associated with
non-ionizing radiation emitted from radio and television towers that
are close to marine cargo handling facilities and has included the
words ``or from radio or television transmitting towers ashore'' in
this paragraph. OSHA issued a Hazard Information Bulletin on September
5, 1990, concerning a non-ionizing radiation incident caused by radio
transmitting towers that were near a cargo handling facility. The radio
frequency emissions were aimed in the direction of the cargo handling
operation and the radiation caused longshore workers touching the crane
wires and hooks to be burned. This situation was corrected by having
the transmissions directed away from the cargo handling area, however
other options were available such as, insulating the cargo hook, or
providing proper personal protective equipment (Ex. 1-137).
Proposed Sec. 1918.97 sets out requirements for first aid and
lifesaving, and parallels closely the same considerations set out by
OSHA in its rules for the shoreside aspect of marine cargo handling
(Sec. 1917.26). The hazards that this section is meant to address are
those that would occur in the absence of first aid or rescue; that is,
following an accident, this section is intended to mitigate the extent
of injury to the employee.
In summarizing this proposed section, the employer would be
required to direct all employees to report all injuries. A first aid
kit would be required to be available at each vessel being worked, with
at least one person holding a valid first aid certificate also
available to administer first aid. OSHA does not stipulate who the
certificate's issuing organization must be, but remains consistent with
its position taken while developing the Marine Terminals rule, wherein
the agency stated at 46 FR 4193:
No particular first aid course or approving agency is
designated, so long as the certificate is issued by a responsible
organization which requires successful completion of a course as
evidence of qualification.
OSHA sets out no specific criteria for the contents of the required
first aid kit(s). The Agency does, however, propose to have those needs
individualized by a physician who, in consultation with the employer,
can customize first aid kit contents to the hazards to be encountered.
This is consistent with the approach taken by OSHA in its General
Industry (Sec. 1910.151(b)) and its Construction standards
(Sec. 1926.50(d)(1)). OSHA believes this approach to be not only more
flexible, but more protective as well. It should be noted that OSHA is
proposing to amend the Marine Terminal regulations to read the same as
what is being proposed in this draft in regards to first aid kits and
emergency stretchers. Requiring weekly checks of the contents of first
aid kits is again consistent with OSHA's Safety and Health Regulations
for Construction, Sec. 1926.50(d)(2).
Additionally, OSHA proposes to include more specific requirements
addressing strength and design characteristics of emergency stretchers
(Stokes baskets). These requirements reflect the terms of an agreement
between the West Gulf Maritime Association and individual locals of the
I.L.A. operating on the Gulf of Mexico, which OSHA considers to be
appropriate for inclusion in the proposal. The requirement that the
stretcher have at least four sets of ``effective'' patient restraints
means that the restraints must be able to secure the patient to the
stretcher even if the stretcher and patient is being lifted vertically.
In an accident cited earlier in the preamble, (Ex. 1-90), where the
employee was being carried vertically in the stretcher, the restraints
were not effective and the patient fell off.
In proposed Sec. 1918.98, OSHA sets out requirements for the
qualifications of machinery operators, i.e., crane or winch operators,
industrial truck drivers, conveyor operators, etc., and provides
proposed language to require the training of supervisory personnel,
i.e., gang foremen, stevedore superintendents, etc., in accident
prevention. The hazards addressed by this section arise from
inexperienced, untrained or inappropriate operators of cargo handling
machinery; and hazards created by improperly trained supervisory
personnel. These hazards can readily lead to accidental injury or
death.
Both topics originate in the shoreside rules (Sec. 1917.27), and
focus on very important aspects indisputably tied to safe cargo
operations. The proposed provisions would require that all employees
(except supervised trainees) be familiar with signs, signals and
operating instructions before operating cargo handling machinery or
before giving signals to operators. OSHA would require that employee
competency to perform such work be determined by the employer, using
training and experience as criteria in making such a determination. The
employer would be prohibited from allowing employees with a known
incapacitating ailment, such as heart disease or epilepsy, or employees
with defective uncorrected hearing or eyesight, from operating that
equipment. Because supervisory training is considered to be essential
to reducing the amount of accidents in any industrial setting, the
Agency proposes to set requirements for the shipboard cargo handling
workplace that will complement such requirements already in place for
shoreside work. OSHA asks the public to comment on the effectiveness of
the shoreside supervisory programs and benefits that have been derived.
In proposing this requirement, the Agency notes that the great majority
of supervisory persons already trained in accident prevention under the
part 1917 rules, are those same individuals who would be covered by the
training requirement under this proposal. The Agency requests
interested persons to submit comment on the proportion of supervisory
employees for whom such training would actually be required. The same
built-in transition periods established for training within the Marine
Terminals rule (two years after the promulgation of the final rule and
after that date 90 days after supervisory assignment), are proposed
also for shipboard application. The criteria for course content is
performance-based, allowing for instruction to be tailored to the
particular operation(s). The recommended topics included as a footnote
are considered to be rudimentary to most shipboard cargo handling
operations.
It should be noted that current Sec. 1918.98 entitled ``Grain
fitting'' is being deleted by this proposal. OSHA believes that this
type of longshoring operation is obsolete and no longer exists. OSHA,
however, recognizes that interested parties may have differing views
regarding this deletion and invite comment on this point.
Subpart J--Personal Protective Equipment
All proposed sections of this subpart are based in the requirements
for personal protective equipment found in the shoreside requirements
for marine cargo handling (Secs. 1917.91, 1917.92, 1917.92, 1917.93,
1917.94, and 1917.95). The hazards addressed by this section are those
that personal protective equipment can eliminate or ameliorate by its
proper use. For example, eye protection can prevent the loss of an eye;
foot protection can prevent a broken foot; respirators can prevent
toxic poisoning; and so on. As was the case in that rulemaking, (48 FR
30903), OSHA again sets out the principle that whether the PPE costs
must be borne by employers depends largely on whether the employee has
possession, responsibility and control over the specific piece of
equipment. As an example, items such as protective gloves and foot wear
are among pieces of gear that employees may bring home for personal use
between work shifts, but the employees would be protected by the gear
while at work. As such, the employer has to make available and assure
that employees wear such equipment, but the standard does not require
the employer to furnish it free of cost. Other items however, such as
respirators, fall protection systems and special protective clothing,
are pieces of gear that the employer is required to furnish and
maintain.These are items that do not leave the workplace and are always
under the control of the employer. Such items are those for which the
employee is not obligated to bear any cost under the standards. OSHA
understands that various arrangements exist for shared cost
responsibilities and sole cost responsibilities at different parts of
the Nation's waterfront, and leaves to the employers and employees the
right to resolve such issues.
Proposed Sec. 1918.101, would require employees performing work
which is hazardous to the eyes be provided with protection that meets
the requirements (evidenced by marking or labeling) of the American
National Standard for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face
Protection (ANSI Z87.1-1989). Such eye protection would be required to
be maintained in good condition, with cleaning and disinfection
performed prior to issuance to another worker.
Proposed Sec. 1918.102 refers to Sec. 1918.1(b)(12), which adopts
by reference OSHA's General Industry standard for respiratory
protection (Sec. 1910.134). The shipboard cargo handling environment is
not unique in the selection or use of respiratory protection.
In proposed Sec. 1918.103, the Agency requires that employees whose
heads are exposed to hazards associated with impact or electric shocks
or burns be equipped with and be required to wear protective hats that
meet the design requirements (evidenced by marking or labeling) of
American National Standard Requirements for Protective Head Wear for
Industrial Workers (ANSI Z89.1-1986). It also requires that cleaning
and disinfection be performed when reissued to another worker.
Proposed Sec. 1918.104 addresses foot protection, requiring that
employees exposed to impact or puncture hazards wear safety footwear
meeting the design requirements of the American National Standard for
Personal Protection--Protective Footwear. ANSI Z41-1991.
In this rulemaking, OSHA also proposes to update the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) references that are in the Marine
Terminal standard so that they are the same as in the proposed
Longshoring standard; Sec. 1917.91 (Eye protection); Sec. 1917.93 (Head
protection); and Sec. 1917.94 (Foot protection).
In proposed Sec. 1918.105, other forms of protective measures for
personnel are addressed. In summary, OSHA adopts a general approach to
all additional protective clothing which requires that the employer
provide and see to the proper use of all such measures. The Agency
would require that all additional protective clothing be cleaned and
disinfected before reissuance. It notes, however, that some types of
equipment, such as disposable coveralls, require no cleaning or
disinfection since they are single use items and discarded once used.
Also, in some instances protective clothing may be issued, but because
never worn or soiled, necessitates no further sanitary measures.
Personal flotation devices would be provided by the employer and
required for all employees whose work exposes them to falls into the
water in any of the following circumstances: when they are working in
isolation (such as when adjusting by oneself mooring lines of a small
craft abreast of a larger vessel); where physical constraints posed by
limited working or walking area creates a fall hazard (such as when
securing lines at the outboard edge of a barge having a narrow fore and
aft walkway, or where the work area is obstructed by cargo or other
obstacles in a manner that does not allow employees safe footing (such
as when securing boom tie-downs at the outboard edge of a floating
crane whose deck is congested with auxiliary hoisting equipment). OSHA
is also proposing to add that personal flotation devices be worn by
employees that are doing any work on the deck of a barge. There are
numerous incidents of drowning which have occurred when employees have
fallen overboard from a barge. Often these falls from a barge occur in
the river system, where rapid currents increase the danger of drowning
(Exs. 1-103, Case Nos. 13, 17, 18, 72, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 101,
130, 136, 139, 143). OSHA feels that the danger of falling overboard
while working on the deck of a barge (as opposed to working on the deck
of a ship where the edge of the deck generally is guarded by a bulwark
and railing) is sufficiently great as to add this proposed language.
All personal flotation devices would be required to be a Coast Guard
approved preserver or vest, and would be expected to be maintained in a
safe and serviceable condition (no rips, rot or punctures and all
closure devices in good order).
In all cases, it is clearly not enough just to have PPE available;
the equipment needs to be used. The standard requires the employer to
enforce the wearing of each type PPE whenever it is needed.
Appendices I, II, and III
Appendix I is a non-mandatory appendix that sets out the format of
vessel cargo gear registers and certificates, under the terms of ILO
Convention 152 (Ex. 1-33), discussed earlier in reference to
Sec. 1918.11. Major changes from the original ILO Convention 32 (Ex. 1-
34), include a new Form (Form No. 2 (U) which is a certificate issued
by a ``competent person'' (most often a surveyor under the employ of a
vessel classification society or inspection surety service) that
contains the results of testing and examination of derricks used in
union purchase.
In the case of foreign flagged ship's gear with which U.S.longshore
workers load or discharge cargo, OSHA acts in the role of the
``competent authority'' in determining which ``competent person(s)''/
``responsible person(s)'' are in fact qualified to witness tests/exams
and execute certificates and registers. For this purpose, as a
practical matter, OSHA recognizes persons and organizations acceptable
to the Nation under whose laws the particular vessel is registered. In
the event that a given flag has no laws that specifically apply (Ex. 1-
91), OSHA would rely upon the vessel having a register and certificates
endorsed by an entity approved for that purpose by the Commandant of
the U.S. Coast Guard (see 46 CFR 91.37) or, alternately, an
organization accredited by OSHA under part 1919 of this chapter (see
proposed Sec. 1918.11). Another significant change from the original
Convention, is the interval between tests of cargo handling gear. Such
gear, under the terms of Convention 32, was required to be tested (for
the assignment of a safe working load) initially before being taken
into use. Because OSHA's current rule adopts the testing and
examination requirements for vessel's cargo gear contained in
Convention 32 (see Sec. 1918.12(a) of the current rules), the Agency
can presently require that such gear is initially tested but, absent
special circumstances, the gear is not required to be tested again. As
a practical matter, most vessels (those operating under the rules of
classification societies and international inspection services) have
been operating under a quadrennial test schedule. With the advent of
Convention 152, the international standard has shifted to ``at least
once in every five years,'' giving latitude to all organizations
desiring to maintain the four year cycle. In proposing to stay in step
with the international standard, OSHA offers this Appendix to assist
employers and employees in correctly ascertaining the form and content
of registers and certificates prescribed for in the newer Convention.
Appendix II, which is also non-mandatory, is offered as an aid to
employers and employees in arriving at strength values of various
pieces of gear used aboard ship in longshoring operations. Although the
primary source for information on component gear strength is ``the
manufacturer's recommendations'' or ``the manufacturer's recommended
ratings,'' the Agency appreciates that instances will arise wherein
such recommendations or ratings will not be available (such as when
some preslung cargoes are to be discharged from foreign ports). In such
instances, proposed Appendix contains tables which can be used to
evaluate hoisting equipment. Many of the tables appearing in this
Appendix are taken directly from the latest American National Standard
(ASME B30.9-1990 and addenda titled, Slings) (Ex. 1-148). The balance
of the tables (those for allowable chain wear; shackle safe working
loads; and wire rope clips) are derived from an amalgam of other OSHA
rules for Longshoring, Construction (Sec. 1926.251), and General
Industry (Sec. 1910.184). These tables have been carefully assessed by
OSHA as to their appropriateness for cargo handling applications, and
the Agency believes that they will serve as fully protective criteria.
Appendix III, which is also non-mandatory, recognizes that, in some
very limited situations, the use of fall protection may be infeasible.
OSHA has listed two narrowly defined situations where it feels that
fall protection may not be feasible. OSHA solicits comment from the
public regarding the appropriateness of these two examples and whether
there are additional examples of infeasibility. In addition, OSHA would
consider this as an appropriate place to include any other advisory
information regarding container top safety and solicits comments
accordingly.
VI. Proposed Amendments and Corrections To Marine Terminal
Standards
Several of the proposed amendments to the Longshoring standard
(part 1918) address marine cargo handling hazards that should be
reflected by a corresponding provision in the Marine Terminal standard
(part 1917). For example, both parts currently do not explicitly
prohibit employees from riding the hook or the load. By contrast,
proposed Sec. 1918.81(l) prohibits this practice as does proposed
Sec. 1917.45(l). The basis for this prohibition is discussed above. For
the purposes of this discussion, when the basis for a proposed
amendment is treated in the preamble above, it is not necessary to
repeat it here. OSHA is requesting comment from the public on proposed
amendments to Marine Terminals (part 1917) standards.
A new paragraph (d) has been added to Sec. 1917.11 that addresses
the hazards associated with protruding nails that may be left in
materials, such as dunnage, that have ben removed from the vessels and
placed ashore. This paragraph has been taken from language that is in
the current Longshoring regulations and is in the proposal at
Sec. 1918.91(h)(2).
Currently in both parts, the allowable exposure limits for carbon
monoxide is 50 ppm over an 8-hour time weighted average with a ceiling
of 100 ppm. OSHA is proposing to change the 8-hour time weighted
average to 35 ppm while leaving the ceiling limit at 100 ppm. This
change is reflected in both proposed parts in Secs. 1918.94 and
1917.24. (See above.)
In another example, currently in both Secs. 1918.96 and 1917.26,
the contents of a first-aid kit are specifically listed. In proposed
Sec. 1918.96, however, the contents of a first-aid kit are to be
determined by a physician. OSHA feels that the proposed part 1918
standard is more protective and proposes to amend Sec. 1917.26 to be
consistent. OSHA would also incorporate into part 1917 the more
extensive provisions that are found in proposed Sec. 1918.96 pertaining
to the requirements for stokes basket stretchers.
In Sec. 1917.45(j)(2), OSHA is proposing to require that all cranes
used to hoist personnel be equipped with and operate in the power up
and power down mode and have the brake apply automatically when not
hoisting or lowering. This is consistent with proposed
Sec. 1918.66(c)(2).
OSHA is proposing a new requirement in Sec. 1917.50(i)(1), that
prohibits exceeding the safe working load of cargo handing gear which
is similar to language found in proposed Sec. 1918.61(b)(1). OSHA is
also proposing a new requirement in Sec. 1917.50(i)(2), which requires
the safe working load be marked on cargo handling gear with a safe
working load greater than 5 short tons. This proposal is similar to
proposed Sec. 1918.61(b)(2). See the discussion on these proposed
requirements in the preamble for Sec. 1918.61.
In Sec. 1917.71(e), OSHA is proposing to allow only high-visibility
vests (or equivalent protection) to be worn and remove the words
``decals or reflectors.'' This would be in agreement with proposed
Sec. 1918.86(n). As indicated above, the reflective area of a decal on
a hard hat is obviously less than that of a vest. Also, the reflective
value is lost during daylight hours or whenever the wearer takes off
the hard hat. A number of serious accidents (Exs. 1-78, 1-89) have
occurred in the past due to the nature of the work involved in such
cargo operations. Additionally, OSHA is proposing to amend the language
found in Sec. 1917.71(f)(5) to reflect the language found in proposed
Sec. 1918.86(f), which requires that all brake air-lines be connected
when pulling trailers equipped with air brakes.
OSHA is proposing to change Sec. 1917.73(a)(2) to read 10 ppm of
hydrogen sulfide to agree with proposed Sec. 1918.94(f)(4). As recently
as 1987, a hydrogen sulfide incident aboard a menhaden vessel led to
serious injury and a fatality (Ex. 1-80). (See discussion of this for
1918.94(f) in Section V of this proposal).
OSHA proposes to carry over to Sec. 1917.71 the provision found in
proposed Sec. 1918.86(g) that requires that flat bed and low boys
trailers (mafi's) be marked with their cargo capacities and not be
overloaded.
OSHA also seeks public comment on two proposed rules to be included
in the Marine Terminal standard that do not have analogous rules in the
proposed Longshoring standard. First, OSHA proposes to require that
seat (lap) belt restraints be installed in the crane operators seat in
high-speed container gantry cranes. High speed container gantry cranes
are now capable of hoist speeds of 360 feet per minute (110 m/min)
(without a load) and trolley speeds of 500 feet per minute (152 m/min).
OSHA is concerned that the operator may be exposed to potentially
injurious effects of sudden stops and starts (Ex. 1-133). OSHA believes
that operator restraints will minimize the hazard and seeks comment
from the public on this issue.
In the case of shipments of tobacco that have been containerized
and then fumigated, OSHA is proposing, in Sec. 1917.25(g), that such
containers be aerated (before being loaded on a ship) as follows: (1)
If in unsealed bales or in hogsheads, aerated (with doors open) for 48
hours after fumigation has been completed, and, (2) if contained in a
plastic enclosure, aerated (with doors open) for 72 hours. In proposing
these requirements, OSHA relies on studies performed by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service (Ex. 1-70).
These studies concluded that intermodal containers so treated required
48 to 72 hours aeration to be free of hazardous fumigant levels. Past
and recent communications (Ex. 1-95) with the Tobacco Association of
the United States, also show that organization in accord with the 72-
hour aeration required for tobacco shipped in polyethylene or similarly
lined boxes carried in intermodal containers.
Upon the publication of the final Marine Terminal standard, several
technical drafting amendments were treated in the preamble that were
not consistently picked up in the subsequent regulatory text. OSHA is
now proposing that these amendments be made. Several paragraphs have
been corrected by removing the phrase, ``The employer shall
ensure...'', from the beginning of the paragraph. See the discussion
for this in 48 FR 30888-30889. The paragraphs that have been corrected
in this manner are: Secs. 1917.18(a); 1917.43(e)(1)(i);
1917.44(o)(3)(ii); 1917.44(o)(4); 1917.126(b); 1917.152(f)(1);
1917.152(f)(2) and 1917.152(f)(3)(iv). In addition, several paragraphs
are being proposed to be revised by changing the phrase, ``shall be
available at the terminal'' to the phrase, ``shall be made available
for inspection''. See the discussion for this in 48 FR 30889. The
proposed paragraphs that reflect this change are: Secs. 1917.24(d),
1917.25.(c), 1917.42(b)(4), 1917.42(c)(1), 1917.42(d)(1),
1917.42(h)(4), and 1917.42(h)(5).
OSHA is also aware of several typographical errors that are in the
current 29 CFR part 1917 and intends to correct those in this
rulemaking. For example, one of these corrections is in Sec. 1917.42. A
square root sign has been added to the formula found in paragraph
(d)(2), correcting an error that is in the current formula. OSHA seeks
public comment on any other areas in the Marine Terminal standard that
are affected because of the changes proposed to the Longshoring
standard in this rulemaking.
VII. Other Issues
A. OSHA is raising the issue of the possible harmful effects of
diesel exhaust on employees, especially those employees who work Ro/Ro
vessels where exposure to such exhaust is probably the greatest. OSHA
is aware that studies have been done concerning the effects of diesel
exhaust by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) in the
mining industry. OSHA is not aware of any studies relating to the
longshoring industry, (although the International Cargo Handling and
Coordination Association (ICHCA) is in the process of drafting a paper
entitled ``Fumes in Ships'', which will address this topic), and
requests the public to submit pertinent information. OSHA requests
information of the following: 1. What are the health effects of diesel
exhaust? 2. What are the typical timeframes where employees are exposed
to diesel exhaust? 3. Is mechanical ventilation sufficient to eliminate
any harmful effects? 4. What other methods can be employed to reduce
any harmful effects?
B. OSHA is aware of the problem of picking up the chassis and fifth
wheel along with the container due to the failure of the container and
chassis to separate during a loading operation. This is due to one or
more of the chassis's twistlocks being in the locked position or one or
more of the twist locks ``hanging up'' while in the unlocked position.
Unfortunately, the driver of the fifth wheel is in the cab as it is
being lifted and often sustains injuries when the cab and chassis fall
back to the ground before the crane operator can lower everything back
down. OSHA requests information on the following questions: 1) How
frequently does this problem occur;? 2) OSHA believes this is primarily
a problem on the West Coast. Is this true and why;? 3) OSHA is aware of
several devices that have been developed to shut the crane down once
the device detects the fifth wheel being raised off the ground. OSHA
seeks information on the effectiveness of these devices in eliminating
the problem, and the cost to purchase and install these devices; 4) Are
there other ways to eliminate the problem, such as better
``monitoring'' of the chassis twistlocks under the hook through
training and work practices, or requiring the driver to get out of the
cab until the container is lifted clear of the chassis?
C. OSHA has long recognized the utility of comprehensive
occupational safety and health programs, and adopted non-mandatory
guidance for safety and health program management on January 26, 1989
(54 FR 3904). These guidelines were based on a distillation of safety
and health management practices used by employers that have implemented
successful comprehensive programs. The major elements OSHA identified
in the guidelines for effective occupational safety and health programs
are: 1) management commitment and employee involvement; 2) worksite
analysis to anticipate and identify potential hazards; 3) hazard
prevention and control; and 4) safety and health training.
Successfully implemented programs generally result in facilities
that have a lower incidence of occupationally related illnesses and
injuries. In particular, OSHA has found that companies which have
implemented comprehensive safety and health programs and are
participating in its Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP) have lost-
workday rates that range from one-fifth to one-third the rates
experienced by average worksites within their industrial
classification. In addition, participating sites have reported improved
employee morale, product quality, and productivity as some of the
secondary benefits of their safety and health management activities.
Occupational safety and health standards and guidelines, whether
mandatory or developed as voluntary consensus activities, traditionally
have tended to focus on specific problems or hazards rather than taking
a broad, program-oriented approach.In recent years, however, OSHA has
promulgated a number of generic standards that have program
requirements. There is now increasing evidence that a requirement for
all employers to address occupational safety and health
programmatically can provide an effective supplement to specific
hazard-related requirements, and provides an added degree of safety and
health for employees.
Properly designed and implemented comprehensive programs focus the
attention of both employers and employees on safety and health in the
workplace. With increased awareness of safety and health concerns, and
the commitment to alleviate the hazards by implementing appropriate
controls, workplace-related safety and health injuries and illnesses
are expected to decrease.
While the specific elements of existing comprehensive occupational
safety and health (COSH) programs may vary, the general concept is the
same. COSH programs are designed to coordinate and integrate all facets
of occupational safety and health into the management practices for the
facility. Rather than addressing problems on a one-by-one basis,
implementation of a COSH program requires company management to
systematically review all hazards in the facility, and develop a plan
to prevent or control them. All employees of the facility must be
involved in the development and implementation of the plan, and there
must be a company-wide commitment to controlling or eliminating
occupational safety and health problems. The program is implemented on
a continuing basis, that is, there are provisions for ensuring that the
situation in the facility is monitored on a regular basis to ensure
that the program is working. Program evaluation activities to assess
effectiveness are also part of the concept.
The logic of this approach is simple--prevent adverse effects from
occurring by identifying hazards, and implementing a plan to eliminate
or minimize them. By doing this systematically, resources are not
duplicated or wasted, and a coordinated, integrated strategy can be
implemented. Effective functioning of such a program depends largely on
the commitment and involvement of all members of the organization,
beginning with the highest level of management.
OSHA believes the COSH program approach can be applied in any
establishment, and in any size facility. The complexity of the specific
program in a particular establishment will depend on the nature of the
business, the number of employees, and the types of hazards present.
While the basic components of a COSH program would be the same in, for
example, a marine terminal and an automobile manufacturing plant shop,
the methods used to implement them would vary based on the different
needs of the facilities. Every type and size of establishment should
nevertheless have a systematic approach to addressing occupational
safety and health concerns. All workplaces, from office situations to
health care facilities, restaurants to stevedoring operations, can
benefit from the development and implementation of an appropriate COSH
program.
Request for Comments and Information
OSHA is raising this issue to solicit public input on COSH
programs. The Agency is particularly interested in learning about the
experiences of employers who have already implemented such programs,
and those of employees who work in facilities where these programs have
been implemented. The purpose of collecting these comments is to
determine whether OSHA should adopt mandatory requirements for
comprehensive occupational safety and health programs; what the
components of such programs should be; what problems employers have had
in implementing such programs, and what can be done to alleviate those
problems; the benefits of implementing COSH programs; methods that can
be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs; the costs and
economic feasibility of such programs; the impacts on small businesses;
and suggestions regarding existing OSHA rules that could be
consolidated or modified as a result of promulgating requirements for
mandatory COSH programs.
Format of Questions and Responses
The specific questions asked are designed to elicit the information
OSHA believes would be helpful in determining appropriate elements for
COSH programs in longshoring work. The questions are in some cases
directed towards specific audiences, such as employers who have
implemented programs. Other questions have more general applicability.
Interested persons may also submit other information or opinions which
they believe are relevant.
OSHA asks that commenters respond to the specific questions
enumerated, and to number responses in accordance with the number of
the question to which the response is addressed. In addition, it would
also be helpful for OSHA to receive copies of written materials to
supplement these responses, such as copies of written programs,
examples of forms used, and sample evaluations.
1) OSHA would like to receive information and data regarding the
respondents to this notice in order to properly profile the responses.
If you are submitting comments in response to this notice on behalf of
an employer or group of employers that have implemented a COSH program,
or employee or group of employees working in such a facility, please
provide the following specific information. If you are not one of
either of these groups, please indicate your role or relation to COSH
programs.
a) The size of the facility by number of employees;
b) When the program was implemented;
c) Why the program was implemented (e.g., voluntary decision, state
requirements, insurance carrier's requirements, etc.);
d) What the major components of the existing program are;
e) What the initial and annual costs of implementing each of these
components have been, and how you derived these costs;
f) What resources have been required to operate the programs; and,
g) What cost savings, illness or injury reductions, or other
benefits (e.g., changes in productivity, absenteeism, turnover,
insurance, etc.) have accrued due to implementation of the program, and
how you derived these benefits.Components of a COSH Program
As described above, OSHA has published and distributed guidelines
for safety and health management programs which include four major
elements. OSHA would like comments on whether these elements are
appropriate; whether more specific information should be provided
regarding what should be addressed under each of these elements; and
what other elements may be appropriate for inclusion in COSH programs.
Management commitment and employee involvement. The first element
included in the guidelines is management commitment and employee
involvement, or management leadership. Management commitment is
expected to be stated in a worksite policy which outlines the
organization's priority on safety and health, and indicates who has
primary responsibility for implementation of various aspects of the
policy. Other facets of this element include establishing and
communicating clear goals and objectives for the program; providing
visible management involvement; ensuring employee involvement;
providing adequate authority and resources for those responsible;
holding those responsible accountable; ensuring contract workers are
protected; and reviewing and evaluating the program at least annually.
2) Please comment on the inclusion of management commitment and
employee involvement as a major element of a COSH program.It has been
OSHA's experience and that there is no situation where these
considerations are inappropriate.
3) Is this a common program component? How is it implemented? Is
the program integrated into the overall management of the workplace?
How well does this work?
4) Who is responsible for managing the program? What skills and
knowledge must this person have to be the program manager? What is the
role of the President or Chief Executive Officer? The facility manager?
The supervisor? The employee? Do performance evaluations include an
assessment of performance with regard to safety and health? Are
managers and employees held accountable for safety and health
performance? How?
5) Are written policy statements prepared and distributed? Please
provide examples. Are there situations where a program can operate
effectively without having a written plan?
6) What was the primary motivation for implementing the program
(e.g., voluntary, state requirements)? Have insurance companies
encouraged adoption of COSH programs? How was this done?
7) How is employee involvement ensured in existing programs? Are
labor-management committees used? If so, please provide details about
how the committees are formed and are operating. What other suggestions
do you have for ensuring employee involvement?
8) How are existing programs evaluated to determine whether or not
they are effective? Are worksite program audits conducted? What do the
audits include? How often are workplace conditions reevaluated after
the initial assessment? Please provide copies of any evaluation
procedures that may be available. What are the criteria for determining
that the program is or is not effective? What type of evidence is
required to demonstrate that each program element has been implemented?
Is the program integrated into the overall management of the workplace?
9) Have any problems been encountered in implementing this element
in existing programs? If so, how were these problems solved? Is the
guidance provided in the voluntary guidelines sufficient to implement
this element appropriately? What other information would be useful?
Worksite analysis. The second element in the guidelines is worksite
analysis. Employers must identify all worksite hazards by conducting an
initial and subsequent periodic comprehensive baseline worksite surveys
for safety and health. The surveys would vary by the type of workplace,
and the nature of the hazards present, but would include an assessment
of both safety and health hazards. Examples of situations that would
have to be assessed would include: exposure to chemicals; exposure to
noise, radiation, or other physical hazards; ergonomics hazards;
procedures to handle chemicals that have physical effects such as
flammability and reactivity; machine guarding; shoring of trenches; and
potential for falls. Programs must include provisions for regular
worksite inspections to determine if existing controls are working, and
to identify uncontrolled hazards; investigations of accidents, or other
unusual incidents; analysis of planned and new facilities, processes,
materials and equipment; job hazard analysis; an employee hazard
reporting system; and analysis of injury and illness trends.
10) Do existing programs you are familiar with include worksite
analysis? How is it implemented, and who is responsible for doing it?
Please provide examples of how this element is being implemented in
existing programs. What criteria are used to determine what hazards are
present? Are there OSHA standards, guidelines, or other documents you
can recommend to assist employers? What do you consider to be the most
significant hazard in the workplace?
11) Do existing programs include chemical exposure assessments as
part of the worksite analysis process? Should further guidance be
provided for exposure assessment? What criteria for exposure assessment
are used in existing programs? Is exposure monitoring conducted? What
criteria are used to determine when monitoring is to be done? Who is
performing exposure monitoring? What training or background did they
have to prepare them for this? Are other types of hazards subject to
monitoring (such as noise, radiation)? What criteria are used to
monitor these hazards?
12) Do existing programs include an ergonomics component? How are
ergonomics problems identified? What criteria are used? Who does the
evaluation, and what is their relevant training or background?
13) Has any illness/injury trend analysis been undertaken in
facilities with COSH programs? What have the trends shown? What action
was taken as a result of the findings? Please provide any trend data
you have to demonstrate the effect of such programs.
14) What problems have been encountered in implementing this
element in existing programs? How were these problems solved? Is the
guidance provided in the voluntary guidelines sufficient to implement
this element appropriately? What other information would be useful?
Hazard prevention and control. Once the hazards have been
identified, the third element the COSH program must address is hazard
prevention and control. The current and potential hazards must be
corrected or controlled in a timely manner, using engineering
techniques where feasible and appropriate.Procedures for working safely
are to be established, and all affected parties must understand and
follow them. Personal protective equipment is to be made available
where appropriate; administrative controls are to be used when
necessary; provision is to be made for repair and maintenance of
equipment; emergency preparedness is to be addressed; and a medical
program must be available.
15) Do existing programs you are familiar with include hazard
prevention and control? How is it implemented, and who is responsible
for doing it? Please provide examples of how this element is being
implemented in existing programs. In particular, please provide any
available information about how hazards and risks are defined, and how
risk reduction goals are set. Who decides what control measures are
implemented? What criteria are used? Does the program include an
evaluation of occupational safety and health implications when new
facilities, processes, materials, or equipment are planned?
16) Do existing programs include standard operating procedures for
repair and maintenance?
17) Are their programs for emergency preparedness? If so, how are
they compiled and made available? Is there a plan for emergency
response? If so, what types of emergencies are addressed? Please
provide samples of your standard operating procedures and emergency
preparedness and response plans.
18) Is a medical program available? What is the scope of the
program, e.g. does it cover assessments related to workplace
conditions, wellness programs, etc.? Are medical services provided in-
house, or are they contracted out? What types of health professionals
are involved in delivering occupational health services? What are their
respective roles and what is their relevant training or background?
19) Does the medical program include preplacement medical
surveillance? Periodic medical surveillance? What criteria are used to
determine what surveillance is done? Who decides what surveillance is
to be done? Are medical records reviewed to determine if there are
trends in injuries and illnesses? Who conducts the review? What is done
with the results?
20) Have problems been encountered in implementing this element in
existing programs? If so, how were these problems solved? Is the
guidance provided in the voluntary guidelines sufficient to implement
this element appropriately? What other information would be useful?
Safety and health training. The last major element in the voluntary
guidelines for COSH programs is safety and health training. In order to
ensure that the program works effectively, all employees must be
trained to understand the safety and health concerns in their
workplace; the plan to minimize or eliminate those concerns; and their
roles in implementation of the plan. This includes training for those
in supervisory or management roles. Responsibilities must be clearly
described, and the lines of authority appropriately drawn. OSHA has
published Voluntary Training Guidelines to provide employers with
information about designing and implementing an appropriate safety and
health training program. (See Training Requirements in OSHA Standards
and Training Guidelines, OSHA 2254 (Revised), 1992.)
21) Do existing programs include safety and health training? How is
it implemented, and who is responsible for performing and implementing
it? Please provide examples of how this element is being implemented in
existing programs, including the type of training, such as classroom
instruction, on-the-job work practices training, videotapes, or
interactive videos. Does the type of training vary with the type of
operation? Have OSHA's Voluntary Training Guidelines been used in
designing and implementing the safety and health training program?
22) Is safety and health training conducted prior to workplace
assignment? What does it include in this situation? Are training
requirements for various programs combined into one training program?
Approximately how long does the initial training take for managers? For
supervisors? For other workers? Is periodic training conducted? How
often? How long does periodic training take? What is included in the
periodic training?
23) Do you have workers who are subject to training certification
requirements? How has this worked?
24) Is the training evaluated to determine whether or not it is
effective? How is this done?
25) What qualifications do the trainers have?
26) Have problems been encountered in implementing this element in
existing programs? If so, how were these problems solved? Is the
guidance provided in the voluntary guidelines sufficient to implement
this element appropriately? What other information would be useful?
Issues Related to Regulation
If OSHA determines that it would be appropriate to promulgate a
standard for COSH programs, there are a number of other issues which
will have to be addressed. Comments from the public are solicited on
the following:
27) Should the voluntary guidelines OSHA issued in 1989 be the
primary basis for any future regulatory activity in this area? Based on
your experiences, what modifications to the guidelines would be
necessary in order for OSHA to use them as a basis for regulation? Are
there additional elements that should be included in a COSH program?
What other information do you think employers would need to implement
an appropriate program?
28) The current guidelines are very generally written, and OSHA
believes they can be applied in any type of industry or workplace. Do
you think that industry-specific guidelines are required? If so, what
should the breakdown be, and what is the rationale for different
program requirements?
29) The current guidelines are also applicable to all sizes of
industries. Do you think that small businesses should be treated
differently? If so, why, and in what way?
