[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 226 (Friday, November 24, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58025-58032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28052]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 58026]]


DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs

22 CFR Part 89

[Public Notice 2283]


Foreign Prohibitions on Longshore Work by U.S. Nationals

agency: Department of State.

action: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

summary: In accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 
1952, the Department of State is issuing a proposed rule updating the 
list, of longshore work by particular activity, of countries where 
performance of such a particular activity by crewmembers aboard United 
States vessels is prohibited by law, regulation, or in practice in the 
country.

dates: Interested parties are invited to submit comments in triplicate 
by December 26, 1995.

addresses: Comments may be mailed to the Office of Maritime and Land 
Transport (EB/TRA/MA), Room 5828, Department of State, Washington, DC 
20520-5816.

for further information contact: Richard T. Miller, Office of Maritime 
and Land Transport, Department of State, (202) 647-6961.

supplementary information: Section 258(d) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. 1288, as amended by the Immigration 
Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-649, directs the Secretary of State 
(hereinafter the Secretary) to compile and annually maintain a list, of 
longshore work by particular activity, of countries where performance 
of such a particular activity by crewmembers aboard United States 
vessels is prohibited by law, regulation, or in practice in the 
country. The Attorney General will use the list to determine whether to 
permit an alien crewmember to perform an activity constituting 
longshore work in the United States or its coastal waters, in 
accordance with the conditions set in the Act.
    The Department of State (hereinafter the Department) published such 
a list as a final rule on December 27, 1991 (56 FR 66970), corrected on 
January 14, 1992 (57 FR 1384). An updated list was last published on 
December 13, 1993 at 57 FR 65118. On March 24, 1994, an Advance Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (59 FR 13904) gave notice that the list would be 
updated and invited comments on the subject, particularly with respect 
to the Department's interpretation of Section 258.

Methodology

    The Department bases the lists on reports from U.S. diplomatic 
posts abroad and submissions from interested parties in response to the 
notice-and-comment process. At the request of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs of the House of Representatives, the Government Accounting 
Office (hereinafter the GAO) reviewed the Department's criteria and 
methodology for compiling the list. See U.S. General Accounting Office, 
State Department: Problems in Compiling List of Countries Restricting 
Longshore Activities (1994) (hereinafter GAO Report). Noting that the 
criteria and methodology followed by the Department in the past have 
tended to limit the number of countries placed on the list, the GAO 
concluded that the Department can ``significantly improve its data 
collection and decision-making procedures.'' The GAO also concluded 
that the language of Section 258, particularly the phrase ``in 
practice,'' is susceptible to differing interpretations.
    The GAO made five recommendations to improve data collection and 
decision-making procedures:
    1. Clearly and thoroughly state the criteria for determining which 
countries to place on the list.

--Standards for the reciprocity exception are discussed below.

    2. Determine specific data requirements and develop appropriate 
questions designed to solicit required information. [and]
    3. Design a standardized reporting format to facilitate analysis.

--In response to these two recommendations and to ensure greater 
consistency in reports from U.S. diplomatic posts abroad, the 
Department has drafted a more detailed questionnaire about different 
types of restrictions in foreign countries on longshore work by U.S. 
mariners. To the maximum extent possible, the questions can be answered 
with a yes or no. The questionnaire covers general requirements for 
work permits, laws and regulations specifically relating to longshore 
work and collective bargaining agreements.

    4. Obtain information on all seaport countries or clearly identify 
in the Federal Register those countries for which no information was 
obtained and the reason why.

