This is a report written by Jim Von Dreele and Mary Davisson and presented by them to Lisa Himber of the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee (NMSAC) TWIC Working Group in early 2011.

Seafarer Shore Leave Access Implementation Issues under TWIC

Each facility security plan approved under section 70103(c) of title 46, United States Code, shall provide a system for seamen assigned to a vessel at that facility, pilots, and representatives of seamen's welfare and labor organizations to board and depart the vessel through the facility in a timely manner at no cost to the individual.

Introduction:

Lisa Himber of the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee (NMSAC) TWIC Working Group met this January 2011 with the Board of the North American Maritime Ministry Association (NAMMA) to solicit its response to the implementation of the above section of the Coast Guard Authorization bill signed into law by the President in the fall 2010. Members of the NAMMA Board shared their experiences and frustrations with the implementation of the TWIC access program. As a result, Ms. Himber asked that we set forth in writing our concerns from the point of view of seafarers and maritime chaplains.

1. Some preliminaries in discussing shore leave for foreign seafarers in U.S. ports:

a. In addressing security concerns, we need to recall that seafarers are essential and legitimate port workers, with considerable motivation to help keep terminals safe. However, on a daily basis foreign crew members docked in the U.S. tell chaplains and ship visitors that they feel treated like "enemies," "terrorists," "prisoners," or "children" since the implementation of TWIC. (Their comments about the U.S. when they dock in Canada are reportedly even more negative.) Many who haven't been to the U.S. recently simply can't believe that terminals would forbid them to transit through the terminals without escort—while providing no authorized shuttles nor escort on foot. Yet this is exactly the case in many terminals. Sadly, many seafarers who enjoyed docking here three years ago now view the U.S. as ignorant or arrogant, an attitude unlikely to improve U.S. security.
b. Discussions of the effects of TWIC on seafarers should distinguish three issues clearly. (i) Are seafarers' center personnel able to get into terminals? (ii) Are sufficient authorized vehicles (or perhaps on-foot escorts in smaller terminals) available to transport/escort seafarers between vessel and terminal gate? (iii) When escort is available, is the actual process of seafarers' entering and exiting the gate itself reasonably efficient? We believe that (i) has been reasonably well addressed in most ports, though badging procedures are sometimes tedious. In the following discussion, (ii) and (iii) are the relevant questions, distinct though related.
c. Seafarers' centers in some ports have limited resources, are operating in the red, are in danger of closing, or already have closed. While seafarers' centers appreciate the efforts of terminal management and authorities to facilitate continued access of chaplains and ship visitors to vessels, and while some centers provide comprehensive transportation, simply to rely on seafarers' centers for all transportation throughout U.S. ports does not constitute a "providing a system" for shore leave.
d. Prior to TWIC, it was common practice in many terminals for seafarers to walk from the vessel to the front gate, sometimes up to half an hour, and then call an ordinary taxi, catch an ordinary bus, or continue on foot, if seafarers' center personnel weren't available to transport and ships' services (drivers allowed inside the terminal) struck them as too expensive. (Also, some terminals used to allow ordinary taxis to drive directly to the vessels.) Discussions predicated on the assumption that "TWIC hasn't changed seafarers' lives that much, because they weren't allowed to walk through terminals prior to TWIC anyway" are misguided (in the case of many terminals). (Prior to December 2008 seafarers also walked regularly to intra-terminal phone booths, which have now mostly been removed from terminals, but that is outside the scope of what we have been asked to address.)
e. Discussions of a system for shore leave should not assume that this requirement (as specified in the October 09 ALCOAST and recent CG Appropriations Act) may legitimately be compromised or dismissed if it might cause inconvenience or expense to terminals, shipping companies, or others. After all, seafarers' centers, port businesses, etc. are not allowed to opt out of any other aspect of TWIC regulations on the basis of expense or inconvenience.
f. Finally, chaplains have attended meetings where terminal management or FSO's expressed confusion and concern about the perceived need to guess what the regulations meant. For example, does "immediate vicinity of the vessel" mean 8 meters? If it varies with the terminal, as some CG personnel have indicated, how can the FSO guess at the meaning without risking severe penalties if the guess turns out to be incorrect? The uncertainty about "immediate vicinity," where crews are theoretically allowed to "muster for transportation" and conduct other "official ships' business" unescorted, has in some terminals destroyed the usefulness of the "any number in a closed vehicle" rule, since some terminals require repeated trips (even if in a closed vehicle) between vessel and front gate with five or fewer seafarers in each trip. If the terminal is large or operations are complicated or guards must be summoned repeatedly to unlock inner gates, each round trip can take 10-20 minutes, totaling 30 minutes or more to exit one group of ten seafarers!