30) It has been suggested that if OSHA promulgates requirements for
COSH programs, there are existing OSHA standards that could be revised,
modified, consolidated, or otherwise changed as a result. Without
diminishing employee protections under current OSHA standards, what
rules do you think could be reconsidered if the Agency promulgates a
new rule requiring COSH programs? Commenters are requested to be
specific, and provide the rationale for any suggestions.
31) If OSHA promulgates a rule for COSH programs, what type of
outreach or compliance assistance materials would you suggest be made
available to employers? What would be the most effective way for OSHA
to reach small employers who do not belong to trade associations or
professional societies?
D. OSHA is aware of the increased usage of Flexible Intermediate
Bulk Containers (FIBC's) which are used to handle bulk chemical solids.
Some of the FIBC's are designed only to be used for one voyage while
others are designed for repeated usage. OSHA wishes to know: 1) What
means are used to mark and identify the one use only type of FIBC, and
are they adequate? and 2) What are the current industry practices
regarding the testing of FIBC's and should OSHA incorporate them into
this regulation?
E. OSHA issued a standard for the control of hazardous energy
sources (lockout/tagout) that applied to general industry employment
under 29 CFR part 1910 as Sec. 1910.147 (54 FR 36645). This standard
addresses practices and procedures that are necessary to disable
machinery or equipment and to prevent the release of potentially
hazardous energy while maintenance and servicing activities are being
performed. The standard requires that lockout be utilized for equipment
which is designed with a lockout capacity, and tagout may be used for
equipment which was not designed to be locked out. Servicing and
maintenance activities are necessary adjuncts to the industrial
process.They are needed to maintain the ability of all machines,
equipment, or processes to perform their intended functions. OSHA
believes that these types of operations present the employee with the
same types of hazards of unexpected activation, re-energization, or the
release of stored energy, regardless of the type of industrial setting.
For these reasons, OSHA is soliciting public comment regarding the
appropriateness of including ``The control of hazardous energy
(lockout/tagout)'' in the ``Scope and applicability'' sections of both
29 CFR part 1917 (Marine Terminals) and 29 CFR part 1918 (Longshoring).
While OSHA recognizes that marine terminal activities are more likely
to contain work operations where lockout/tagout hazards are present, it
also sees the potential to occur in some longshoring related
operations. OSHA wants to know: 1) should Sec. 1910.147 be included in
Marine Terminals and why or why not, and 2) should Sec. 1910.147 be
included in longshoring and why or why not?
F. As indicated earlier, OSHA contracted a safety expert, A. J.
Scardino, to conduct a study of the fall hazards associated with the
cargo handling of intermodal containers. (Ex. 1-139). The development
of the data, that was used in formulating the opinions and
recommendations of this study, involved the visiting and documentation
of the activities at 20 major ports in the United States. Those ports
were: Gulfport, MS, Houston, TX, Barbers Cut, TX, Galveston, TX, Miami,
FL, Miami River, FL, Port Everglade, FL, Charleston, SC, Savannah, GA,
Norfolk, VA, Portsmith, VA, Elizabeth, NJ, New Jersey, NJ, Long Beach,
CA, Los Angeles, CA, Seattle, WA, Tacoma, WA, Oakland, CA, San
Francisco, CA, Honolulu, HI. As part of the data gathering process the
contractor conferred with: members of the Technical Committee of the
National Maritime Safety Association, representatives of Labor
Associations, individual Stevedores, Longshore personnel, and Port
representatives.
Of the many areas of inquiry that resulted in positive
recommendations, the issue of the location of the fixed anchorage point
in relation to the working surface was addressed:
When feasible the attachment point of the fall protection system
shall be located ``above'' the head of the employee. Every effort
should be made to assure that the attachment point for the system is
located no lower than the vertical height position of the harness
``D'' ring. According to ``Humanscale 7a'', for the 50th percentile
male, this would be 1.4 meters (55.4 inches).
In support of this position, the study cites the National Safety
Council in its Accident Prevention Manual for Industrial Operations
9th. Edition (the Bible on Safety) states: (p. 347) ``A belt or harness
is worthless unless it is being worn at the time that a fall is
possible and attached to a lanyard or fall arrestor with an adequate
overhead anchorage.'' (Emphasis added; Id. p. 3.) In addition Mr.
Scardino indicates the importance of pre-exposure planning by citing
Best's Safety Directory 1994 Edition which states: (p634) ``A fixture
point above head height always should be planned.'' (Id.)(Ex. 1-153).
With regard to current practice, many fall protection systems in
use could meet the raised attachment requirement recommended by Mr.
Scardino ``* * * approximately 70 to 75% of the existing operations
that employ various fall protection techniques would be able to meet *
* *'' the requirement. (Id.) Some existing systems have attachments to
devices that are installed on the work surface. Recommendations
addressing these systems include:
The use of systems that are at foot level, thereby creating a
tripping hazard, should be discouraged. If these systems are to be
used, then, the components that make up the system should be of a
high visibility color. This field study further determined that
these systems were not reliable and created a sense of false
security.
While it is recognized that there is in existence, fall
protection that does not meet this criteria, steps should be taken
to meet these minimums within a three year period.
In light of these recommendations, OSHA wishes to raise an
additional issue. To what extent is it necessary and appropriate to add
an additional criteria to those found in Sec. 1918.85(k) requiring an
elevated anchorage point in order to assure worker safety.
VIII. Preliminary Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
Note: Numbered references that appear in brackets in this
Section VIII, Preliminary Regulatory Impact and Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, are to the References that appear at the end
of Section VIII.
A. Executive Summary
Introduction
Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act require
OSHA to analyze the costs, benefits, and other consequences and impacts
associated with proposed standards. Consistent with these requirements,
OSHA has prepared this regulatory impact analysis for the proposed
revisions to the Longshoring and Marine Terminals standards.
This analysis includes a description of the industries affected by
the regulation, an evaluation of the risks addressed, an assessment of
the benefits attributable to the proposed revisions, the determination
of the technological feasibility of the new requirements, the
estimation of the costs of compliance with proposed revisions, the
determination of the economic feasibility of compliance with the
proposed revisions, and an analysis of the economic and other impacts
associated with this rulemaking.
Affected Industries
The requirements of the proposed revisions apply to all
establishments involved in marine cargo handling. As classified by the
1987 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) manual, this industry
consists of establishments in SIC 4491 as well as establishments in
other SICs conducting marine cargo handling activities.
Evaluation of Risk and Potential Benefits
An estimated 7,593 injuries and 18 fatalities occur annually during
marine cargo handling activities. The proposed revisions to the
Longshoring and Marine Terminals standards are expected to result in
the prevention of 1,262 injuries and 3 fatalities, annually. Many
additional fatalities and injuries would be prevented through full
compliance with existing requirements retained in the proposed
standards. Most of the injuries occurring during marine cargo handling
activities could be prevented through compliance with the existing as
well as with the proposed standards. In addition to the unquantifiable
benefits associated with the reduction in pain and suffering associated
with these incidents, the prevention of these injuries will result in
savings of over $18 million dollars, annually. This estimate includes
savings related to wage and productivity losses, medical costs,
administrative expenses, and other costs associated with accidents.
Technological Feasibility
Since the proposed requirements can be met using existing equipment
and methods, the proposed new requirements are considered to be
technologically feasible.
Costs
The estimated costs associated with the proposed revisions to the
Longshoring and Marine Terminals standards amount to less than $4.7
million for the first year and less than $1.8 million, annually, after
the first year. These costs primarily reflect the sum of various minor
expenditures associated with modifications to existing standards. New
provisions involving compliance costs include requirements for
sideboards on dockboards and ramps, required certification of fall
protection systems, requirements for the vertical application of
lifting forces to containers, requirements for high visibility vests,
and requirements to provide personal flotation devices, among others.
Economic Impacts
Compliance with the proposed new requirements of the Longshoring
and Marine Terminals standards has been determined to be economically
feasible and is not expected to produce any significant adverse
economic impacts. The costs that are imposed by the regulation should
be a minimal burden on marine cargo handling establishments. The total
estimated first-year costs of compliance represent less than 0.06
percent of revenues associated with marine cargo handling activities
and less than 1.19 percent of profits. Total annualized costs for
subsequent years represent less than 0.03 percent of revenues and 0.46
percent of profits.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, OSHA has made an
assessment of the impact of the revised standards and has concluded
that it would not have a significant impact upon a substantial number
of small entities. The estimated compliance costs do not involve large
capital expenditures, and there is no significant differential effect
on small firms relative to that on large firms.
B. Industry Profile
Introduction
This section provides an overview of affected establishments,
classifications of affected vessels, population at risk, wages of
affected workers, gang sizes and cargo handling rates, operating
revenues and shipping costs.
Overview of Stevedoring and Marine Terminals
Marine terminals are designated areas of ports which include
wharves, bulkheads, quays, piers, docks and other berthing locations.
Adjacent storage or contiguous areas associated with the primary
movements of cargo or materials from vessel to shore or shore to
vessel, and structures devoted to receiving, handling, holding,
consolidating, loading or delivering waterborne shipments are
considered part of the marine terminal. Marine terminals are the
facilities owned or leased by stevedores or marine terminal operators
(MTOs). MTOs and stevedores provide most of the portside services that
shipping lines require. They provide the equipment and machinery for
conducting cargo handling at multi-use terminal facilities, in addition
to specialized terminals designed to handle specific types of cargo
[2].
Stevedores are persons or firms contracting with a ship owner or
agent for the purpose of loading or unloading ships or barges in ports.
Stevedores are direct employers of longshore labor and contractors to
ship owners. Basically, they are middlemen between the entity requiring
the service and the longshore workers who perform the physical labor.
The stevedore's role is to provide the cargo handling expertise and the
equipment required to load or unload all types of cargo safely and
efficiently.
The stevedore may also be the MTO. The functional roles and
activities of stevedores and MTOs vary throughout the United States and
often cannot be distinguished. The stevedore contractor and the MTO may
be distinctly different entities, the same entity, or corporately
related. In some cases, public entities or port authorities may be the
MTOs. These entities may also act as stevedores or lease the terminals
to private operators [2].
Workplaces Affected
Compliance with the proposed revisions to the Longshoring and
Marine Terminals standards will affect two areas where marine cargo
handling operations occur. Activities that occur off the dock (work
aboard vessels) are covered under OSHA's Longshoring standard (29 CFR
part 1918) and those which occur on the dock fall under the Marine
Terminals standard (29 CFR part 1917). The Longshoring standard covers
establishments classified under SIC 4491 (marine cargo handling), as
well as various establishments in manufacturing; transportation;
communications; electric, gas and sanitary services; and wholesale
trade.
Data on the exact number of stevedoring companies currently
operating in the United States are not available. For the purposes of
this analysis, the number of marine terminals estimated by the Maritime
Administration (MARAD) was used as the estimate of the total number of
firms affected by the Longshoring standard. According to MARAD, there
are a total of 3,700 marine terminals in the United States [4].
Establishments engaged primarily in marine cargo handling are
classified under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 4491, Marine
Cargo Handling. The Bureau of the Census estimated that 746
establishments are classified under SIC 4491 [7]. To identify other
affected industry sectors, Kearney/Centaur screened OSHA inspection
data for non-SIC 4491 sectors where 29 CFR part 1918 citations were
issued. Non-SIC 4491 establishments primarily engage in activities
other than longshoring, although longshore work is a small part of
their overall operation. For example, manufacturing establishments
which load their products directly onto barges are covered by the
OSHA's Longshoring standard, though these operations represent only a
very small part of their total activity. Kearney/Centaur estimated the
distribution of the remaining establishments among affected industry
sectors according to the distribution of non-SIC 4491 29 CFR part 1918
citations issued in other sectors. The estimated number of affected
establishments is shown in Table B-1 by industry and in Table B-2 by
region. Although only 20 percent of establishments affected by the
longshoring standard are in SIC 4491, the majority of affected workers,
as discussed below, are accounted for in SIC 4491.
Table B-1--Number of Affected Establishments, by Industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine
Longshoring Terminals
Industry 29 CFR part 29 CFR
1918 part 1917
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIC 4491--Marine Cargo Handling 746 746
Manufacturing 1660 N/A
Transportation, Communications, and Electric,
Gas and Sanitary Services 662 662
Wholesale Trade 273 161
Other SICs\1\ 359 359
TOTAL 3,700 1,928
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis,
based on Kearney/Centaur [1, Chapter 2].
\1\Other SICs include SIC 13 (Oil and Gas Extraction), SIC 15 (Building
Construction), and sectors under SIC 44 (Water Transportation) other
than SIC 4491.
Table B-2--Number of Affected Establishments, by Region
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine
Longshoring Terminals
Industry 29 CFR part 29 CFR
1918 part 1917
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic 586 305
Gulf/Mississippi 2,164 1,128
Great Lakes 301 157
Pacific 649 338
TOTAL 3,700 1,928
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis,
based on Kearney/Centaur [1, Chapter 2].
Of the industry sectors covered by the Longshoring standard, most
also fall under the scope of the Marine Terminals standard, with the
exception of manufacturing establishments and some wholesale trade
establishments. Approximately 1,928 of the 3,700 marine terminals
covered by the Longshoring standard are estimated to fall under the
scope of the Marine Terminals standard [1].
The stevedore/MTO typically hires longshore workers, usually on a
daily basis, from a hiring hall or labor pool of union or nonunion
members. Labor force size varies directly with the amount of work
contracted to be performed. This method of hiring creates difficulty in
determining the size of the affected establishments. No data were
available on the number of small stevedoring firms. To estimate the
number of small firms, the percent of establishments in SIC 4491
classified by the Bureau of the Census as employing fewer than 20
workers, is used. Fifty-six percent of affected establishments are
estimated to be small establishments [7].
Types of Vessels
This discussion describes the affected vessels calling at U.S.
marine terminals. The proposed rule will be applicable to five broad
vessel categories. Four of these categories are self-propelled vessels:
bulk carriers, freighters, combination passenger/cargo ships, and
cruise ships. The fifth category consists of non-self-propelled dry
cargo barges. Descriptions of these vessel categories, as well as
important subcategories, are presented in Tables B-3 and B-4. Tankers
and tanker barges are excluded since these vessels are primarily under
the jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast Guard.
Table B-3--Categories of Self-Propelled Vessels
Bulk Carriers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ships designed to carry dry bulk cargo such as ore, wood chips, coal,
and grain. They are also used to carry heavy general cargo items such
as logs or steel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freighters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Cargo Carriers Includes refrigerated and
unrefrigerated breakbulk carriers
as well as car carriers, cattle
carriers, pallet carriers, and
timber carriers. Breakbulk cargo
consists of heterogenous items of
general cargo, packaged and moved
as single parcels or assembled
together on pallet boards and wire
rope slings. These packages are
loaded and unloaded using ship's
gear or wharf cranes. Containers
are also carried on general cargo
carriers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Containerships Ships equipped with permanent below-
deck container cells with little
or no space for other types of
cargo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partial Containerships Multi-purpose ships where one or
more, but not all, compartments
are fitted with permanent
container cells. The remaining
compartments are used for other
types of cargo. Partial
containerships include container/
car carriers, container/rail car
carriers, and container/roll-on/
roll-off ships.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll-On/Roll-Off (RO-RO) Ships Ships which are specially designed
to carry wheeled containers or
container/trailer combinations,
automobiles, and other vehicles
which are loaded and unloaded
using the roll-on/roll-off method.
Containers are often carried on
the upper deck of RO-RO ships.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barge Carriers Ships designed to carry either
barges or some variable number of
barges and containers
simultaneously. Currently this
class includes two types of
vessels, the LASH (lighter aboard
ship) and the SEABEE. They differ
in that barges are loaded onto
LASH ships by crane and onto
SEABEE ships by a submersible
elevator at the stern of the
vessel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combination Passenger/Cargo Ships
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cargo ships with a capacity for 13 or more passengers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cruise Ships/Passenger Ships
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ships functioning primarily to transport passengers, usually for
purposes of recreation and tourism. Does not include passenger ferries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis,
based on Kearney/Centaur [1, Chapter 2].
Table B-4--Non-Self-Propelled Vessels
Dry Cargo Barges
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large mostly double hulled cargo holds lacking an internal means of
propulsion. Virtually all barges used on the inland river system are
195 feet long by 35 feet wide and have loaded drafts of up to nine
feet. Barges can carry virtually any dry cargo and have and average
capacity of 1,500 tons or about 52,500 bushels. Also classified as
barges are scows and ocean-going barges. These barges tend to be much
larger and have a higher freeboard than barges used on the inland river
system.
Barges are typically lashed together in groups referred to as tows. The
standard tow on most navigable rivers is three barges wide by five
barges long for a total of 15 barges. Tow sizes, however, vary by
waterway with tows as large as 45 barges on the lower Mississippi and
as small as two barges on the intracoastal waterway. Tows are usually
propelled by a towboat pushing them ahead, though occasionally they are
moved by a towboat pulling them on a hawser.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Hopper Barges used primarily for dry bulk
cargo, such as sand, gravel,and
coal, which are not suseptible to
weather damage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Covered Hopper Barges used for grain and other
commodities that need to be
protected from the weather.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scows and Ocean-Going Barges Barges which generally carry most
of their cargo on deck.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deck Barges Barges used for transporting
vehicles and heavy equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Container Barges Barges used to transport
standardized container cargo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis,
based on Kearney/Centaur [1, Chapter 2].
Self-Propelled Vessels
Table B-5 shows the number of self-propelled vessels of 1,000 gross
tons (GTs) and over in the world fleet, by type of vessel. Of the 692
U.S. flag vessels, approximately two-thirds are privately owned and the
remaining one-third are Government owned. Only 11 of the 225 Government
owned vessels were active as of mid-1992 and were being used by several
Government agencies, state maritime academies, or private steamship
companies under various forms of agreement with the Maritime
Administration. All U.S. flag vessels are owned either by the
Government or U.S. firms. However, U.S. firms also own a substantial
number of merchant vessels that are registered under foreign flags. As
shown in Table B-5, 313 of the 23,549 foreign flag vessels are owned by
U.S. parent companies. Although no data were available on the total
number of self-propelled vessels in the world fleet of under 1,000 Gts,
data were available on the number of vessels calling at U.S. ports.
According to Bureau of the Census data [5], approximately 1,980 U.S.
flag and 9,593 foreign flag self-propelled vessels called at U.S. ports
in 1992.
Table B-5--Self-Propelled Vessels of 1,000 Gross Tons and Over in the World Fleet, 1992
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Flag Vessels Total Number Foreign Flag
Vessel Type ------------------------------------- of Foreign Vessels Owned by World Fleet
Private Government Total Flag Vessels U.S. Companies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bulk Carriers 92 1 93 5,449 47 5,542
Tankers 203 25 228 5,316 208 5,544
Total Freighters 167 192 359 12,222 55 12,581
Break Bulk Carriers 26 120 146 9,977 29 10,123
Containerships 83 9 92 1,198 15 1,290
Partial Containerships 17 35 52 110 0 162
Roll-On/Roll-Off 29 21 50 916 7 966
Barge Carriers 12 7 19 21 4 40
Combination Passenger/Cargo 3 7 10 337 3 347
Cruise Ships/Passenger
Ships 2 0 2 225 N/A 227
TOTAL 467 225 692 23,549 313 24,241
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on Kearney/Centaur [1, Chapter 2].
Non-Self-Propelled Vessels
The total number of non-self-propelled vessels is shown in Table B-
6. Of the 31,017 non-self propelled vessels, 87 percent are dry cargo
barges, 13 percent are tanker barges, and less than 1 percent are
railroad car floats. Nearly 86 percent of all non-self-propelled
vessels in the United States operate on the domestic river and
intracoastal waterway system and carry nearly all of the waterborne
cargo transported on the inland waterways. Thirteen percent of the non-
self-propelled vessels (4,158 vessels) in the United States operate on
the Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific coasts. The remaining 1 percent of non-
self-propelled vessels operate in the Great Lakes.
Table B-6--Non-Self-Propelled Vessels in the U.S. (as of December 31, 1990)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic, Gulf and
Vessel Type Pacific Coasts Inland Waterways\1\ Great Lakes Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dry Cargo Barges 3,500 23,320 271 27,091
Tanker Barges 652 3,231 30 3,913
Railroad Car Floats 6 2 5 13
TOTAL 4,158 26,553 306 31,017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on Kearney/Centaur [1, Chapter 2].
\1\Includes Mississippi River System, the Gulf and Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and the Columbia/Snake River
System.
Containers and Container-Carrying Vessels
Over recent years, there has been an increase in the volume of
containerized cargo handled. Containers are large, standard size metal
boxes, equipped with corner castings, into which cargo is packed for
shipment. Containers are designed to be moved with common handling
equipment enabling economical, high-speed intermodal transfers in large
units between ships, railcars, truck chassis, and barges, using a
minimum of labor. The container, therefore, serves as the transfer unit
rather than the cargo contained therein. Most containers in the U.S.
inventory are either 20-foot (6.1 m) containers (56 percent) or 40-foot
containers (12.2 m) (42 percent).
Containerships are vessels equipped with permanent container cells.
They have little or no space for other types of cargo. Partial
containerships are multi-purpose ships where one or more, but not all,
compartments are fitted with permanent container cells. The remaining
compartments are used for other types of cargo. Several other types of
vessels also carry containers.
Table B-7 presents the number of liner service container-carrying
vessels calling at U.S. ports by type of vessel, flag of vessel (U.S.
or foreign), and container capacity.
Table B-7--Number and Container Capacity of Liner Service Container Carrying Vessels Calling at U.S. Ports, 1992
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Vessels Container Capacity in TEUs\1\
Vessel Type --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Foreign Flag Total U.S. Foreign Flag Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bulk/Containership 0 106 106 0 130,279 130,279
Containership 83 510 593 183,358 1,126,341 1,309,699
RO-RO/Containership 7 36 43 10,031 51,584 61,615
Partial Containership 17 135 152 7,422 58,961 66,383
Barge Carrier 11 0 11 6,940 0 6,940
Other
Break Bulk N/A N/A 11 N/A N/A 3,161
RO/RO\2\ 29 75 104 28,509 73,748 102,257
TOTAL 147 862 1,020\3\ 236,260 1,440,913 1,680,334\4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on Kearney/Centaur [1, Chapter 2].
\1\TEU - Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit: equal to the capacity of a 20x8x8 foot container.
\2\Includes 13 RO-RO tug/barge combinations.
\3\Number of U.S. and foreign flag vessels does not add to the total shown since a breakdown of the number of
break bulk carriers between U.S. and foreign flag fleets was not available.
\4\The container capacity of U.S. and foreign flag vessels does not add to the total shown since a breakdown of
the container capacity of break bulk carriers between U.S. and foreign flag fleets was not available.
Vessels in liner service operate on fixed routes to advertised
ports on published schedules. As shown in the table, 1,020 container-
carrying liner service vessels with a total container capacity of
approximately 1.7 million TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent units) called at
U.S. ports in 1992. Virtually all containerships, partial
containerships, bulk/containerships, RO RO/containerships and barge
carriers are in liner service, and essentially, the entire container
capacity of these types of vessels are accounted for in liner services.
Break bulk freighters and RO-RO ships also carry containers. Although
RO-RO ships are generally in liner service, break bulk carriers are
not. Data on the number and container capacity of non-liner service
break bulk carriers were unavailable. However, based on the proportion
of container traffic accounted for by break bulk freighters, the
estimated number of voyages made annually to the United States by these
vessels, and their average container capacity, Kearney/Centaur
estimated that 544 non-liner service break bulk freighters with a
container capacity of 78,336 containers called at U.S. ports in 1992.
Combining the number of liner service and non-liner service
container-carrying vessels, OSHA therefore estimates that a total of
1,564 container-carrying vessels, with an overall container capacity of
1.76 million TEUs, call annually at U.S. ports [1].
Population at Risk
Based on employment data from the Bureau of the Census and OSHA
inspection data, approximately 93,427 workers are estimated to be
affected by the Longshoring standard, over 58 percent of which are
employed in SIC 4491. Kearney/Centaur estimated that about 70,140 of
these workers would also be covered by the Marine Terminals standard,
78 percent of which are in SIC 4491. Estimates of full-time equivalent
workers, as well as the population at risk are shown in Table B-8, by
industry and in Table B-9, by region.
Table B-8--Number of Full-Time Equivalent Workers and Population at Risk, by Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of FTE Workers Population at Risk Number of FTE Workers Population at Risk
Industry Covered by 29 CFR Covered by 29 CFR Covered by 29 CFR Covered by 29 CFR
part 1918\1\ part 1918 part 1917\1\ part 1917
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIC 4491--Marine
Cargo Handling 54,617 54,617 54,617 54,617
Manufacturing 18,700 21,811 N/A N/A
Transportation,
Communications, and
Electric, Gas and
Sanitary Services 7,467 8,705 7,467 8,705
Wholesale Trade 3,100 3,582 1,823 2,106
Other SICs\2\ 4,067 4,712 4,067 4,712
TOTAL 87,951 93,427 67,974 70,140
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on Kearney/Centaur [1, Chapter 2].
\1\The number of full-time equivalent (FTE) workers is based on a 1,436 hour which is the average number of
hours worked per year by longshore workers in SIC 4491.
\2\Other SICs include SIC 13 (Oil and Gas Extraction), SIC 15 (Building Construction), and other sectors under
SIC 44 (Water Transportation) other than SIC 4491.
Table B-9--Number of Full-Time Equivalent Workers and Population at Risk, by Region
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of FTE Workers Population at Risk Number of FTE Workers Population at Risk
Industry Covered by 29 CFR Covered by 29 CFR Covered by 29 CFR Covered by 29 CFR
part 1918\1\ part 1918 part 1917\1\ part 1917
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic 13,923 14,789 10,761 11,103
Gulf/Mississippi 51,451 54,655 39,765 41,032
Great Lakes 7,150 7,596 5,526 5,703
Pacific 15,426 16,387 11,922 12,302
TOTAL 87,950 93,427 67,974 70,140
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on Kearney/Centaur [1, Chapter 2].
\1\The number of full-time equivalent (FTE) workers is based on a 1,436 hour which is the average number of
hours worked per year by longshore workers in SIC 4491.
Gang Sizes and Cargo Handling Rates
Table B-10 summarizes the average stevedoring crew sizes by type of
operation. These estimates include both off-the-dock and dockside
workers directly involved in the loading or unloading of cargo. Average
cargo handling rates are also presented. Based on cargo handling rates,
and the types and total tonnages of cargo handled, Kearney/Centaur
estimated that approximately 54 million person-hours of exposure occur
during longshoring loading and unloading activities, annually.
Table B-10--Summary of Average Stevedoring Gang Size and Cargo Handling Rates, by Type of Loading and Unloading
Operation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Workers Average Cargo Handling Rate in Short Tons per:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation Off-the-Dock
Off-the- On-the-Dock On-Site Gang Hour Employee Work- Dockside Employee
Dock hour Work-hour
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Break Bulk 9 6 15 80.0 8.9 13.3
Container 8 9 17 232.9 29.1 25.9
Bulk Carrier/Conveyor
Loading 7 2 9 1,250.0 178.6 625.0
Bulk Carrier/Clam
Shell Unloading 2 3 5 250.0 125.0 83.3
RO-RO 25 4 29 90.0 3.6 22.5
Barge/Break Bulk 4 5 9 112.5 28.1 22.5
Barge/Conveyor Loading 2 3 5 168.8 84.4 56.3
Barge/Bulk-Clam Shell
Unloading 1 2 3 150.0 150.0 75.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on Kearney/Centaur [1, Chapter 2].
Wages
Wages of longshore workers vary among regions and ports.Two primary
factors account for this variation. First, local union contractual
agreements vary in wage rates, holidays, and other rules or benefits
which affect the wages and earnings of longshore workers. Second, the
number of hours worked per year varies by port and region, resulting in
variations in overtime wage payments. The average national wage rate of
longshore workers, including overtime and benefits, is estimated to be
$40.30 per hour. The average supervisor wage rate, including overtime
and benefits, is estimated at $50.78 [1].
Operating Revenues and Shipping Costs
Statistics on shipping costs were estimated based on vessel
operating revenue data for domestic water carriers compiled by The U.S.
Department of Transportation. Table B-11 presents operating revenues
and tonnage data, by region, for 1990.
As shown, operating revenues were nearly $3.0 billion for Coastal
regions, $2.9 billion for Inland waterways, and $0.6 billion for the
Great Lakes region. The operating revenues per ton of freight hauled
were $10.27, $4.57 and $5.33, respectively.
The cost for shipping a 40-foot (12.0 m) container with FAK
(freight-of-all-kinds) worth $100,000 and weighing 10 long tons from
New York to Rotterdam was estimated to range from $277.40 to $300.50
per long ton. The cost for the same shipment from Los Angeles to Tokyo
was estimated to range from $243.60 to $288.30 per long ton [1].
Table B-11--Operating Revenues, Ton-Miles, Tons, and Average Haul of Freight Carries, 1990
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Operating Tons of Freight Average Haul Operating Revenues
Region Revenues ($ Ton-Miles Revenues per Ton- Hauled per (miles/ per Ton of Freight
millions) (millions) Mile (millions) ton) Hauled
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal $3,008 470,000 $0.006 293 1,604 $10.27
Inland 2,865 283,000 0.010 627 451 4.57
Great Lakes 576 57,000 0.010 108 528 5.33
All Regions $6,449 810,000 $0.008 1,028 788 $6.27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on Kearney/Centaur [1, Chapter 2].
C. Technological Feasibility and Costs of Compliance
Technological Feasibility
All of the requirements of the proposed standard can be met using
currently available equipment, facilities, tests, inspections,
supplies, and work practices. OSHA's analysis of the technological
requirements of each provision indicates that none of the proposed
provisions will create any problem of supply or availability of
equipment, facilities, or personnel.
Although the proposed standard will require the expenditure of
resources to fully comply, there are no technological constraints
associated with full compliance with the proposed regulation.
Costs of Compliance
This section presents preliminary estimates of costs that will be
incurred by firms to come into compliance with the proposed revisions
to the Longshoring and Marine Terminals standards. The costs of the
proposed revisions to the two standards are shown in Table C-1.
Table C-1--Summary of Total Compliance Costs (1993 Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Rule Total First- Annualized
Year Costs Costs*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 CFR part 1918: Longshoring $4,088,445 $1,755,773
29 CFR part 1917: Marine Terminals 535,585 20,099
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $4,624,029 $1,775,872
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis.
* Annualized cost is the sum of annualized capital costs and recurring
annual costs.
Total first-year costs are estimated to amount to less than $4.7
million. After the first year, affected establishments will incur costs
of approximately $1.8 million, annually. These costs were estimated
using a baseline of full compliance with existing rules and estimates
of current practice for those cost elements not required under previous
standards\2\. OSHA welcomes comments on the preliminary costs and
assumptions presented in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\This is not intended to suggest that all establishments are
fully complying with existing regulations. However, the costs
presented in this analysis reflect only those costs which are
attributable to to proposed revisions to existing regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methodology
A side-by-side comparison of the proposed and existing rules was
conducted to identify revisions to the existing rules. In addition, a
profile of current industry practices was developed to enable estimates
of incremental compliance costs to be made.
The data used in this preliminary analysis of compliance costs were
obtained from three studies conducted in 1986, 1989 and in 1994 by
OSHA's contractor, Kearney/Centaur. In 1986 and 1989, analyses were
performed on proposed requirements identified as changes to existing
standards. These studies were conducted through field visits and
telephone surveys of U.S. ports.
The 1994 study was conducted to update information collected in
previous studies and to collect information on the impact of proposed
revisions made recently to the Longshoring and Marine Terminals
standards. Efforts included interviews with industry officials to
gather information on key cost issues, and calls to equipment
manufacturers, suppliers, and professional service providers.
Three general types of costs were identified: first-year costs,
capital costs, and recurring annual costs. First-year costs are
training and workplace analysis costs that which are expected to be
incurred in the first year after promulgation of a final rule. Capital
costs are costs for equipment with a working life of more than one
year. Recurring annual costs are costs that will be incurred each year
after promulgation of a final rule.
The majority of compliance costs are expected to be borne directly
by stevedoring companies, although vessel operators may incur some
short-term costs.
Revisions to 29 CFR part 1918: Longshoring
This section presents preliminary cost estimates attributable to
proposed revisions to OSHA's Longshoring standard. Provisions for which
costs are not specifically addressed are not expected to have any
incremental costs beyond those estimated for workplace analysis and
general training.
General First-Year Costs
Proposed revisions to the existing Longshoring standard will result
in general costs for workplace analysis and training. Total first-year
costs for these activities are estimated at $1,607,563, and will most
likely be borne by stevedoring firms.
Workplace Analysis
Workplace analysis involves evaluating an establishment to
determine what needs to be done to achieve compliance with the proposed
rule. Preliminary costs for this activity are estimated using the
hourly wage rate of a safety consultant or safety engineer. The average
hourly fee for a safety consultant is estimated to be $87.50, based on
a range of $50 to $125 per hour [1]. The average time per establishment
to have a safety consultant conduct such an analysis is estimated to be
about an hour and a half [1]. This yields an average cost per facility
of $131.25. The total first-year workplace analysis cost across all
3,700 affected establishments is estimated to be $485,625. This cost
will most likely be borne by stevedoring firms.
Training
First-year costs will be necessary to train supervisors on the new
requirements of the proposed rule. No recurring annual training costs
are estimated since interviews with industry officials indicated that
longshore supervisors receive regular safety training, and training in
new requirements will replace safety training related to the existing
rule. Kearney/Centaur field visits, and telephone interviews with
longshore safety experts and industry officials revealed that
supervisors will assure implementation of proposed requirements. No
additional training time will be required for longshore workers. The
proposed rule will result in three types of training: (1) general
training in new requirements; (2) additional safety training for RO-RO
and containerized operations; and (3) accident prevention proficiency
training for supervisors overseeing five or more workers. The costs of
additional training for container and RO-RO operations, and accident
prevention proficiency training will be discussed under the appropriate
subparts.
OSHA assumes that first-year supplementary general training will be
required to familiarize supervisors with the new requirements of the
proposed rule. The number of supervisors that will need general
training is estimated using a 10 to 1 employee to supervisor ratio. As
discussed in the Industry Profile, approximately 93,427 workers are
estimated to be at risk. Hence, 9,343 supervisors are estimated to
require general training. Kearney/Centaur estimated that less than one
hour of training, in addition to regular safety training, will be
necessary to train each supervisor. Using an average supervisor wage
rate of $50.78, the total first-year cost of supervisor time to receive
general training is estimated at $474,438.
In addition to the cost of supervisor training time, the cost to
provide safety instruction is estimated. The fee for an instructor is
estimated to be about $175 per hour of training [1]. The total cost for
general safety instruction is estimated at $647,500.
Subpart C: Means of Access
Most of the proposed revisions to this subpart are not expected to
impose additional costs on affected establishments. For example,
proposed requirements for portable ladders are already addressed in the
existing Marine Terminals standard. Since portable ladders used on the
vessel are typically the same ladders used on the dock, no incremental
costs are expected to be incurred. No additional costs are expected to
result from requiring 6 inches (15.2 cm) or more of clearance in the
back of ladder rungs. This requirement can be met using portable
ladders, which are currently available on-site [1].
The proposed requirement for 6 inch (15.2 cm) sideboards on
dockboards and ramps is expected to impose additional costs on
stevedoring firms. Based on Kearney/Centaur interviews with regional
industry representatives, approximately 1,070 ramps will need to be
retrofitted at a unit cost of $1,000 [1]. The incremental capital cost
for this provision is estimated at $1,070,000.
Subpart D: Working Surfaces
In the existing rule, 29 CFR 1918.32(b) requires fall protection
for workers exposed to fall hazards at the edge of a hatch section or
stowed cargo over 8 feet (2.4 m) high. Although changes to the
regulatory text are being proposed for clarification purposes, the
proposed language does not impose additional responsibilities upon
employers. Hence, no incremental costs are attributed to this
provision. This is consistent with court interpretations, as found by
the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission in its decision of
October 24, 1979, OSHRC Docket No. 15242 concerning Sec. 1918.32(b)
citation of Seattle Crescent Container Service, and the decision of the
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit in Long Beach Container Terminal
Inc. v. OSHRC and Brock, February 23, 1987.