--To determine which areas had ports, the Department consulted ``The 
World Factbook,'' published annually by the Central Intelligence 
Agency. According to ``The World Factbook,'' 172 geographic entities 
have ports, including dependent areas associated in some way with 
another country.
--The Department did not collect information about areas with a 
population of less than 5,000 inhabitants. In addition, the following 
entities with ports were not included in the instructions sent to 
posts: Anguilla (a dependent territory of the United Kingdom), Mayotte 
(a territorial collectivity of France), and Wallis and Fortuna (an 
overseas territory of France). According to ``The World Factbook,'' 
none of these entities has a ship registry.
--U.S. Embassies did not receive any replies from host country 
officials about the Cook Islands (a self-governing state in free 
association with New Zealand), Macau (an overseas territory of 
Portugal), Norfolk Island (a territory of Australia) and the French 
dependencies surveyed: The French Antilles, French Guiana, French 
Polynesia, New Caledonia, Reunion, and St. Pierre and Miquelon. 
According to ``The World Factbook,'' none of the French dependencies 
have separate ship registers; for the purposes of this rulemaking, 
ships of these areas will be considered as French ships.
--The Department does not have information at this time sufficient to 
determine the status of Albania, Antigua, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, 
Lebanon, St. Kitts, Sao Tome and Principe, and Somalia.
--The following countries were excluded from this rulemaking procedure 
because their vessels are currently prohibited from calling at U.S. 
ports: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, and Syria. In 
addition, Serbia and Montenegro was excluded because of the effects of 
UN economic sanctions.

    5. Develop a follow-up procedure to ensure that reports are 
received from all tasked overseas post and to obtain any necessary 
clarification.

--The Department has set up a data base to track the status of replies 
and requests for clarification. At regular intervals, reminders are 
sent to posts with replies outstanding.

    In addition to the recommendations listed above, the GAO 
recommended that the Secretary add to the list those countries with 
restrictions on longshore work that were previously omitted on the 
basis that no U.S. ships had called on their ports within the previous 
year or that they did not enforce their restrictions. The Department 
has 

[[Page 58027]]
followed this recommendation and added countries to the list 
accordingly.

