U.S. Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Implementation Issues 7 October 2009 Intertanko NAP Houston, TX

OVERVIEW  Review of basic requirements  Application process to obtain a TWIC  “Acceptable” visa categories  The issue  Chronology of dialog with U.S. government agencies – issue status  Impacts - comment and discussion

BASIC REQUIREMENTS – WHERE & WHAT, WHOM & WHEN?  Where & What?  Secure areas of U.S. vessels w/MTSA VSP  Secure areas of U.S. facilities w/MTSA FSP  Unescorted access to TWIC holders only at the option of the facility  Whom?  U.S. licensed/documented seafarers must have a TWIC  Anyone desiring unescorted access as above  When – fully implemented by 15 April 2009  TWIC implementation experience to date – many facilities reluctant to provide escorts

APPLICATION PROCESS  Application – appear in person at contractor (Lockheed/Martin) run TWIC Center in U.S. port areas with appropriate “documentation”  Documentation requirements on TWIC web site:  U.S. Citizen  Non-citizen, immigrant/work status  Non-citizen, non-immigrant status – various employment authorizations or passport and visa on “Acceptable Categories” list  Relevant U.S. government agencies  U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) – field enforcement  Transportation Security Administration (TSA)  Department of Homeland Security (DHS)  Department of State (DOS)

DOCUMENTATION: NON –IMMIGRANT VISA ACCEPTABLE CATEGORIES (49 CFR ) (1) B-1/OCS Business Visitor/Outer Continental Shelf; (2) C-1/D Crewman Visa; (3) H-1B Special Occupations; (4) H-1B1 Free Trade Agreement; (5) E-1 Treaty Trader; (6) E-2 Treaty Investor (7) E-3 Australian in Specialty Occupation; (8) L-1 Intracompany Executive Transfer; (9) O-1 Extraordinary Ability; (10) TN North American Free Trade Agreement; or (11) Another authorization that confers legal status, when TSA determines that the legal status is “comparable” to the legal status set out in paragraphs 1-9.

THE ISSUE  Non-U.S. citizen industry shore staff requiring access to vessels through MTSA regulated terminals – superintendents, CSO, crewing managers, ISM and other auditors, etc. use B-1or B-1/B-2 visas. These are not on the “Acceptable Categories” list.  Applications supported by B-1 and B-1/B-2 visas and payment accepted at TWIC centers but notice received 1 month later of IDTA and denial with 60 day appeal period before FDTA.  “…you pose or are suspected to pose a security threat…unable to verify your immigration status”  So - many applications put on hold pending resolution  Began dialog with USCG and TSA to consider acceptance of B-1 and B-1/B-2 as “comparable” to other visas

DIALOG - U. S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES  Began dialog with USCG and TSA staff in early March 2008  Submitted proposal to TSA and USCG late March 2008:  Add B-1/B-2 to the “acceptable” list, or  Develop B-1/ “maritime” visa designation and issue TWIC with supporting letter from employer as “comparables”  Strong support from Intertanko, BIMCO, Chamber of Shipping of America (CSA), General Maritime, OSG, AET, Anglo-Eastern, UK P&I – twelve letters of support written to TSA  Continued dialog with USCG and TSA through end of 2008 as USCG, DHS and TSA considered various options  USCG very supportive of industry need during this time

DIALOG - U. S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES  Meeting with USCG senior policy makers, 6 January 2009  North Star, Intertanko, CSA, GMM, OSG, Blank Rome  Same group met with DHS/TSA senior policy makers, 23 January 2009 after USCG arranged meeting  Provided post-meeting submission on 18 February to USCG, DHS and TSA to answer questions, re-state earlier “comparables” proposal variation  March: DHS discussion with DOS to develop B-1 “maritime” designation  While still awaiting further response from DHS, TSA and DOS, informal indications are that this is not evolving

DIALOG - U. S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES  Met with Coast Guard newly assigned senior staff on 23 September and briefed on situation  Interagency “Terminal Access Work Group” forming – USCG, CPB, TSA, DOS so Coast Guard putting this issue on the agenda to determine next steps  Chamber of Shipping and BIMCO meeting with DOS week of 12 October and requesting DOS visa representative attend to pursue “maritime” annotation issue

IMPACTS & CONCERNS, POST 15 APRIL 2009  Generally no person denied entry if they “pay” for an escort - $200 - $3000  TWIC “escort services” developing, such as seafarer welfare organizations, agent provided escort, taxi drivers, etc.  One P&I organization pulled surveyors out of US, some ship managers minimizing need for surveyors to visit ships in US  Concerns – Cost impact and possibility of a TWIC only access “lockdown” if security incident occurs or threat level increased  Comment and discussion: What have NAP members experienced?

THANK YOU – QUESTIONS?