Proposed revisions to Subpart D also include requirements for
``walking sticks'' (floating walking and working surfaces) for
employees working logs out of the water. However, local rules in ports
affected by this requirement currently include these requirements, and
affected establishments are already in compliance [1].
Subpart E: Opening and Closing Hatches
The proposed rule includes several revisions to this subpart.
Proposed revisions impose more restrictions on working spaces along
coamings, more flexibility on covering hatches with tarpaulins, and
more flexibility on securing hatch covers. The proposed revisions would
also require that all unsecured materials be removed before moving
hatch covers. Such changes in work practices are not expected to result
in incremental costs other than first-year costs for general training
discussed earlier in this chapter [1].
Subpart F: Ship's Cargo Handling Gear
Proposed revisions to this subpart address changes in work
practices. Costs attributed to changes in work practices are accounted
for in the general first-year cost estimates.
Subpart G: Cargo Handling Gear and Equipment Other Than Ship's Gear
This subpart covers all employer-provided gear and equipment used
in longshoring operations aboard vessels. The majority of the gear used
aboard vessels is also used on the dock. To the extent that proposed
revisions to the Longshoring standard covering this gear are addressed
by the existing Marine Terminals standard, no incremental costs are
estimated.
The proposed rule would require that all special stevedoring gear
purchased or fabricated 90 days or more after publication of a final
rule, and having a safe working load of 5 short tons or over, be
certified by an OSHA accredited agency in accordance with 29 CFR part
1919. Most gear covered under this subpart is either also used on the
dock and therefore, already required to be certified under 29 CFR
1917.50, or already certified prior to purchase by the manufacturer.
Although situations do arise in which special gear is manufactured and
used only on the vessel, such occurrences are rare and the overall cost
to affected establishments is expected to be minimal.
Two requirements, however, are expected to impose costs on affected
establishments. The proposed requirements for the quadrennial testing
of special stevedoring gear and the lockout/tagout of powered conveyors
are expected to generate compliance costs.
OSHA assumes that only the 746 establishments classified under SIC
4491 will be affected by the proposed requirement for quadrennial
testing of special gear and equipment. Testing is estimated to take an
average of five hours per affected establishment. Assuming that a
designated person with an average wage rate of $40.30 will do the
testing, the average cost per establishment is estimated to be $201.50
every four years, or $50.38 annually. The total annual cost for
affected establishments to comply with this provision is estimated at
$37,583 [1].
Compliance costs are also expected to result from the proposed
revision requiring the lockout/tagout of powered conveyors. Those
conveyors with master shut-off switches used only aboard vessels and
not on the dock will be affected. Kearney/Centaur estimated that
existing switches on a total of 60 powered conveyors would need to be
replaced by general duty 240 volt/100 amp, 3 pole, fused, lockable
safety switches. The unit cost for switch replacement, including
installation charges, is estimated to be $315 each ($130 for materials
cost, $112 direct labor, $73 overhead and other charges) [1]. OSHA
estimates that the total capital cost associated with the lockout/
tagout of powered conveyors is $18,900. This cost will most likely be
borne by stevedoring firms.
Subpart H: Handling Cargo
Nine proposed revisions to the existing rule were identified as
substantive changes to the existing rule.
Vertical Lifting of Containers
The proposed rule requires that, when containers are being hoisted
by the top fittings, lifting forces must be applied vertically from at
least four such fittings. Since container gantry cranes provide
vertical lifts, only non-container cranes will be affected. Stevedores
using non-container cranes currently use either box spreaders, or wires
and hooks to lift containers. The use of box spreaders would provide
vertical lifts. Approximately 423 non-container gantry cranes are used
to lift containers. However, box spreaders would only need to be
purchased for 8 to 20 percent of these cranes [1]. Approximately one 20
foot (6.1 m) box spreader and one 40 foot (12.2 m) box spreader will
need to be purchased for 59 cranes (14 percent of non-container
cranes). Kearney/Centaur estimated, based on an interview with a box
spreader manufacturer, that a 20-foot (6.1 m) box spreader costs about
$8,800 and a 40-foot (12.2 m) box spreader costs about $9,800. The
total cost per crane to purchase one 20-foot (6.1 m) box spreader and
one 40-foot (12.2 m) box spreader is, therefore, estimated at $18,600
($8,800 + $9,800). Thus, the total capital cost that will be incurred
by stevedoring companies to comply with this provision is estimated at
$1,101,492 [1].
Prohibiting Work On Top of Containers to the Extent Feasible
The proposed rule would eliminate work on top of container stacks,
to the extent feasible, through the use of engineering controls.
Compliance with this proposed requirement is considered feasible, for
most operations, when container gantry cranes are used to move
containers. To secure stacked containers, twistlocks are placed in the
corner castings of each container. When manual twistlocks are used,
workers are placed, usually by crane, on top of each container to place
or remove (cone or decone) twistlocks. The use of semi-automatic
twistlocks (SATLs) and above-deck cell guides would eliminate the need
for workers to go atop containers for the purpose of coning or
deconing. These engineering controls would greatly reduce the time
spent on top of containers and thus, reduce the fall hazards. The use
of such controls would also eliminate the need to use personal
protective equipment (PPE) for the purposes of coning and deconing.
Kearney/Centaur conducted a time-motion study comparing the use of
SATLs with the use of fall protection using tie-off. Through field
visits to eight ports, Kearney/Centaur observed various container
operations on different types of vessels. Activities that directly
affect the total time to complete a project (activities on the critical
path) were identified, and the average time to complete each of these
activities was estimated. Operations that delay the crane are
activities on the critical path. The study demonstrated that the use of
SATLs would result in significant decreases in crane delay time, since
workers would no longer need to be placed on each container to cone or
decone. This finding is consistent with other studies conducted on the
use of SATLs [1, Appendix E].
The unit cost of a SATL is about $20 more than the cost of a
conventional twistlock. Thus, the incremental cost per SATL is
estimated to be $20 [1]. An estimated 177 U.S.-owned vessels and 350
foreign-owned vessels will need to purchase SATLs. The total annualized
investment cost to purchase SATLs is estimated at about $2 million for
U.S. vessel operators and $4 million for foreign operators.
The use of SATLs is expected to result in cost savings to vessel
operators, as well as to stevedores, in terms of productivity
increases. The total dollar value of the cost savings depends on the
time savings per vessel, the vessel configuration, the number of
containers carried, the number of container cranes used to load or
unload the vessel, and the number of trips made to U.S. ports. In each
case, as analyzed in Kearney/Centaur's study, cost savings exceed the
annualized cost of purchasing SATLs. Even under the worst case
scenario, annual productivity increases more than offset the annualized
investment cost of the SATLs.
The use of SATLs also results in reduced damage to containers.
Conventional twistlocks are often thrown or dropped onto the tops of
containers, often damaging them. Since SATLs are placed and removed on
the dock, such damage would be avoided.
Furthermore, interviews with industry officials revealed that
shipping lines are already rapidly converting to the use of SATLs.
Approximately 47 to 55 percent of all containerships calling at U.S.
ports are currently using SATLs. An estimated 22 to 26 percent of U.S.
flag containerships and 74 to 78 percent of foreign flag containerships
currently use SATLs. In addition, major shipping lines are currently in
the process of fully converting to the use of SATLs [1].
In conclusion, based on the Kearney/Centaur study, the annual
productivity gains realized as a result of using of SATLs are expected
to exceed the annualized investment cost to purchase SATLs. OSHA
requests additional data and comments on this issue.
Certification of Fall Protection Systems
The certification of fall protection systems used in container
operations is also expected to result in compliance costs. The proposed
rule would require that all fall protection systems be certified by a
registered professional engineer as being capable of sustaining at
least twice the potential impact of an employee's fall. Based on
Kearney/Centaur interviews with industry officials, compliance with
this provision would require, on average, one annual certification per
establishment involved in container operations. Each certification is
expected to take about two hours. Approximately 277 establishments are
estimated to be involved in container operations [1]. The services of a
registered professional engineer to conduct the required testing and
provide certification are estimated to cost about $50 per hour, or $100
per establishment, annually. In addition, there may be a $200
documentation fee and a 15 percent administrative surcharge. This
results in an average cost of $345 per establishment, and a total
annual recurring cost of $95,565 for stevedoring firms.
Secondary Attachments for Safety Cages
The proposed standard requires the use of secondary attachments for
safety cages attached to container gantry cranes which are used to
hoist employees. Few safety cages have secondary means of attachment.
The installation of padeyes on cages to allow them to be attached to
the spreader by chains and hooks would satisfy this requirement.
Approximately 75 to 100 safety cages are currently in use, 90 percent
of which lack secondary means of attachment [1]. Applying this
percentage to 88 safety cages (the midpoint of the estimated range of
safety cages in use) yields an estimate of 79 cages that will need to
be retrofitted. The installation of padeyes is estimated to cost $200
per safety cage. No costs are attributed to the purchase of hooks and
chains since these items are readily available from existing
inventories of equipment. The total capital cost to comply with this
provision is estimated at $15,840. This cost would is likely to be
borne by stevedoring companies [1].
Marking of Load Capacities on RO-RO Ramps
The proposed provision requiring that RO-RO ramps be marked with
their load capacities is expected to impose first-year costs primarily
on vessel operators. Field visits and interviews with industry
representatives indicated that virtually none of the vessels have load
capacities marked on their ramps. The Bureau of the Census reported
that 147 RO-RO vessels called at U.S. ports in 1992. Approximately 120
of these are RO-RO car carriers, and 27 are heavy capacity RO-RO
vessels. On average, car carriers have about four ramps each and heavy
capacity RO-RO vessels have 1.5 ramps each. Thus, an estimated 521
ramps would need to be marked. Industry officials indicated that this
procedure would require about 0.5 hour per vessel to obtain the
necessary information, and 0.5 hour to mark each ramp. Thus, a total of
334 labor hours would be required. Using a labor rate of $40.30, the
total estimated first-year cost for vessel operators to comply with
this requirement is $13,460.
Separation of Vehicles and Pedestrians on RO-RO Ramps
The proposed rule also requires that pedestrians and vehicles be
physically separated on RO-RO ramps. When no physical separation is
present or feasible, a signal person would be required to direct
traffic, disallowing concurrent use. Although some heavy capacity RO-RO
ramps have pedestrian walkways built into them, most are relatively
wide and are often used concurrently by pedestrians and vehicles.
For car carriers, ramps are narrow and many do not have room to
designate both a pedestrian walkway and a car lane. Discussions with
car carrier foremen indicated that, currently, a gang member is
assigned the duty of directing traffic and coordinating the movement of
vehicles. Consequently, no incremental costs are expected to be
incurred for a signal person. However, decreases in productivity may
result since vehicles, which would normally be driven onto ramps when
pedestrians are present, would have to wait until all pedestrians clear
the ramp.
Kearney/Centaur indicated that productivity decreases would be in
the form of additional personnel rather than vessel delays. Based on
the number of vehicles imported to and exported from the United States
each year, the probability that pedestrians and vehicles would
concurrently use a ramp, and the average delay time that would result
for each incident, Kearney/Centaur estimated that this proposed
requirement would result in a total annual delay time of about 2,178.7
hours [1]. Applying an average longshore worker wage rate of $40.30 to
the total time delay yields a recurring annual cost of about $87,801.
Marking Flat Bed and Low Boy Trailers
The proposed rule requires that flat bed and low boy trailers
(mafis) be marked with their load capacities. Kearney/Centaur concluded
that the 307 establishments involved in container and RO-RO operations
will be affected by this requirement, 80 percent of which are already
in compliance [1]. To mark all mafis would take about eight hours per
establishment. Using an average hourly wage rate of $40.30, the first-
year incremental cost of this requirement is estimated at $19,795.
High Visibility Vests
The proposed rule would require that high visibility vests be used
during RO-RO and container operations. Kearney/Centaur estimated that
one vest would be required, annually, for each affected worker [1].
OSHA estimates that about 75 percent (40,963 workers) of SIC 4491
workers are involved in container or RO-RO operations. The average unit
cost of a high visibility vest is estimated to be $6.50 [1]. Therefore,
the annual recurring cost for high visibility vests is estimated at
$266,260.
Additional Training in Container and RO-RO Safety
Since there are several revisions proposed for container and RO-RO
operations, additional training is expected to be needed. OSHA
estimates that 75 percent of longshore workers employed in SIC 4491
(40,963 workers) engage in either container or RO-RO operations or
both. Assuming one supervisor will need to be trained for every 10
workers at risk, 4,096 supervisors will need additional training.
Additional training in container and RO-RO operations is not expected
to exceed 0.5 hour [1]. Applying an hourly supervisor wage rate of
$50.78 yields a first-year cost of approximately $103,997.
A first-year cost to provide safety instruction is also estimated.
An estimated 307 establishments will need instructors for container and
RO-RO safety training [1]. Using an hourly instruction fee of $175 per
hour of training provided, the estimated instruction cost is $26,863.
The total first-year cost for additional container and RO-RO safety
training is estimated to be $130,860, and will most likely be borne by
stevedoring firms.
Subpart I: General Working Conditions
Illumination
According to industry officials, most lighting situations meet the
proposed requirement of 5 footcandles (54 lux) of illumination. The
existing rule requires that ``adequate'' lighting be provided at all
times. OSHA assumes that establishments not using at least 5
footcandles (54 lux) of lighting would be in violation of the existing
rule. Thus, no incremental costs are estimated for this provision.
Sanitation
The proposed standard includes specifications on the number of
toilets that would need to be available to longshore workers. Kearney/
Centaur interviews with industry representatives indicated that current
practice already meets this proposed requirement, with the exception of
certain situations in the Gulf region. Compliance with this requirement
can be achieved through semi-monthly rentals of portable toilets at a
rental cost of $65 each. The total recurring annual cost to comply with
the proposed sanitation requirements is estimated to be $1,560 for
stevedoring companies operating in the Gulf [1].
First Aid Kits
The proposed rule would require that first aid kits be checked at
least weekly and that contents be approved by a physician. Industry
officials indicated that first aid kits currently in use are stocked on
the basis of recommendations by first aid and safety professionals and
are expected to already meet physicians' recommendations. Thus, kit
contents are not expected to change as a result of proposed
revisions.Incremental costs are expected to result in the form of labor
time necessary to perform weekly checks of the contents of each kit.
This procedure is not expected to take more than 5 minutes per week per
establishment. Applying an average hourly wage rate of $40.30 yields an
annual cost of $174.63 per establishment per year. The total recurring
annual cost for all 3,700 establishments to comply with this
requirement is estimated at $646,143.
Stretchers
Incremental costs are expected to result from the proposed
requirement that stretchers be equipped with four sets of working
patient restraints. Costs are estimated assuming that 25 percent of the
affected workplaces would need to retrofit their stretchers.
Approximately one stretcher per establishment would need to be
retrofitted at an average cost of $400 each [1]. The total capital cost
for this requirement is estimated at $370,000.
Accident Prevention Proficiency Training for Supervisors
The proposed rule would require that all supervisors overseeing
more than five workers complete a course in accident prevention. This
training is currently required under the Marine Terminals standard.
Kearney/Centaur field visits indicated that approximately 75 percent of
supervisors already receive accident prevention training [1]. Each
course is estimated to take two hours. At an average supervisor wage
rate of $50.78 per hour, the cost for 2,336 supervisors to receive this
training is $237,244. The average fee to provide instruction is
estimated to be $175 per hour of training. Assuming that 25 percent of
the affected establishments (925 establishments) would require such
training, the cost for instruction is estimated at $323,750 ($175 x 2 x
925). The total first-year cost for accident prevention proficiency
training is, therefore, estimated to be $560,994 and is expected to be
borne by stevedoring companies.
In addition to first-year costs, annual recurring costs are
expected to be incurred as a result of supervisor turnover. Kearney/
Centaur estimated that the turnover rate for longshore supervisors is
about five percent per year. The resulting annual cost of supervisor
time is estimated at $11,883. The annual cost to provide instruction is
$16,188, assuming that five percent of establishments would need such
instruction. The recurring annual cost for accident prevention
proficiency training is, therefore, estimated at $28,070.
Subpart J: Personal Protective Equipment
The proposed rule would broaden the existing scope to require that
personal flotation devices be used in more situations where workers may
be at risk of falling into the water. Since the existing rule already
requires the use of personal flotation devices in the Gulf/Mississippi
region, no incremental costs in addition to general training costs are
expected to be incurred by establishments in this region. To estimate
the number of flotation devices that would be needed, OSHA assumes that
50 percent of employees not working in the Gulf/Mississippi region
(19,386 workers), would need personal flotation devices. The average
unit cost per life vest meeting the required specifications is
estimated at $55 [8]. Thus, the total capital cost to purchase personal
flotation devices is estimated at $1,066,230.
Summary
As shown in Table C-2, the total first-year cost of the proposed
revisions to the Longshoring standard is estimated at $4,088,445. After
the first year, establishments will incur an estimated $1,755,773,
annually.
Table C-2--Preliminary Cost Estimates of Proposed Revisions to 29 CFR Part 1918 (Longshoring) (1993 Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
First- Capital Annualized Recurring First- Total
Source Year Costs Capital Annual Costs Year Annualized
Costs Costs* Costs Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Workplace Analysis 485,62
General Training
Supervisor Time 474,43
8 474,43
8
Instruction 647,5
00 647,50
0
Subpart C
6'' sideboards: dockboards/ramps 1,070,0
00 174,138 174,13
8 174,138
Subpart G
4-yr. testing of special gear 37,580 37,580 37,580
Lockout/tagout: powered conveyors 18,900 3,076 3,076 3,076
Subpart H
Vertical lifts 1,101,4
92 179,263 179,26
3 179,263
Certification: fall protection 95,565 95,565 95,565
Secondary safety cage attachments 15,840 2,578 2,578 2,578
Marking RO-RO ramps 13,460 13,460
Separation of vehicles/pedestrians on RO-RO
ramps 87,801 87,801 87,801
Marking flat bed/low boy trailers 19,795 19,795
High visibility vests 266,260 266,26
0 266,260
Training
Supervisor Time 103,99
7 103,99
7
Instructor 26,863 26,863
Subpart I
Sanitation 1,560 1,560 1,560
First aid kits 646,143 646,14
3 646,143
Stretchers 370,000 60,216 60,216 60,216
Accident prevention training 560,99
4 28,070 589,06
4 28,070
Subpart J
Personal flotation devices 1,066,2
30 173,524 173,52
4 173,524
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $2,332
,672 $3,642,
462 $592,794 $1,162,979 $4,088
,445 $1,755,773
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor OSHA, based on Kearney/Centaur [1, Chapter 4].
* Annualized over 10 years using a 10% interest rate.
Revisions to 29 CFR Part 1917: Marine Terminals
Several of the proposed revisions to the Marine Terminals standard
are not expected to generate any specific costs. Some of the costs of
the proposed revisions are included in the cost analysis of the
proposed Longshoring standard. For example, the first aid kits and
stretchers used for workers aboard vessels are the same ones used in
marine terminals. Also, Kearney/Centaur concluded, based on interviews
with industry representatives, that many of the proposed requirements
reflect current practices. For example, current industry practice
prohibits riding the load and hoisting workers by hooks. In addition,
industry officials indicated that lowering the 8-hour time-weighted
average exposure limit of carbon monoxide from 50 ppm to 35 ppm would
not be a problem.
Compliance with most of the proposed revisions to the Marine
Terminals standard can be met through workplace analysis and general
training. Specific compliance costs are expected to be generated from
the proposed requirement for seat belts in high speed container gantry
cranes.
First-Year Costs
Costs for workplace analysis and general training are based on the
assumption that 1,928 establishments and 70,140 workers (see Industry
Profile), would be affected by proposed revisions to the Marine
Terminals standard [1]. The total first-year cost for these activities
is estimated at $515,485.
Workplace Analysis
Approximately one hour, on average, is estimated to be required for
a safety consultant, familiar with the proposed rule, to evaluate an
establishment. At an average fee of $87.50 per hour, the total
estimated first-year cost for workplace analysis is $168,700 [1].
General Training
One supervisor per every 10 workers (7,014 supervisors) would
receive supplementary general training in the proposed new
requirements. General training in the proposed requirements is
estimated to take about 0.5 hour. Using an average supervisor wage rate
of $50.78, the total first-year cost of supervisor time for additional
training is estimated at $178,085. The cost per establishment to
provide instruction, using an average fee of $175 per hour of training,
is estimated at $168,700.
Thus, the total first-year cost of general training is estimated at
$346,785, and will most likely be borne by stevedoring firms.
Seat Belts
The proposed rule requires that seat belts be placed in the
operators' seats of high-speed container gantry cranes. Kearney/Centaur
estimated that 40 percent of the 411 container gantry cranes in U.S.
ports are already equipped with chest harnesses. Based on interviews,
the cost to retrofit one crane is estimated at $500. The total capital
cost to retrofit 247 container cranes is estimated to be $123,500.
Summary
Proposed revisions to the Marine Terminals standard are estimated
to result in first-year costs totalling $535,585 and annualized costs
totalling $20,099 (Table C-3).
Table C-3--Preliminary Cost Estimates of Proposed Revisions to 29 CFR
Part 1917 (Marine Terminals) (1993 Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
First- Capital Annualized First- Total
Year Cost Capital Cost* Year Annualized
Cost Cost Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Workplace Analysis 168,70
0 168,70
0
General Training
Supervisor Time 178,08
5 178,08
5
Instructor 168,70
0 168,70
0
Seatbelts 123,500 20,099 20,099 20,099
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $515,4
85 $123,50
0 $20,099 $535,5
85 $20,099
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor OSHA, based on Kearney/Centaur [1,
Chapter 4].
* Annualized over 10 years using a 10% interest rate.
D. Benefits
Introduction
The proposed revisions to the Longshoring and Marine Terminals
standards are expected to reduce the numbers of injuries and fatalities
in the marine cargo handling industry. Since affected workers are
involved in both off-the-dock (covered under 29 CFR part 1918) and on-
the-dock activities (covered under 29 CFR part 1917), separate analyses
are presented on accidents that occur in each area of operation.
Injuries and Fatalities
As presented in the Industry Profile, approximately 87,951 full-
time equivalent (FTE) longshore workers, based on a 1,436 hour work-
year, are affected by the Longshoring standard. Approximately 67,974 of
these workers are also covered by the Marine Terminals standard. About
54,617 of affected workers are employed in SIC 4491, while the others
are employed in establishments classified under other industry sectors.
A summary of injuries occurring among affected workers in the marine
cargo handling industry is shown in Table D-1. As shown, a total of 18
fatalities and 7,593 injuries occurred among workers affected by the
Longshoring and Marine Terminals standards.
Table D-1--Estimated Annual Number of Fatalities and Injuries Occurring
Among Affected Workers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Off-the- On-the-
Type of Incident Cases Dock Dock
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities 18 10 8
Injuries 7,593 4,208 3,385
Non-Lost Workday Cases 2,903 1,609 1,294
Lost Workday Cases 4,690 2,599 2,091
Lost Workdays 182,442 101,109 81,332
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis,
based on Kearney/Centaur [1, Chapter 5].
Injuries
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provided the 1991 injury rate
for SIC 4491. This rate was 13.6 for every 100 FTE workers, based on a
2000 hour work-year [1]. The lost workday and non-lost workday injury
rates per 100 FTE workers were 8.4 and 5.2, respectively. An average of
38.9 lost workdays occurred per lost workday injury.
BLS also conducted a study of longshore-related injuries processed
under the Federal Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act
[9]. According to this study, 49 percent of longshore-related injuries
occurred off the dock, while 51 percent occurred on the dock.
Since BLS injury rates are per 100 FTE workers based on a 2,000
hour work-year, the number of FTE workers based on a 1,436 hour work-
year must be converted to FTEs based on a 2,000-hour work-year. The
conversion results in 63,148 FTE off-the-dock workers and 48,805 FTE
on-the-dock workers.
Off-the-Dock
The number of off-the-dock injuries was estimated by applying 49
percent of the BLS injury rate to the 63,148 FTE off-the-dock workers
(based on a 2,000 hour work-year). As a result, 4,208 annual injuries
are estimated to occur off the dock. Of these, 2,599 are lost workday
cases resulting in 101,109 lost workdays, and 1,609 are non-lost
workday cases.
On-the-Dock
The number of FTE workers affected by the Marine Terminals
standard, based on a 2,000 hour work-year, is 48,805. Applying 51
percent of the BLS injury rate to the 48,805 FTE workers on the dock
yields 3,385 annual injuries occurring on the dock. Of these, 1,294 are
non-lost workday cases and 2,091 are lost workday cases resulting in
81,332 lost workdays.
Fatalities
Although BLS did not provide a fatality rate for SIC 4491, data
were available on the total of number of 1992 fatalities that occurred
in SIC 4491. BLS indicated that 13 fatalities occurred among SIC 4491
workers [1]. Since 54,617 FTE workers (based on a 1,436 hour work-year)
are estimated to be employed in SIC 4491, a fatality rate of 0.0238 per
100 FTE workers (based on a 1,436 hour work-year) was derived.
Off-the-Dock
To determine the number of off-the-dock fatalities occurring
annually, 49 percent of the fatality rate was applied to the 87,951 FTE
longshore workers (based on a 1,436 hour work-year). This results in 10
fatalities occurring, annually, off the dock.
On-the-Dock
To estimate the number of fatalities occurring among the population
covered by the Marine Terminals standard, OSHA used 51 percent of the
fatality rate estimated above. As a result, approximately eight
fatalities are estimated to occur on the dock, annually.
BENEFITS
The proposed revisions to the Longshoring and Marine Terminals
standards are expected to reduce many of the risks involved in marine
cargo handling operations. Reductions in fatalities and injuries are
expected as a result of proposed revisions to the two standards.
In reviewing OSHA's first reports of serious accidents in the
marine cargo handling industry, Kearney/Centaur estimated the percent
of fatalities that would have been prevented by proposed revisions to
the existing standards. Approximately 30 percent of off-the-dock
fatalities and injuries could have been prevented through compliance
with proposed requirements. Thus, an estimated 3 fatalities are
expected to be prevented, annually, by the proposed requirements. In
addition, an estimated 1,262 injuries would be prevented annually
through compliance with proposed new requirements. Many additional
fatalities and injuries would be prevented through full compliance with
existing requirements retained in the proposed standards.
Summary of Benefits
All of the proposed revisions to the Longshoring and Marine
Terminals standards are likely to reduce the risk of injuries occurring
in the marine cargo handling industry. The proposed new requirements
are expected to prevent approximately 3 of the 18 fatalities and 1,262
of the 7,593 injuries occurring annually among affected workers.
Approximately 779 lost workday injuries involving 30,303 lost workdays
are expected to be prevented, annually. An additional 483 non-lost
workday cases are also expected to be avoided. Many additional
fatalities and injuries would likely be prevented through full
compliance with existing requirements retained in the proposed
standards.
E. Economic Impacts
Compliance with the requirements of the proposed revisions to the
Longshoring and Marine Terminals standards are not expected to produce
any significant adverse economic impacts.The costs that are imposed by
the regulation should be a minimal burden on all affected
establishments.
The total annual revenues and profits associated with longshoring
operations are approximately $7.8 billion and $388.9 million,
respectively [1]. The total estimated costs of compliance with the
proposed revisions to the Longshoring and Marine Terminals standards
rules are less than $4.7 million for the first year after promulgation
of the final rules and less than $1.8 million annually, thereafter.
Thus, the total first-year costs of compliance with the proposed
revisions represent less than 0.06 percent of the revenues and 1.19
percent of the profits of the industry. Compliance costs for subsequent
years represent less than 0.03 percent of revenues and less than 0.46
percent of profits.
Current practices in the marine cargo handling industry indicate
that the requirements of the proposed standard can generally be met
without significant hardship. Many employers already comply with the
proposed requirements and presumably are not imposing substantial
disadvantages on themselves.
Since stevedoring establishments engaging in similar cargo handling
operations in the United States would be subject to the same
regulations, no competitive disadvantages between industries or with
regard to international trade are projected. Costs are expected to be
passed through as an increase in the costs of cargo handling and
shipping, and the effect on profits and prices should be negligible.
The estimated compliance costs would represent an average increase in
cost of less than 25 cents for shipping a loaded container in or out of
U.S. ports, which costs an average of about $3000. On the whole, the
costs of marine cargo handling operations for society would actually
decrease as fewer accidents would mean less lost time and wages and
fewer medical and legal resources necessary for a given amount of cargo
shipping and handling.
The estimated savings to society attributable to the prevention of
injuries and fatalities would far outweigh the costs of preventing
these incidents. According to the National Safety Council, the total
costs associated with occupational injuries and deaths in 1992 were
$115.9 billion, or an average cost of over $15,000 per case. This
estimate includes wage and productivity losses, medical costs,
administrative expenses, and other costs associated with accidents. The
estimated benefits anticipated from proposed requirements include
unquantifiable reductions in pain and suffering, plus estimated savings
of over $18 million annually.
REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (P.L. 96-353, 94 Stat.
1164 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)), OSHA has made an assessment of the impact
of the proposed revisions to the Longshoring and Marine Terminals
standards, and has concluded that they would not have a significant
impact upon a substantial number of small entities.
The important criterion that governs a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis is whether the proposed standards would impose significant
costs upon small entities. ``Significance'' is determined by the effect
upon profits, market share, and the entity's financial viability. In
particular, the effect of the proposed revisions upon small entities
relative to their effect upon large entities needs to be specifically
evaluated. That is, OSHA must determine whether the proposed
requirements would have a relatively greater negative effect upon small
entities than they would have upon large entities, thereby putting
small entities at a competitive disadvantage, and if so, whether there
are ways to minimize any differentially adverse effects without
increasing the risk to employees.
If the costs of compliance are proportional to firm size and are
insignificant to small firms, then there is no significant differential
burden on small firms relative to that on large firms. In those cases
involving large absolute costs (typically capital equipment costs),
financing may be more difficult to obtain for small entities than for
larger entities and in such cases of economies of scale in compliance,
the burden on small firms will be greater than the burden on large
firms. The proposed changes to the Longshoring and Marine Terminals
standards, however, require minimal capital expenditures and generally
impose costs that are proportional to firm size and the amount of
business done. In addition, these costs would be a minimal component of
the overall costs of operations. As a result, small entities would not
be put at a competitive disadvantage to large entities due to these
compliance costs.
Thus, OSHA concluded that the proposed revisions to the Longshoring
and Marine Terminals standards would not have a significant adverse
impact upon a substantial number of small entities.
F. Other Impacts
Impact Upon International Trade
OSHA determined that compliance with the proposed revisions to the
Longshoring and Marine Terminals standards would not have any
measurable impact upon international trade. The compliance costs are
minimal and are not expected to affect exports, imports, or
international competitiveness. To the extent that compliance with the
proposed rule would increase cargo handling efficiency and reduce the
number of injuries and fatalities associated with these operations,
shipping costs may be reduced and result in a general increase in the
competitiveness of U.S. firms.
References
1. Kearney/Centaur, Division of A.T. Kearney, Inc., Economic
Assessment of OSHA's Proposed Longshoring Standard, prepared for the
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Office of Regulatory Analysis, Contract No. J-9-F-1-
0015.
2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration,
``The U.S. Stevedoring and Marine Terminal Industry,'' January 1993.
3. U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration,
``Merchant Fleets of the World: Oceangoing Steam and Motor Ships of
1,000 Gross Tons and Over as of January 1, 1992.''
4. U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration,
``A Report to Congress on the Status of the United States 1990-
1991,'' December 1992.
5. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Foreign
Trade Division, computer printout on the number of vessels calling
at U.S. ports in 1992, May 4, 1993.
6. U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration,
``Inventory of American Intermodal Equipment 1990,'' April 1991.
7. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics
Administration, Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns
1990--United States.
8. SAFECO, Inc. Occupational Health and Safety Products Supply
Catalog.
9. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
``Injuries Involving Longshore Operations,'' Bulletin 2326, May
1989.
IX. Environmental Impact
The proposed revisions to the Longshoring and Marine Terminals
standards have been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
(40 CFR Part 1500), and DOL NEPA Procedures (29 CFR Part 11). No
significant negative impact is foreseen on air, water or soil quality,
plant or animal life, the use of land or sea, or other aspects of the
environment.
X. Recordkeeping Requirements
Part 1320 of title 5 of the CFR sets forth procedures for agencies
to follow in obtaining OMB clearance for information collection
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq. The proposed Longshoring standard requires the employer to
allow OSHA access to records. In accordance with the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act and the regulations issued pursuant thereto,
OSHA certifies that it has submitted the information collection to OMB
for review under section 3504(h) of that Act.
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average five minutes per response to allow OSHA compliance
officers access to the employer's records. Send comments regarding this
burden estimate, or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Office of
Information Management, Department of Labor, Room N-1301, 200
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210; and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs Management and Budget, Washington,
D.C. 20503.
XI. State Plan Requirements
Those of the 25 states with their own OSHA-approved occupational
safety and health plans whose plans cover the issues of maritime safety
and health must revise their existing standard within six months of the
publication date of the final standard 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 revised Federal
standard. Currently five states (California, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont
and Washington) with their own state plans cover private sector on-
shore maritime activities. Federal OSHA enforces maritime standards
offshore in all states and provides onshore coverage of maritime
activities in Federal OSHA states and in the following state Plan
States: Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut\3\, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa,
Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, New York\4\, North
Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia,
Virgin Islands, and Wyoming (all states with state plans must also
extend coverage to state and local government employees engaged in
maritime activities.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Plan covers only state and local government employees.
\4\Plan covers only state and local government employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
XII. Federalism
The standard has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order
12612 (52 FR 41685; October 30, 1987) regarding Federalism. This Order
requires that agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting
State policy options, consult with States prior to taking any actions
that would restrict State policy options, and take such actions only
when there is clear constitutional authority and the presence of a
problem of national scope. The Order provides for preemption of State
law only if there is a clear constitutional authority and the presence
of a problem of national scope. Additionally, the Order provides for
preemption of State law only if there is a clear Congressional intent
for the agency to do so. Any such preemption is to be limited to the
extent possible.
Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act),
expresses Congress' clear intent to preempt State laws relating to
issues with respect to which Federal OSHA has promulgated occupational
safety or health standards. Under the OSH Act a State can avoid
preemption only if it submits, and obtains Federal approval of, a plan
for the development of such standards and their enforcement.
Occupational safety and health standards developed by such Plan-States
must, among other things, be at least as effective in providing safe
and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal
standards.
The Federal standards on longshoring and marine terminal operations
address hazards which are not unique to any one state or region of the
country. Nonetheless, those States which have elected to participate
under section 18 of the OSHA Act would not be preempted by this final
regulation and would be able to deal with special, local conditions
within the framework provided by this performance-oriented standard
while ensuring that their standards are at least as effective as the
Federal standard.
XIII. Public Participation
Interested persons are requested to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning this proposal. Responses to the questions raised
at various places in the proposal are particularly encouraged. These
comments must be postmarked by September 30, 1994. Comments are to be
submitted in quadruplicate or 1 original (hard-copy) and 1 disk (5\1/4\
or 3\1/2\) in WP 5.0, 5.1, 6.0 or Ascii. Note: Any information not
contained on disk, e.g., studies, articles, etc., must be submitted in
quadruplicate to: The Docket Office, Docket No. S-025, Room N-2625,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20210, Telephone No. (202) 219-7894.
All written comments received within the specified comment period
will be made a part of the record and will be available for public
inspection and copying at the above Docket Office address.
Notice of Intention to Appear at the Informal Hearing
Pursuant to section 6(b)(3) of the OSH Act, informal public
hearings will be held on this proposal in:
Charleston, South Carolina on September 30, 1994.
Seattle, Washington on October 31, 1994.
New Orleans, Louisiana on November 29, 1994. Actual addresses for
the locations of the regional hearings in Charleston, South Carolina,
Seattle, Washington, and New Orleans, Louisiana will be announced in a
later Federal Register notice.
Persons desiring to participate at the informal public hearing must
file a notice of intention to appear by August 31, 1994. The notice of
intention to appear must contain the following information:
1. The name, address, and telephone number of each person to
appear;
2. The capacity in which the person will appear;
3. The approximate amount of time required for the presentation;
4. The issues that will be addressed;
5. A brief statement of the position that will be taken with
respect to each issue; and
6. Whether the party intends to submit documentary evidence and, if
so, a brief summary of it.