Public Comments

    In response to the notice published on March 24, 1994 at 59 FR 
13904, twelve parties submitted comments. In general, ocean carriers, 
port administrators and shippers expressed support for the Department's 
previous application of Section 258, while representatives of organized 
labor argued that the Department's previous application was 
inappropriate.
    In a letter dated April 11, 1994, Icicle Seafoods, Inc. supported 
the original definition of practice and stated that any expansion of 
this definition would be detrimental and confusing to its business.
    In a letter dated April 19, 1994, the International Longshoremen's 
Association took the position that the Department's definition of ``in 
practice'' was improper and inaccurate and should have included 
collective bargaining agreements and other local practices irrespective 
of whether they were sanctioned by governmental authorities. The 
Association urged implementation of the recommendations from the GAO 
Report and agreed with the GAO position that various interpretations of 
the term ``in practice'' were legally supportable. It enclosed and 
referred to a previous letter to Undersecretary of State Joan Spero in 
which the Association argued that Congress intended the legislation to 
cover private as well as government restrictions.
    In a letter dated April 19, 1994, the Council of European & 
Japanese National Shipowners' Associations submitted that the 
Department had correctly interpreted the language and intent of the Act 
and that the Department should not change its original interpretation.
    In a letter dated April 20, 1994, the Federation of American 
Controlled Shipping stated that the Department had properly construed 
the statutory phrase ``in practice'' as requiring some degree of 
involvement by a foreign government. It asserted that denying 
reciprocity to countries in which the foreign government plays no role 
in restrictive labor practices is akin to holding the U.S. government 
responsible for practices privately negotiated by unions in this 
country. Since the law defers to U.S. collective bargaining agreements, 
it would, the Federation argued, be inconsistent to treat similar 
foreign agreements as impermissible. Finally, the Federation stated 
that any other interpretation would be unrealistic from the point of 
view of administrative practicality and cost effectiveness.
    In a letter dated April 21, 1994, the Lake Carriers Association 
expressed its support for regulations in which the Department confined 
the list to countries in which crew members of U.S. vessels were 
precluded from performing longshore work by virtue of specific laws, 
regulations, or government imposition or approval of collective 
bargaining agreements.
    In a letter dated April 22, 1994, the International Longshoremen's 
& Warehousemen's Union expressed its disagreement with the Department's 
previous rulemaking on this issue. The Union stated that the 
reciprocity exception was intended by Congress to be narrow, and that 
the term ``in practice'' should cover any restrictive practice, 
irrespective of whether a foreign government had prompted, adopted or 
approved it. It noted that the language in the statute refers to 
restrictions in the country rather than by the country. The Union also 
argued that the original interpretation of the exception was deemed 
wholly inconsistent with a major policy underlying immigration laws, 
the protection of the interests of the American workforce. It cited 
Congressional support for these views and provided an extensive 
discussion of the GAO Report in support of its position.
    In a letter dated April 22, 1994, American Great Lakes Ports saw no 
reason to change the interpretation of the statute. It noted the GAO's 
determination that while section 258(d) is susceptible to differing 
interpretations, the interpretation that restrictions should apply only 
in those cases where a foreign country has actively imposed or approved 
restrictions is a legally supportable reading of the law.
    In a letter dated April 22, 1994, CANAMCO fully and unequivocally 
supported the Department's original interpretation. It cited the GAO's 
conclusion that the interpretation is legally supportable and stated 
that nothing has occurred that requires a change. CANAMCO expressed the 
view that a broader interpretation of section 258(d) to include all 
restrictive practices would present the Department with an impossible 
definitional and administrative undertaking.
    In a letter dated April 25, 1994, the Shipping Federation of Canada 
noted that the terms of many Canadian and other nations' collective 
bargaining agreements restrict certain work to unionized longshoremen, 
and that a change in interpretation of the statute to include such 
agreements would cause these nations to lose their reciprocity 
exemption. It stated that a change would result in significant new 
cargo handling costs and delays at U.S. ports and urged retention of 
the Department's original interpretation.
    In a letter dated April 25, 1994, Cargill, Incorporated supported 
the original interpretation and described the language enacted by 
Congress as a carefully crafted compromise designed to keep U.S. 
exports competitive by limiting the unnecessary escalation of costs at 
U.S. ports and fostering the use of innovative technology in cargo-
handling operation. Cargill argued that a revised definition of 
reciprocity would cause cargos to be diverted to ports outside the 
United States and provide a gain in long-term competitive advantage for 
foreign agricultural and industrial exporters.
    In a letter dated April 25, 1994, the American Federation of Labor 
and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) described the 
purpose of the law as to preserve and protect longshore work for United 
States longshore workers. It noted that Congress was capable of 
excluding private restrictions from consideration if it had wanted to, 
but had not chosen to do so. It drew a parallel between the reciprocity 
exception and the separate ``prevailing practice'' exception for U.S. 
ports where foreign crewmembers normally perform longshore work, noting 
that the prevailing practice exception takes collective bargaining 
agreements into account. The AFL-CIO contended that there is no legal 
barrier to a change in interpretation, citing the GAO Report in this 
regard, and concluded that a wider interpretation would be neither 
unbalanced nor unfair, reflecting the most natural meaning of 
reciprocity.
    In a letter dated April 1994, the Maritime Trades Department of the 
AFL-CIO described the original interpretation as unwarranted and an 
egregious wrong to U.S. longshore workers. It argued that the 
interpretation had led to the loss of thousands of jobs in an industry 
already suffering from widespread unemployment as a result of 
containerization and other technological advancements. It expressed the 
view that the reciprocity exception was intended to accommodate only a 
relatively few countries.

Standards for Reciprocity Exception

Laws and Regulations

    The Department previously listed those countries where restrictions 
on longshore activities by crewmembers of U.S. ships are imposed by law 
or 

[[Page 58028]]
regulation of the foreign government on a national basis or by law or 
regulation of a regional or local government, provided the laws and 
regulations were actually enforced on U.S. ships which called at ports 
in those countries. Taking note of the recommendations of the GAO, the 
fact that ``general practice'' was the standard set forth in the 
legislative conference report, and the practical difficulties of 
determining the extent to which laws are enforced, the Department has 
chosen to alter its consideration of ``laws and regulations'' for 
purposes of section 258. Countries are now listed based on the 
existence of restrictions imposed by national, regional or local laws 
or regulations, provided such restrictions are pervasive enough to 
constitute general practice, irrespective of whether the laws are 
actually or consistently enforced or whether U.S. ships call at ports 
in the country in question.

