[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14930-14933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-2892]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Office of the Secretary


Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council

AGENCY: Preparedness Directorate, Office of Infrastructure Protection, 
Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Committee management: notice of committee establishment.

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

SUMMARY: In order to facilitate an effective defense of our Nation's 
critical infrastructure, the Department of Homeland Security is 
creating the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council. 
Pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Department is taking 
measures to facilitate strategic planning and effective discussion of 
critical infrastructure issues and to protect sensitive critical 
infrastructure information while also observing appropriate public 
disclosure procedures for the council.
    Name of Committee: Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory 
Council (CIPAC).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brett Lambo, Infrastructure Programs 
Office, Infrastructure Partnerships Division, Office of Infrastructure 
Protection, Preparedness Directorate, United States Department of 
Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528, telephone (703) 235-5311 or 
via e-mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

1. The Department's Relationship With Owners of Critical Infrastructure

    Approximately 85 percent of this nation's critical infrastructure 
is owned by the private sector. See, e.g., National Infrastructure 
Advisory Council Report, Sector Partnership Model Implementation: Final 
Report and Recommendations 6 (Oct. 11, 2005) (``NIAC Report''). Thus, 
in drafting the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress repeatedly 
stressed that the new Department of Homeland Security must have a close 
and highly effective relationship with the private sector owners of 
this infrastructure. See, e.g., 6 U.S.C. 121(d)(11) (requiring 
consultation with ``private sector entities to ensure appropriate 
exchanges of information''); 6 U.S.C. 112(c) (requiring coordination 
with non-federal entities); see also Statement of Senator Joe 
Lieberman, Nov. 16, 2005 (``That's why we created an Infrastructure 
Protection division in the Department of Homeland Security which was 
the first of its kind at any federal agency. The point was that 
government needed to work with the private sector to make sure the 
systems so crucial to our way of life were adequately protected, and if 
attacked by terrorists or overwhelmed by natural forces, were able to 
recover quickly and restore services.'').
    Congress explicitly instructed the Department to create an 
effective structure for sharing sensitive information with the private 
sector on infrastructure. Congress also explicitly mandated that the 
Department ``ensure the security and confidentiality'' of sensitive 
homeland security information, and gave the Department specific new 
authorities to protect such

[[Page 14931]]

information. See 6 U.S.C. 131 et seq.; 6 U.S.C. 451; 6 U.S.C. 482.
    Over the past two years, the Department has consulted with Congress 
and with the Department's private and public sector partners and 
advisory committees to assess the strength and effectiveness of its 
relationships with private sector owners of critical infrastructure. 
The Government Accountability Office and others have reported that the 
private sector continues to resist sharing critical infrastructure 
information with the Department. See, e.g., Govt. Acct. Off., Rep. No. 
GAO-03-1165T, Homeland Security: Information Sharing Responsibilities, 
Challenges, and Key Management Issues 26 (Sept. 17, 2003) (``As noted 
in our February 2003 report, some in the private sector expressed 
concerns about voluntarily sharing information with the government.''); 
Govt. Acct. Off., Rep. No. GAO-06-150, Homeland Security: DHS is Taking 
Steps to Enhance Security at Chemical Facilities, but Additional 
Authority is Needed 55-56 (Jan. 2006) (``While the industry wants to 
cooperate with DHS on its chemical security efforts, businesses are 
concerned that sensitive information could be released.''); Homeland 
Security Advisory Council Report, Homeland Security Information Sharing 
Between Government and the Private Sector 1 (August 10, 2005) (``HSAC 
Report'') (stating that effective cooperation between DHS and the 
private sector ``has been hampered by a variety of legal and procedural 
obstacles''); compare 148 Cong. Rec. S11002, S11001 (Nov. 14, 2002) 
(Senator Lieberman) (``We have to close vulnerabilities in those 
[critical infrastructure] systems before terrorists strike them. To do 
so, we have to be working with the private sector.'').
    A number of advisory councils have recently re-assessed this 
problem and provided recommendations to the Department. For example, 
after a lengthy study in August of 2005, the Homeland Security Advisory 
Council (HSAC) opined:

Fundamentally, the challenge of ensuring the resilient/reliable 
operation of critical infrastructure is unique, as it requires close 
communication and coordination between critical private sector 
entities and the Federal agencies charged with regulating them. 
Those communications, moreover, must remain non-public in order for 
those functions to be served. As specified in statute, these 
communications are to involve intelligence and law enforcement 
information, and are to serve warning, preventative and protective 
functions. Disclosing this sort of information would defeat the 
purpose of these communications by giving our nation's enemies 
information they could use to most effectively attack a particular 
infrastructure and cause cascading consequences across multiple 
infrastructures.