The notice of intention to appear shall be mailed to Mr. Thomas
Hall, OSHA Division of Consumer Affairs, Docket No. S-025, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room N-3647, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20210, Telephone (202) 219-8615.
A notice of intention to appear also may be transmitted by
facsimile to (202) 219-5986, by the same date, provided the original
and 3 copies are sent to the same address and postmarked no later than
3 days later.
Individuals with disabilities wishing to attend the hearings should
contact the hearing management officer, Mr. Tom Hall, to obtain
appropriate accommodations at the hearing.
Filing of Testimony and Evidence Before the Hearing
Any party requesting more than ten (10) minutes for presentation at
the informal public hearing, or who intends to submit documentary
evidence, must provide in quadruplicate the testimony and evidence to
be presented at the informal public hearing. One copy shall not be
stapled or bound and be suitable for copying. These materials must be
provided to Mr. Thomas Hall, OSHA Division of Consumer Affairs at the
address above and be postmarked no later than 21 days prior to the date
of the hearing.
Each submission will be reviewed in light of the amount of time
requested in the notice of intention to appear. In instances where the
information contained in the submission does not justify the amount of
time requested, a more appropriate amount of time will be allocated and
the participant will be notified of that fact prior to the informal
hearing.
Any party who has not substantially complied with the above
requirement may be limited to a ten-minute presentation and may be
requested to return for questioning at a later time.
Any party who has not filed a notice of intention to appear may be
allowed to testify for no more than 10 minutes as time permits, at the
discretion of the Administrative Law Judge, but will not be allowed to
question witnesses.
Notice of intention to appear, testimony and evidence will be
available for inspection and copying at the Docket Office at the
address above.
Conduct and Nature of Hearing
The hearing will commence at 9:30 a.m. on the first day. At that
time, any procedural matters relating to the proceeding will be
resolved.
The nature of an informal rulemaking hearing is established in the
legislative history of section 6 of the OSH Act and is reflected by
OSHA's rules of procedure for hearings (29 CFR 1911.15(a)). Although
the presiding officer is an Administrative Law Judge and questioning by
interested persons is allowed on crucial issues, the proceeding is
informal and legislative in type. The Agency's intent, in essence, is
to provide interested persons with an opportunity to make effective
oral presentations which can proceed expeditiously in the absence of
procedural restraints which impede or protract the rulemaking process.
Additionally, since the hearing is primarily for information
gathering and clarification, it is an informal administrative
proceeding rather than an adjudicative one. The technical rules of
evidence, for example do not apply. The regulations that govern
hearings and the pre-hearing guidelines to be issued for this hearing
will ensure fairness and due process and also facilitate the
development of a clear, accurate and complete record. Those rules and
guidelines will be interpreted in a manner that furthers that
development. Thus, questions of relevance, procedure and participation
generally will be decided so as to favor development of the record.
The hearing will be conducted in accordance with 29 CFR part 1911.
It should be noted that Sec. 1911.4 specifies the Assistant Secretary
may upon reasonable notice issue alternative procedures to expedite
proceedings or for other good cause. The hearing will be presided over
by an Administrative Law Judge who makes no decision or recommendation
on the merits of OSHA's proposal. The responsibility of the
Administrative Law Judge is to ensure that the hearing proceeds at a
reasonable pace and in an orderly manner. The Administrative Law Judge,
therefore, will have all the powers necessary and appropriate to
conduct a full and fair informal hearing as provided in 29 CFR part
1911 including the powers:
1. To regulate the course of the proceedings;
2. To dispose of procedural requests, objections and comparable
matters;
3. To confine the presentations to the matters pertinent to the
issues raised;
4. To regulate the conduct of those present at the hearing by
appropriate means;
5. In the Judge's discretion, to question and permit the
questioning of any witnesses and to limit the time for questioning; and
6. In the Judge's discretion, to keep the record open for a
reasonable, stated time (known as the post-hearing comment period) to
receive written information and additional data, views and arguments
from any person who has participated in the oral proceedings.
OSHA recognizes that there may be interested persons or
organizations who, through their knowledge of the subject matter or
their experience in the field, would wish to endorse or support the
whole proposal or certain provisions of the proposal. OSHA welcomes
such supportive comments, including any pertinent data and cost
information which may be available, in order that the record of this
rulemaking will present a balanced picture of public response on the
issues involved.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR parts 1910, 1917, and 1918
Cargo, Cargo gear certification, Intermodal container, Longshoring,
Maritime, Marine terminal, Hazardous materials, Labeling, Occupational
safety and health, Protective equipment, Respiratory protection, Signs
and symbols.
XIV. Authority and Signature
This document was prepared under the direction of Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.
20210.
Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4, 6(b), 8(c), and 8(g) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657);
Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (Construction
Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); and 29 CFR part 1911 and Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 1-90 (55 FR 8033), OSHA proposes to amend 29 CFR
parts 1910, 1917 and 1918 as set forth below.
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 12th day of May, 1994.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor
For the reasons set out in the preamble 29 CFR Chapter XVII would
be amended as follows:
PART 1910--[AMENDED]
1. The authority for part 1910 would continue to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6 and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act, 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Walsh-Healey Act, 41 U.S.C. 35
et seq; Service Contract Act of 1965, 41 U.S.C. 351 et seq; sec.
107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Acts (Construction
Safety Act), 40 U.S.C. 333; Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act 33 U.S.C. 941; National Foundation of Arts and
Humanities Act, 20 U.S.C. 951 et seq.; Secretary of Labor's Order
No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 1911, 9-83 (48 FR 35736), or 1-
90 (55 FR 9033) as applicable.
2. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sec. 1910.16 would be revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 1910.16 Longshoring and marine terminals.
(a) Safety and health standards for longshoring. (1) Part 1918 of
this chapter shall apply exclusively, according to the provisions
thereof, to all employment of every employee engaged in longshoring
operations or related employment aboard any vessel. All cargo transfer
accomplished with the use of shore-based material handling devices
shall be regulated by part 1917 of this chapter.
(2) Part 1910 does not apply to longshoring operations except for
the following provisions:
(i) Toxic and hazardous substances. Subpart Z applies except that
the requirements of subpart Z of this part do not apply when a
substance or cargo is contained within a sealed, intact means of
packaging or containment complying with Department of Transportation or
International Maritime Organization requirements.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The International Maritime Organization publishes the
International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code to aid compliance with
Interational legal requirements of the International Convention for
the Safety of Life at Sea, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Access to employee exposure and medical records. Subpart C,
Sec. 1910.20;
(iii) Commercial diving operations. Subpart T of this part;
(iv) Electrical. Subpart S of this part; when shorebased electrical
installations provide power for use aboard vessels;
(v) Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-Held Equipment.
Subpart P of this part;
(vi) Hazard Communication. Subpart Z, Sec. 1910.1200;
(vii) Hazardous waste operations and emergency response. Subpart H,
Sec. 1910.120(q).
(viii) Ionizing radiation. Subpart G, Sec. 1910.96;
(ix) Machinery and Machine Guarding. Subpart O, Sec. 1910.211;
(x) Noise. Subpart G, Sec. 1910.95;
(xi) Nonionizing radiation. Subpart G, Sec. 1910.97; and
(xii) Respiratory protection. Subpart I, Sec. 1910.134.
(b) Safety and health standards for Marine Terminals. Part 1917 of
this chapter shall apply exclusively, according to the provisions
thereof, to employment within a marine terminal, except as follows:
(1) The provisions of part 1917 of this chapter do not apply to the
following:
(i) Facilities used solely for the bulk storage, handling and
transfer of flammable and combustible liquids and gases.
(ii) Facilities subject to the regulations of the Office of
Pipeline Safety Regulation of the Materials Transportation Bureau,
Department of Transportation, to the extent such regulations apply to
specific working conditions.
(iii) Fully automated bulk coal handling facilities contiguous to
electrical power generating plants.
(2) Part 1910 does not apply to Marine Terminals except for the
following:
(i) Abrasive blasting. Subpart G, Sec. 1910.94(a);
(ii) Access to employee exposure and medical records. Subpart C,
Sec. 1910.20;
(iii) Commercial diving operations. Subpart T of this part;
(iv) The control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout). Subpart J,
Sec. 1910.147;
(v) Electrical. Subpart S of this part;
(vi) Grain handling facilities. Subpart R, Sec. 1910.272;
(vii) Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-Held
Equipment. Subpart P of this part;
(viii) Hazard Communication. Subpart Z, Sec. 1910.1200;
(ix) Machinery and Machine Guarding. Subpart O;
(x) Noise. Subpart G, Sec. 1910.95;
(xi) Respiratory protection. Subpart I, Sec. 1910.143;
(xii) Safety requirements for scaffolding. Subpart D, Sec. 1910.28;
(xiii) Servicing multi-piece and single piece rim wheels. Subpart
N, Sec. 1910.177; and
(xiv) Toxic and hazardous substances. Subpart Z applies except that
the requirements of Subpart Z of this part do not apply when a
substance or cargo is contained within a sealed, intact means of
packaging or containment complying with Department of Transportation or
International Maritime Organization requirements.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The International Maritime Organization publishes the
International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code to aid compliance with
Interational legal requirements of the International Convention for
the Safety of Life at Sea, 1960.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-F
PART 1917--MARINE TERMINALS
1. The authority citation for part 1917 would continue to read as
follows:
Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C.
941); secs.4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29
U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR
8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), or 9-83 (48 FR 35736), as applicable; 29 CFR
part 1911.
Section 1917.28 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
Subpart A--Scope and Definitions
2. In Sec. 1917.1, the introductory text of (a) and paragraphs
(a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(x) are proposed to be revised and paragraphs
(a)(2)(xi) through (a)(2)(xvii) are proposed to be added to read as
follows:
Sec. 1917.1 Scope and applicability.
(a) The regulations of this part apply to employment within a
marine terminal as defined in Sec. 1917.2(u), including the loading,
unloading, movement or other handling of cargo, ship's stores or gear
within the terminal or into or out of any land carrier, holding or
consolidation area, any other activity within and associated with the
overall operation and functions of the terminal, such as the use and
routine maintenance of facilities and equipment. All cargo transfer
accomplished with the use of shore-based material handling devices
shall be regulated by this part.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Abrasive blasting. Subpart G, Sec. 1910.94(a);
(ii) Access to employee exposure and medical records. Subpart C,
Sec. 1910.20;
(iii) Commercial diving operations. Subpart T of part 1910;
(iv) The control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout). Subpart J,
Sec. 1910.147;
(v) Electrical. Subpart S of part 1910;
(vi) Grain handling facilities. Subpart R, Sec. 1910.272;
(vii) Hand and portable powered tools and other hand-held
equipment. Subpart P of part 1910;
(viii) Hazard communication. Subpart Z, Sec. 1910.1200;
(ix) Hazardous waste operations and emergency response. Subpart H,
Sec. 1910.120(q);
(x) Ionizing radiation. Subpart G, Sec. 1910.96;
(xi) Machinery and machine guarding. Subpart O of part 1910;
(xii) Noise. Subpart G, Sec. 1910.95;
(xiii) Nonionizing radiation. Subpart G, Sec. 1910.97;
(xiv) Respiratory protection. Subpart I, Sec. 1910.143;
(xv) Safety requirements for scaffolding. Subpart D, Sec. 1910.28;
(xvi) Servicing multi-piece and single piece rim wheels. Subpart N,
Sec. 1910.177; and
(xvii) Toxic and hazardous substances. Subpart Z of part 1910
applies, except that the requirements of subpart Z of part 1910 do not
apply when a substance or cargo is contained within a sealed, intact
means of packaging or containment complying with Department of
Transportation or International Maritime Organization requirements.\1\
Notwithstanding the rules for Hazard Communication (Sec. 1910.1200)
shall apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The International Maritime Organization publishes the
International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code to aid compliance with
the International legal requirements of the International Convention
for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In Sec. 1917.2, the paragraph designations to each definition
are proposed to be removed and the definitions placed in alphabetical
order, definitions for the terms Employee and Employer are proposed to
be added, and the definition for the term Intermodal container is
proposed to be revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Employee means any longshore worker, or other person engaged in
marine terminal operations or related employments.
Employer means an employer any of whose employees are employed, in
whole or in part, in marine terminal operations.
* * * * *
Intermodal container means a reusable cargo container of rigid
construction and rectangular configuration; fitted with devices
permitting its ready handling, particularly its transfer from one mode
of transport to another; so designed to be readily filled and emptied;
intended to contain one or more articles of cargo or bulk commodities
for transportation by water and one or more other transport modes
without intermediate cargo handling. The term includes completely
enclosed units, open top units, fractional height units, units
incorporating liquid or gas tanks and other variations fitting into the
container system. It does not include cylinders, drums, crates, cases,
cartons, packages, sacks, unitized loads or any other form of
packaging.
* * * * *
Subpart B--Marine Terminal Operations
4. Section 1917.11 is proposed to be amended by adding paragraph
(d) to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.11 Housekeeping.
* * * * *
(d) Dunnage, lumber, or shoring material in which there are visibly
protruding nails shall be removed from the immediate work area or if
left in the area, the nails shall be rendered harmless.
5. Section 1917.13 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph
(g) and adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.13 Slinging.
* * * * *
(g) Intermodal containers shall be handled in accordance with
Sec. 1917.71(f).
(h) The employer shall require employees to stay clear of the area
beneath overhead drafts or descending lifting gear.
(i) Employees shall not be permitted to ride the hook or the load.
6. Section 1917.17 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs
(i), (j), and (k) to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.17 Railroad facilities.
* * * * *
(i) If powered industrial trucks are used to open railcar doors,
the trucks or the railcar doors shall be equipped with door opening
attachments. Employees shall stand clear of the railcar doors while
they are being opened and closed.
(j) Only railcar door openers or powered trucks equipped with door
opening attachments shall be used to open jammed doors.
(k) Employees shall not remain in or on gondolas or flat cars when
drafts that create overhead, caught-in, caught-between or struck-by
hazards are being landed in or on the railcar; end gates, if raised,
shall be secured.
* * * * *
7. Section 1917.18 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph
(a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.18 Log handling.
(a) Structures (bunks) used to contain logs shall have rounded
corners and rounded structural parts to avoid sling damage.
* * * * *
8. Section 1917.20 is proposed to be revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.20 Interference with communications.
Cargo handling operations shall not be carried on when noise-
producing maintenance, construction or repair work interferes with the
communication of warnings or instructions.
9. Section 1917.23 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs
(b)(1) and (d) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.23 Hazardous atmospheres and substances.
(See Sec. 1917.2(r))
* * * * *
(b) Determination of hazard. (1) When the employer is aware that a
room, building, vehicle, railcar, or other space contains or has
contained a hazardous atmosphere, a designated and appropriately
equipped person shall test the atmosphere before employee entry to
determine whether a hazardous atmosphere exists.
* * * * *
(d) Entry into hazardous atmospheres. Only designated persons shall
enter hazardous atmospheres, in which case the following provisions
shall apply:
* * * * *
10. Section 1917.24 is proposed to be amended by revising
paragraphs (a) and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.24 Carbon monoxide.
(a) Exposure limits. The carbon monoxide content of the atmosphere
in a room, building, vehicle, railcar, or any enclosed space shall be
maintained at not more than 35 parts per million (ppm) (0.0035%) as an
8-hour timeweighted average and employees shall be removed from the
enclosed space if the carbon monoxide concentration exceeds 100 ppm
(0.01%). The short term exposure limit in outdoors, non-enclosed spaces
shall be 200 ppm (0.02%) measured over a 5 minute period.
* * * * *
(d) Records. A record of the data time, location and results of
carbon monoxide tests shall be available for at least 30 days. Such
records may be entered on any retrievable medium and shall be available
for inspection.
* * * * *
11. Section 1917.25 is proposed to be amended by revising
paragraphs (a) and (c) and adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.25 Fumigants, pesticides, insecticides and hazardous
preservatives.
(See Sec. 1917.2(p))
(a) At any time the hold concentration in any compartment reaches
the level specified as hazardous by the fumigant manufacturers or by
Table Z-1 of 29 CFR 1910.1000, whichever is lower, all employees shall
be removed from such holds or compartments and shall not be permitted
to re-enter until such time as tests demonstrate that the atmosphere is
safe.
* * * * *
(c) Results of any tests shall be available for at least 30 days.
Such records may be entered on any retrievable medium, and shall be
available for inspection.
* * * * *
(g) In the case of containerized shipments of fumigated tobacco,
the contents of the container shall be aerated by opening the container
doors for a period of 48 hours after the completion of fumigation and
prior to loading. When tobacco is within shipping cases having
polyethylene or similar bag liners, the aeration period shall be 72
hours. The employer shall obtain a written warranty from the fumigation
facility stating that the appropriate aeration period has been met.
* * * * *
12. Section 1917.26 is proposed to be amended by revising
paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.26 First aid and lifesaving facilities.
* * * * *
(c) First aid kit. First aid kits shall be weatherproof and shall
contain individual sealed packages for each item that must be kept
sterile. The contents of each kit shall be determined by a physician
and such contents shall be checked at least weekly. Expended items
shall be promptly replaced.
(d) Stretchers. (1) There shall be available for each vessel being
worked, one Stokes basket stretcher, or its equivalent, permanently
equipped with bridles for attaching to the hoisting gear.
(2) Stretchers shall be kept close to vessels and shall be
positioned to avoid damage.
(3) A blanket or other suitable covering shall be available.
(4) Stretchers shall have at least four sets of effective patient
restraints in operable condition.
(5) Lifting bridles shall be of adequate strength, capable of
lifting 1,000 pounds (454 kg) with a safety factor of five, and shall
be maintained in operable condition. Lifting bridles shall be provided
for making vertical patient lifts at container berths. Stretchers for
vertical lifts shall have foot plates.
(6) Stretchers shall be maintained in operable condition. Struts
and braces shall be inspected for damage. Wire mesh shall be secured
with no burrs. Damaged stretchers shall not be used until repaired.
(7) Stretchers in permanent locations shall be mounted to prevent
damage and protected from the elements if located out-of-doors. If
concealed from view, closures shall be marked to indicate life saving
equipment.
* * * * *
13. Section 1917.27 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph
(a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.27 Personnel.
(a) * * *
(2) No employee known to have defective uncorrected eyesight or
hearing, or to be suffering from heart disease, epilepsy, or similar
ailments which may suddenly incapacitate the employee shall be
permitted to operate a crane, winch or other power-operated cargo
handling apparatus or a power-operated vehicle.
* * * * *
14. Section 1917.28 is proposed to be amended by removing the
regulatory text and revising the section heading to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.28 Hazard Communication.
(See Sec. 1917.1(a)(2)(viii)).
Subpart C--Cargo Handling Gear and Equipment
15. Section 1917.42 is proposed to be amended by revising
paragraphs (b)(4), (c)(1), (d), (h)(4), (h)(5), and (j) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1917.42 Miscellaneous auxiliary gear.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Where wire rope clips are used to form eyes, the employer shall
adhere to the manufacturer's recommendations, which shall be made
available for inspection. If ``U'' bolt clips are used and the
manufacturer's recommendations are not available, Table C-1 shall be
used to determine the number and spacing of clips. ``U'' bolts shall be
applied with the ``U'' section in contact with the dead end of the
rope.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) The employer shall ascertain the manufacturer's ratings for the
specific natural fibre rope used and have such ratings available for
inspection. The manufacturer's ratings shall be adhered to and a
minimum design safety factor of five maintained.
* * * * *
(d) Synthetic rope.
(1) The employer shall adhere to the manufacturer's ratings and use
recommendations for the specific synthetic fibre rope used and shall
make such ratings available for inspection.
(2) Unless otherwise recommended by the manufacturer, when
synthetic fibre ropes substituted for fibre ropes of less than 3 inches
(7.62 cm) in circumference, the substitute shall be of equal size.
Where substituted for manila rope of 3 inches or more in circumference,
the size of the synthetic rope shall be determined from the formula:
TP02JN94.000
Where C= the required circumference of the synthetic rope in inches,
Cs= the circumference to the nearest one-quarter inch of a
synthetic rope having a breaking strength not less than that of the
size fibre rope that would be required by paragraph (c) of this section
and Cm= the circumference of fibre rope in inches which would be
required by paragraph (c) of this section. In making such substitution,
it shall be ascertained that the inherent characteristics of the
synthetic fibre are suitable for hoisting.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(4) Chains shall be repaired only under qualified supervision.
Links or portions of chain defective under any of the criteria of
paragraph (h)(3)(iii) of this section shall be replaced with properly
dimensioned links or connections of material similar to that of the
original chain. Before repaired chains are returned to service, they
shall be tested to the proof load recommended by the manufacturer for
the original chain. Tests shall be performed by the manufacturer or
shall be certified by an agency accredited for the purpose under part
1919 of this chapter. Test certificates shall be available for
inspection.
(5) Wrought iron chains in constant use shall be annealed or
normalized at intervals not exceeding 6 months. Heat treatment
certificates shall be available for inspection. Alloy chains shall not
be annealed.
* * * * *
(j) Hooks other than hand hooks. (1) The manufacturer's recommended
safe working loads for hooks shall not be exceeded. After October 3,
1983, hooks other than hand hooks shall be tested in accordance with
Sec. 1917.50(c)(6).
* * * * *
16. Section 1917.43 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph
(e)(1)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.43 Powered industrial trucks.
* * * * *
(e) Fork lift trucks. (1) Overhead guards. (i) When operators are
exposed to overhead falling hazards, fork lift trucks shall be equipped
with securely attached overhead guards. Guards shall be constructed to
protect the operator from falling boxes, cartons, packages, or similar
objects.
* * * * *
17. Section 1917.44 is proposed to be amended by revising
paragraphs (a), (i), (o)(3)(i), (o)(3)(ii), and (o)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1917.44 General rules applicable to vehicles.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\The United States Coast Guard at 33 CFR 126.15 (d) and (e)
has additional regulations applicable to vehicles in terminals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) The requirements of this section apply to general vehicle use
within Marine Terminals except in cases where the provisions of
paragraphs (c) and (l) of this section are preempted by applicable
regulations of the Department of Transportation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Department of Transportation regulations in 49 CFR part 393,
Subpart C-Brakes, address the immobilization of trailer road wheels
prior to disconnection of the trailer and until braking is again
provided. Section 49 CFR 393.84 addresses the condition of flooring.
These DOT rules apply when the motor carrier is engaged in
interstate commerce or in the transport of certain hazardous items
wholly within a municipality or the commercial zone thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(i) A distance of not less than 20 feet (6.1 m) shall be maintained
between the first two vehicles in a check-in, check- out, roadability,
or vessel loading/discharging line. This distance shall be maintained
between any subsequent vehicles behind which employees are required to
work.
* * * * *
(o) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Only employees trained in the procedures required in paragraph
(o)(4) of this section and who have demonstrated their ability to
service multi-piece rim wheels shall be assigned such duties.
(ii) Employees assigned such duties shall have demonstrated their
ability by the safe performance of the following tasks:
(4) Servicing procedures. The following procedures shall be
followed:
* * * * *
18. Section 1917.45 is proposed to be amended by revising the
section heading, paragraphs (f)(4)(iii), (f)(5), (f)(7), (f)(13)(ii),
(i)(5)(i) introductory text, (j)(1)(iii)(D), (j)(2), and by adding
paragraph (j)(9) to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.45 Cranes and derricks.
(See also Sec. 1917.50.)
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) Stairways on cranes shall be equipped with rigid handrails
meeting the requirements of Sec. 1917.112(e).
* * * * *
(5) Operator's station. (i) The cab, controls and mechanism of the
equipment shall be so arranged that the operator has a clear view of
the load or signalman, when one is used. Cab glass, when used, shall be
safety plate glass or equivalent and good visibility shall be
maintained through the glass. Clothing, tools and equipment shall be
stored so as not to interfere with access, operation, and the
operator's view.
(ii) [Insert date 90 days after publication of the Final Rule] A
seat (lap) belt, meeting the requirements of 49 CFR 571.208-210 for a
Type 1 seat belt assembly, shall be installed on the operator's seat of
high speed container gantry cranes where the seat trolleys.
* * * * *
(7) Outriggers. Outriggers shall be used according to the
manufacturer's specifications or design data, which shall be available.
Floats, when used, shall be securely attached to the outriggers. Wood
blocks or other support shall be of sufficient size to support the
outrigger, free of defects that may affect safety and of sufficient
width and length to prevent the crane from shifting or toppling under
load.
* * * * *
(13) * * *
(ii) Each independent hoisting unit of a crane, except worm geared
hoists, the angle of whose worm is such as to prevent the load from
accelerating in the lowering direction, shall, in addition to a holding
brake, be equipped with a controlled braking means to control lowering
speeds.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(5) Operating near electric power lines. (i) Clearance. Unless
electrical distribution and transmission lines are de-energized and
visibly grounded at point of work, or unless insulating barriers not
apart of on an attachment to this crane have been erected to prevent
physical contact with lines, near cranes may be operated near power
lines only in accordance with the following:
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(D) Equipped with a device to prevent access doors, when used, from
opening accidently;
* * * * *
(2) Except in an emergency, the hoisting mechanism of all cranes or
derricks used to hoist personnel shall operate in power up and power
down, with automatic brake application when not hoisting or lowering.
* * * * *
(9) Employees shall not be hoisted on intermodal container
spreaders while a load is engaged.
* * * * *
19. Section 1917.48 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph
(d)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.48 Conveyors.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Conveyors using electrically released breaks shall be
constructed so that the breaks cannot be released until power is
applied, and that the brakes are automatically engaged if the power
fails or the operating control is returned to the ``stop'' position.
* * * * *
20. Section 1917.50 is proposed to be amended by revising
paragraphs (c)(5) and (i) and adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.50 Certification of marine terminal material handling
devices.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(5) Special gear. (i) Special stevedoring gear provided by the
employer, the strength of which depends upon components other than
commonly used stock items such as shackles, ropes, or chains, that has
been purchased or fabricated after [Insert date 90 days after
publication of Final Rule], and has a Safe Working Load (SWL) greater
than 5 short tons (10,000 lbs. or 4540 kg.), shall be inspected and
tested as a unit in accordance with the following table before
initially being put into use:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safe working load Proof load
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 20 short tons (18.1 metric 25 percent in excess.
tons).
Over 20 to 50 short tons (18.1 to 5 short tons in excess.
45.3 metric tons).
Over 50 short tons (45.3 metric 10 percent in excess.
tons).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Special stevedoring gear provided by the employer, the
strength of which depends upon components other than commonly used
stock items such as shackles, ropes, or chains, with a SWL of 5 short
tons (10,000 lbs. or 4540 kg.) or less shall be inspected and tested as
a unit in accordance with this section or by a designated person, in
accordance with the table in Sec. 1917.50(c)(5)(i) before initially
being put into use.
(iii) Every spreader not a part of ship's gear and used for
hoisting intermodal containers that has been purchased or fabricated
after [Insert date 90 days after publication of Final Rule], shall be
inspected and tested to a proof load equal to 25 percent in excess of
its rated capacity before being put into use. In addition, any spreader
that suffers damage necessitating structural repair shall be inspected
and retested after repair and before being returned to service.
(iv) All cargo handling gear covered by this section with a SWL
greater than 5 short tons (10,000 lbs. or 4540 kg.) shall be proof load
tested according to the chart in paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section
every 4 years in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section or by a
designated person.
* * * * *
(i) Safe working load. (1) The safe working load of gear as
specified in Sec. 1917.50 shall not be exceeded.
(2) All cargo handling gear provided by the employer with a safe
working load greater than 5 short tons (10,000 lbs. or 4540 kg.) shall
have its safe working load plainly marked on it.
(j) The certification requirements of this section do not apply to
the following equipment:
(1) Industrial trucks and small industrial crane trucks; and
(2) Any straddle truck not capable of straddling two or more
intermodal containers 16 feet (4.8 m) in width.
* * * * *
21. Sec. 1917.51 is proposed to be amended by removing the
regulatory text and revising the section heading to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.51 Hand tools.
(See subpart P of 29 CFR part 1910.)
22. Section 1917.71 is proposed to be amended by revising
paragraphs (b)(6), (b)(7), (c), (e), (f)(1)(i) and adding paragraphs
(b)(8), (f)(4) and (f)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.71 Terminals handling intermodal containers or roll-on roll-
off operations.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) Closed dry van containers carrying vehicles are exempted from
paragraph (b)(4) of this section provided that:
(i) The container carries only completely assembled vehicles and no
other cargo;
(ii) The container is marked on the outside in such a manner that
an employee can readily discern that the container is carrying
vehicles; and
(iii) The vehicles were loaded into the container at the marine
terminal.
(7) The weight of loaded inbound containers from foreign ports
shall be determined by weighing or by the method of calculation
described in paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section or by shipping
documents.
(8) Any scale used within the United States to weigh containers for
the purpose of the requirements of this section shall meet the accuracy
standards of the state or local public authority in which the scale is
located.
(c) No container or containers shall be hoisted if its actual gross
weight exceeds the weight marked as required in paragraph (a)(2) of
this section, or if it exceeds the capacity of the crane or other
hoisting device intended to be used.
* * * * *
(e) Employees working in the immediate area of container handling
equipment or in the terminal's traffic lanes shall wear high visibility
vests (or equivalent protection).
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) When hoisting by the top fittings, the lifting forces shall be
applied vertically from at least four (4) such fittings.
* * * * *
(4) Flat bed and low boy trailers (mafis) shall be marked with
their cargo capacities and shall not be overloaded.
(5) Air brake connections. Tractors shall connect all brake air
lines when pulling trailers equipped with air brakes.
* * * * *
23. Section 1917.73 is proposed to be amended by revising the
section heading and paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.73 Terminal facilities handling menhaden and similar species
of fish.
(See Sec. 1917.2(p).)
(a) * * *
(2) Before employees enter a dock tank, it shall first be drained,
rinsed and tested for hydrogen sulfide and oxygen deficiency. The
hydrogen sulfide content of the atmosphere in a dock tank, compartment,
or any enclosed space shall be maintained at not more than 10 parts per
million (ppm) (0.0010%) as an 8-hour time weighted average. The short
term exposure limit shall be 15 ppm (0.0015%) measured over a 15 minute
period. The oxygen level must be maintained to at least 19.5 percent.
* * * * *
24. Section 1917.91 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph
(a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.91 Eye protection.
(a)(1) When employees perform work hazardous to the eyes, the
employer shall provide eye protection equipment marked or labeled as
meeting the manufacturing specifications of American National
Standards, Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face
Protection, ANSI Z-87.1-1989 and shall require that it be used.
* * * * *
25. Section 1917.93 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph
(b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.93 Head protection.
* * * * *
(b) Protective hats shall bear identifying marks or labels
indicating compliance with the manufacturing provisions of American
National Standards, Requirements for Protective Headwear for Industrial
Workers, ANSI Z-89.1-1986.
* * * * *
26. Section 1917.94 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph
(b) to read as follows:
1917.94 Foot protection.
* * * * *
(b) Protective shoes shall bear identifying marks or labels
indicating compliance with manufacturing provisions of the American
National Standard for Personal Protection--Protective Footwear-ANSI
Z41-1991.
* * * * *
27. Section 1917.112 is proposed to be amended by revising
paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.112 Guarding of edges.
(a) * * *
(1) Vehicle curbs, bull rails, or other effective barriers at least
6 inches (15.24 cm) in height, shall be provided at the waterside edges
of aprons and bulkheads, except where vehicles are prohibited. Curbs or
bull rails installed after October 3, 1983, shall be at least 10 inches
(25.4 cm) in height.
* * * * *
28. Section 1917.118 is proposed to be amended by revising
paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (f)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.118 Fixed ladders.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2)(i) Ladders installed before October 3, 1983, shall have rungs
evenly spaced from 9 to 16\1/2\ inches (22.9 to 41.9 cm) apart, center
to center.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) Form a continuous ladder, uniformly spaced vertically from 12
inches to 16 inches (30.5 to 41 cm) apart, with a minimum width of 10
inches (25.4 cm) and projecting at least 4\1/2\ inches (11.43 cm) from
the wall;
* * * * *
29. Section 1917.119 is proposed to be amended by revising
paragraphs (b)(1), (d)(2), and (f)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.119 Portable ladders.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Rungs of manufactured portable ladders obtained before October
3, 1983, shall be capable of supporting a 200-pound (890 N) load
without deformation.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Are capable of supporting a 250-pound (1120 N) load without
deformation; and
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(4) Individual sections from different multi-sectional ladders or
two or more single straight ladders shall not be tied or fastened
together to achieve additional length.
* * * * *
30. Section 1917.121 is proposed to be amended by revising
paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.121 Spiral stairways.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Minimum loading capability shall be 100 pounds per square foot
(4.79 kPa), and minimum tread center concentrated loading shall be 300
pounds (1334 N);
* * * * *
31. Section 1917.124 is proposed to be amended by adding paragraphs
(c)(5), (c)(6), and (d)(5) and revising the section heading and
paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.124 Dockboards (car and bridge plates).
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(5) Dockboards shall be equipped with side boards that are at least
6 inches (15.2 cm) high along the space bridged.
(6) Dockboards shall be well maintained.
* * * * *
(d) Ramps. (1) Ramps shall be strong enough to support the loads
imposed on them, provided with sideboards that are at least 6 inches
(15.2 cm) high, properly secured and well maintained.
* * * * *
(5) Ramps shall be well maintained.
32. Section 1917.126 is proposed to be amended by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.126 River banks.
* * * * *
(b) Where working surfaces at river banks slope so steeply that an
employee could slip or fall into the water, the outer perimeter of the
working surface shall be protected by posting or other portable
protection such as roping off, and that employees wear a personal
flotation device meeting the requirements of Sec. 1917.95(b).
33. Section 1917.127 is proposed to be amended by revising
paragraph (a)(1) introductory text and adding a table at the end of
paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.127 Sanitation.
(a) Washing and toilet facilities. (1) Accessible washing and
toilet facilities sufficient for the sanitary requirements of employees
shall be readily accessible at the worksite. The number of toilet
facilities shall be provided in accordance with the table at the end of
paragraph (a) of this section. The facilities shall have:
* * * * *
(3) * * *
Toilet Facilities Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of employees Minimum no. of facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 or less......................... 1 toilet seat.
20 or more......................... 1 toilet seat and 1 urinal per 40
workers.
200 or more........................ 1 toilet seat and 1 urinal per 50
workers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
34. Section Sec. 1917.151 is proposed to be amended by revising the
section heading to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.151 Machine guarding.
(See 29 CFR part 1910, subpart O.)
* * * * *
35. Section 1917.152 is proposed to be amended by revising the
section heading, the introductory text of both paragraphs (f)(1) and
(f)(2) and (f)(3)(iv) to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.152 Welding, cutting and heating (hot work).\8\
(See 29 CFR 1917.2(p)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\The U.S. Coast Guard, at 33 CFR 126.15(c), requires prior
permission of the Captain of the Port if welding or other hot work
is to be carried out at a facility where dangerous cargoes as
defined by 33 CFR 126.07 are located or being handled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) Mechanical ventilation requirements. General mechanical
ventilation or local exhaust systems shall meet the following
requirements:
* * * * *
(2) Except as specified in paragraphs (f)(3)(ii) and (f)(3)(iii) of
this section, when hot work is performed in a confined space:
(3) * * *
(iv) Employees performing hot work in the open air that involves
any of the metals listed in paragraphs (f)(3) (i) and (ii) of this
section shall be protected by respirators in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 1910.134, and those working on beryllium-
containing base or filler metals shall be protected by supplied air
respirators, in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 1910.134.
* * * * *
36. Section 1917.153 is proposed to be amended by revising the
section heading to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.153 Spray painting.
(See 29 CFR 1917.2(p)).
37. Section 1917.156 is proposed to be amended by revising
paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(D) to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.156 Fuel handling and storage.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) * * *
(D) Leakage at valves or connections; and
* * * * *
38. Section 1917.157 is proposed to be amended by revising
paragraph (n) to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.157 Battery charging and changing.