Practices

    In earlier rulemakings, in addition to the countries listed because 
of restrictive laws and regulations, the Department listed only those 
countries with restrictions arising through collective bargaining 
agreements directly negotiated by a foreign government with other 
parties, or through restrictions in collective bargaining agreements 
imposed or approved by a foreign government. In its study of the 
Department's implementation of the legislation, the GAO concluded that 
the statutory phrase ``in practice'' is susceptible to differing 
interpretations. The GAO found that the Department's interpretation was 
legally supportable, but noted that the language and legislative 
history could support an interpretation under which privately 
negotiated collective bargaining agreements would disqualify a country 
for a reciprocal exception. The Department accepts the GAO's conclusion 
that either interpretation is legally supportable.
    In the absence of unequivocal statutory language, the Department 
must interpret the ``in practice'' provision. Upon consideration of the 
legislative history, comments from interested parties, the basic policy 
reflected in the statutory scheme, and U.S. economic interests, the 
Department has concluded that a longshore activity by alien crewmembers 
cannot qualify for the reciprocity exception in section 258(d) if U.S. 
mariners are prohibited from performing that activity in the country of 
the foreign vessel due to restrictive practices, e.g. private 
collective bargaining agreements, irrespective of governmental 
involvement in those restrictions.
    The purpose of section 258 is to protect U.S. longshore workers by 
restricting foreign crewmembers from performing longshore work in the 
United States, the performance of which had not been explicitly 
prohibited prior to the enactment of the statute in 1990. Section 258 
prohibits such work in general, and then provides limited exceptions to 
that prohibition. The Department was guided by this basic purpose and 
recognizes that to apply the exception to countries in which longshore 
activity by U.S. mariners is restricted in any way would not further 
that purpose. For example, applying the exception in such a case could 
conceivably create a situation in which all longshore work in a country 
was foreclosed to U.S. mariners by collective bargaining agreements, 
but mariners from that country were permitted to engage in longshore 
activity in the United States.
    The Department also notes the ``prevailing practice'' exception of 
section 258(c), which applies to private practices, whether or not any 
governmental action requires or sanctions those practices. Likewise, 
the Department recognizes that the statute emphasizes conditions that 
actually prevail in ports, as well as formal governmental actions.
    As observed by the GAO, the Department's original interpretation 
tended to maximize the number of countries granted a reciprocity 
exception. While the result may have been a benefit to shipping 
companies, those benefits came at the expense of U.S. longshore 
workers. The Department has concluded that, in the context of the 
statutory scheme created by Congress, the benefits gained by U.S. 
longshore workers through this new interpretation outweigh any benefits 
to U.S. businesses under the Department's previous interpretation.
    The Department has chosen this manner of applying section 258(d) 
after thorough consideration of its previous position and the practical 
difficulties of applying the statute accordingly. As a practical 
matter, the Department's previous application required an often 
difficult determination of the extent of government involvement in 
restrictive labor practices. This inquiry was cumbersome and, in many 
cases, indeterminate, since there was no guidance as to the level of 
government involvement which would place a country on the list. Under 
the Department's new position, however, the level of government 
involvement need not be established. Thus, this manner of application 
lends consistency and predictability to the process of listing 
countries in which longshore work is restricted ``in practice.''

Voluntary Commercial Practice

    Several comments submitted in connection with the original 
rulemaking on this subject observed that carriers may use local 
longshore workers as a matter of commercial choice. In the absence of 
restrictive laws, regulations, collective bargaining agreements or 
restrictions consistently imposed by national custom or practice as 
described above, the Department does not list countries based on U.S. 
carriers' voluntary commercial decisions.

Compensation of Port Workers

    In several countries, the Department has found that the performance 
of longshore work by U.S. crewmembers is permitted, but the ship is 
required to pay for the services of local longshore workers even if 
crewmembers are actually doing the work. In previous rulemaking the 
Department considered such practices restrictive only if the 
compensation exceeded ordinary market wages. However, because the 
Department has found that such monetary charges, at whatever wage 
level, have both a negative economic impact on the U.S. carrier and a 
deterrent effect on the performance of such work by U.S. crewmembers, 
the Department has decided to consider such practices as restrictive 
for purposes of this rulemaking and to place countries where such 
practices are in effect on the list.