HSAC Report at 30.

2. Identifying Solutions

    The Department's principal advisory committees specifically 
concluded that concerns regarding the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(FACA) have frustrated vital communication between DHS and critical 
infrastructure sectors. This Act, when it applies, generally requires 
advisory committees to meet in open session and make publicly available 
associated written materials. 5 U.S.C. App. 2 sec. 10. It also requires 
a 15-day notice before any meeting may be ``closed'' to public 
attendance, a requirement which could prevent the Department from 
meeting on short notice to discuss sensitive information in an 
appropriate setting. The Act contains a number of exceptions to its 
general disclosure rules, but the applicability of those exceptions 
presents what many view as a significant litigation risk. See, e.g., 
NIAC Report at 14. The Department's consultations with the Department 
of Justice have reinforced this conclusion.
    The HSAC summed up the potential consequences of public disclosure 
of the sensitive information:

Communications [between critical private sector entities and the 
Federal Government] must remain non-public * * * Disclosing this 
sort of information would defeat the purpose of those communications 
by giving our nation's enemies information they could use to most 
effectively attack a particular infrastructure and cause cascading 
consequences across multiple infrastructures.

HSAC Report at 30. Because of these concerns, the HSAC recommended that 
DHS consider using its authority under section 871 of the Homeland 
Security Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. 451, to exempt critical infrastructure 
advisory committees from the FACA requirements. Section 871 provides 
the Secretary of Homeland Security with the authority to establish 
advisory committees and exempt them from the FACA. 6 U.S.C. 451(a). 
This authority allows the Department to enhance the incentives for 
providing the Department with information and recommendations that 
would not otherwise be provided. The National Infrastructure Advisory 
Council (NIAC) also considered this authority and drew a conclusion 
similar to the HSAC:

Effective critical infrastructure protection requires the ability to 
have real time, continuous communications and open dialogue among 
the public and private partners in the model. The granting of the 
871 exemption will establish a known and understood framework that 
facilitates the flow of advice and information concerning critical 
infrastructure protection. Not doing so would inhibit information 
sharing, risk publicly disclosing vulnerabilities, and suppress ad 
hoc communications during emergencies.

NIAC Report at 12. The NIAC went on to opine that exercising the 
exemption will have a direct effect: ``Interactions between the 
government and private sector will increase, and the flow of 
information will be much more efficient.'' Id. at 15. The NIAC found 
the exercise of the exemption authority to be ``essential'' for 
``short- and long-term success.'' Id. Without exercising the exemption 
authority, according to the NIAC, DHS will not be able to accomplish 
its critical infrastructure protection and information sharing goals. 
Id. at 15-16; cf. Govt. Acct. Off., Rep. No. GAO-02-811T, National 
Preparedness: Integrating New and Existing Technology and Information 
Sharing into an Effective Homeland Security Strategy 9 (June 7, 2002) 
(``[I]n recent discussions with us, industry officials said that their 
chief concern in sharing information about vulnerabilities and attacks 
is disclosure of proprietary data.'').

3. Exercise of 871 Authority in a Manner Intended To Respect Principles 
of FACA

    Despite many past requests, the Department has not previously 
exercised the authority Congress provided in Section 871. This 
reluctance has been due in part to a respect to the principles of open-
government. Given mounting evidence that the use of this authority 
could improve the Department's ability to protect critical 
infrastructure and perform strategic planning, the Department is now 
invoking that authority but, as explained below, in a manner intended 
to preserve the principles of open government embraced by FACA. Out of 
concern for those principles, the Department has chosen to institute 
procedures calling for as much public disclosure as is consistent with 
homeland security goals.
    The decisions announced in this Notice are consistent with 
longstanding efforts to increase our capacity to protect our critical 
infrastructure and key resources. Since September 11, 2001, numerous 
authoritative bodies--the Congress, advisory councils, and the 9/11 
Commission among them--have stressed the importance of information 
sharing between the federal government and the private sector. See, 
e.g., National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, 
The

[[Page 14932]]