2. What constitutes a "system"?

a. A "system" for providing shore leave would imply that terminals either providing a shuttle bus (driven by an authorized TWIC escort) circulating regularly between its various vessels and the front gate, or that terminal personnel provide TWIC escort on foot on request (as may be more practical in smaller terminals). In the case of on-request escort, terminals should provide a practical way for the crew to request escort; not all crews docking in the U.S. have American cell phones.
b. A procedure which only allows five seafarers to exit within a given time period would have the unacceptable effect of allowing mostly officers rather than ratings to go ashore. The CG needs to work with each terminal to identify a practical definition of the "immediate vicinity of the vessel" where crew can "muster for transportation" (already defined as "ships' business") unescorted and can board vans in numbers larger than five. Normally this will be as close as physically safe to the gangway or ramp; in some cases cargo operations or physical barriers (such as a barge between pier and vessel) may require the van to wait perhaps 100 yards away, but with a clear line of sight. Numerous lengthy round trips (based on rigid interpretation of the applicability of the 1:5 rule) between vessel and gate should be avoided. See below on "timely."
c. Providing escort to the gate during business hours only would not constitute a system, since many (not all) crews have more time to go ashore during evenings and weekends than weekdays. Escort should be available at least between 0800 and 2300.
d. Any system needs to be clearly spelled out on handouts or e-mails equally available to boarding agents, captains, seafarers' centers, gate guards, etc. (In the case of vessels, the information should be made available in hard copy, since internet is not always readily available on board.) Currently, seafarers' chaplains trying to identify such "systems" as exist may eventually get hold of lists of authorized escorts with a note to "call the company for rates." Commercial ship services (i.e. authorized drivers who both transport/escort seafarers from vessel to gate and continue on to shopping centers) may quote different rates for different agents, etc. Inconsistencies in price of escort from vessel to gate will presumably disappear if this service is offered "at no cost to the individual," but in any case the ground rules for escort as far as the gate must be widely and transparently publicized. For example, if a terminal chooses to charge a fee to escort a seafarer who accidentally misses a mall pick-up and returns after normal escort hours, any after-hours escort fee should be clearly publicized when the vessel docks. Also, the terminal should have an actual plan for that situation (not waiting for a seafarers' center driver to happen along 8 hours later). There are currently some front gates where guards apparently have no procedure for seafarers who miss a pick-up and taxi from the mall to the gate—except to hope that a driver from the seafarers' center will show up soon. In the case of ports with smaller centers, this is impractical.

3. What is "timely"?

a. "Timely" access to shore leave would suggest that a shuttle bus should circle the terminal on a predictable schedule every hour, or that an on-request escort would appear within an hour of being phoned (preferably faster). Once the seafarer has progressed from vessel to gate or has returned from shore leave to gate, gate paperwork for entrance and exit should not normally take more than 15 minutes. If this time is regularly exceeded—as is sometimes the case now--CG should work with the terminal to see how front gate procedures can be improved.
b. As terminals work to make their "system" for shore leave more efficient and "timely," CG needs to answer FSO's questions directly. If an FSO asks whether CG could approve a certain proposal in writing, for example a revised interpretation of "immediate vicinity" where more than five seafarers may "muster for transportation," CG should either approve the proposal in writing or indicate in writing why it cannot be approved. One approach might be for CG to encourage mid-term revisions of FSP's in response to such queries. In no case should FSO's be left in a situation of trying to read CG's minds about definitions, hoping not to guess wrong and be surprised by a penalty. The norm should be cooperation, advice, and warnings if need be for some period before penalties.

4. What is "at no cost to the individual"?

Probably the only way to ensure that escort expenses do not come directly or indirectly out of the pockets of individual seafarers is to incorporate any escort expenses into the terminal's general docking fees for each vessel. If terminals were to bill the vessel (the agent, owner, or operator) separately for each instance of escorting, probably those costs would simply be passed by ships' management to the seafarer escorted.

5. Additional concerns:

a. CBP's treatment of seafarers is often rough and rude when agents board ships. Many seafarers claim that the USA is worse than Russia and the KGB. If we are asking seafarers to be our partners in security, we need to treat them as professionals and as human beings with needs. Disrespect is not a useful or wise policy.
b. CBP's enforcement of the "29 Day Rule" continues to impact foreign flagged ships and crews. When CBP imposes this rule, crews are denied shore leave until they go to a foreign port. While CBP has the discretionary power to wave this rule, it is not done. Subsequent domestic ports cannot override a previous CBP port's decision. This adds to the frustration of seafarers in being denied shore leave.
c. Escort Training: There is no consistent training in some ports. With multiple terminals, it becomes difficult for seafarer visitors, agents and others to have a simplified training program.