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 89

    Aliens, Crewmembers, Immigration, Labor, Longshore Work.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 22 CFR Chapter I is 
amended as follows:

PART 89--PROHIBITIONS ON LONGSHORE WORK BY U.S. NATIONALS

    1. The authority for part 89 is maintained to read as follows:

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1288, Public Law 101-649, 104 Stat. 4878.

    2. Part 89 is amended by revising Sec. 89.1 to read as follows:


Sec. 89.1  Prohibitions on longshore work by U.S. nationals; listing by 
country.

    The Secretary of State has determined that, in the following 
countries, longshore work by crewmembers aboard United States vessels 
is prohibited by law, regulation, or in practice, with respect to the 
particular activities noted:

[[Page 58029]]


Algeria

    (a) All longshore activities.

Angola

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Opening and closing of hatches and
    (2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Argentina

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Cargo tiedown and untieing,
    (2) When a disaster occurs,
    (3) Provision of vessel supplies, and
    (4) Opening and closing of hatches.

Australia

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) When shore labor cannot be obtained at rates prescribed by 
collective bargaining agreements,
    (2) Opening and closing of hatches, and
    (3) Rigging of ship's gear.

Bahamas

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Operation of cargo related equipment on board the ship,
    (2) Opening and closing of hatches,
    (3) Rigging of ship's gear, and
    (4) Use of specialized equipment which port workers cannot handle 
alone, with the concurrence of the local longshore union.

Bangladesh

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Operation of cargo related equipment integral to the vessel 
when there is a shortage of port workers able to operate the equipment 
and with the permission of the port authority, and
    (2) Opening and closing of hatches.

Barbados

    (a) All longshore activities.

Belgium

    (a) All longshore activities.

Belize

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Operation of cargo related equipment,
    (2) Opening and closing of hatches and
    (3) Rigging of ship's gear.

Benin

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Operation of cargo related equipment.
    (2) Opening and closing of hatches and
    (3) Rigging of ship's gear.

Bermuda

    (a) Loading and discharge of cargo using cranes and loading 
equipment situated on the docks or wharves.
    (b) Line handling on the docks.

Brazil

    (a) All longshore activities at public terminals.

Bulgaria

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions
    (1) Operation of cargo related equipment,
    (2) Opening and closing of hatches,
    (3) Rigging of ship's gear,
    (4) Mooring and line handling, and
    (5) Operation of special equipment and discharge of dangerous 
cargo, with the preliminary authorization of the Port Administration 
and Harbor Master.

Burma

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Opening and closing of hatches and
    (2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Cameroon

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Opening and closing of hatches and
    (2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Canada

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions in connection with bulk cargo at Great Lakes ports 
only:
    (1) Handling of mooring lines on the dock when the vessel is made 
fast or let go,
    (2) Moving the vessel to place it under shoreside unloading 
equipment,
    (3) Moving the vessel in position to unload the vessel onto 
specific cargo piles, hoppers or conveyor belt systems, and
    (4) Operation of cargo related equipment integral to the vessel.

Cape Verde

    (a) All longshore activities.

China

    (a) Handling of mooring lines.

Colombia

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions: When local workers are unable or unavailable to 
provide longshore services.

Comoros

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Operation of cargo related equipment,
    (2) Opening and closing of hatches,
    (3) Rigging of ship's gear,
    (4) Other activities, with government authorization.

Costa Rica

    (a) Operation of equipment fixed to the ground.

Cote d'Ivoire

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Opening and closing of hatches and
    (2) Rigging of automated ship's gear.

Croatia

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Operation of cargo related equipment on board the ship when 
outside of port, and
    (2) Operation of specialized unloading equipment.

Cyprus

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
    (2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Djibouti

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exception: Operation of cranes aboard ship.

Dominica

    (a) All longshore activities.

Dominican Republic

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exception: Operation of equipment with which local port workers 
are not familiar.

Ecuador

    (a) All longshore activities.

Egypt

    (a) Cargo loading and unloading activities not on board the ship.

El Salvador

    (a) All longshore activities.

Eritrea

    (a) All longshore activities.