9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on 
Terrorist Attacks upon the United States 398 (authorized ed. 2004) 
(``Homeland security and national preparedness * * * often begins with 
the private sector.''); 148 Cong. Rec. S11405, S11414 (Nov. 19, 2002) 
(statement of Senator Lieberman stressing the importance of ``engaging 
the private sector'' in anti-terrorism efforts).
    Protecting critical infrastructure and key resources (CI/KR) 
requires a comprehensive, effective, and collaborative partnership 
between all stakeholders. Collaboration among stakeholders must involve 
many activities: planning; coordination; security program 
implementation; operational activities related to critical 
infrastructure protection security measures, including incident 
response, recovery, and reconstitution from events both man-made and 
naturally occurring; and the sharing of information about threats, 
vulnerabilities, protective measures, best practices, and lessons 
learned.
    An effective partnership must be predicated on the ability to have 
ongoing, immediate, and multi-directional communication and 
coordination between the CI/KR owners and operators and government, 
including under highly exigent circumstances. During the course of 
these activities, policy advice and recommendations may emerge and be 
provided to the Department of Homeland Security and Sector-Specific 
Agencies (SSAs). Consequently, the depth and breadth of the mission 
have unique requirements for comprehensive interactions. The CI/KR 
sectors are so vital to the nation's economy, public safety and 
confidence that it merits use of all necessary authorities to support 
their protection.

4. Establishment of the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory 
Council

    In furtherance of DHS' mission to safeguard CI/KR sectors, the 
Secretary has determined that the public interest requires the 
establishment of the CIPAC. The CIPAC will support implementation of 
the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) and will help to 
effectuate the sector partnership model set forth in the NIPP. 
Specifically, the CIPAC will facilitate interaction among government 
representatives at the Federal, State, local, and tribal levels and 
representatives from the community of CI/KR owners and operators in 
each critical sector to engage in, among other things, planning; 
coordination; security program implementation; operational activities 
related to critical infrastructure protection security measures, 
including incident response, recovery, and reconstitution from events 
both man-made and naturally occurring; and the sharing of information 
about threats, vulnerabilities, protective measures, best practices, 
and lessons learned.
    These activities require regular, ongoing, and multi-directional 
communication and coordination between CI/KR owners and operators and 
government, and to have the ability to do so under highly exigent 
circumstances. During the course of these activities, policy advice and 
recommendations may emerge and be provided to the Department of 
Homeland Security, the SSA for each sector identified in HSPD-7, and 
the other Federal departments and agencies supporting the critical 
infrastructure protection mission under the NIPP. These departments and 
agencies have responsibility for establishing and implementing Federal 
policy and managing Federal programs. The CIPAC has no authority to 
establish Federal policy or otherwise undertake inherently governmental 
functions.
    Exemption from Public Law 92-463: In recognition of the highly-
sensitive, and often confidential, nature of the subject matter 
involved in the activities of the CIPAC, under the authority of section 
871 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 451), the Secretary 
has decided to exempt the CIPAC from the requirements of Public Law 92-
463 (5 U.S.C. App. 1 et seq.). The decision to exercise the exemption 
authority in section 871 will improve the homeland security partnership 
between government and the private sector. This exemption will support 
the free flow of information as those involved in protecting our 
critical infrastructure strive to meet the need for regular, 
interactive discussions concerning threats and vulnerabilities.
    DHS recognizes and supports, however, the important principle of 
transparency as a foundation for public confidence in government. 
Accordingly, to the full extent compatible with the achievement of the 
critical infrastructure protection mission, DHS will, as a matter of 
policy, operate the CIPAC in a manner consistent with the spirit of 
this principle. DHS will maintain the CIPAC Executive Secretariat, 
which will manage and coordinate the activities of the CIPAC and 
maintain its records. While many meetings of the CIPAC will be closed 
to the public, meetings will be open as feasibly consistent with 
security objectives. Unless exigent circumstances arise, the CIPAC 
Executive Secretariat will provide public notice of when scheduled 
meetings of the CIPAC are expected to be held. Among its other 
responsibilities, the CIPAC Executive Secretariat will also develop and 
maintain on an ongoing basis a publicly-accessible Web site. The CIPAC 
Executive Secretariat will also prepare and, to the extent consistent 
with security objectives, publish on the Web site copies of meeting 
agendas and periodic reports on the CIPAC's accomplishments. The 
Executive Secretariat will also maintain the membership list for the 
CIPAC. DHS will support the administrative needs of the CIPAC through 
the CIPAC Executive Secretariat.
    Membership and Structure: The CIPAC will be representative of the 
following CI/KR sectors identified in HSPD-7:

Food and Agriculture
Banking and Finance
Chemical
Commercial Facilities
Defense Industrial Base
Drinking Water and Waste Water
Dams
Emergency Services
Energy
Information Technology
Nuclear Reactors, Materials, and Waste
Postal and Shipping
Public Health and Healthcare
Telecommunications
Transportation Systems