* * * * *
(n) Chargers shall be turned off when leads are being connected or
disconnected.
* * * * *
39. Part 1918 is proposed to be revised to read as follows:
PART 1918--SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR LONGSHORING
Subpart A--Scope and Definitions
Sec.
1918.1 Scope and applicability
1918.2 Definitions
Subpart B--Gear Certification
1918.11 Gear certification.
Subpart C--Means of Access
1918.21 Gangways and other means of access.
1918.22 Jacob's ladders.
1918.23 Access to barges and river towboats.
1918.24 Bridge plates and ramps.
1918.25 Ladders.
Subpart D--Working Surfaces
1918.31 Hatch coverings.
1918.32 Stowed cargo and temporary landing platforms.
1918.33 Deck loads.
1918.34 Other decks.
1918.35 Open hatches.
1918.36 Weather deck rails.
1918.37 Barges.
1918.38 Log rafts.
Subpart E--Opening and Closing Hatches
1918.41 Coaming clearances.
1918.42 Hatch beam and pontoon bridles.
1918.43 Handling hatch beams and covers.
Subpart F--Vessel's Cargo Handling Gear
1918.51 General requirements.
1918.52 Specific requirements.
1918.53 Cargo winches.
1918.54 Rigging gear.
1981.55 Cranes.
Subpart G--Cargo Handling Gear and Equipment Other Than Ship's Gear
1918.61 General.
1918.62 Miscellaneous auxiliary gear.
1918.63 Chutes, gravity conveyors and rollers.
1918.64 Powered conveyors.
1918.65 Mechanically powered vehicles used aboard vessels.
1918.66 Cranes and derricks other than vessel's gear.
1918.67 Notifying ships's officers before using certain equipment.
1918.68 Grounding.
1918.69 Tools.
Subpart H--Handling Cargo
1918.81 Slinging.
1918.82 Building drafts.
1918.83 Stowed cargo; tiering and breaking down.
1918.84 Bulling cargo.
1918.85 Containerized cargo operations.
1918.86 Roll-on roll-off (RO-RO) operations.
1918.87 Ship's cargo elevators.
1918.88 Log operations.
1918.89 Hazardous cargo. (See also Sec. 1918.2(j)).
Subpart I--General Working Conditions
1918.90 Hazard communication (See Sec. 1918.1(b)(6)).
1918.91 Housekeeping.
1918.92 Illumination.
1918.93 Hazardous atmospheres and substances. (See also
Sec. 1918.2(j)).
1918.94 Ventilation and atmospheric conditions. (See also
Sec. 1918.2 (j)).
1918.95 Sanitation.
1918.96 Longshoring operations in the vicinity of maintenance and
repair work.
1918.97 First aid and lifesaving facilities.
1918.98 Personnel.
Subpart J--Personal Protective Equipment
1918.101 Eye protection.
1918.102 Respiratory protection. (See Sec. 1918.1(b)(12)).
1918.103 Head protection.
1918.104 Foot protection.
1918.105 Other protective measures.
Appendix I to Part 1918--Cargo Gear Register and Certificates (Non-
mandatory)
Appendix II to Part 1918--Tables for Selected Miscellaneous Auxiliary
Gear (Non-mandatory)
Appendix III to Part 1918--Container Top Safety (Non-mandatory)
Authority: Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation
Act (33 U.S.C. 941); Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order
No. 1-90 (55 FR 9033).
Subpart A--Scope and Definitions
Sec. 1918.1 Scope and Applicability.
(a) The regulations of this part apply to longshoring operations
and related employments aboard vessels. All cargo transfer accomplished
with the use of shore-based material handling devices shall be
regulated by part 1917 of this chapter.
(b) Part 1910 of this chapter does not apply to longshoring except
for the following provisions:
(1) Toxic and hazardous substances. Subpart Z of part 1910 applies
except that the requirements of subpart Z of part 1910 do not apply
when a substance or cargo is contained within a sealed, intact means of
packaging or containment complying with Department of Transportation or
International Maritime Organization requirements.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The International Maritime Organization publishes
International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code to aid compliance with
the International legal requirements of the International Convention
for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Access to employee exposure and medical records. Subpart C,
Sec. 1910.20;
(3) Commercial diving operations. Subpart T of part 1910;
(4) Electrical. Subpart S of part 1910; when shore-based electrical
installations provide power for use aboard vessels;
(5) Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-Held Equipment.
Subpart P of part 1910;
(6) Hazard Communication. Subpart Z, Sec. 1910.1200;
(7) Hazardous waste operations and emergency response. Subpart H,
Sec. 1910.120(q).
(8) Ionizing radiation. Subpart G, Sec. 1910.96;
(9) Machinery and Machine Guarding. Subpart O, Sec. 1910.211;
(10) Noise. Subpart G, Sec. 1910.95;
(11) Nonionizing radiation. Subpart G, Sec. 1910.97; and (12)
(12) Respiratory protection. Subpart I, Sec. 1910.134.
Sec. 1918.2 Definitions.
(a) The terms hatch beam or ``strongback'' mean a portable
transverse or longitudinal beam which is placed across a hatchway and
acts as a bearer to support the hatch covers.
(b) The term bulling means the horizontal dragging of cargo across
a surface with none of the weight of the cargo supported by the fall.
(c) The term designated person means a person who possesses
specialized abilities in a specific area and is assigned by the
employer to perform a specific task in the area.
(d) The term dockboards (car and bridge plates) mean devices for
spanning short distances between, for example, two barges, which do not
expose employees to falls greater than 4 feet (1.2 m).
(e) The term employee means any longshore worker, or other person
engaged in longshoring operations or related employments other than the
master, ship's officers, crew of the vessel, or any person engaged by
the master to load or unload any vessel under 18 net tons.
(f) The term employer means a person or company that employs
workers in longshoring operations or related employments, as defined
herein.
(g) The term enclosed space means an interior space in or on a
vessel, other than a confined space, that may contain or accumulate a
hazardous atmosphere due to inadequate natural ventilation. Examples of
enclosed spaces are holds, deep tanks and refrigerated compartments.
(h) Fumigant is a substance or mixture of substances, used to kill
pests or prevent infestation, which is a gas or is rapidly or
progressively transformed to the gaseous state, even though some
nongaseous or particulate matter may remain and be dispersed in the
treatment space.
(i) The term gangway means any ramp-like or stair-like means of
access provided to enable personnel to board or leave a vessel,
including accommodation ladders, gangplanks and brows.
(j) The term hazardous cargo, materials, substance or atmosphere
means:
(1) Any substance listed in 29 CFR part 1910, subpart Z;
(2) Any material in the Hazardous Materials Table and Hazardous
Materials Communications Regulations of the Department of
Transportation, 49 CFR part 172;
(3) Any article not properly described by a name in the Hazardous
Materials Table and Hazardous Materials Communication Regulations of
the Department of Transportation, 49 CFR part 172, but which is
properly classified under the definitions of those categories of
dangerous articles given in 49 CFR part 173; or
(4) Any atmosphere with an oxygen content of less than 19.5 percent
or greater than 23 percent.
(k) The term intermodal container means a reusable cargo container
of rigid construction and rectangular configuration; fitted with
devices permitting its ready handling, particularly its transfer from
one mode of transport to another; so designed to be readily filled and
emptied; intended to contain one or more articles of cargo or bulk
commodities for transportation by water and one or more other transport
modes. The term includes completely enclosed units, open top units,
fractional height units, units incorporating liquid or gas tanks and
other variations fitting into the container system. It does not include
cylinders, drums, crates, cases, cartons, packages, sacks, unitized
loads or any other form of packaging.
(l) The term longshoring operations means the loading, unloading,
moving or handling of cargo, ship's stores, gear, etc., into, in, on,
or out of any vessel.
(m) The term public vessel means a vessel owned and operated by a
government and not regularly employed in merchant service.
(n) The term ramp means other flat surface devices for passage
between levels and across openings not covered under the term
``dockboards''.
(o) The term related employments means any employments performed as
an incident to or in conjunction with longshoring operations,
including, but not restricted to, securing cargo, rigging, and
employment as a porter, clerk, checker, or watchman.
(p) The term Secretary means the Secretary of Labor.
(q) The term small trimming hatch means a small hatch or opening,
pierced in the 'tween-deck or other intermediate deck of a vessel, and
intended for the trimming of dry bulk cargoes. It does not refer to the
large hatchways through which cargo is normally handled.
(r) The term vessel includes every description of watercraft or
other artificial contrivance used or capable of being used as a means
of transportation on water, including special purpose floating
structures not primarily designed for or used as a means of
transportation on water.
(s) For the purposes of Secs. 1918.21, 1918.23, 1918.35, 1918.37,
and 1918.43(f)(2), the term ``barge'' means an unpowered, flatbottomed,
shallow draft vessel including river barges, scows, carfloats, and
lighters. For the purposes of these sections the term does not include
ship shaped or deep draft barges.
(t) For the purposes of Secs. 1918.21 and 1918.23, the term ``river
towboat'' means a shallow draft, low freeboard, self propelled vessel
designed to tow river barges by pushing ahead. For purposes of these
sections the term does not include other towing vessels.
(u) For the purpose of Sec. 1918.11, the term ``vessel's cargo
handling gear'' includes that gear which is a permanent part of the
vessel's equipment and which is used for the handling of cargo other
than bulk liquids. It does not include gear which is used only for
handling or holding hoses, handling ship's stores or handling the
gangway, or boom conveyor belt systems for the self-unloading of bulk
cargo vessels. It does include all stationary or mobile cargo handling
appliances, including shore-based power-operated ramps, used on shore
or on board ship for suspending, raising, or lowering loads or moving
them from one position to another while suspended or supported.
(v) For the purpose of Sec. 1918.23(b), the term ``Mississippi
River System'' includes the Mississippi River from the head of
navigation to its mouth, and navigable tributaries including the
Illinois Waterway, Missouri River, Ohio River, Tennessee River,
Allegheny River, Cumberland River, Green River, Kanawha River,
Monongahela River, and such others to which barge operations extend.
Subpart B--Gear Certification
Sec. 1918.11 Gear certification.
(See also Sec. 1918.51).
(a) The employer shall not use the vessel's cargo handling gear
until it has been ascertained that the vessel has a current and valid
cargo gear register and certificates which in form and content are in
substantial accordance with the recommendations of the International
Labor Office, as set forth in Appendix I of this part, and as provided
by International Labor Organization Convention No. 152, and which
indicates that the cargo gear has been tested, examined and heat
treated by or under the supervision of persons or organizations defined
as competent to make register entries and issue certificates pursuant
to paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
(b) Public vessels and vessels holding a valid Certificate of
Inspection issued by the U.S. Coast Guard pursuant to 46 CFR part 91
are deemed to meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) With respect to U.S. vessels not holding a valid Certificate of
Inspection issued by the U.S. Coast Guard, persons or organizations
competent to make entries in the registers and issue the certificates
required by paragraph (a) of this section shall be only those persons
currently accredited by (OSHA) U.S. Department of Labor, as provided in
part 1919 of this chapter.
(d) With respect to vessels under foreign registry, persons or
organizations competent to make entries in the registers and issue the
certificates required by paragraph (a) of this section shall be:
(1) Those acceptable as such to any foreign nation;
(2) Those acceptable to the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard; or
(3) Those currently accredited by OSHA U.S. Department of Labor, as
provided in part 1919 of this chapter.
Subpart C--Means of Access
Sec. 1918.21 Gangways and other means of access.
(a) The employer shall not permit employees to board or leave any
vessel, except a barge or river towboat, until the following
requirements have been met:
(1) Whenever practicable, a gangway of not less than 20 inches (.51
m) in width, of adequate strength, maintained in safe repair and safely
secured shall be used. If a gangway is not practicable, a substantial
straight ladder meeting the requirements of Sec. 1918.25 of this
subpart and extending at least 36 inches (.92 m) above the upper
landing surface, and adequately secured against shifting or slipping
shall be provided. When conditions are such that neither a gangway nor
straight ladder can be used, a Jacob's ladder meeting the requirements
of Sec. 1918.22 may be used.
(2) Each side of such gangway, and the turntable, if used, shall
have a railing with a minimum height of 33 inches (.84 m) measured
perpendicularly from rail to walking surfaces at the stanchion, with a
midrail. Rails shall be of wood, pipe, chain, wire, rope or materials
of equivalent strength and shall be kept taut at all times. Portable
stanchions supporting railings shall be so supported or secured as to
prevent accidental dislodgement.
(b) The gangway shall be kept properly trimmed at all times.
(c) When a fixed flat tread accommodation ladder is used, and the
angle is low enough to require employees to walk on the edge of the
treads, cleated duckboards shall be laid over and secured to the
ladder.
(d) When the gangway overhangs the water in such a manner that
there is danger of employees falling between the ship and the dock, a
net or suitable protection shall be provided to prevent employees from
falling to a lower level.
(e) If the foot of the gangway is more than 1 foot (.30 m) away
from the edge of the apron, the space between them shall be bridged by
a firm walkway equipped with railings with a minimum height of
approximately 33 inches (.84 m) with midrails on both sides.
(f) Gangways shall be kept clear of supporting bridles and other
obstructions, in order to provide unobstructed passage. If, because of
design, the gangway bridle cannot be moved in order to provide
unobstructed passage, than the hazard shall be properly marked to alert
employees of the danger.
(g) When the upper end of the means of access rests on or is flush
with the top of the bulwark, substantial steps, properly secured,
trimmed and equipped with at least one substantial hand rail 33 inches
(.84 m) in height shall be provided between the top of the bulwark and
the deck.
(h) Obstructions shall not be laid on or across the gangway.
(i) Handrails and walking surfaces of gangways shall be kept free
of oil, grease, bulk cargoes or other substances that could cause an
employee to slip and fall.
(j) The means of access shall be illuminated for its full length in
accordance with Sec. 1918.92.
(k) If possible, the vessel's means of access shall be located so
that suspended loads do not pass over it. In any event, suspended loads
shall not be passed over the means of access while employees or others
are on it.
(l) Gangways on vessels inspected and certificated by the U.S.
Coast Guard are deemed to meet the requirements of this section.
Sec. 1918.22 Jacob's ladders.
(a) Jacob's ladders shall be of the double rung or flat tread type.
They shall be well maintained and properly secured.
(b) A Jacob's ladder shall either hang without slack from its
lashings or be pulled up entirely.
Sec. 1918.23 Access to barges and river towboats.
(a) Ramps for access of vehicles to or between barges shall be:
(1) Of adequate strength for intended loads;
(2) Provided with side boards;
(3) Well maintained; and
(4) Properly secured.
(b) When employees cannot step safely to or from the wharf and a
float, barge, or river towboat, either a ramp meeting the requirements
of paragraph (a) of this section or a safe walkway meeting the
requirements of Sec. 1918.21(e) shall be provided. When a walkway
cannot be used, a straight ladder meeting the requirements of
Sec. 1918.25 of this subpart and extending at least 36 inches (.92 m)
above the upper landing surface and adequately secured against shifting
or slipping shall be provided. When conditions are such that neither a
walkway nor a straight ladder can be used, a Jacob's ladder meeting the
requirements of Sec. 1918.22 may be used. Exception: For barges
operating on the Mississippi River System, where the employer
demonstrates that these requirements cannot reasonably be met due to
local conditions, other safe means of access shall be provided.
(c) When a barge, raft or log boom is being worked alongside a
larger vessel, a Jacob's ladder meeting the requirements of
Sec. 1918.22 shall be provided for each gang working alongside unless
other safe means of access are provided. However, no more than two
Jacob's ladders are required for any single barge, raft or log boom
being worked.
(d) When longshoring operations are in progress on barges, the
barges shall be securely made fast to the vessel, wharf, or dolphins.
(e) When a Jacob's ladder is used as the means of access to a barge
being worked, spacers (bumpers) shall be hung between the vessel,
barge, or other structure to which the barge is tied alongside, or
other equally effective means shall be taken to prevent damage to the
bottom rungs of the ladder.
(f) When a Jacob's ladder is being used in such a manner that there
is a danger of an employee falling between the vessel, barge, or other
structure (pier), a net or other equivalent protection shall be
provided.
Sec. 1918.24 Bridge plates and ramps.
(See also Sec. 1918.86).
(a) Bridge and car plates (dockboards). Bridge and car plates used
afloat shall be well maintained and shall:
(1) Be strong enough to support the loads imposed on them;
(2) Be secured or equipped with devices to prevent their
dislodgement;
(3) Be equipped with hand holds or other effective means to permit
safe handling and;
(4) Be equipped with side boards that are at least 6 inches (.16 m)
high along the space bridged.
(b) Portable ramps. Portable ramps used afloat shall be well
maintained and shall:
(1) Be strong enough to support the loads imposed on them;
(2) Be equipped with a railing meeting the requirements of
Sec. 1918.21(a)(2), if the slope is more than 20 degrees to the
horizontal or if employees could fall more than 4 feet (1.2 m);
(3) Be equipped with a slip resistant surface;
(4) Be properly secured; and
(5) Be equipped with side boards that are at least 6 inches (15.2
cm) high.
Sec. 1918.25 Ladders.
(a) There shall be at least one safe and accessible ladder for each
gang working in a hatch. However, no more than two such ladders are
required in any hatch. An effective means of gaining a handhold shall
be provided at or near the head of each vertical fixed ladder cannot
serve this purpose.
(b) When any fixed ladder is visibly unsafe, the employer shall
identify such ladder and prohibit its use by employees.
(c) Where portable straight ladders are used, they shall be of
sufficient length to extend 36 inches (.91 m) above the upper landing
surface, and positively secured or held against shifting or slipping.
When conditions are such that a straight ladder cannot be used, Jacob's
ladders meeting the requirements of Sec. 1918.22 may be used.
(d) When 6 inches (15.2 cm) or more of clearance does not exist in
back of ladder rungs, the ladder shall be deemed ``unsafe'' for the
purpose of this section. However, for vessels built prior to December
5, 1981, the ladder shall be deemed ``unsafe'' when 4 inches (10 cm) or
more of clearance does not exist in back of ladder rungs. Alternate
means of access (for example, a portable ladder) must be utilized.
(e) (1) Where access to or from a stowed deckload or other cargo is
needed and no other safe means is available, ladders or steps of
adequate strength shall be furnished, and positively secured or held
against shifting or slipping while in use. Steps formed by the cargo
itself are acceptable when the employer demonstrates that the nature of
the cargo and the type of stowage provides equivalent safe access.
(2) Where portable straight ladders are used they shall be of
sufficient length to extend at least 36 inches (.92 m) above the upper
landing surface.
(f) The following standards for existing manufactured portable
ladders must be met:
(1) Rungs of manufactured portable ladders obtained before [insert
effective date of the Final Rule] shall be capable of supporting a 200-
pound (890 N) load without deformation.
(2) Rungs shall be evenly spaced from 9 to 16\1/2\ inches (22.9 to
41.9 cm), center to center.
(3) Rungs shall be continuous members between rails. Each rung of a
double-rung ladder (two side rails and a center rail) shall extend the
full width of the ladder.
(4) Width between side rails at the base of the ladder shall be at
least 12 inches (30 cm) for ladders 10 feet (3.05 m) or less in overall
length, and shall increase at least one-fourth inch (0.6 cm) for each
additional 2 feet (0.61 m) of ladder length.
(g) Standards for manufactured portable ladders. Portable
manufactured ladders obtained after [insert effective date of the Final
Rule] shall bear identification indicating that they meet the
appropriate ladder construction requirements of the following
standards:
(1) ANSI A14.1-1990, Safety Requirements for Portable Wood Ladders;
(2) ANSI A14.2-1990, Safety Requirements for Portable Metal
Ladders;
(3) ANSI A14.5-1992, Safety Requirements for Portable Reinforced
Plastic Ladders.
(h) Standards for job-made portable ladders. Job-made ladders
shall:
(1) Have a minimum and uniform distance between rungs of 12 inches
(30 cm) center to center;
(2) Be capable of supporting a 250-pound (1100 N) load without
deformation; and
(3) Have a minimum width between side rails of 12 inches (30 cm)
for ladders 10 feet (3.05 m) or less in height. Width between rails
shall increase at least one-fourth inch (0.6 cm) for each additional 2
feet (0.61 m) of ladder length.
(i) Maintenance and inspection. (1) The employer shall maintain
portable ladders in safe condition. Ladders with the following defects
shall not be used, and shall either be tagged as unusable if kept on
board, or shall be removed from the vessel:
(i) Broken, split or missing rungs, cleats or steps;
(ii) Broken or split side rails;
(iii) Missing or loose bolts, rivets or fastenings;
(iv) Defective ropes; or
(v) Any other structural defect.
(2) Ladders shall be inspected for defects prior to each day's use,
and after any occurrence, such as a fall, which could damage the
ladder.
(j) Ladder usage. (1) Ladders made by fastening rungs or devices
across a single rail are prohibited.
(2) Ladders shall not be used:
(i) As guys, braces or skids; or
(ii) As platforms, runways or scaffolds.
(3) Metal and wire-reinforced ladders with wooden side rails may
not be used when employees on the ladder might come into contact with
energized electrical conductors.
(4) Individual sections from different multi-sectional ladders or
two or more single straight ladders shall not be tied or fastened
together to achieve additional length.
(5) Except for combination ladders, self-supporting ladders shall
not be used as single straight ladders.
(6) Unless intended for cantilever operation, non-self-supporting
ladders shall not be used to climb above the top support point.
(7) Ladders shall be securely positioned on a level and firm base.
(8) Ladders shall be fitted with slip-resistant bases or lashed in
place to prevent slipping or shifting while in use.
Subpart D--Working Surfaces
Sec. 1918.31 Hatch coverings.
(a) No cargo, dunnage, or other material shall be loaded or
unloaded by means requiring the services of employees at any partially
opened intermediate deck unless either the hatch at that deck is
sufficiently covered or an adequate landing area suitable for the
prevailing conditions exists. Except, that in no event shall such work
be done unless the working area available for such employees extends
for a distance of 10 feet (3.05 m) or more fore and aft and
athwartships.
(b) Cargo shall not be landed on or handled over a covered hatch or
'tween-deck unless all hatch beams are in place under the hatch covers.
(c) Missing, broken, or poorly fitting hatch covers that would
jeopardize the safety of employees shall be reported at once to the
officer in charge of the vessel. Pending replacement or repairs by the
vessel, work shall not be performed in the section containing the
unsafe covers or in adjacent sections unless the flooring is made safe.
(d) Hatch covers and hatch beams not of uniform size shall be
placed only in the hatch, deck, and section in which they fit properly.
(e) Small trimming hatches located in intermediate decks shall be
securely covered or guarded while work is proceeding in the hatch in
which they are located, unless they are actually in use.
Sec. 1918.32 Stowed cargo and temporary landing surfaces.
(a) Temporary surfaces on which loads are to be landed shall be of
sufficient size and strength to permit employees to work safely.
(b) When the edge of a hatch section or of stowed cargo (excluding
intermodal freight containers) is more than 8 feet (2.4 m) high and so
exposed that it exposes an employee to fall hazards, the edge shall be
guarded by a vertical safety net, or other means providing equal
protection, to prevent an employee from falling. When the employer can
demonstrate that vertical nets or other equally effective means of
guarding cannot be used due to the type of cargo, cargo stowage, or
other circumstances, a trapeze net shall be rigged at the top edge of
the elevation or other means shall be taken to prevent injury if an
employee falls. Safety net systems and their use shall comply with the
appropriate provisions of the American National Standard for Personnel
and Debris Nets (ANSI A10.11-1989).
(c) When two gangs are working in the same hatch on different
levels, a safety net shall be rigged and securely fastened so as to
prevent employees or cargo from falling.
Sec. 1918.33 Deck loads.
(a) Employees shall not be permitted to pass over or around deck
loads unless there is a safe passage.
(b) Signalpersons shall not be permitted to walk over deck loads
from rail to coaming unless there is a safe passage. If it is necessary
to stand or walk at the outboard or inboard edge of the deck load
having less than 24 inches (.61 cm) of bulwark, rail, coaming, or other
protection exists, any signalpersons shall be provided with an
equivalent means of protection against falling from the deck load.
Sec. 1918.34 Other decks.
(a) Cargo shall not be worked on decks that were not designed to
support the load being worked.
(b) Grated decks shall be properly placed, supported, maintained
and designed to support workers.
Sec. 1918.35 Open hatches.
Open weather deck hatches around which employees must work, which
are not protected to a height of 24 inches (.61 cm) by coamings, shall
be guarded by taut lines or barricades at a height of 36 to 42 inches
(.92 to 1.07 m) above the deck, except on the side on which cargo is
being worked. Any portable stanchions or uprights used shall be so
supported or secured as to prevent accidental dislodgement.
Sec. 1918.36 Weather deck rails.
Removable weather deck rails shall be kept in place except when
cargo operations require them to be removed, in which case they shall
be replaced as soon as such cargo operations are completed.
Sec. 1918.37 Barges.
(a) Walking shall be prohibited along the sides of covered lighters
or barges with coamings or cargo more than 5 feet (1.5 m) high unless a
3-foot (.91 m) clear walkway or a grab rail or taut handline is
provided.
(b) Walking or working shall be prohibited on the decks of barges
to be loaded unless the walking or working surfaces have been
determined by visual inspection to be sound structurally and maintained
properly. If in the course of discharging a barge and an unsound deck
surface is discovered, work shall be discontinued and shall not be
resumed until means have been taken to ensure a safe work surface.
Sec. 1918.38 Log rafts.
(See also Sec. 1918.88.)
When an employee is working logs out of the water, walking
sticks\2\ (safety sticks) shall be provided as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\A ``walking stick'' is two logs bolted or otherwise secured
together with two or three planks firmly attached on top that serves
as a floating walking and working surface and that is used in the
loading of logs onto vessels from the water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) They shall be planked and be no less than 24 inches (60.9 cm)
wide;
(b) They shall extend along the entire length of all rafts on the
offshore side of the vessel, and to the means of access to the log
raft(s); and
(c) They shall be buoyant enough to keep the walking surface above
the waterline when employees are walking on them.
Subpart E--Opening and Closing Hatches
Sec. 1918.41 Coaming clearances.
(a) Weather deck. If a deck load (such as lumber or other smooth
sided deck cargo) over 5 feet (1.5 m) high is stowed within 3 feet (.91
m) of the hatch coaming and employees handling hatch beams and hatch
covers are not protected by a coaming at least 24-inch (.61 m) high, a
taut handline shall be provided along the side of the deckload. The
requirements of Sec. 1918.35 are not intended to apply in this
situation.
(b) Intermediate deck. (1) There shall be a 3 foot (.91 m) working
space between the stowed cargo and the coaming at both sides and at one
end of the hatches with athwartship hatch beams, and at both ends of
those hatches with fore and aft hatch beams, before intermediate deck
hatch covers and hatch beams are removed or replaced by employees.
(2) The 3 foot (.91 m) clearance required by paragraph (b)(1) of
this section is not required on the covered portion of a partially open
hatch, nor is it required when lower decks have been filled to hatch
beam height with cargo of such a nature as to provide a safe surface
upon which employees may work.
(3) For purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, fitted
gratings which are in good condition shall be considered a part of the
decking when properly placed within the 3 foot (.91 m) area.
(c) Grab rails or taut handlines shall be provided for the
protection of employees handling hatch beams and hatch covers, when
bulkheads, lockers, reefer compartments or large spare parts are within
3 feet (.91 m) of the coaming.
(d) This section does not apply to hatches which are opened or
closed by hydraulic or other mechanical means. However, in all cases in
which the 3 foot (.91 m) clearance does not exist, means shall be taken
to prevent stowed cargo which is likely to shift from falling into the
hold.
Sec. 1918.42 Hatch beam and pontoon bridles.
(a) Hatch beam and pontoon bridles shall be:
(1) long enough to easily reach the holes, rings, or other lifting
attachments on the hatch beams and pontoons;
(2) of adequate strength to safely lift the load; and
(3) properly maintained, including covering or blunting of
protruding ends in wire rope splices.
(b) Bridles for lifting hatch beams shall be equipped with toggles,
shackles, or hooks, or other devices of such design that they cannot
become accidentally dislodged from the hatch beams with which they are
used. Hooks other than those herein described may be used only when
they are hooked into the standing part of the bridle. Toggles, when
used, shall be at least 1 inch (2.5 cm) longer than twice the longest
diameter of the holes into which they are placed.
(c) Bridles used for lifting pontoons and plugs shall have the
number of legs required by the design of the pontoon or plug, and all
legs shall be used. Where any use of a bridle requires fewer than the
number of legs provided, idle legs shall be hung on the hook or ring,
or otherwise prevented from swinging free.
(d) At least two legs of all strongback and pontoon bridles shall
be equipped with a fibre lanyard at least 8 feet (2.4 m) long and in
good condition. The bridle end of the lanyard shall be of chain or
wire.
Sec. 1918.43 Handling hatch beams and covers.
Paragraphs (f)(2), (g), and (h) of this section apply only to
folding, sliding, or hinged metal hatch covers or to those hatch covers
handled by cranes.
(a) (1) When hatch covers or pontoons are stowed on the weather
deck abreast of hatches, they shall be arranged in stable piles not
closer than 3 feet (.91 m) from the hatch coaming except, when on the
working side of the hatch, they are spread one high between coaming and
bulwark with no space between them and with not less than a 24-inch
height of hatch coaming maintained. Under no circumstances shall hatch
covers or pontoons be stacked higher than the hatch coaming or bulwark
on the working side of the hatch.
(2) On seagoing vessels, hatch boards or similar covers removed
from the hatch beams in a section of partially opened hatch during
cargo handling, cleaning or other operations, shall not be stowed on
those left in place within that section.
(b) Hatch beams shall be laid on their sides, or stood on edge
close together and lashed. Except that: This paragraph (b) shall not
apply in cases where hatch beams are of such design that:
(1) The width of the flange is 50 percent or more of the height of
the web; and
(2) The flange rests flat on the deck when the hatch beam is stood
upright.
(c) Strongbacks, hatch covers, and pontoons removed from hatch
openings and placed on the weather deck shall not obstruct clear fore
and aft or coaming to bulwark passageways and shall be lashed or
otherwise secured to prevent accidental dislodgement. Dunnage or other
suitable material shall be placed under each tier, to prevent
strongbacks and hatch covers from sliding, when stowed on steel decks.
(d) Hatch covers unshipped in an intermediate deck shall be placed
at least 3 feet (.91 m) from the coaming or they shall be removed to
another deck. Strongbacks unshipped in an intermediate deck shall not
be placed closer than 6 inches (15.2 cm) from the coaming, and if
placed closer than 3 feet (.91 m), they shall be secured so that they
cannot be tipped or dragged into a lower compartment. If such placement
or securement is not possible, strongbacks shall be removed to another
deck.
(e) Any hatch beam or pontoon left in place adjacent to an open
hatch section being worked shall be locked or otherwise secured, so
that it cannot be accidently displaced. All portable, manually handled
hatch covers, including those bound together to make a larger cover,
shall be removed from any working section, and adjacent sections,
unless securely lashed.
(f) (1) The roller hatch beam at the edge of the open section of
the hatch shall be lashed or pinned back so that it cannot be moved
toward the open section.
(2) Rolling, sectional or telescopic hatch covers of barges which
open in a fore and aft direction shall be secured while in the open
position against unintentional movement.
(g) Hinged or folding hatch covers normally stowed in an
approximately vertical position shall be positively secured when in the
upright position, unless the design of the system otherwise prohibits
unintentional movement.
(h) Hatches shall not be opened or closed while employees are in
the square of the hatch below.
(i) All unsecured materials such as dunnage, lashings, twist-locks,
or stacking cones shall be removed from the hatch cover before the
hatch cover is moved.
(j) When a hatch is to be covered, hatch covers or night tents
shall be used. Any covering which only partially covers the hatch, such
as alternate hatch covers or strips of dunnage, shall not be covered by
a tarpaulin. Except that: A tarpaulin may be used to cover an open or
partially open hatch in order to reduce dust emissions during bulk
cargo loading operations, provided that employees are prevented from
walking on top of the tarpaulin.
Subpart F--Vessel's Cargo Handling Gear
Sec. 1918.51 General requirements.
(See also Sec. 1918.11).
(a) Neither the safe working load as specified in the cargo gear
certification papers, nor any safe working load marked on the booms,
shall be exceeded. Any limitations imposed by the certificating
authority shall be adhered to.
(b) All components of cargo handling gear, including tent gantlines
and associated rigging, shall be inspected by the employer or by a
designated representative of the employer before each use and at
intervals during use. Any gear which is found to be unsafe shall not be
used until it is made safe.
(c) The following limitations shall apply to the use of wire rope
as a part of the ship's cargo handling gear:
(1) Eye splices in wire ropes shall have at least three tucks with
a whole strand of the rope and two tucks with one-half of the wire cut
from each strand. Other forms of splices or connections which provide
the same level of safety may be used;
(2) Except for eye splices in the ends of wires, each wire rope
used in hoisting or lowering, in guying derricks, or as a topping lift,
preventer, segment of a multi-part preventer, or pendant, shall consist
of one continuous piece without knot or splice; and
(3) Wire rope or wire rope slings exhibiting any of the conditions
specified in Sec. 1918.62(b)(4) (i) through (vi) shall not be used.
(d) Natural and synthetic fibre rope slings exhibiting any of the
conditions specified in Sec. 1918.62(e) (1) through (7) shall not be
used.
(e) Synthetic web slings exhibiting any of the conditions specified
in Sec. 1918.62(g)(2) (i) through (v) shall not be used.
(f) Chains, including slings, exhibiting any of the conditions
specified in Sec. 1918.62(h)(3)(iii), (iv), and (h)(6) shall not be
used.
Sec. 1918.52 Specific requirements.
(a) Preventers. (1) When preventers are used they shall be of
sufficient strength for the intended purpose and secured to the head of
the boom independent of working guys except when, in the case of cast
fittings, the strength of the fitting exceeds the total strength of all
lines secured to it. Any tails, fittings, or other means of making the
preventers fast on deck shall provide strength equal to that of the
preventer itself.
(2) Wire rope clips or knots shall not be used to form eyes in, nor
to join sections of, preventer guys.
(b) Stoppers. (1) When used, chain topping lift stoppers shall be
in good condition, equipped with fibre tails, and of a length to allow
not fewer than three half-hitches in the chain.
(2) When used, chain stoppers shall be shackled or otherwise
secured in such a manner that their links are not bent by being passed
around fittings. The point of attachment shall be of sufficient
strength and so located that the stoppers are in line with the normal
topping lift lead at the time the stopper is applied.
(3) When used, patent stoppers of the clamp type shall be suited to
the size of the rope used. Clamps shall be in good condition and free
of paint and dirt which would prevent their being drawn tight.
(c) Falls. (1) The end of the winch fall shall be secured to the
drum by clamps, U-bolts, shackles, or some other equally strong method.
Fibre rope fastenings shall not be used.
(2) Winch falls shall not be used with fewer than three turns on
the winch drum.
(3) Eyes in the ends of wire rope cargo falls shall not be formed
by knots and, in single part falls, shall not be formed by wire rope
clips.
(4) When the design of the winch permits, the fall shall be so
wound on the drum so that the cargo hook rises when the winch control
lever is pulled back and lowers when the lever is pushed forward.
(d) Heel blocks. (1) When an employee works in the bight formed by
the heel block, a preventer of at least three quarter inch (1.9 cm)
diameter wire rope shall be securely rigged, or equally effective means
shall be taken, to hold the block and fall in the event that the heel
block attachments fail. Where physical limitations prohibit the fitting
of a wire rope preventer of the required size, two turns of one-half
inch (1.3 cm) diameter wire rope shall be sufficient.
(2) If the heel block is not so rigged as to prevent its falling
when not under strain, it shall be secured to prevent alternate raising
and dropping of the block. Except that: This requirement shall not
apply when the heel block is so located as to be at least 10 feet (3.0
m) above the deck when at its lowest point.
(e) Coaming rollers. Portable coaming rollers shall be secured by
wire preventers in addition to the regular coaming clamps.
(f) Cargo hooks. Cargo hooks shall be as close to the junction of
the falls as the assembly permits, but in no case farther than 2 feet
(.61 m) from it. Except, that this provision shall not apply when the
construction of the vessel and the operation in progress are such that
fall angles in excess of 120 degrees do not normally occur. Overhaul
chains shall not be shortened by bolting or knotting.