Estonia

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) On-board mooring activities,
    (2) Replacement of lines,
    (3) Lifting and movement of ladders,
    (4) Movement of vessel's equipment,
    (5) Loading of food and vessel's equipment by cargo-related 
equipment of the vessel, and 

[[Page 58030]]

    (6) Securing of general cargo, vehicles and containers to the 
vessel.

Fiji

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Operation of cargo related equipment, except for discharging 
cargo,
    (2) Opening and closing hatches, and
    (3) Rigging of ship's gear.

Finland

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions, when not related to cargo loading and discharge:
    (1) Operation of cargo related equipment,
    (2) Opening and closing hatches, and
    (3) Rigging of ship's gear.

Gabon

    (a) All longshore activities.

Georgia

    (a) All longshore activities.

Germany

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
    (2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Ghana

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Operation of cargo related equipment,
    (2) Opening and closing of hatches, and
    (3) Rigging of ship's gear.

Greenland

    (a) Cargo handling activities on shore.
    (b) Exception: Loading and discharging of cargo between vessel and 
dock by use of ship's gear.

Guatemala

    (a) All longshore activities.

Guinea

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
    (2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Guyana

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Operation of cargo related equipment aboard ship,
    (2) Opening and closing of hatches, and
    (3) Rigging of ship's gear.

Haiti

    (a) All longshore activities.

Honduras

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Operations of cargo related equipment,
    (2) Opening and closing of hatches, and
    (3) Rigging of ship's gear.

Hong Kong

    (a) Operation of equipment on the pier.

Iceland

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exception: Operation of shipboard equipment and cranes.

India

    (a) All longshore activities
    (b) Exception: Operation of shipboard equipment that local port 
workers cannot operate.

Indonesia

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) With the permission of the port administrator, when no local 
port workers with requisite skills are available, and
    (2) In the event of an emergency.

Ireland

    (a) All longshore activities.

Israel

    (a) All longshore activities.

Jamaica

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Operation of equipment integral to the vessel,
    (2) Opening and closing of hatches, jointly with local port 
workers, and
    (3) Rigging of ship's gear, jointly with local port workers.

Japan

    (a) All longshore activities.

Jordan

    (a) All longshore activities.

Kenya

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Opening and closing of hatches,
    (2) Rigging of ship's gear,
    (3) In an emergency declared by the port authority, and
    (4) Direct transfer of cargo from one ship to another.

Korea

    (a) All longshore activities.

Kuwait

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exception, when activities are declined by the port workers:
    (1) Operation of cargo related equipment,
    (2) Opening and closing of hatches, and
    (3) Rigging of ship's gear.

Liberia

    (a) Longshore activities on shore.

Lithuania

    (a) The following activities in harbor:
    (1) Loading and discharge of cargo,
    (2) Maintenance of port equipment,
    (3) Receiving and fixing of dock ropes to harbor equipment,
    (4) Transportation of cargo within the port, and
    (5) Warehousing and security.
    (b) Exception: Opening and closing of hatches.

Madagascar

    (a) All longshore activities.

Malaysia

    (a) Longshore activities on shore.
    (b) Exception: Loading and discharge of hazardous materials.

Maldive Islands

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Operation of cargo related equipment aboard ship,
    (2) Opening and closing of hatches,
    (3) Rigging of ship's gear, and
    (4) Other longshore activities within port limits, when authorized 
by the port authority in cases when the port authority is unable to 
provide longshore workers.

Malta

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
    (2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Mauritania

    (a) All longshore activities on shore.

Mauritius

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
    (2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Mexico

    (a) All longshore activities.

Micronesia

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Operation and rigging of gear which local port workers cannot 
do, and
    (2) When no qualified citizens are available.

Morocco

    (a) All longshore activities.

[[Page 58031]]

    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Operation of ship's gear which port workers cannot operate,
    (2) Opening and closing of hatches,
    (3) Rigging of gear aboard ship, and
    (4) Fastening and unfastening containers.

Mozambique

    (a) All longshore activities on shore.

Namibia

    (a) Longshore activities on shore.

Nauru

    (a) All longshore activities.

Netherlands

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exception: Regular crew activities on board ship, including 
operation of cargo related equipment, opening and closing of hatches 
and rigging of ship's gear.

Netherlands Antilles

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Operation of ship's gear,
    (2) Opening and closing of hatches, and
    (3) Rigging of ship's gear.

New Zealand

    (a) All longshore activities.

Nicaragua

    (a) All longshore activities.

Pakistan

    (a) Longshore activities on shore.
    (b) Handling of mooring lines.
    (c) Exception: Operation of equipment which dock workers are not 
capable of operating.

Panama

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Rigging of ship's gear,
    (2) Cargo handling operations with ship's gear, when port authority 
equipment is not available to load or unload a vessel.

Papua New Guinea

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
    (2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Peru

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Handling of certain types of hazardous cargo, and
    (2) Operation of shipboard equipment requiring special training.

Philippines

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Activities on board ship, except for loading and discharge of 
cargo,
    (2) Longshore activities for hazardous or polluting cargoes, and
    (3) Longshore activities on government vessels.

Poland

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Operation of cargo-related equipment,
    (2) Opening and closing of hatches, and
    (3) Rigging of ship's gear.

Portugal (including Azores)

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Military operations,
    (2) Operations in an emergency, when under the supervision of the 
maritime authorities,
    (3) Security or inspection operations,
    (4) Loading and discharge of supplies for the vessel and its crew,
    (5) Loading and discharge of fuel and petroleum products at special 
terminals,
    (6) Loading and discharge of chemical products if required for 
safety reasons,
    (7) Placing of trailers and similar material in parking areas when 
done before loading or after discharge,
    (8) Cleaning of the vessel, and
    (9) Loading, discharge and disposal of merchandise in other boats.

Qatar

    (a) All longshore activities.

Romania

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Operation of specialized shipboard equipment, and
    (2) Loading and discharge of cargo requiring special operations.

St. Lucia

    (a) All longshore activities.

St. Vincent and the Grenadines

    (a) All longshore activities.

Saudi Arabia

    (a) All longshore activities.

Senegal

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Opening and closing of hatches,
    (2) Rigging of ship's gear, and
    (3) Cargo handling when necessary to ensure the safety or stability 
of the vessel.

Seychelles

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
    (2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Slovenia

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
    (2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Solomon Islands

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
    (2) Rigging of ship's gear.

South Africa

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
    (2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Spain

    (a) All longshore activities.

Sri Lanka

    (a) Longshore activities on shore.

Sweden

    (a) Loading and discharge of cargo.
    (b) Rigging of cargo nets, straps and wires to make ready for 
loading by the crane.
    (c) Cargo handling.
    (d) Line handling on the dock.

Taiwan

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Operation of cargo-related equipment which local longshoremen 
cannot operate, and
    (2) Opening and closing of hatches operated automatically.

Tanzania

    (a) All longshore activities.

Thailand

    (a) Longshore activities on shore.
    (b) Exception: Longshore activities in private ports.

Togo

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Operation of cargo-related equipment on board the ship, and
    (2) Opening and closing of hatches, upon the agreement of the port 
officer on duty.

Trinidad and Tobago

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Opening and closing of hatches, if done automatically, and

[[Page 58032]]

    (2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Tunisia

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exception: When the number of local dock workers is 
insufficient or when the workers are not qualified to do the work.

Uruguay

    (a) Stowing, unstowing, loading and discharge, and related 
activities on board ships in commercial ports.
    (b) Cargo handling on the docks and piers of commercial ports.
    (c) Exception: Activities usually performed by the ships crew, 
including operation of cargo related equipment, opening and closing of 
hatches and rigging of ship's gear.

Vanuatu

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
    (2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Venezuela

    (a) Longshore activities in private ports and terminals.

Western Samoa

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exceptions:
    (1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
    (2) Rigging of ship's gear.

Yemen

    (a) All longshore activities.

Zaire

    (a) All longshore activities.
    (b) Exception: Operation of cargo related equipment, when 
authorized by the Port Authority.
    (8 U.S.C. 1288, Pub. L. 010-649, 104 Stat, 4878)

    Dated: October 27, 1995.
Daniel K. Tarullo,
Assistant Secretary, Economic and Business Affairs, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. 95-28052 Filed 11-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-M