Sec. 1918.53 Cargo winches.
(a) Moving parts of winches or other deck machinery shall be
guarded.
(b) Winches shall not be used if control levers operate with
excessive friction or excessive play.
(c) Double gear winches or other winches equipped with a clutch
shall not be used unless a positive means of locking the gear shift is
provided.
(d) There shall be no load other than the fall and cargo hook
assembly on the winch when changing gears on a two gear winch.
(e) Any defect or malfunction of winches that affects safety shall
be reported immediately to the officer in charge of the vessel, and the
winch shall not be used until the defect or malfunction is corrected.
(f) Temporary seats and shelters for winch drivers which create a
hazard to the winch operator or other employees shall not be used.
(g) Except for short handles on wheel type controls, winch drivers
shall not be permitted to use winch control extension levers unless
they are provided by either the ship or the employer. Such levers shall
be of adequate strength and securely fastened with metal connections at
the fulcrum and at the permanent control lever.
(h) Extension control levers which tend to fall of their own weight
shall be counterbalanced.
(i) Winch brakes shall be monitored for performance. If winch
brakes are unable to hold the load, the winch shall not be used.
(j) Winches shall not be used when one or more control points,
either hoisting or lowering, is not operating properly. Employees shall
not be permitted to tamper with or adjust control systems.
(k) When winches are left unattended, control levers shall be
placed in the neutral position and the power shall be shut off or
control levers shall be locked at the winch or the operating controls.
Sec. 1918.54 Rigging gear.
(a) Guy and preventer placement. Each guy or preventer shall be
placed so as to prevent it from making contact with any other guy,
preventer, or stay.
(b) Guys. When alternate positions for securing guys are provided,
the guys shall be so placed as to produce a minimum stress without
permitting the boom to jackknife.
(c) Boom placement. The head of the midship boom shall be spotted
no farther outboard of the coaming than is necessary for control of the
load.
(d) Preventers. (1) Preventers shall be properly secured to
suitable fittings, other than those to which the guys are secured, and
shall be as nearly parallel to the guys as available fittings permit.
(2) Unless the cleat is also a chock and the hauling part is led
through the chock opening, the leads of preventers to cleats shall be
such that the direction of the line pull of the preventer is as nearly
as possible parallel to the plane of the surface on which the cleat is
mounted.
(3) Guys and associated preventers shall be adjusted so as to share
the load as equally as practicable where cargo operations are being
conducted by burtoning. Except, that where guys are designed and
intended for trimming purposes only, and the preventer is intended to
perform the function of the guy, the guy shall be left slack.
(e) Cargo falls. Cargo falls under load shall not be permitted to
chafe on any standing or other running rigging. Exception: Rigging
shall not be construed to mean hatch coamings or other similar
structural parts of the vessel.
(f) Bull wire. (1) Where a bull wire is taken to a gypsy head for
the purpose of lowering or topping a boom, the bull wire shall be
secured to the gypsy head by shackle or other equally strong method.
Securing by fibre rope fastening will not be acceptable in meeting this
requirement.
(2) When, in lowering or topping a boom, it is not possible to
secure the bullwire to the gypsy head, or when the topping lift itself
is taken to the gypsy head, multiple turns, of at least five shall be
used.
(g) Trimming and deckloads. When deck loads extend above the rail
and there is less than 12 inches (30.48 cm) horizontal clearance
between the edge of the deck load and the inside of the bulwark or
rail, a pendant or other alternate device shall be provided to allow
trimming of the gear without going overside.
Sec. 1918.55 Cranes.
(See also Sec. 1918.11).
The following requirements shall apply to the use of cranes forming
part of a vessel's permanent equipment.
(a) Defects. Cranes with a visible or known defect that affects
safe operation shall not be used. Defects shall be reported immediately
to the officer in charge of the vessel.
(b) Operator's station. (1) Good visibility shall be maintained
through the cab's glass (or equivalent). Cranes with broken, cracked,
or scratched glass (or equivalent) that impair operator visibility
shall not be used.
(2) Clothing, tools and equipment shall be so stored as to not
interfere with access, operation or the operator's view.
(c) Cargo operations. (1) Accessible areas within the swing radius
of the body of a revolving crane or within the travel of a shipboard
gantry crane shall be physically guarded during operations to prevent
an employee from being caught between the body of the crane and any
fixed structure, or between parts of the crane.
(2) Limit switch bypass systems shall be secured during all cargo
operations.
(3) Under all operating conditions, at least three full turns of
rope shall remain on ungrooved drums, and two full turns on grooved
drums.
(4) Crane brakes shall be monitored for performance. If crane
brakes are unable to hold the load, the crane shall not be used.
(5) Cranes shall not be used if control levers operate with
excessive friction or excessive play.
(6) When cranes are equipped with power down capability, there
shall be no free fall of the gear when a load is attached.
(7) When two or more cranes hoist a load in unison, a designated
person shall direct the operation and instruct personnel in
positioning, rigging of the gear and movements to be made.
(d) Unattended cranes. When cranes are left unattended between work
periods, Sec. 1918.66(b)(4)(i) through (v) shall apply.
Subpart G--Cargo Handling Gear and Equipment Other Than Ship's Gear
Sec. 1918.61 General.
(a) Employer provided gear inspection. All gear and equipment
provided by the employer shall be inspected by the employer or
designated person before each use and, when necessary, at intervals
during its use, to ensure that it is safe. Any gear which is found upon
such inspection to be unsafe shall not be used until it is made safe.
(b) Safe working load. (1) The safe working load of gear as
specified in Secs. 1918.61 through 1918.66 shall not be exceeded.
(2) All cargo handling gear provided by the employer with a safe
working load greater than 5 short tons (10,000 lbs. or 4540 kg.) shall
have its safe working load plainly marked on it.
(c) Gear weight markings. The weight shall be plainly marked on any
article of stevedoring gear hoisted by ship's gear and weighing in
excess of 2,000 lbs (908 kg).
(d) Certification. The employer shall not use any material handling
device listed in paragraph (f) of this section until it has been
ascertained that the device has been certificated, as evidenced by
current and valid documents attesting to compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (e) of this section.
(e) Certification procedures. The certifications required by this
section shall be performed in accordance with part 1919 of this
chapter, by persons then currently accredited by OSHA as provided in
that part.
(f) Special gear. (1) Special stevedoring gear provided by the
employer, the strength of which depends upon components other than
commonly used stock items such as shackles, ropes, or chains, that has
been purchased or fabricated after [insert date 90 days after
publication of Final Rule], and has a Safe Working Load (SWL) greater
than 5 short tons (10,000 lbs or 4540 kg.) shall be inspected and
tested as a unit in accordance with the following table before
initially being put into use:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safe working load Proof load
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 20 short tons (18.1 metric 25 percent in excess.
tons).
Over 20 to 50 short tons (18.1 to 5 short tons in excess.
45.3 metric tons).
Over 50 short tons (45.3 metric 10 percent in excess.
tons).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Special stevedoring gear provided by the employer, the strength
of which depends upon components other than commonly used stock items
such as shackles, ropes, or chains, with a SWL of 5 short tons (10,000
or 4540 kg.) or less shall be inspected and tested as a unit in
accordance with this section or by a designated person, in accordance
with the table in Sec. 1918.61(f)(1) before initially being put into
use.
(g) Every spreader not a part of ship's gear and used for handling
intermodal containers that has been purchased or fabricated after
[insert date 90 days after publication of Final Rule] shall be
inspected and tested to a proof load equal to 25 percent in excess of
its rated capacity before being put into use. In addition, any spreader
that suffers damage necessitating structural repair shall be inspected
and retested after repair and before being returned to service.
(h) All cargo handling gear covered by this section with a SWL
greater than 5 short tons (10,000 lbs. or 4540 kg.) shall be proof load
tested in accordance with the chart in paragraph (f) of this section
every four years in accordance with paragraphs (d) and (e) of this
section or by a designated person.
(i) Certificates attesting to the required tests shall be available
for inspection.
Sec. 1918.62 Miscellaneous auxiliary gear.
(a) Routine inspection. (1) At the completion of each use, loose
gear such as slings, chains, bridles, blocks and hooks shall be so
placed as to avoid damage to the gear. Loose gear shall be inspected
and any defects corrected before reuse.
(2) Defective gear shall not be used. Distorted hooks, shackles or
similar gear shall be discarded.
(b) Wire rope and wire rope slings. (1) The employer shall
ascertain and adhere to the load ratings indicated on the vessel's wire
rope certificates for all wire rope and wire rope slings comprising
part of ship's gear.
(2) The employer shall adhere to the manufacturer's recommended
ratings for wire rope and wire rope slings provided for use aboard
ship, and shall have such ratings available for inspection. When the
manufacturer is unable to supply such ratings, the employer shall use
tables for wire rope and wire rope slings found in Appendix II to this
part. A design safety factor of at least five shall be maintained for
the common sizes of running wire used as falls in purchases, or in such
uses as light load slings.
(3) Wire rope with a safety factor of less than five may be used
only as follows:
(i) In specialized equipment, such as, but not limited to, cranes
designed to be used with lesser wire rope safety factors;
(ii) In accordance with design factors in standing rigging
applications; or
(iii) For heavy lifts or other purposes for which a safety factor
of five is not feasible and for which the employer can demonstrate that
equivalent safety is ensured.
(4) Wire rope or wire rope slings provided by the employer and
having any of the following conditions shall not be used:
(i) Ten randomly distributed broken wires in one rope lay or three
or more broken wires in one strand in one rope lay;
(ii) Kinking, crushing, bird caging or other damage resulting in
distortion of the wire rope structure;
(iii) Evidence of heat damage;
(iv) Excessive wear or corrosion, deformation or other defect in
the wire or attachments, including cracks in attachments;
(v) Any indication of strand or wire slippage in end attachments;
or
(vi) More than one broken wire in the close vicinity of a socket or
swaged fitting.
(5) Protruding ends of strands in splices on slings and bridles
shall be covered or blunted. Coverings shall be removable so that
splices can be examined. Means used to cover or blunt ends shall not
damage the wire.
(6) Where wire rope clips are used to form eyes, the employer shall
adhere to the manufacturer's recommendations, which shall be available
for inspection. If ``U'' bolt clips are used and the manufacturer's
recommendations are not available, Table 1 of Appendix II to this part
shall be used to determine the number and spacing of clips. ``U'' bolts
shall be applied with the ``U'' section in contact with the dead end of
the rope.
(7) Wire rope shall not be secured by knotting.
(8) Eyes in wire rope bridles, slings, bull wires, or in single
parts used for hoisting shall not be formed by wire rope clips or
knots.
(9) Eye splices in wire ropes shall have at least three tucks with
a whole strand of the rope, and two tucks with one-half of the wire cut
from each strand. Other forms of splices or connections which are shown
to be equivalently safe may be used.
(10) Except for eye splices in the ends of wires and endless rope
slings, each wire rope used in hoisting or lowering, or bulling cargo,
shall consist of one continuous piece without knot or splice.
(c) Natural fibre rope. (1) The employer shall ascertain and adhere
to the manufacturer's recommended ratings for natural fibre rope and
natural fibre rope slings provided for use aboard ship, and shall have
such ratings available for inspection. When the manufacturer is unable
to supply such ratings, Appendix II to this part provides guidelines
for fibre rope ratings.
(2) If the manufacturers recommended ratings and use
recommendations are unavailable, Table 2 of Appendix II to this part
provides guidelines to determine safe working loads of natural fibre
rope slings comprising part of pre-slung drafts.
(3) Eye splices shall consist of at least three full tucks. Short
splices shall consist of at least six tucks, three on each side of the
centerline.
(d) Synthetic rope. (1) The employer shall adhere to the
manufacturer's ratings and use recommendations for the specific
synthetic fibre rope and synthetic fibre rope slings provided for use
aboard ship, and shall have such ratings available for inspection. When
the manufacturer is unable to supply such ratings, the employer shall
use Tables 3A and B of Appendix II to this part.
(2) If the manufacturers recommended ratings and use
recommendations are unavailable, Tables 3A and B of Appendix II to this
part shall be used to determine the safe working load of synthetic
fibre rope and of synthetic rope slings comprising part of pre-slung
drafts.
(3) Unless otherwise recommended by the manufacturer, when
synthetic fibre ropes are substituted for natural fibre ropes of less
than 3 inches (7.62 cm) in circumference, the substitute shall be of
equal size. Where substituted for natural fibre rope of 3 inches (7.62
cm) or more in circumference, the size of the synthetic rope shall be
determined from the formula:
TP02JN94.001
Where C=the required circumference of the synthetic rope in inches
(centimeters); Cs= the circumference to the nearest one-quarter
inch (.6 cm) of a synthetic rope having a breaking strength no less
than that of the size natural fibre rope that would be required by
paragraph (c) of this section; and Cm= the circumference of
natural fibre rope in inches (centimeters) which would be required by
paragraph (c) of this section. In making each substitution, it shall be
ascertained that the inherent characteristics of the synthetic-fibre
are suitable for hoisting.
(e) Removal of natural and synthetic rope from service. Natural and
synthetic rope having any of the following defects shall be removed
from service:
(1) Abnormal or excessive wear including heat and chemical damage;
(2) Powdered fibre between strands;
(3) Sufficient cut or broken fibers to affect the capability of the
rope;
(4) Variations in the size or roundness of strands;
(5) Discolorations other than stains not associated with rope
damage;
(6) Rotting; or
(7) Distortion or other damage to attached hardware.
(f) Thimbles. Properly fitting thimbles shall be used when any rope
is secured permanently to a ring, shackle or attachment, where
practicable.
(g) Synthetic web slings. (1) Slings and nets or other combinations
of more than one piece of synthetic webbing assembled and used as a
single unit (synthetic web slings) shall not be used to hoist loads in
excess of the sling's rated capacity.
(2) Synthetic web slings shall be removed from service if they
exhibit any of the following defects:
(i) Acid or caustic burns;
(ii) Melting or charring of any part of the sling surface;
(iii) Snags, punctures, tears or cuts;
(iv) Broken or worn stitches;
(v) Distortion or damage to fittings; or
(vi) Display of visible warning threads or markers designed to
indicate excessive wear or damage.
(3) Defective synthetic web slings removed from service shall not
be returned to service unless repaired by a sling manufacturer or an
entity of similar competence. Each repaired sling shall be proof tested
by the repairer to twice the sling's rated capacity prior to its return
to service. The employer shall retain a certificate of the proof test
and make it available for inspection.
(4) Synthetic web slings provided by the employer shall only be
used in accordance with the manufacturer's use recommendations, which
shall be available.
(5) Fittings shall have a breaking strength at least equal to that
of the sling to which they are attached and shall be free of sharp
edges.
(h) Chains and chain slings used for hoisting. (1) The employer
shall adhere to the manufacturer's recommended ratings for safe working
loads for the size of wrought iron and alloy steel chains and chain
slings and shall have such ratings available for inspection. When the
manufacturer does not provide such ratings, the employer shall use
Table 4A of Appendix II to this part to determine safe working loads
for alloy steel chains and chain slings only.
(2) Proof coil steel chain, also known as common or hardware chain,
and other chain not recommended by the manufacturer for slinging or
hoisting, shall not be used for slinging or hoisting.
(3) (i) Sling chains, including end fastenings, shall be inspected
for visible defects before each day's use and as often as necessary
during use to ensure integrity of the sling.
(ii) Thorough inspections of chains in use shall be made quarterly
to detect wear, defective welds, deformation or increase in length or
stretch. The month of inspection shall be indicated on each chain by
color of paint on a link or by other equally effective means.
(iii) Chains shall be removed from service when maximum allowable
wear, as indicated in Table 4B of Appendix II to this part, is reached
at any point of a link.
(iv) Chain slings shall be removed from service when stretch has
increased the length of a measured section by more than five percent;
when a link is bent, twisted or otherwise damaged; or when a link has a
raised scarf or defective weld.
(v) Only designated persons shall inspect chains used for slinging
and hoisting.
(4) Chains shall only be repaired under qualified supervision.
Links or portions of chain defective under any of the criteria of
paragraph (h)(3)(iv) of this section shall be replaced with properly
dimensioned links or connections of material similar to that of the
original chain. Before repaired chains are returned to service, they
shall be tested to the proof test load recommended by the manufacturer
for the original chain. Tests shall be performed by the manufacturer or
shall be certified by an agency accredited for the purpose under part
1919 of this chapter. Test certificates shall be available for
inspection.
(5) (i) Wrought iron chains in constant use shall be annealed or
normalized at intervals not exceeding six months. Heat treatment
certificates shall be available for inspection. Alloy chains shall not
be annealed.
(ii) No new part of a lifting appliance or item of loose gear shall
be manufactured of wrought iron.
(6) Kinked or knotted chains shall not be used for lifting. Chains
shall not be shortened by bolting, wiring or knotting. Makeshift links
or fasteners such as wire, bolts or rods shall not be used.
(7) Hooks, rings, links and attachments affixed to sling chains
shall have rated capacities at least equal to that of the chains to
which they are attached.
(8) Chain slings shall bear identification of size, grade and rated
capacity.
(i) Shackles. (1) If available, the manufacturer's recommended safe
working loads for shackles shall not be exceeded. In the absence of the
manufacturer's recommendations, Table 5 of Appendix II to this part,
shall apply.
(2) Screw pin shackles provided by the employer and used aloft,
except in cargo hook assemblies, shall have their pins positively
secured.
(j) Hooks other than hand hooks. (1) The manufacturer's recommended
safe working loads for hooks shall not be exceeded. Hooks other than
hand hooks shall be tested in accordance with the provisions of
paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) of Sec. 1919.31 of this chapter, except,
that manufacturer's test certificates indicating performance to the
criteria in Sec. 1919.31 (a), (c) and (d) of this chapter shall be
acceptable.
(2) Bent or sprung hooks shall be discarded.
(3) Teeth of case hooks shall be maintained in safe condition.
(4) Jaws of patent clamp-type plate hooks shall be maintained in
condition to grip plates securely.
(5) Loads shall be applied to the throat of the hook only.
(k) Pallets. (1) Pallets shall be made and maintained to support
and carry loads being handled safely. Fastenings of reusable pallets
used for hoisting shall be bolts and nuts, drive screws (helically
threaded nails), annular threaded nails or fastenings of equivalent
holding strength.
(2) Reusable wing or lip-type pallets shall be hoisted by bar
bridles or other suitable gear and shall have an overhanging wing or
lip of at least 3 inches (7.6 cm). They shall not be hoisted by wire
slings alone.
(3) Loaded pallets that do not meet the requirements of this
paragraph shall be hoisted only after being placed on pallets meeting
such requirements, or shall be handled by other means providing
equivalent safety.
(4) Bridles for handling flush end or box-type pallets shall be
designed to prevent disengagement from the pallet under load.
(5) Pallets shall be stacked or placed to prevent falling,
collapsing or otherwise causing a hazard under standard operating
conditions.
(6) Disposable pallets intended only for one use shall not be
reused for hoisting.
Sec. 1918.63 Chutes, gravity conveyors and rollers.
(a) Chutes shall be of adequate length and strength to support the
conditions of use, and shall be free of splinters and sharp edges.
(b) When necessary for the safety of employees, chutes shall be
equipped with sideboards to afford protection from falling objects.
(c) When necessary for the safety of employees, provisions shall be
made for stopping objects other than bulk commodities at the delivery
end of the chute.
(d) Chutes and gravity conveyor roller sections shall be firmly
placed and secured to prevent displacement, shifting, or falling.
(e) Gravity conveyors shall be of sufficient strength to safely
support the weight of materials placed upon them. Conveyor rollers
shall be installed in a manner that prevents them from falling or
jumping out of the frame.
(f) Frames shall be kept free of burrs and sharp edges.
Sec. 1918.64 Powered conveyors.
(a) Emergency stop. Readily accessible stop controls shall be
provided for use in an emergency. Whenever the operation of any power
conveyor requires personnel to work in the immediate vicinity of the
conveyor, the conveyor controls shall not be left unattended while the
conveyor is in operation.
(b) Guarding. All conveyor and trimmer drives which create a hazard
shall be adequately guarded.
(c) Approved for location. Electric motors and controls on
conveyors and trimmers used to handle grain and exposed to grain dust
shall be of the type approved by a nationally recognized testing
laboratory for use in Class II, Division I locations. (See Sec. 1910.7
of this chapter.)
(d) Grain trimmer control box. Each grain trimmer shall have a
control box located on the weather deck in close proximity to the spout
feeding the trimmer.
(e) Grain trimmer power cable. Power cables between the deck
control box and the grain trimmer shall be used only in continuous
lengths without splice or tap between connections.
(f) Portable conveyors. Portable conveyors shall be stable within
their operating ranges. When used at variable fixed levels, the unit
shall be secured at the operating level.
(g) Delivery and braking. When necessary for the safety of
employees, provisions shall be made for braking objects at the delivery
end of the conveyor.
(h) Electric brakes. Conveyors using electrically released brakes
shall be so constructed that the brakes cannot be released until power
is applied, and that the brakes are automatically engaged if the power
fails or the operating control is returned to the ``stop'' position.
(i) Starting powered conveyors. Powered conveyors shall not be
started until all employees are clear of the conveyor or have been
warned that the conveyor is about to start.
(j) Loading and unloading. The area around conveyor loading and
unloading points shall be kept clear of obstructions during conveyor
operations.
(k) Lockout/tagout. (1) Conveyors shall be stopped and their power
sources locked out and tagged out during maintenance, repair, and
servicing, unless power is necessary for testing or for making minor
adjustments.
(2) The starting device shall be locked out and tagged out in the
stop position before an attempt is made to remove the cause of a jam or
overload of the conveying medium.
(l) Safe practices. (1) Only designated persons shall operate,
repair or service powered conveyors.
(2) The employer shall direct employees to stay off operating
conveyors.
(3) Conveyors shall be operated only with all overload devices,
guards and safety devices in place and operable.
Sec. 1918.65 Mechanically powered vehicles used aboard vessels.
(a) Applicability. This section applies to every type of
mechanically powered vehicle used for material or equipment handling
aboard a vessel.
(b) General. (1) Modifications, such as adding counterweights that
might affect the vehicle's capacity or safety, shall not be performed
without either the manufacturer's prior written approval or the written
approval of a professional engineer experienced with the equipment, who
has consulted with the manufacturer, if available. Capacity, operation
and maintenance instruction plates, tags or decals shall be changed to
conform to the equipment as modified.
(2) Rated capacities, with and without removable counterweights,
shall not be exceeded. Rated capacities shall be marked on the vehicle
and shall be visible to the operator. The vehicle weight, with and
without counterweight, shall be similarly marked.
(3) If loads are lifted by two or more trucks working in unison,
the total weight shall not exceed the combined safe lifting capacity of
all trucks.
(c) Guards for fork lift trucks. (1) Except as noted in paragraph
(c)(5) of this section, fork lift trucks shall be equipped with
overhead guards securely attached to the machines. The guard shall be
of such design and construction as to protect the operator from boxes,
cartons, packages, bagged material, and other similar individual items
of cargo which may fall from the load being handled or from stowage.
(2) Overhead guards shall not obstruct the operator's view, and
openings in the top of the guard shall not exceed 6 inches (15.2 cm) in
one of the two directions, width or length. Larger openings are
permitted if no opening allows the smallest unit of cargo being handled
through the guard.
(3) Overhead guards shall be built so that failure of the vehicle's
mast tilting mechanism will not displace the guard.
(4) Overhead guards shall be large enough to extend over the
operator during all truck operations, including forward tilt.
(5) An overhead guard may be removed only when it would prevent a
truck from entering a work space and if the operator is not exposed to
low overhead obstructions in the work space.
(6) Where necessary to protect the operator, fork lift trucks shall
be fitted with a vertical load backrest extension to prevent the load
from hitting the mast when the mast is positioned at maximum backward
tilt. For this purpose, a ``load backrest extension'' means a device
extending vertically from the fork carriage frame to prevent raised
loads from falling backward.
(d) Guards for bulk cargo-moving vehicles. (1) Every crawler type,
rider operated, bulk cargo-moving vehicle shall be equipped with an
operator's guard of such design and construction as to protect the
operator, when seated, against injury from contact with a projecting
overhead.
(2) Guards and their attachment points shall be so designed as to
be able to withstand, without excessive deflection, a load applied
horizontally at the operator's shoulder level equal to the drawbar pull
of the machine.
(3) Guards shall not be required when the vehicle is used in
situations in which the possibility of the seated operator coming in
contact with projecting overheads does not exist.
(4) Bulk cargo-moving vehicles shall be equipped with roll-over
protection of such design and construction as to minimize the
possibility of the operator being crushed as a result of a roll-over or
upset.
(e) Approved vehicle. (1) ``Approved power-operated vehicle'' means
one listed as approved for the intended use or location by a nationally
recognized testing laboratory.
(2) Approved vehicles shall bear a label or other identification
indicating testing laboratory approval.
(3) When the atmosphere in an area is hazardous and the provisions
of U.S. Coast Guard regulations 49 CFR 176.78 do not apply, only
approved power-operated vehicles shall be used.
(f) Maintenance. (1) Mechanically powered vehicles shall be
maintained in safe working order. Safety devices shall not be removed
or made inoperative except as otherwise provided in this section.
Vehicles with a fuel system leak or any other safety defect shall not
be operated.
(2) Braking systems or other mechanisms used for braking shall be
operable and in safe condition.
(3) Replacement parts whose function might affect operational
safety shall be equivalent in strength and performance capability to
the original parts which they replace.
(4) Repairs to the fuel and ignition systems of mechanically
powered vehicles which involve fire hazards shall be conducted only in
locations designated as safe for such repairs.
(5) Batteries on all mechanically powered vehicles shall be
disconnected during repairs to the primary electrical system unless
power is necessary for testing and repair. On vehicles equipped with
systems capable of storing residual energy, that energy shall be safely
discharged before work on the primary electrical system begins.
(6) Only designated persons shall perform maintenance and repair.
(g) Parking brakes. All mechanically powered vehicles purchased
after [insert effective date of the Final Rule] shall be equipped with
parking brakes.
(h) Operation. (1) Only stable and safely arranged loads within the
rated capacity of the mechanically powered vehicle shall be handled.
(2) The employer shall direct drivers to ascend and descend grades
slowly.
(3) If the load obstructs the forward view, the employer shall
direct drivers to travel with the load trailing.
(4) Steering knobs shall not be used unless the vehicle is equipped
with power steering.
(5) When mechanically powered vehicles use cargo lifting devices
that have a means of engagement hidden from the operator, a means shall
be provided to enable the operator to determine that the cargo has been
engaged.
(6) No load on a mechanically powered vehicle shall be suspended or
swung over any employee.
(7) When mechanically powered vehicles are used, provisions shall
be made to ensure that the working surface can support the vehicle and
load, and that hatch covers, truck plates, or other temporary surfaces
cannot be dislodged by movement of the vehicle.
(8) When mechanically powered vehicles are left unattended, load-
engaging means shall be fully lowered, controls neutralized, brakes set
and power shut off. Wheels shall be blocked or curbed if the vehicle is
on an incline.
(9) When lift trucks or other mechanically powered vehicles are
being operated on open deck type barges, the edges of the barges shall
be guarded by railings, sideboards, timbers, or other means sufficient
to prevent vehicles from rolling overboard. When such vehicles are
operated on covered lighters where door openings other than those being
used are left open, means shall be taken to prevent vehicles from
rolling overboard through such openings.
(10) Unauthorized personnel shall not ride on mechanically powered
vehicles. A safe place to ride shall be provided when riding is
authorized.
(11) An employee may be elevated by fork lift trucks only when a
platform is secured to the lifting carriage or forks. The platform
shall meet the following requirements:
(i) The platform shall have a railing complying with
Sec. 1917.112(c) of this chapter.
(ii) The platform shall have toeboards complying with
Sec. 1917.112(d) of this chapter, if tools or other objects could fall
on employees below.
(iii) When the truck has controls which are elevated with the
lifting carriage, means shall be provided for employees on the platform
to shut off power to the vehicle.
(iv) Employees on the platform shall be protected from exposure to
moving truck parts.
(v) The platform floor shall be skid resistant.
(vi) A truck operator shall be at the truck's controls when
employees are elevated, unless the truck's controls are elevated with
the lifting carriage.
(vii) While an employee is elevated the truck may be moved only to
make minor placement adjustments.
Sec. 1918.66 Cranes and derricks other than vessel's gear.
(a) General. The following requirements shall apply to the use of
cranes and derricks brought aboard vessels for the purpose of
conducting longshoring operations. They shall not apply to cranes and
derricks forming part of a vessels permanent equipment.
(l) Certification. Cranes and derricks shall be certificated in
accordance with part 1919 of this chapter.
(2) Posted weight. The crane weight shall be posted on all cranes
hoisted aboard vessels for temporary use.
(3) Rating chart. All cranes and derricks having ratings that vary
with boom length, radius (outreach) or other variables shall have a
durable rating chart visible to the operator, covering the complete
range of the manufacturer's (or design) capacity ratings. The rating
chart shall include all operating radii (outreach) for all permissible
boom lengths and jib lengths, as applicable, with and without
outriggers, and alternate ratings for optional equipment affecting such
ratings. Precautions or warnings specified by the owner or manufacturer
shall be included along with a chart.
(4) Rated loads. The manufacturer's (or design) rated loads for the
conditions of use shall not be exceeded.
(5) Change of rated loads. Designated working loads shall not be
increased beyond the manufacturer's ratings or original design
limitations unless such increase receives the manufacturer's approval.
When the manufacturer's services are not available or where the
equipment is of foreign manufacture, engineering design analysis shall
be performed or approved by a person accredited for certificating the
equipment under part 1919 of this chapter. Engineering design analysis
shall be performed by a registered professional engineer competent in
the field of cranes and derricks. Any structural changes necessitated
by the change in rating shall be carried out.
(6) Radius indicator. When the rated load varies with the boom
radius, the crane or derrick shall be fitted with a boom angle or
radius indicator visible to the operator.
(7) Operator's station. The cab, controls and mechanism of the
equipment shall be so arranged that the operator has a clear view of
the load or signalman, when one is used. Cab glass, when used, shall be
safety plate glass or equivalent and good visibility shall be
maintained through the glass. Clothing, tools, and equipment shall be
stored so as not to interfere with access, operation, and the
operator's view.
(8) Counterweights or ballast. Cranes shall be operated only with
the specified type and amount of ballast or counterweights. Ballast or
counterweights shall be located and secured only as provided in the
manufacturer's or design specifications, which shall be available for
inspection.
(9) Outriggers. Outriggers shall be used according to the
manufacturer's specifications or design data, which shall be available
for inspection. Floats, when used, shall be securely attached to the
outriggers. Wood blocks or other support shall be of sufficient size to
support the outrigger, free of defects that may affect safety and of
sufficient width and length to prevent the crane from shifting or
toppling under load.
(10) Exhaust gases. Engine exhaust gases shall be discharged away
from the normal position of crane operating personnel.
(11) Electrical/Guarding. Electrical equipment shall be so located
or enclosed that live parts will not be exposed to accidental contact.
Designated persons may work on energized equipment only if necessary
during inspection, maintenance, or repair, otherwise the equipment
shall be stopped and their power sources locked out and tagged out.
(12) Fire extinguisher. (i) At least one portable approved or
listed fire extinguisher of at least a 5-BC rating or equivalent shall
be accessible in the cab of the crane or derrick.
(ii) No portable fire extinguisher using carbon tetrachloride or
chlorobromomethane extinguishing agents shall be used.
(13) Rope on drums. At least three full turns of rope shall remain
on ungrooved drums, and two turns on grooved drums, under all operating
conditions. Wire rope shall be secured to drums by clamps, U-bolts,
shackles or equivalent means. Fibre rope fastenings are prohibited.
(14) Brakes. (i) Each independent hoisting unit of a crane shall be
equipped with at least one holding brake, applied directly to the motor
shaft or gear train.
(ii) Each independent hoisting unit of a crane shall, in addition
to the holding brake, be equipped with a controlled braking means to
control lowering speeds.
(iii) Holding brakes for hoist units shall have not less than the
following percentage of the rated load hoisting torque at the point
where the brake is applied:
(A) 125 percent when used with a controlled braking means.
(B) 100 percent when used with a mechanically controlled braking
means.
(iv) All power control braking means shall be capable of
maintaining safe lowering speeds of rated loads.
(15) Operating controls. Crane and derrick operating controls shall
be clearly marked, or a chart indicating their function shall be posted
at the operator's position.
(16) Booms. Cranes with elevatable booms and without operable
automatic limiting devices shall be provided with boom stops if boom
elevation can exceed maximum design angles from the horizontal.
(17) Foot pedals. Foot pedals shall have a non-skid surface.
(18) Access. Ladders, stairways, stanchions, grab irons, foot steps
or equivalent means shall be provided as necessary to ensure safe
access to footwalks, cab platforms, the cab and any portion of the
superstructure which employees must reach.
(b) Operations--(1) Use of cranes together. When two or more cranes
hoist a load in unison, a designated person shall direct the operation
and instruct personnel in positioning, rigging of the load and
movements to be made.
(2) Guarding of swing radius. Accessible areas within the swing
radius of the body of a revolving crane shall be physically guarded
during operations to prevent an employee from being caught between the
body of the crane and any fixed structure or between parts of the
crane.
(3) Prohibited usage. (i) Equipment shall not be used in a manner
that exerts sideloading stresses upon the crane or derrick boom.
(ii) No crane or derrick having a visible or known defect that may
affect safe operation shall be used.
(4) Unattended cranes. The following steps shall be taken before
leaving a crane unattended between work periods:
(i) Suspended loads, such as those hoisted by lifting magnets or
clamshell buckets, shall be landed unless the storage position or
maximum hoisting of the suspended device will provide equivalent
safety;
(ii) Clutches shall be disengaged;
(iii) The power supply shall be shut off;
(iv) The crane shall be secured against accidental travel; and
(v) The boom shall be lowered or secured against movement.
(c) Protection for employees being hoisted. (1) No employee shall
be hoisted by the load hoisting apparatus of a crane or derrick except
on a platform meeting the following requirements:
(i) Enclosed by a railing or other means providing protection
equivalent of that described in Sec. 1917.112(c) of this chapter. If
equipped with open railings, the platform shall be fitted with toe
boards;
(ii) Having a safety factor of four based on ultimate strength;
(iii) Bearing a plate or permanent marking indicating maximum load
rating, which shall not be exceeded, and the weight of the platform
itself;
(iv) Equipped with a device to prevent access doors, when used,
from opening accidentally;
(v) Equipped with overhead protection for employees on the platform
if they are exposed to falling objects or overhead hazards;
(vi) Secured to the load line by means other than wedge and socket
attachments, unless the free (bitter) end of the line is secured back
to itself by a clamp placed as close above the wedge as possible.
(2) Except in an emergency, the hoisting mechanism of all cranes or
derricks used to hoist personnel shall operate in power up and power
down, with automatic brake application when not hoisting or lowering.
(3) All cranes and derricks used to hoist personnel shall be
equipped with an anti-two blocking device.
(4) Variable radius booms of a crane or derrick used to hoist
personnel shall be so constructed or secured as to prevent accidental
boom movement.
(5) Platforms or devices used to hoist employees shall be inspected
for defects before each day's use and shall be removed from service if
defective.
(6) Employees being hoisted shall remain in continuous sight of and
communication with the operator or signalman.
(7) Operators shall remain at the controls when employees are
hoisted.
(8) Cranes shall not travel while employees are hoisted, except in
emergency or in normal tier to tier transfer of employees during
container operations.
(d) Routine inspection. (1) Designated persons shall visually
inspect each crane and derrick on each day of use for defects in
functional operating components and shall report any defect found to
the employer. The employer shall inform the operator of the findings.
(2) A designated person shall thoroughly inspect all functional
components and accessible structural features of each crane or device
at monthly intervals.
(3) Any defects found during such inspections which may create a
safety hazard shall be corrected before further equipment use. Repairs
shall be performed only by designated persons.
(4) A record of monthly inspections shall be maintained for six
months in or on the crane or derrick or at the terminal.
(e) Protective devices. (1) When exposed moving parts such as
gears, chains and chain sprockets present a hazard to employees during
crane and derrick operations, those parts shall be securely guarded.
(2) Crane hooks shall be latched or otherwise secured to prevent
accidental load disengagement.
Sec. 1918.67 Notifying the ship's officers before using certain
equipment.
(a) The employer shall notify the officer in charge of the vessel
before bringing aboard ship internal combustion or electric powered
tools, equipment or vehicles.
(b) The employer shall also notify the officer in charge of the
vessel before using the ship's electric power for the operation of any
electric tools or equipment.
Sec. 1918.68 Grounding.
The frames of portable electrical equipment and tools, other than
double insulated tools and battery operated tools shall be grounded
through a separate equipment conductor run with or enclosing the
circuit conductors.
Sec. 1918.69 Tools.
(See Scope and Application, Sec. 1918.1).
Subpart H--Handling Cargo
Sec. 1918.81 Slinging.
(a) Drafts shall be safely slung before being hoisted. Loose
dunnage or debris hanging or protruding from loads shall be removed.
(b) Cargo handling bridles, such as pallet bridles, which are to
remain attached to the hoisting gear while hoisting successive drafts,
shall be attached by shackles, or other positive means shall be taken
to prevent them from being accidentally disengaged from the cargo hook.
(c) Drafts of lumber, pipe, dunnage and other pieces, the top layer
of which is not bound by the sling, shall be slung in such a manner as
to prevent sliders. Double slings shall be used on unstrapped dunnage,
except when, due to the size of hatch or deep tank openings, it is
impractical to use them.
(d) Case hooks shall be used only with cases designed to be hoisted
by these hooks.
(e) Bales of cotton, wool, cork, wood pulp, gunny bags or similar
articles shall be hoisted only by straps strong enough to support the
weight of the bale. At least two hooks, each in a separate strap, shall
be used.
(f) Unitized loads bound by bands or straps may be hoisted by the
banding or strapping only if the banding or strapping is suitable for
hoisting and is strong enough to support the weight of the load.
(g) Additional means of hoisting shall be employed to ensure safe
lifting of unitized loads having damaged banding or strapping.
(h) Loads requiring continuous manual guidance during handling
shall be guided by guide ropes (tag lines) that are long enough to
control the load.
(i) No draft shall be hoisted unless the winch or crane operator(s)
can clearly see the draft itself or see the signals of a signalman in
observation of the draft's movement.
(j) Intermodal containers shall be handled in accordance with
Sec. 1918.85.
(k) The employer shall require that employees stay clear of the
area beneath overhead drafts or descending lifting gear.
(l) Employees shall not be permitted to ride the hook or the load.
Except that: As provided for in Sec. 1918.85(g).
Sec. 1918.82 Building drafts.
(a) Drafts shall be built or means shall be taken to prevent cargo
from falling from them.
(b) Buckets and tubs used in handling bulk or frozen cargo shall
not be loaded above their rims.
Sec. 1918.83 Stowed cargo; tiering and breaking down.
(a) When necessary to protect personnel working in a hold, stowed
cargo in ship's holds which is likely to shift or roll shall be secured
or blocked.
(b) In breaking down stowed cargo, precautions shall be taken to
prevent remaining cargo from falling.
(c) Employees trimming bulk cargo shall be checked in and out by
the foreman. Before securing any reefer compartment, a check shall be
made to ensure that no employee remains inside. Frequent checks shall
be made to ensure the safety of any employee working alone in a tank or
cargo compartment.
Sec. 1918.84 Bulling cargo.
(a) Bulling cargo shall be done with the bull line led directly
from the heel block. However, bulling may be done from the head of the
boom when the nature of the cargo and the surface over which it is
dragged are such that the load cannot be stalled, or when the winch
actually does not have sufficient strength, with the purchase used, to
overload the boom.
(b) Snatch blocks shall be used to provide a fair lead for the bull
line so as to avoid unnecessary dragging of the bull line against
coamings and obstructions.
(c) Snatch blocks shall not be used with the point of the hook
resting on the flange of a beam, but shall be hung from padeyes,
straps, or beam clamps. Snatch blocks or straps shall not be made fast
to batten cleats or other insecure fittings.
(d) Beam frame clamps shall be so secured as to prevent their
slipping, falling, or being pulled from their stationary attachment.
(e) Falls led from cargo booms of vessels shall not be used to move
scows, lighters or railcars.
Sec. 1918.85 Containerized cargo operations.
(a) Container markings. Every intermodal container shall be legibly
and permanently marked with:
(l) The weight of the container when empty, in pounds;
(2) The maximum cargo weight the container is designed to carry, in
pounds; and
(3) The sum of the weight of the container and the maximum cargo
weight, in pounds.
(b) Container weight. No container shall be hoisted by any lifting
appliance unless the following conditions have been met:
(1) The employer shall ascertain from the carrier whether a
container to be hoisted is loaded or empty. Empty containers shall be
identified before loading or discharge in such a manner as will inform
every supervisor and foreman on the site and in charge of loading or
discharging, or every crane or other hoisting equipment operator and
signalman, if any, that such container is empty. Methods of
identification may include cargo plans, manifests, or markings on the
container.
(2) In the case of a loaded container:
(i) The actual gross weight shall be plainly marked so as to be
visible to the crane or other hoisting equipment operator or signalman,
or to every supervisor or foreman on site and in charge of the
operation; or
(ii) The cargo stowage plan or equivalent permanently recorded
display serving the same purpose, containing the actual gross weight
and the serial number or other positive identification of that specific
container, shall be provided to the crane or other hoisting equipment
operator and signalman, if any, and to every supervisor and foreman on
site and in charge of the operation.
(3) Every outbound container which is received at a marine terminal
ready to load aboard a vessel without further consolidation or loading
shall be weighed to obtain the actual gross weight, either at the
terminal or elsewhere, before being hoisted.
(4) (i) When container weighing scales are located at a marine
terminal, any outbound container with a load consolidated at that
terminal shall be weighed to obtain the actual weight before being
hoisted.
(ii) If the terminal has no scales, the actual gross weight may be
calculated on the basis of the container's contents and the container's
empty weight. The weights used in the calculation shall be posted
conspicuously on the container, with the name of the person making the
calculation, and the date.
(5) Open top vehicle carrying containers, and those built
specifically and used solely for the carriage of compressed gases, are
excepted from paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) of this section.
(6) Closed dry van containers carrying vehicles are exempted from
paragraph (b)(4) of this section provided that:
(i) The container carries only completely assembled vehicles and no
other cargo;
(ii) The container is marked on the outside in such a manner that
an employee can readily discern that the container is carrying
vehicles; and
(iii) The vehicles were loaded into the container at the marine
terminal.
(7) The weight of loaded inbound containers from foreign ports
shall be determined by weighing, by the method of calculation described
in paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section or by shipping documents.
(8) Any scale used within the United States to weigh containers for
the purpose of the requirements of this section shall meet the accuracy
standards of the state or local public authority in which the scale is
located.
(c) Overloaded containers. No container or containers shall be
hoisted if its actual gross weight exceeds the weight marked as
required in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, or if it exceeds the
capacity of the crane or other lifting appliance intended to be used.
(d) Container inspection. (1) Containers shall be inspected for any
visible defects in structural members and fittings which would make the
handling of such container unsafe.
(2) Any container found to have such a defect shall either be
handled by a special means to assure safe handling; or shall be emptied
before handling.
(e) Suspended containers. The employer shall direct employees to
stay clear of the area beneath a suspended container.
(f) Lifting fittings. Containers shall be handled using lifting
fittings or other arrangements suitable and intended for the purpose as
set forth in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this section, except
when damage to an intermodal container makes special means of handling
necessary.
(1) Loaded intermodal containers of 20 feet (6.1 m) or more shall
be hoisted as follows:
(i) When hoisted by the top fittings, the lifting forces shall be
applied vertically from at least four such fittings.
(ii) When hoisted from bottom fittings, the hoisting connections
shall bear on the fittings only, making no other contact with the
container. The angles of the four bridle legs shall not be less than
30 deg. to the horizontal in the case of 40 foot (12.2 m) containers;
37 deg. in the case of 30 foot (9.1 m) containers; and 45 deg. in the
case of 20 foot (6.1 m) containers.
(iii) Lifting containers by fork lift trucks or grappling arms from
above or from one side may be done only if the container is designed
for this type of handling.
(iv) Other means of hoisting may be used only if the containers and
hoisting means are designed for such use.
(2)(i) When using intermodal container spreaders that employ
lanyards for activation and load disengagement, all possible
precautions shall be taken to prevent accidental release of the load.
(ii) Intermodal container spreader twistlock systems shall be
designed and used so that a suspended load cannot accidentally be
released.
(g) Safe container top access. A safe means of access and egress
shall be provided for each employee required to work atop an intermodal
container. Unless ladders are used for access, such means shall comply
with the requirements of Sec. 1917.45(j) of this chapter.
(h) Employee hoisting prohibition. Employees shall not be hoisted
on intermodal container spreaders while a load is engaged.
(i) Portable ladder access. When other safer means are available,
portable ladders shall not be used in gaining access to container
stacks more than two containers high.
(j) Container top safety. (1) Employees shall be protected from
fall hazards\3\ in the following manner:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\A fall hazard shall exist whenever employees are working
within 3 feet (.9 m) of the unprotected edge of a work surface that
is 10 or more feet (3 m) above the adjoining surface and twelve (12)
inches (.3 m) or more, horizontally, from the adjacent surface; or
weather conditions may impair vision or sound footing of workers on
top of containers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) After June 2, 1997, employees shall not go on top of containers
to perform work, notably coning and deconing, which can be eliminated
through the proper use of positive container securing devices;
(ii) Work which requires employees to go on top of container tops
shall be eliminated, to the extent feasible, through the proper use of
positive container securing devices, which includes, but is not limited
to, semi-automatic twist locks and cell guides;
(iii) A fall protection system meeting the requirements of
paragraph (k) of this section shall be implemented to protect the
following employees:
(A) Employees engaged in work on containers that is not described
in paragraph (j)(1)(ii) of this section\4\ that presents exposure to
fall hazards; or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Examples of work that may not be eliminated by positive
container securing devices, where employees may be required to work
on top of containers include, but are not limited to: installing or
removing bridge clamps; hooking up or detaching overheight
containers; or freeing a jammed semi-automatic twist lock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) Employees engaged in work on containers that are not being
handled by container gantry cranes.
(2) Compliance with paragraph (j)(1)(ii) of this section shall be
considered feasible when containers are being worked by container
gantry cranes.
(3) Where the employer determines in the particular case that an
employee will be exposed to a fall hazard but that the use of a fall
protection system meeting the requirements of paragraph (k) of this
section is not feasible\5\ the employer shall alert the exposed
employee about the hazards involved and instruct the employee how to
minimize the hazard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\See non-mandatory Appendix III to this part for examples of
situations where the use of a fall protection system may prove
infeasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(k) Fall protection. When fall protection systems required by
paragraph (j) of this section are employed, the following shall apply:
(1) Each fall protection system component, except anchorages, shall
have fall arrest/restraint as its only use.
(2) Each fall protection system subjected to impact loading shall
be immediately withdrawn from service and not used again until
inspected and determined by a designated person to be undamaged and
suitable for use.
(3) Each fall protection system shall be rigged to minimize free-
fall distance so that the employee will not contact any lower level
stowage or vessel structure.
(4) Each fall protection system adopted for use shall have an
energy absorbing mechanism that will produce an arresting force on an
employee of not greater than 1800 pounds (8 kN).
(5) Each fall protection systems' hardware shall be designed and
utilized so as to prevent accidental disengagement.
(6) Each fall protection systems' fixed anchorages shall each be
capable of sustaining a force of 5,000 (22.2 kN) pounds or be certified
as capable of sustaining at least twice the potential impact load of an
employee's fall. Such certification must be made by a registered
professional engineer. When more than one employee is attached to an
anchorage, the foregoing limits shall be multiplied by the number of
employees attached.
(7) When ``live'' (activated) container gantry crane lifting beams
or attached devices are used as anchorage points the following
requirements apply:
(i) The crane shall be placed into a ``slow'' speed mode;
(ii) The crane shall be equipped with a remote shut-off switch,
capable of stopping all crane functions, in the control of employee(s)
attached to the beam; and
(iii) A visible or audible indicator shall be present to inform the
same employee(s) when the remote shut-off is operational.
(8) Fall protection system components shall be certified as a unit
of being capable of sustaining at least twice the potential impact load
of an employee's fall. Such certification must be made by a registered
professional engineer. When more than one employee is attached to an
anchorage, the foregoing limits shall be multiplied by the number of
employees attached.
(9) Each fall protection system shall incorporate the use of a full
body harnesses.
(10) Each device, such as a safety cage, that is used to transport
employee(s) by being attached to a container gantry crane spreader,
shall have a secondary means of attachment in place and engaged to
prevent accidental disengagement.
(11) Each fall protection system shall be inspected prior to each
day's use by a designated person. Any defective components shall be
removed from service.
(12) Before using any fall protection system, the employee shall be
trained in the use and application limits of the equipment, proper
hook-up, anchoring and tie-off techniques, methods of use, and proper
methods of equipment inspection and storage.
(13) The employer shall establish and implement a procedure to
safely retrieve personnel in case of a fall.
(l) Working along unguarded edges. Fall protection meeting the
requirements of paragraph (k) of this section must be provided when
container operations require employees to work along unguarded edges
(other than on the top of a container), where the fall distance is
greater than 8 feet (2.4 m).
Sec. 1918.86 Roll-on roll-off (RO-RO) operations.
(See also Sec. 1918.24.)
(a) Traffic control system. An organized system of vehicular and
pedestrian traffic control shall be established and maintained at each
entrance/exit ramp and on ramps within the vessel as traffic flow
warrants.
(b) Ramp load limit. Ramps shall be plainly marked with their load
capacity. The marked capacity shall not be exceeded.
(c) Pedestrian traffic. Stern and side port ramps also used for
pedestrian access shall meet the requirements of Sec. 1918.21. Such
ramps shall provide a physical separation between pedestrian and
vehicular routes. When the design of the ramp prevents physical
separation, a signalperson shall direct traffic and shall not allow
concurrent use.
(d) Ramp maintenance. Ramps shall be properly maintained and
secured.
(e) Hazardous routes. Prior to the start of Ro-Ro operations the
employer shall ascertain any hazardous routes or areas that could be
mistaken for normal drive-on/drive-off routes. Such hazardous routes
shall be clearly identified and barricaded.
(f) Air brake connections. Each tractor shall have all air lines
connected when pulling trailers equipped with air brakes and shall have
the brakes tested before commencing operations.
(g) Trailer load limits. Flat bed and low boy trailers shall be
marked with their cargo capacities and shall not be overloaded.
(h) Cargo weights. Cargo to be handled via a Ro-Ro ramp shall have
its weight plainly marked in pounds (kilograms). Alternatively, the
cargo stow plan or equivalent record containing the actual gross weight
of the load may be used to determine the weight of the cargo.
(i) Tractors. Tractors used in Ro-Ro operations shall have:
(1) sufficient power to ascend ramp inclines safely; and
(2) sufficient braking capacity to descend ramp inclines safely.
(j) Safe speeds. Power driven vehicles used in Ro-Ro operations
shall be operated at safe speeds compatible with prevailing conditions.
(k) Ventilation. Internal combustion engine driven vehicles shall
be operated only where adequate ventilation exists or is provided. (Air
contaminant requirements are found in Sec. 1918.94 and part 1910,
subpart Z of this chapter.)
(l) Securing cargo. Cargo loaded or discharged during Ro-Ro
operations shall be secured to prevent sliding loads.
(m) Authorized personnel. Only authorized persons shall be
permitted on any deck while loading or discharging operations are being
conducted. Such authorized persons shall be equipped with high
visibility vests (or equivalent protection).
(n) Signalling requirement. When a driver is maneuvering a vehicle
into a stowage position while other personnel, such as lashers, are
working in the adjacent vicinity:
(1) the driver shall be under the direction of a signaller; and
(2) No driver shall be signalled to advance or reverse motion while
any personnel are in positions where they could be struck.
Sec. 1918.87 Ship's cargo elevators.
(a) Safe working load. The safe working loads of ship's cargo
elevators shall be ascertained and adhered to.
(b) Load distribution. Loads shall be evenly distributed on the
elevator's platform.
(c) Elevator personnel restrictions. Drivers of vehicles who remain
at the controls of those vehicles shall be the only persons permitted
to travel on the elevator's platform with the vehicle.
(d) Open deck barricades. During elevator operation, each opened
deck which presents a fall hazard to employees shall be effectively
barricaded.
Sec. 1918.88 Log operations.
(See also Sec. 1918.38.)
(a) Working in holds. In holds where logs are being loaded, no
employee shall remain in spaces for the placement of logs using dumper
devices when the possibility of logs striking, rolling upon, or pinning
them exists.
(b) Footwear. The employer shall provide employees that are working
logs appropriate footwear, such as spiked shoes.
(c) Lifelines. When employees are working on log booms or cribs,
lifelines shall be furnished and hung overside to the water's edge.
(d) Jacob's ladder. When a log boom is being worked, a Jacob's
ladder meeting the requirements of Sec. 1918.22 shall be provided for
each gang working alongside unless other safe means of access are
provided. However, no more than two Jacob's ladders are required for
any single log boom being worked.
(e) Life-ring. When working a log boom alongside a ship, a U.S.
Coast Guard approved 30 inch (76.2 cm) life-ring, with no less than 90
feet (27.4 m) of line shall be provided either on the floating unit
itself or aboard the ship in the immediate vicinity of each floating
unit being worked.
(f) Rescue boat. When employees are working on rafts or booms, a
rescue boat shall be immediately available.
Sec. 1918.89 Hazardous cargo.
(See also Sec. 1918.2(j).)
(a) Employer preparations. Before cargo handling operations begin,
the employer shall ascertain whether any hazardous cargo is to be
handled and shall determine the nature of the hazard. The employer
shall inform employees of the nature of the hazard and any special
procedures to be taken to prevent employee exposure, and shall instruct
employees to stay clear of and to notify supervision of any leaks or
spills.
(b) Handling hazardous cargo. Hazardous cargo shall be slung and
secured so that neither the draft nor individual packages can fall as a
result of tipping the draft or slacking of the supporting gear.
(c) Emergency procedures. If hazardous cargo is spilled or its
packaging leaks, employees shall be removed from the affected area
until the employer has ascertained the specific hazards; has provided
any equipment, clothing and ventilation, and fire protection equipment
necessary to eliminate or protect against the hazards; and has
instructed cleanup employees in a safe method of cleaning up and
disposing of a spill and disposing of leaking containers. Actual
cleanup or disposal work shall be conducted under the supervision of a
designated person.
Subpart I--General Working Conditions
Sec. 1918.90 Hazard communication.
(See Sec. 1918.1(b)(6).)
Sec. 1918.91 Housekeeping.
(a) General. Active work areas shall be kept free of equipment and
materials not in use, and clear of debris, projecting nails, strapping
and other sharp objects not necessary to the work in progress.
(b) Slippery surfaces. The employer shall eliminate conditions
causing slippery walking and working surfaces in immediate areas used
by employees.
(c) Free movement of drafts. Dunnage shall not be placed at any
location where it interferes with the free movement of drafts.
(d) Dunnage height. Dunnage racked against sweat battens or
bulkheads shall not be used when the levels of such racks are above the
safe reach of employees.
(e) Coaming clearance. Dunnage, hatch beams, tarpaulins or gear not
in use shall be stowed no closer than 3 feet (.91 m) to the port and
starboard sides of the weather deck hatch coaming.
(f) Nails. (1) Nails which are protruding from shoring or fencing
in the immediate work areas shall be rendered harmless.
(2) Dunnage, lumber, or shoring material in which there are visibly
protruding nails shall be removed from the immediate work area, or, if
left in the area, the nails shall be rendered harmless.
(g) Ice aloft. Employees shall be protected from ice which may fall
from aloft.
Sec. 1918.92 Illumination.
(a) Walking and working areas. Walking, working, and climbing areas
shall be illuminated. Unless conditions described in the regulations of
the U.S. Coast Guard (33 CFR 154.570) exist in the case of specific
operations, illumination for cargo transfer operations shall be of an
average minimum light intensity of 5-foot-candles (54 lux). Where
occasional work tasks require more light than that which is
consistently and permanently provided, supplemental lighting shall be
used.
(b) Intensity measurement. The lighting intensity shall be measured
at the task/working surface, in the plane in which the task/working
surface is present.
(c) Arrangement of lights. Lights shall be arranged so that they do
not shine into the eyes of winch-drivers, crane operators or
hatchtenders. On Ro-Ro ships, stationary lights shall not shine
directly into the eyes of drivers.
(d) Portable lights. Portable lights shall meet the following
requirements:
(1) Portable lights shall be equipped with substantial reflectors
and guards to prevent materials from coming into contact with the bulb.
(2) Flexible electric cords used with temporary lights shall be
designed by the manufacturer for hard or extra-hard usage. Temporary
and portable lights shall not be suspended by their electric cords
unless the cords and lights are designed for this means of suspension.
Connections and insulation shall be maintained in safe condition.
(3) Electric conductors and fixtures for portable lights shall be
so arranged as to be free from contact with drafts, running gear, and
other moving equipment.
(4) Portable cargo lights furnished by the employer for use aboard
vessels shall be listed as approved for marine use by the U.S. Coast
Guard or by a nationally recognized testing laboratory.
(e) Entry into darkened areas. Employees shall not be permitted to
enter dark holds, compartments, decks or other spaces without a
flashlight or other portable light. The use of matches or open flame
lights is prohibited.
Sec. 1918.93 Hazardous atmospheres and substances.
(See Sec. 1918.2(j).)
(a) Purpose and scope. This section covers areas in which the
employer is aware that a hazardous atmosphere or substance may exist,
except where one or more of the following sections or sub sections
apply: Section 1918.89, Hazardous cargo; Sec. 1918.94(a), Carbon
monoxide; Sec. 1918.94(b), Fumigated grains; Sec. 1918.94(c), Fumigated
tobacco; Sec. 1918.94(d), Other fumigated cargoes; Sec. 1918.94(e),
Catch of Menhaden and similar species of fish.
(b) Determination of hazard. (1) When the employer is aware that a
space on a vessel contains or has contained a hazardous atmosphere, a
designated and appropriately equipped persons shall test the atmosphere
before employee entry to determine whether a hazardous atmosphere
exists.
(2) Records of results of any tests required by this section shall
be maintained for at least 30 days.
(c) Testing during ventilation. When mechanical ventilation is used
to maintain a safe atmosphere, tests shall be made by a designated
person to ensure that the atmosphere is not hazardous.
(d) Entry into hazardous atmospheres. Only designated person shall
enter hazardous atmospheres, in which case the following provisions
shall apply:
(1) Persons entering a space containing a hazardous atmosphere
shall be protected by respiratory and emergency protective equipment
meeting the requirement of subpart J of this part;
(2) Persons entering a space containing a hazardous atmosphere
shall be instructed in the nature of the hazard, precautions to be
taken, and the use of protective and emergency equipment. Standby
observers, similarly equipped and instructed, shall continuously
monitor the activity of employees within such space;
(3) Except for emergency or rescue operations, employees shall not
enter into any atmosphere which has been identified as flammable or
oxygen deficient (less than 19.5% oxygen). Persons who may be required
to enter flammable or oxygen deficient atmospheres in emergency
operations shall be instructed in the dangers attendant to those
atmospheres and instructed in the use of self-contained breathing
apparatus, which shall be utilized.
(4) To prevent inadvertent employee entry into spaces that have
been identified as having hazardous, flammable or oxygen deficient
atmospheres, appropriate warning signs or equivalent means shall be
posted at all means of access to those spaces.
(e) Asbestos cargo leak. When the packaging of asbestos cargo
leaks, spillage shall be cleaned up by designated employees protected
from the harmful effects of asbestos as required by Sec. 1910.1001 of
this chapter.
Sec. 1918.94 Ventilation and atmospheric conditions.
(See also Sec. 1918.2(j).)
(a) Ventilation with respect to carbon monoxide. (1)(i) When
internal combustion engines exhaust into a hold, intermediate deck, or
any other compartment, the employer shall see that tests of the carbon
monoxide content of the atmosphere are made with such frequency to
ensure that dangerous concentrations do not exceed allowable limits.
Such tests shall be made in the area in which employees are working by
persons competent in the use of the test equipment and procedures. If
operations are located in a deep tank or refrigerated compartment, the
first test shall be made within one half hour of the time the engine
starts. In order to determine the need for further testing, the initial
test in all other cargo handling areas shall be taken no later than one
hour after the time the engine starts.
(ii) The carbon monoxide content of the atmosphere in a
compartment, hold, or any enclosed space shall be maintained at not
more than 35 parts per million (ppm) (0.0035%) as an 8-hour time
weighted average and employees shall be removed from the enclosed space
if the carbon monoxide concentration exceeds 100 ppm (0.01%). The short
term exposure limit in outdoors, non-enclosed spaces shall be 200 ppm
(0.02%) measured over a 5 minute period.
(A) The term time weighted average means that for any period of
time in which the concentration exceeds 35 parts per million, it shall
be maintained at a corresponding amount below 35 parts per million for
an equal period of time.
(B) The formula for ``time weighted average'' for an 8-hour work
shift is as follows:
E=(CaTa+CbTb+. . .CnTn)/8
Where: E is the equivalent exposure for the working shift. C is the
concentration during any period of time T where the concentration
remains constant. T is the duration in hours of the exposure at the
concentration C.
(iii) When both natural ventilation and the vessel's ventilation
system are inadequate to keep the carbon monoxide concentration within
the allowable limits, the employer shall use supplementary means to
bring such concentration within allowable limits, as determined by
actual monitoring.
(2) A record of the date, time, location and results of the tests
required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be maintained for at
least 30 days after the work has been completed. Such records may be
entered on any retrievable medium, and shall be available for
inspection.
(3) The intakes of portable blowers and any exposed belt drives
shall be guarded to prevent injury to employees.
(4) The frames of portable blowers shall be grounded at the source
of the current by means of an equipment grounding conductor run with or
enclosing the circuit conductors. When the vessel is the source of the
current, the equipment grounding conductor shall be bonded to the
structure of the vessel. Electric cords used shall be free from visible
defects.
(b) Fumigated grains. (1) Before commencing to handle bulk grain in
any compartment of a vessel in which employees will or may be present,
the employer shall:
(i) ascertain from the elevator operator whether the grain has been
or will be fumigated at the elevator; and
(ii) ascertain from the vessel's officers, agent, or other
knowledgeable source whether those compartments, or any cargo within
them that was loaded at a prior berth, have been treated with a
fumigant or any other chemical.
(2) If such treatment has been carried out, or if there is reason
to suspect that such treatment has been carried out, it shall be
determined by atmospheric testing that the compartment's atmosphere is
within allowable limits. (See paragraph (b)(3) of this section.)
(3) A test of the fumigant concentration in the atmosphere of the
compartment shall be made after loading begins and before employees
enter the compartment. Additional tests shall be made as often as
necessary to ensure that hazardous concentrations do not develop.
(i) Tests for fumigant concentration shall be conducted by a
designated person, who shall be thoroughly familiar with the
characteristics of the fumigant being used, the correct procedure for
measurement, the proper measuring equipment to be used, the
manufacturer's recommendations and warnings, and the proper use of
personal protective equipment employed to guard against the specific
hazards.
(ii) A record of the date, time, location and results of the tests
required by paragraph (b) of this section shall be maintained for at
least 30 days after the work has been completed. Such records may be
entered on any retrievable medium, and shall be available for
inspection.
(iii) At any time the concentration in any compartment reaches the
level specified as hazardous by the fumigant manufacturer or by part
1910, subpart Z of this chapter, whichever is lower, all employees
shall be removed from such compartments and shall not be permitted to
re-enter until such time as tests demonstrate that the atmosphere is
within allowable limits.
(iv) No employee shall be permitted to enter any compartment in
which grain fumigation has been carried out, or any compartment
immediately adjacent to such a compartment, until it has been
determined by test that the atmosphere in the compartment to be entered
is within allowable limits for entry.
(v) In the event a compartment containing a hazardous or unknown
concentration of fumigants must be entered for the purpose of testing
the atmosphere, or for emergency purposes, each employee entering shall
be protected by respiratory protective equipment in accordance with the
provisions of Sec. 1918.102, and by any protective clothing or other
personal protective equipment recommended by the fumigant manufacturer
for protection against the particular hazards. At least two other
employees shall be stationed outside the compartment as observers, to
provide rescue services in the event of an emergency. The observers
shall be equipped with similar personal protective equipment.
(vi) One or more employees on duty shall be equipped and trained to
provide any specific emergency treatment stipulated for the particular
fumigant.
(vii) Emergency equipment required by this subparagraph shall be
readily accessible wherever fumigated grains are being handled.
(4) In the event that a compartment is treated for local
infestation before loading grain by a chemical other than a fumigant,
the employee applying the treatment, and any other employees entering
the compartment, shall be provided with and required to use any
personal protective equipment which may be recommended by the
manufacturer of the product to protect them against the effects of
exposure.
(c) Fumigated tobacco. The employer shall not load tobacco until
the carrier has provided written notification as to whether or not the
cargo has been fumigated. If break-bulk tobacco cargo has been treated
with any toxic fumigant, loading shall not commence until written
warranty has been received from the fumigation facility that the
aeration of the cargo has been such to reduce the concentration of the
fumigant to within allowable limits. Such notification and warranty
shall be maintained for at least 30 days after the loading of the
tobacco has been completed, and shall be available for inspection.
(d) Other fumigated cargoes. Before commencing to load fumigated
cargo other than the cargo specifically addressed in paragraphs (b) and
(c) of this section, the employer shall ascertain that such cargo does
not contain a concentration of fumigants in excess of allowable limits
found in subpart Z of part 1910 of this chapter.
(e) Grain dust. When employees are exposed to concentrations of
grain dusts in excess of allowable limits found in subpart Z of part
1910 of this chapter, they shall be protected by suitable respiratory
protective equipment in accordance with the requirements of
Sec. 1918.102.
(f) Catch of Menhaden and similar species of fish. (1) The
provisions of this paragraph shall not apply in the case of vessels
having and utilizing refrigerated holds for the carriage of all cargo.
(2) After a vessel has arrived at berth for discharge of menhaden,
but before personnel enter the hold, and as frequently thereafter as
tests indicate to be necessary, tests shall be made of the atmosphere
in the vessel's hold to ensure a safe work space. The tests shall be
performed for the presence of hydrogen sulfide and for oxygen
deficiency.
(3) Tests required by paragraph (f)(2) of this section shall be
made by designated supervisory personnel, trained and competent in the
nature of potential hazards and the use of test equipment and
procedures.
(4) The hydrogen sulfide content of the atmosphere in a
compartment, hold, or any enclosed space shall be maintained at not
more than 10 parts per million (ppm) (0.0010%) as an 8-hour time
weighted average. The short term exposure limit shall be 15 ppm
(0.0015%) measured over a 15 minute period. The oxygen level must be
maintained to at least 19.5 percent. Employees shall not be permitted
in the hold unless these conditions are met and maintained.
Sec. 1918.95 Sanitation.
(a) Washing and toilet facilities. (1) Accessible washing and
toilet facilities sufficient for the sanitary requirements of employees
shall be readily accessible at the worksite. The number of toilet
facilities shall be provided in accordance with the table found in this
section. The facilities shall have:
(i) Running water, including hot and cold or tepid water at a
minimum of one accessible location (when longshoring operations are
conducted at locations without permanent facilities, potable water may
be provided in lieu of running water);
(ii) Soap;
(iii) Individual hand towels, clean individual sections of
continuous toweling, or warm air blowers; and
(iv) Fixed or portable toilets in separate compartments with latch-
equipped doors. Numbers of toilet facilities shall comply with the
Toilet Facilities Table. Separate toilet facilities shall be provided
for male and female employees except when toilet rooms will be occupied
by only one person at a time.
(2) Washing and toilet facilities shall be regularly cleaned and
maintained in good order.
Toilet Facilities Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of employees Minimum no. of facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 or less......................... 1 toilet seat.
20 or more......................... 1 toilet seat and 1 urinal per 40
workers.
200 or more........................ 1 toilet seat and 1 urinal per 50
workers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Drinking water. (1) Potable drinking water shall be accessible
to employees at all times.
(2) Potable drinking water containers shall be clean, containing
only water and ice, and shall be fitted with covers.
(3) Common drinking cups are prohibited.
(c) Prohibited eating areas. Consumption of food or beverages in
areas where hazardous materials are stowed or being handled is
prohibited.
(d) Garbage and overboard discharges. Work shall not be conducted
in the immediate vicinity of uncovered garbage or in the way of
overboard discharges from the vessel's sanitary lines unless employees
are protected from the garbage or discharge by a baffle or splash
boards.
Sec. 1918.96 Longshoring operations in the vicinity of maintenance and
repair work.
(a) Noise interference (See also Sec. 1918.1(b)(10)). Longshoring
operations shall not be carried on when noise interferes with
communications of warnings or instructions.
(b) Falling objects. Longshoring operations shall not be carried on
in the hold or on deck beneath work being conducted overhead whenever
such work exposes the employee to a hazard of falling objects.
(c) Hot work. Longshoring operations shall not be carried on where
the employee is exposed to injurious light rays, hot metal, or sparks,
as a result of welding or cutting.
(d) Abrasive blasting and spray painting. Longshoring operations
shall not be carried on in the immediate vicinity of abrasive blasting
or spray painting operations.
(e) Non-ionizing radiation. Longshoring operations shall not be
carried on when there is a danger that non-ionizing radiation
(electromagnetic radiation) from a vessel's radio or radar, or from
radio or television transmitting towers ashore could harm employees
that are involved in cargo handling operations.
Sec. 1918.97 First aid and lifesaving facilities.
(a) Injury reporting. The employer shall direct each employee to
report every injury, regardless of severity, to the employer.
(b) First aid. A first aid kit shall be available at or near to
each vessel being worked, and at least one person holding a valid first
aid certificate, such as one issued by the Red Cross or other
equivalent organization, shall be available to render first aid when
work is in progress.
(c) First aid kit. First aid kits shall be weatherproof and shall
contain individual sealed packages for each item that must be kept
sterile. The contents of each kit shall be determined by a physician,
based on the hazards anticipated at the worksite. The contents of the
first aid kit shall be checked at least weekly. Expended items shall be
promptly replaced.
(d) Stretchers. (1) There shall be available for each vessel being
worked, one Stokes basket stretcher, or its equivalent, permanently
equipped with bridles for attaching to the hoisting gear.
(2) Stretchers shall be kept close to vessels and shall be
positioned to avoid damage.
(3) A blanket or other suitable covering shall be available.
(4) Stretchers shall have at least four sets of effective patient
restraints in operable condition.
(5) Lifting bridles shall be of adequate strength, capable of
lifting 1,000 pounds (454 kg) with a safety factor of five, and shall
be maintained in operable condition. Lifting bridles shall be provided
for making vertical patient lifts at container berths. Stretchers for
vertical lifts shall have foot plates.
(6) Stretchers shall be maintained in operable condition. Struts
and braces shall be inspected for damage. Wire mesh shall be secured
with no burrs. Damaged stretchers shall not be used until repaired.
(e) Life-rings. (1) The employer shall ensure that there is in the
vicinity of each vessel being worked, at least one U.S. Coast Guard
approved 30 inch (76.2 cm) life-ring with no less than 90 feet (27.4 m)
of line attached and at least one portable or permanent ladder which
will reach from the top of the apron to the surface of the water.
(2) In addition to the provisions of paragraph (e) of this section,
when working a barge, scow, raft, lighter, log boom, or carfloat
alongside a ship, a U.S. Coast Guard approved 30 inch (76.2 cm) life-
ring, with no less than 90 feet (27.4 m) of line shall be provided
either on the floating unit itself or aboard the ship in the immediate
vicinity of each floating unit being worked.
(f) Communication. Telephone or equivalent means of communication
shall be readily available.
Sec. 1918.98 Personnel.
(a) Qualification of machinery operators. (1) Only those employees
determined by the employer to be competent by reason of training or
experience, and who understand the signs, notices and operating
instructions, and are 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. However, employees being
trained and supervised by a designated person may operate such
machinery and give signals to operators during training.
(2) No employee known to have defective uncorrected eyesight or
hearing, or to be suffering from heart disease, epilepsy, or similar
ailments which may suddenly incapacitate the employee, shall be
permitted to operate a crane, winch or other power operated cargo
handling apparatus or a power-operated vehicle.
(b) Supervisory accident prevention proficiency. (1) After [insert
date two years after promulgation of final standard], immediate
supervisors of cargo handling operations of more than five persons
shall satisfactorily complete a course in accident prevention.
Employees newly assigned to supervisory duties after that date shall be
required to meet the provisions of this paragraph within 90 days of
such assignment.
(2) The accident prevention course shall consist of instruction
suited to the particular operations involved.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\The following are recommended topics: Safety responsibility
and authority; elements of accident prevention; attitudes,
leadership and motivation; hazards of longshoring, including
peculiar local circumstances; hazard identification and elimination;
applicable regulations; and accident investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart J--Personal Protective Equipment
Sec. 1918.101 Eye protection.
(a)(1) When employees perform work hazardous to the eyes, the
employer shall provide eye protection equipment marked or labeled as
meeting the manufacturing specifications of American National Standards
Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection, ANSI
Z87.1-1989, and shall require that it be used.
(2) For employees wearing corrective spectacles, eye protection
equipment required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be of the
type which can be worn over spectacles. Prescription ground safety
lenses may be substituted if they provide equivalent protection.
(b) Eye protection shall be maintained in good condition.
(c) Used eye protection shall be cleaned and disinfected before
issuance to another employee.
Sec. 1918.102 Respiratory protection.
(See Sec. 1918.1(b)(12)).
Sec. 1918.103 Head protection.
(a) The employer shall require that employees exposed to impact,
falling or flying objects, or electric shocks or burns wear protective
hats.
(b) Protective hats shall bear identifying marks or labels
indicating compliance with the manufacturing provisions of American
National Standard Requirements for Protective Headwear for Industrial
Workers, ANSI Z89.1-1986.
(c) Protective hats previously worn shall be cleaned and
disinfected before issuance by the employer to another employee.
Sec. 1918.104 Foot protection.
(a) The employer shall require that employees exposed to impact,
falling objects, or puncture hazards wear safety shoes, or equivalent
protection.
(b) Protective shoes shall bear identifying marks or labels
indicating compliance with manufacturing provisions of the American
National Standard for Personal Protection--Protective Footwear ANSI
Z41-1991.
Sec. 1918.105 Other protective measures.
(a) Protective clothing. (1) The employer shall provide, and shall
require the wearing of special protective clothing for those employees
engaged in work in which such protective clothing is necessary.
(2) When necessary, protective clothing shall be cleaned and
disinfected before reissuance.
(b) Personal flotation equipment. (1) The employer shall provide,
and shall require the wearing of personal flotation devices for those
employees engaged in work in which they may fall into the water:
(i) When such employees are working in isolation; or
(ii) Where physical limitations of available working space creates
a hazard of falling into the water; or
(iii) Where the work area is obstructed by cargo or other obstacles
so as to prevent employees from obtaining safe footing for their work;
or
(iv) When working on the deck of a barge.
(2) Personal flotation devices shall be United States Coast Guard
approved Type I PFD, Type II PFD, Type III PFD, or Type V PFD, or
equivalent, in accordance with 46 CFR part 160 (Coast Guard Lifesaving
Equipment Specifications) and 33 CFR part 175.23 (Coast Guard table of
devices equivalent to personal flotation devices).
(3) Personal flotation devices shall be maintained in safe
condition and shall be considered unserviceable when damaged so as to
affect buoyancy or fastening capability.
Appendix I to Part 1918--Cargo Gear Register and Certificates (Non-
mandatory)
Note: This Appendix is non-mandatory and provides guidance to
part 1918 to assist employers and employees in complying with the
requirements of this standard, as well as to provide other helpful
information. Nothing in this Appendix adds or detracts from any of
the requirements of this standard.
General
The tests, examinations and inspections indicated in this
register are based on the requirements of I.L.O. Convention 152 and
Recommendation 160. They are intended to ensure that ships having
lifting appliances are initially certified by a competent person,
and to establish periodically that they continue to be in safe
working order to the satisfaction of a competent person acceptable
to a competent authority.
A Register of lifting appliances and items of loose gear shall
be kept in a form prescribed by the competent authority, account
being taken of this model recommended by the International Labour
Office. This Register and related certificates shall be kept
available to any person authorized by the competent authority. The
Register and certificates for gear currently aboard the ship shall
be preserved for at least five years after the date of the last
entry.
Instruction
1. Initial Examination and Certification
1.1. Every lifting appliance shall be certified by a competent
person before being taken into use for the first time to ensure that
it is of good design and construction and of adequate strength for
the purpose for which it is intended.
1.2. Before being taken into use for the first time, a competent
person shall supervise and witness testing, and shall thoroughly
examine every lifting appliance.
1.3. Every item of loose gear shall, before being taken into use
for the first time, shall be tested, thoroughly examined and
certified by a competent person, in accordance with national law or
regulations.
1.4. Upon satisfactory completion of the procedures indicated
above, the competent person shall complete and issue the Register of
lifting appliances and attach the appropriate certificates. An entry
shall be made in part I of the Register.
1.5. A rigging plan showing the arrangement of lifting
appliances shall be provided. In the case of derricks and derrick
cranes, the rigging should show at least the following information.
(a) the position of guys;
(b) the resultant force on blocks, guys, wire ropes and booms;
(c) the position of blocks;
(d) the identification mark of individual items; and
(e) arrangements and working range of union purchase;
2. Periodic Examination and Re-testing
2.1. All lifting appliances and every item of loose gear shall
be thoroughly examined by a competent person at least once in every
twelve months. The particulars of these thorough examinations shall
be entered in part I of the Register.
2.2. Re-testing and thorough examination of all lifting
appliances and every item of loose gear is to be carried out;
(a) after any substantial alteration or renewal, or after repair
to any stress bearing part, and;
(b) in the case of lifting appliances, at least once in every
five years.
2.3. The retesting referred to in paragraph 2.2(a) may be
omitted provided the part which has been renewed or repaired is
subjected by separate test, to the same stress as would be imposed
on it if it had been tested in-situ during the testing of the
lifting appliance.
2.4. The thorough examinations and tests referred to in
paragraph 2.2. are to be entered in part I of the Register.
2.5. No new item of loose gear shall be manufactured of wrought
iron. Heat treatment of any existing wrought iron components should
be carried out to the satisfaction of the competent person. No heat
treatment should be applied to any item of loose gear unless the
treatment is in accordance with the manufacturer's instruction; to
the satisfaction of the competent person. Any heat treatment and the
associated examination are to be recorded by the competent person in
part I of the Register.
3. Inspections
3.1. Regular visual inspections of every item of loose gear
shall be carried out by a responsible person before use. A record of
these regular inspections is to be entered in part II of the
Register, but entries need only be made when the inspection has
indicated a defect in the item.
4. Certificates
4.1. The certification forms to be used in conjunction with this
Register (Form No. 1) are as follows:
(Form No. 2)--Certificate of test and thorough examination of
lifting appliance.
(Form No. 2(U))--Certificate of test and thorough examination of
derricks used in union purchase.
(Form No. 3)--Certificate of test and thorough examination of
loose gear.
(Form No. 4)--Certificate of test and thorough examination of
wire rope.
Definitions
(a) The term ``competent authority'' means a minister,
government department, or other authority empowered to issue
regulations, orders or other instructions having the force of law.
(c) The term ``competent person'' means a person appointed by
the master of the ship or the owner of the gear to be responsible
for the performance of inspections and who has sufficient knowledge
and experience to undertake such inspections.
(d) The term ``thorough examination'' means a detailed visual
examination by a competent person, supplemented if necessary by
other suitable means or measures in order to arrive at a reliable
conclusion as to the safety of the lifting appliance or item of
loose gear examined.
(e) The term ``lifting appliance'' covers all stationary or
mobile cargo handling appliances used on board ship for suspending,
raising or lowering loads or moving them from one position to
another while suspended or supported.
(g) The term ``loose gear'' covers any gear by means of which a
load can be attached to a lifting appliance, but which does not form
an integral part of the appliance or load.
The Following Are Sample Forms of Certificates As Recommended by the ILO
[Part I--Thorough Examination of Lifting Appliances and Loose Gear]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I certify that on the date
to which I have appended
Situation and description my signature, the gear
of lifting appliances and shown in Col. (1) was
loose gear (with Certificate Examination performed thoroughly examined and no Remarks (To be dated
distinguishing numbers or Nos. (see note 2) defects affected its safe and signed)
marks, if any) which have working condition where
been thoroughly examined. found other than those
(see note 1) shown in Col. (5) (Date
and Signature)
(1) (2) (3).................. (4)....................... (5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: If all the lifting appliances are thoroughly examined on the same date it will be sufficient to enter in
Col. (1) ``All lifting appliances and loose gear''. If not, the parts which have been thoroughly examined on
the dates stated must be clearly indicated.
Note 2: The thorough examinations to be indicated in Col. (3) Include:
(a) Initial.
(b) 12 monthly.
(c) 5 yearly.
(d) Repair/Damage.
(e) Other thorough examinations.
Part II.--Regular Inspections of Loose Gear
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Situation and
description of loose
gear (with Signature and date of
distinguishing numbers the responsible person Remarks (To be dated
or marks, if any) which carrying out the and signed)
has been inspected. inspection
(See Note 1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: All loose gear should be inspected before use.
Identity of National Authority or Competent Organization Form No. 2
Certificate No. ____________
Name of Ship____________
Official Number____________
Call Sign____________
Port of Registry____________
Name of Owner____________
Certificate of Test and Thorough Examination of Lifting Appliances
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Situation and
description of lifting
appliances (with Angle to the Safe working
distinguishing numbers horizontal or Test load load at angle or
or marks, if any) radius at which (tones) radius shown in
which have been tested test load applied Col. 2 (tones)
and thoroughly
examined
(1) (2).............. (3) (4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name and address of the firm or competent person who witnessed testing
and carried out through examination
I certify that on the date to which I have appended my signature, the
gear shown in Col. (1) was tested and thoroughly examined and no
defects or permanent deformation was found: and that the safe working
load is as shown.
Date:
Place:
Signature:
Note: This certificate is the standard international form as responded
by International Labour Office in accordance with ILO Convention No.
152.
Reverse of Form No. 2
Instructions
1. Every lifting appliance shall be tested with a test load which
shall exceed the Safe Working Load (SWL) as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SWL Test load
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 20 tons...................... 25 percent in excess.
20 to 50 tons...................... 5 tons in excess.
Over 50 tons....................... 10 percent in excess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. In the case of derrick systems, the test load shall be lifted
with the ship's normal tackle with the derrick at the minimum angle to
the horizontal for which the derrick system was designed (generally 15
degrees), or at such greater angle as may be agreed. The angle at which
the test was made should be stated in the certificate
2.1. The SWL shown is applicable to swinging derrick systems only.
When derricks are used in union purchase, the SWL (U) is to be shown on
Form 2 (U).
2.2. In the case of heavy derricks, care should be taken to ensure
that the appropriate stays are correctly rigged.
3. In the case of cranes, the test load is to be hoisted, slewed
and luffed at slow speed. Gantry and traveling cranes together with
their trolleys, where appropriate, are to be traversed and travelled
over the full length of their track.
3.1. In the case of variable load-radius cranes, the tests are
generally to be carried out with the appropriate test load at maximum,
minimum and intermediate radii.
3.2. In the case of hydraulic cranes where limitations of pressure
make it impossible to lift a test load 25 percent in excess of the safe
working load, it will be sufficient to lift the greatest possible load,
but in general this should not be less than 10 percent in excess of the
safe working load.
4. As a general rule, tests should carried out using test loads,
and no exception should be allowed in the case of initial tests. In the
case of repairs/replacement or when the periodic examination calls for
re-test, consideration may be given to the use of spring or hydraulic
balances provided the SWL of the lifting appliance does not exceed 15
tones. Where a spring or hydraulic balance is used, it shall be
calibrated and accurate to within 2 percent and the
indicator should remain constant for 5 minutes.
4.1. If the test weights are not used, this is to be indicated in
Col. (3).
5. The expression ``tone'' shall mean a tone of 1000 kg. (2000 lbs)
6. The terms ``competent person'', ``thorough examination'', and
``lifting appliance'' are defined in Form No. 1.
Note: For recommendations on test procedures reference may be made
to the ILO document ``Safety and Health in Dock Work''.
Identity of National Authority or Competent Organization Form No.
2(U)
Certificate No.____________
Name of Ship____________
Official Number____________
Call Sign____________
Port of Registry ____________
Name of Owner ____________
Certificate of Test and Thorough Examination of Derricks Used in Union
Purchase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Situation and
description of Max. height of
derricks used in Union triangle plate Safe working
Purchase with above hatch Test Load load, SWL When
distinguishing numbers coaming (m) or (tones) operating in
or marks) which have max. angle Unit Purchase
been tested and between runners (tones)
thoroughly examined.
(1) (2).............. (3) (4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Position of outboard preventer guy attachments:
(a) forward/aft* of mast __________
and (b) from ships centerline __________
Position of inboard preventer guy attachments:
(a) forward/aft* of mast __________
and (b) from ships centerline __________
*Delete as appropriate
Name and address of the firm or competent person who witnessed testing
and carried out thorough examination
I certify that one the date to which I have appended my signature, the
gear shown in Col. (1) was tested and thoroughly examined and no
defects or permanent deformation was found: and that the safe working
load is as shown.
Date:
Place:
Signature:
Note: This certificate is the standard international form as
recommended by International Labour Office in accordance with ILO
Convention No. 152.
Reverse Form No. (U)
Instructions
1. Before being taken into use, the derricks rigged in Union
Purchase shall be tested with a test load which shall exceed the Safe
Working Load (SWL (U)) as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SWL Test load
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 20 tons...................... 25 percent in excess.
20 to 50 tons...................... 5 tons in excess.
Over 50 tons....................... 10 percent in excess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Tests are to be carried out at the approved maximum height of
the triangle plate above the hatch coaming or at the angle between the
cargo runners and with the derrick booms in their working positions, to
prove the strength of deck eye plates and the Union Purchase system.
These heights or angles must not exceed the values shown on the rigging
plan.
3. Tests should be carried out using test loads.
4. The expression ``ton'' shall mean a ton of 1000 kg. (2000 lbs.)
5. The terms ``competent person'', ``thorough examination'' and
``lifting appliance'' are defined in Form No. 1.
Note: For recommendations on test procedures, reference may be
made to the ILO document ``Safety and Health in Dock Work''.
Identity of National Authority or Competent Organization
Certificate No. ____________
Name of Ship ____________
Official Number ____________
Call Sign ____________
Port of Registry ____________
Name of Owner ____________
Certificate of Test and Thorough Examination of Loose Gear
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distinguishing
number or mark Description of loose gear Number Date of test Test load Safe work load
tested (tons) (SW) (tones)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name and address of makers or suppliers:
Name and address of the firm or competent person who witnessed testing and carried out thorough examination.
I certify that the above items of loose gear were tested and thoroughly examined and no defects affecting their
SWL were found.
Date:
Place:
Signature:
Note: This certificate is the standard international form as recommended.
Reverse Form No. 3
Instructions
1. Every item of loose gear is to be tested and thoroughly examined
before being put into use for the first time and after any substantial
alteration or repair to any part liable to affect its safety. The test
loads to be applied shall be in accordance with the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Test load (tones)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single sheave blocks (see note 1)............. 4 x SWL
Multi sheave blocks (see note 2):
SWL <25 Tones............................... 2 x SWL
25 tones 160 tones.......... (0,933 x SWL) + 27
SWL >160 tones.............................. 1,1 x SWL
Chains, hooks, rings, shackles, swivels, etc.:
SWL <25 tones............................... 2 x SWL
SWL >25 tones............................... (1,22 x SWL) + 20
Lifting beams, spreaders, frames and similar
devices:
SWL 10 tones..................... 2 x SWL
10 tones 160 tones.......... (1,04 x SWL) + 9,6
SWL >160 tones.............................. 1,1 x SWL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: 1. The SWL for single sheave block, including single sheave blocks
with beckets, is to be taken as one-half of the resultant load on the
head fitting.
2. The SWL of a multi-sheave block is to be taken as the resultant load
on the head fitting.
Note: For recommendations on test procedures reference may be made to
the ILO document ``Safety and Health in Dock Work''.
2. This form may also be used for the certification of
interchangeable components of lifting appliances.
3. The expression ``ton'' shall mean a ton of 1000 kg. (2000 lbs)
4. The terms ``competent person'', ``thorough examination'' and
``loose gear'' are defined in Form No. 1.
Identity of National Authority or Competent Organization Form No. 4
Certificate No.____________
Name of Ship____________
Official Number____________
Call Sign____________
Port of Registry ____________
Name of Owner ____________
Certificate of Test and Thorough Examination of Wire Rope
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name and address of maker or supplier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal diameter of rope (mm)
Number of strands
Number of wires per strand
Core
Lay
Quality of wire (N/mm\2\)
Date of test of sample
Load at which sample broke (tones)
Safe working load of rope (tones)
Intended use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name and address of the firm or competent person who witnessed testing
and carried out thorough examination.
I certify that the above particulars are correct, and that the rope was
tested and thoroughly examined and no defects affecting its SWL were
found.
Date:
Place:
Signature:
Note: This certificate is the standard international form as recommended
by the International Labour Office in accordance with ILO Convention
No. 152.
Reverse Form No. 4
Instructions
1. Wire rope shall be tested by sample, a piece being tested to
destruction.
2. The test procedure should be in accordance with an International
or recognized National standard.
3. The SWL of the rope is to be determined by dividing the load at
which the sample broke, by a co-efficient of utilization, determined as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Coefficient
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wire rope forming part of a sling:
SWL of the sling................................. 5
SWL < 10 tones................................... 10\5\
------------------
10 tones < SWL 160 tones............. (8,85 x SWL)+1910
SWL > 160 tones.................................. 3
Wire rope as integral part of a lifting appliances:
SWL of lifting appliance......................... 10\4\
------------------
SWL 160 tones........................ (8,85 x SWL)+1910
SWL > 160 tones.................................. 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: For recommendations on test procedures reference may be made to
the ILO document ``Safety and Health in Dock Work''.
These coefficients should be adopted unless other requirements are
specified by a National Authority.
4. The expression ``ton'' shall mean a ton of 1000 kg. (2000 lbs)
5. The terms ``competent person'', ``thorough examination'' and
``lifting appliance'' are defined in Form No. 1.
Appendix II to Part 1918--Tables for Selected Miscellaneous
Auxiliary Gear
(Non-mandatory)
Note: This Appendix is non-mandatory and provides guidance to part
1918 to assist employers and employees in complying with the
requirements of this standard, as well as to provide other helpful
information. Nothing in this Appendix adds or detracts from any of the
requirements of this standard.
Table 1.--Wire Rope Clips
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved plow steel, rope Minimum number of clips Minimum
------------------------------------------------------------ spacing
Other ------------
Inches (CM) Drop forged material Inches
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1/2\ or less (1.3).............. 3 4 3 (7.6)
\5/8\ (1.6)...................... 3 4 3\3/4\
(9.5)
\3/4\ (1.9)...................... 4 5 4\1/2\
(11.4)
\7/8\ (2.2)...................... 4 5 5\1/4\
(13.3)
1 (2.5).......................... 5 6 6 (15.2)
1\1/8\ (2.7)..................... 6 6 6\3/4\
(17.1)
1\1/4\ (3.2)..................... 6 7 7\1/2\
(18.1)
1\3/8\ (3.5)..................... 7 7 8\1/2\
(21.0)
1\1/2\ (3.8)..................... 7 8 9 (22.9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2
Natural Fibre Rope and Rope Slings
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Load Capacity in Pounds (lbs.) Safety Factor=5
Eye and Eye Sling
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Basket Hitch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Angle of rope to horizontal
90 deg. 60 deg. 45 deg. 30 deg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angle of rope to vertical
Rope--Diameter nominal in. Vertical Choker ---------------------------------------------------
hitch hitch 0 deg. 30 deg. 45 deg. 60 deg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1/2\............................. 550 250 1,100 900 750 550
\9/16\............................ 700 350 1,400 1,200 1000 700
\5/8\............................. 900 450 1,800 1,500 1,200 900
\3/4\............................. 1,100 550 2,200 1,900 1,500 1,100
\13/16\........................... 1,300 650 2,600 2,300 1,800 1,300
\7/8\............................. 1,500 750 3,100 2,700 2,200 1,500
1................................. 1,800 900 3,600 3,100 2,600 1,800
1\1/16\........................... 2,100 1,100 4,200 3,600 3,000 2,100
1\1/8\............................ 2,400 1,200 4,800 4,200 3,400 2,400
1\1/4\............................ 2,700 1,400 5,400 4,700 3,800 2,700
1\5/16\........................... 3,000 1,500 6,000 5,200 4,300 3,000
1\1/2\............................ 3,700 1,850 7,400 6,400 5,200 3,700
1\5/8\............................ 4,500 2,300 9,000 7,800 6,400 4,500
1\3/4\............................ 5,300 2,700 10,500 9,200 7,500 5,300
2................................. 6,200 3,100 12,500 10,500 8,800 6,200
2\1/3\............................ 7,200 3,600 14,500 12,500 10,000 7,200
2\1/4\............................ 8,200 4,100 16,500 14,000 11,500 8,200
2\1/2\............................ 9,300 4,700 18,500 16,000 13,000 9,300
2\5/8\............................ 10,500 5,200 21,000 18,000 14,500 10,500
Endless sling:
\1/2\............................. 950 500 1,900 1,700 1,400 950
\9/16\............................ 1,200 600 2,500 2,200 1,800 1,200
\5/8\............................. 1,600 800 3,200 2,700 2,200 1,600
\3/4\............................. 2,000 950 3,900 3,400 2,800 2,000
\13/16\........................... 2,300 1,200 4,700 4,100 3,300 2,300
\7/8\............................. 2,800 1,400 5,600 4,800 3,900 2,800
1................................. 3,200 1,600 6,500 5,600 4,600 1,800
1\1/16\........................... 3,800 1,900 7,600 6,600 5,400 3,800
1\1/8\............................ 4,300 2,200 8,600 8,600 6,100 4,300
1\1/4\............................ 4,900 2,400 9,700 8,400 6,900 4,900
1\5/16\........................... 5,400 2,700 11,000 9,400 7,700 5,400
1\1/2\............................ 6,700 3,300 13,500 11,500 9,400 6,700
1\5/8\............................ 8,100 4,100 16,000 14,000 11,500 8,000
1\3/4\............................ 9,500 4,800 19,000 16,500 13,500 9,500
2................................. 11,000 5,600 22,500 19,500 16,000 11,000
2\1/3\............................ 13,000 6,500 26,000 22,500 18,500 13,000
2\1/4\............................ 15,000 7,400 29,500 25,500 21,000 15,000
2\1/2\............................ 16,500 8,400 33,500 29,000 23,500 16,500
2\5/8\............................ 18,500 9,500 37,000 32,500 26,500 18,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3A
Polypropylene Rope and Rope Slings
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Load Capacity in Pounds (lbs.) Safety Factor=6
Eye and Eye Sling
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Basket Hitch
Angle of rope to horizontal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angle of rope to vertical
Rope--diameter nominal in. Vertical--hitch Choker--hitch ---------------------------------------------------
0 deg. 30 deg. 45 deg. 60 deg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1/2\....................... 650 350 1,300 1,200 950 650
\9/16\...................... 800 400 1,600 1,400 1,100 800
\5/8\....................... 1,000 500 2,000 1,700 1,400 1,000
\3/4\....................... 1,300 700 2,700 2,300 1,900 1,300
\13/16\..................... 1,600 800 2,600 2,300 2,200 1,600
\7/8\....................... 1,800 900 3,100 2,700 2,600 1,800
1........................... 2,200 1,100 3,600 3,100 3,100 2,200
1\1/16\..................... 2,500 1,300 4,200 3,600 3,600 2,500
1\1/8\...................... 2,900 1,500 4,800 4,200 4,100 2,900
1\1/4\...................... 3,300 1,700 6,700 5,800 4,700 3,300
1\5/16\..................... 3,700 1,900 7,400 6,400 5,300 3,700
1\1/2\...................... 4,700 2,400 9,400 8,100 6,700 4,700
1\5/8\...................... 5,700 2,900 11,500 9,900 8,100 5,700
1\3/4\...................... 6,800 3,400 13,500 12,000 9,600 6,800
2........................... 8,200 4,100 16,500 14,500 11,500 8,200
2\1/8\...................... 9,700 4,800 19,500 16,500 13,500 9,700
2\1/4\...................... 11,000 5,500 22,000 19,000 15,500 11,000
2\1/2\...................... 12,500 6,300 25,500 22,000 18,000 12,500
2\5/8\...................... 14,500 7,100 28,500 24,500 20,000 14,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3B
Polypropylene Rope and Rope Slings
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Load Capacity in Pounds (lbs.) Safety Factor = 6
Endless Sling
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Basket Hitch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Angle of rope to horizontal
90 deg. 60 deg. 45 deg. 30 deg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Angle of rope to horizontal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angle of rope to vertical
Rope--Diameter nominal in. Vertical Choker ---------------------------------------------------
hitch hitch 0 deg. 30 deg. 45 deg. 60 deg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1/2\............................. 1,200 600 2,400 2,100 1,700 1,200
\9/16\............................ 1,500 750 2,900 2,500 2,100 1,500
\5/8\............................. 1,800 900 3,500 3,100 2,500 1,800
\3/4\............................. 2,400 1,200 4,900 4,200 3,400 2,400
\13/16\........................... 2,800 1,400 5,600 4,900 4,000 2,800
\7/8\............................. 3,300 1,600 6,600 5,700 4,600 3,300
1................................. 4,000 2,000 8,000 6,900 5,600 4,000
1\1/16\........................... 4,600 2,300 9,100 7,900 6,500 4,600
1\1/8\............................ 5,200 2,600 10.500 9,000 7,400 5,200
1\1/4\............................ 6,000 3,000 12,000 10,500 8,500 6,000
1\5/16\........................... 6,700 3,400 13,500 11,500 9,500 6,700
1\1/2\............................ 8,500 4,200 17,000 14,500 12,000 8,500
1\5/8\............................ 10,500 5,100 20,500 18,000 14,500 10,500
1\3/4\............................ 12,500 6,100 24,500 21,000 17,500 12,500
2................................. 15,000 7,400 29,500 25,500 21,000 15,000
2\1/8\............................ 17,500 8,700 35,500 30,100 24,500 17,500
2\1/4\............................ 19,500 9,900 39,500 34,000 28,000 19,500
2\1/2\............................ 23,000 11,500 45,500 39,500 32,500 23,000
2\5/8\............................ 25,500 13,000 51,500 44,500 36,500 25,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4A.--Rated Load for Grade 80 Alloy Steel Chain Slings\1\
[Chain per NACM]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chain size nominal Single leg sling--90 Rated load double leg sling horizontal angle\2\
----------------------------------------------------------------- deg. to horizontal -----------------------------------------------------------------
loading 60 deg. 45 deg. 30 deg.
---------------------- double at 60 deg. double at 45 deg. double at 30 deg.
in. mm -----------------------------------------------------------------
lb kg lb kg lb kg lb kg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8/32\............................................... 7 3,500 1570 6,100 2700 4,900 2200 3,500 1590
\2/8\................................................ 10 7,100 3200 12,300 5500 10,000 4500 7,100 3200
\1/2\................................................ 13 12,000 5400 20,800 9400 17,000 7600 1,200 5400
\5/8\................................................ 16 18,000 8200 31,300 14200 25,600 11600 18,100 8200
\3/4\................................................ 20 28,300 12800 49,000 22300 40,000 18200 28,300 12900
\7/8\................................................ 22 34,200 15500 59,200 27200 48,400 22200 34,200 15700
1.................................................... 26 47,700 21600 82,600 37900 67,400 31000 47,700 21900
1\1/4\............................................... 32 72,300 32800 125,200 56800 102,200 46400 72,300 32800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\Other grades of proof tested steel chain include Proof Coil (Grade 28), Hi-Test (Grade 43 Chain, and Transport (Grade 70) Chain. These grades are not
recommended for overhead lifting and therefore are not covered by this Standard.
\2\Rating of multi-leg slings adjusted for angle of loading between the inclined leg and the horizontal plane of the load.
Table 4 B.--Maximum Allowable Wear at Any Point of Link
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal chain or coupling link size Maximum
------------------------------------------------------------ allowable
wear of
cross-
in mm sectional
diameter,
In.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8/32\........................................ 7 0.037
\3/8\......................................... 10 0.052
\1/2\......................................... 13 0.060
\5/8\......................................... 16 0.084
\3/4\......................................... 20 0.105
\7/8\......................................... 22 0.116
1............................................. 26 0.137
1\1/4\........................................ 32 0.169
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: For other sizes, consult chain or sling manufacturer.
Table 5--Safe Working Loads for Shackles
[In tons of 2,000 Pounds]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pin Safe
Material size (inches) diameter working
(inches) load
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1/4\......................................... \5/8\ 1.4
\5/8\......................................... \3/4\ 2.2
\3/4\......................................... \7/8\ 3.2
\7/8\......................................... 1 4.3
1............................................. 1\1/2\ 5.6
1\1/2\........................................ 1\1/4\ 6.7
1\1/4\........................................ 1\3/8\ 8.2
1\5/8\........................................ 1\1/2\ 10.0
1\1/2\........................................ 1\5/8\ 11.9
1\3/4\........................................ 2 16.2
2............................................. 2\1/4\ 21.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wire Rope Table--Rated Loads for Single Leg Slings 6 x 19 or 6 x 37
Classification Improved Plow Steel Grade Rope With Fibre Core (FC)
[Rated Loads\1\ Tons (2000 lb)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vertical Chocker
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rope diameter, in. HT MS S HT, MS & S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1/4\........................ 0.49 0.51 0.55 0.38
\8/16\....................... 0.76 0.79 0.85 0.6
\3/8\........................ 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.85
\7/16\....................... 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.2
\1/2\........................ 1.8 2.0 2.1 1.5
\9/16\....................... 2.3 2.5 2.7 1.9
\5/11\....................... 2.8 3.1 3.3 2.3
\3/4\........................ 3.9 4.4 4.8 3.3
\7/8\........................ 5.2 6.0 6.4 4.5
1............................ 6.7 7.7 8.4 5.9
1\3/8\....................... 8.4 9.5 11 7.4
1\1/4\....................... 10 12 13 9.0
1\3/8\....................... 12 14 16 11
1\1/2\....................... 15 17 18 13
1\6/8\....................... 17 19 21 15
1\3/4\....................... 20 22 25 17
2............................ 26 29 32 22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HT=Hand tucked Splice
For Hidden Tuck Splice (IWRC), use values in HT (FC) columns
MS=Mechanical Splice
S=Poured Socket or Swaged Socket
NOTES:
(\1\) These values are based on slings being vertical. If they are not
vertical, the rated load shall be reduced. If two or more slings are
used, the minimum horizontal angle between the slings shall also be
considered.
Wire Rope Table--Rate Loads for Single Leg Slings 6 x 19 or 6 x 37 Classification Improved Plow Steel Grade Rope
With Independent Wire Rope Core (IWRC)
[Rated Loads\1\, Tons (2000 lb)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vertical Choker Vertical basket
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Note\2\] [Note\3\]
Rope diameter, in. HT MS S HT, MS & S -------------------------
HT MS & S
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3/4\...................................... 0.53 0.56 0.59 0.31 1.1 1.1
\5/16\..................................... 0.82 0.87 0.92 0.64 1.6 1.7
\3/8\...................................... 1.2 1.2 1.3 0.92 2.3 2.5
\7/10\..................................... 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.2 3.1 3.4
\1/2\...................................... 2.0 2.2 2.3 1.6 4.0 4.4
\9/16\..................................... 2.5 2.8 2.9 2.0 4.9 5.5
\6/8\...................................... 3.0 3.4 3.6 2.6 6.0 6.8
\3/4\...................................... 4.2 4.9 5.1 3.6 8.4 9.7
\7/8\...................................... 5.5 6.6 6.9 4.8 11 13
1.......................................... 7.2 8.5 9.0 6.3 14 17
1\1/8\..................................... 9.0 10 11 7.9 18 20
1\1/4\..................................... 11 13 14 9.7 22 26
1\3/8\..................................... 13 15 17 12 27 31
1\1/2\..................................... 16 18 20 14 32 37
1\5/8\..................................... 18 21 23 16 37 43
1\3/4\..................................... 21 25 27 19 43 49
2.......................................... 28 32 34 24 55 64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HT=Hand tucked Splice
For Hidden Tuck Splice (IWRC), use values in HT columns of Table 3
MS=Mechanical Splice
S=Poured Socket or Swaged Socket
Notes:
\1\These values are based on slings being vertical. If they are not vertical, the rated load shall be reduced.
If two or more slings are used, the minimum horizontal angle between the slings shall also be considered.
\2\These values only apply when the D/d ratio is 15 or greater.
\3\ These values only apply when the D/d ratio is 25 or greater.
D=Diameter or curvature around which the body of the sling is bent
d=Diameter of rope
Wire Rope Table--Rated Loads for Single Leg Slings 6 x 19 or 6 x 37
Classification Extra Improved Plow Steel Grade Rope With Independent
Wire Rope Core (IWRC)
[Rated Loads\1\, Tons (2000 lb)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vertical Choker Vertical
----------------------------------------------------------- Basket
[Note\2\]
Rope diameter, in. MS S MS&S -------------
MS&S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1/4\...................... 0.65 0.68 0.48 1.3
\5/16\..................... 1.0 1.1 0.74 2.0
\3/8\...................... 1.4 1.5 1.1 2.9
\7/10\..................... 1.9 2.0 1.4 3.9
\1/2\...................... 2.5 2.7 1.9 5.1
\9/16\..................... 3.2 3.4 2.4 6.4
\6/8\...................... 3.9 4.1 2.9 7.8
\3/4\...................... 5.6 5.9 4.1 11
\7/8\...................... 7.6 8.0 5.6 15
1.......................... 9.8 10 7.2 20
1\1/8\..................... 12 13 9.1 24
1\1/4\..................... 15 16 11 30
1\3/8\..................... 18 19 13 36
1\1/2\..................... 21 23 16 42
1\5/8\..................... 24 26 18 49
1\3/4\..................... 28 31 21 57
2.......................... 37 40 28 73
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HT=Hand tucked Splice
For Hidden Tuck Splice (IWRC), use values in HT columns of Table 3
MS=Mechanical Splice
S=Poured Socket or Swaged Socket
Notes:
\1\These values are based on slings being vertical. If they are not
vertical, the rated load shall be reduced. If two or more slings are
used, the minimum horizontal angle between the slings shall also be
considered.
\2\These values only apply when the D/d ratio is 15 or greater.
Appendix III to Part 1918--Container Top Safety (Non-mandatory)
Note: This Appendix is non-mandatory and provides guidance to
part 1918 to assist employers and employees in complying with the
requirements of this standard, as well as to provide other helpful
information. Nothing in this Appendix adds or detracts from any of
the requirements of this standard.
Due to the almost limitless physical possibilities dictated by
such factors as vessel design; container type; container stowage;
types of container hoisting gear, etc., there may be instances
during vessel loading/discharge operations when it is not feasible
to utilize container top fall protection devices. As a result, a
case by case and event by event approach must be utilized in
assessing the feasibility of providing such devices.
The following are examples of situations where fall protection
may not be feasible:
When hooking up to or disconnecting from an overheight
container using ``special'' gear, where attaching fall protection to
the cranes spreader bar is not allowed by the owner of the crane
(for example a Port Authority).
When handling containers, ``in a chimney stow'' on a
break bulk vessel, with ships gear, when a personnel basket is not
sufficient to be used as an anchorage point.
[FR Doc. 94-13058 Filed 6-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P