    The specific membership of the CIPAC will consist of: (a) The CI/KR 
owners and operators that are members of their respective sector's 
recognized Sector Coordinating Council (SCC), including their 
representative trade or equivalent organizations [``SCC CIPAC 
Members'']; and (b) Federal, State, local, and tribal governmental 
entities comprising the members of the Government Coordinating Council 
(GCC) for each sector, including their representative trade or 
equivalent organizations [``GCC CIPAC Members''].
    CI/KR owners and operators are those entities that own and invest 
in infrastructure assets, in the systems and processes to secure them, 
and that are held responsible by the public for their operations and 
the response and their recovery when their infrastructures or key 
resources are disrupted.
    SCCs are independent, self-governed bodies organized (or presently 
being organized) by the owners and operators of the nation's CI/KR 
within each of the critical sectors identified in HSPD-7 to enable them 
to coordinate among themselves on sector initiatives on critical 
infrastructure protection,

[[Page 14933]]

including response and recovery. The SCCs are broadly representative of 
the owners and operators within each CI/KR sector. While these councils 
are independent of government, they provide the CIPAC the ability to 
draw as representational a membership as possible from each sector and 
from across all sectors.
    GCCs are interagency coordinating bodies that enable interagency 
and cross-jurisdictional coordination within each HSPD-7 sector. Each 
GCC is comprised of representatives from across various levels of 
government (i.e., Federal, State, local, and tribal), as appropriate to 
the security landscape of each sector, and includes the Federal 
departments and agencies with a relevant interest in the sector. Each 
GCC is co-chaired by a representative from the designated SSA for the 
sector and by DHS' Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection.
    Appendix A sets forth a list of the present membership of the CIPAC 
from each sector as of this date, including all of the GCC CIPAC 
Members and the designated leadership of each SCC now in existence. 
Immediately following publication of this Notice in the Federal 
Register, the CIPAC Executive Secretariat will work with each SCC's 
leadership, and the SSA for each sector, to compile a complete list of 
the CIPAC SCC Members from each sector. Not later than April 24, 2006, 
the Department will publish a subsequent Notice identifying these 
additional members of the CIPAC. As new SCCs are formed and existing 
ones mature, the membership of the CIPAC will grow and change to 
accommodate changes in the membership of these bodies. DHS will publish 
quarterly updates in the Federal Register to announce changes in the 
membership of the CIPAC.
    Membership Status: Non-Federal members of the CIPAC serve as 
representatives of their sectors, not as special government employees. 
Private sector members bear the cost of participating in the CIPAC.
    Meetings: The CIPAC may meet as a whole or in any combination of 
subgroups that is most conducive to the effective conduct of its 
activities including, without limitation, in groups encompassing 
discrete sectors to address sector-specific issues and concerns (e.g., 
a meeting of the members of the Food and Agriculture Sector GCC with 
their counterpart owners and operators from the sector's SCC), or in a 
small group with a single designated representative from each sector to 
address interdependencies and other cross-sectoral issues. As 
independent bodies, meetings consisting solely of members of the SCCs, 
or those consisting solely of members of the GCCs, shall not constitute 
meetings of the CIPAC. In addition, the CIPAC may establish informal 
working groups for the purpose of fact-finding, issue development, or 
other preliminary non-deliberative activities. Such activities in 
support of the CIPAC shall also be within the scope of the exemption 
noted above.
    The CIPAC will meet at least quarterly to address matters within 
the scope of this Charter. The CIPAC Executive Secretariat will prepare 
summary minutes of CIPAC meetings; maintain calendars and agendas; 
coordinate preparation and review of communications with government 
entities; extend invitations to government officials and other expert 
consultants, as needed, to attend meetings; and other administrative 
functions as may be required.
    Duration of Committee: Two years, subject to extension pursuant to 
section 871(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 451(b)).
    Responsible DHS Official: Nancy J. Wong, Director, Infrastructure 
Programs Office, Infrastructure Partnerships Division, United States 
Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528, telephone (703) 
235-5349.

    Dated: March 20, 2006.
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary.

Appendix A--Membership of the Critical Infrastructure Partnership 
Advisory Council

    Leadership of Existing SCCs:

Association of American Railroads
Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association
Computer Sciences Corporation
Constellation Generation Group
Depository Trust and Clearing Corp.
Duke Energy
DuPont
Exelon Corporation
FedEx Corporation
Greenville Water System
Independent Electricity System Operator, Ontario, Canada
International Association of Fire Chiefs
International Dairy Foods Association
Madden & Patton, LLC
National Cattleman's Beef Association
National Food Processors Association
New Jersey Transit
New York City Department of Environmental Protection
NiSource Pipelines
Northwestern Hospital
Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
The Real Estate Roundtable
Telecommunications Industry Association
U.S. Telecom Association
United States Postal Service
Valero Energy Corporation
VeriSign
Xcel Energy

    Federal, State, local, tribal and quasi-governmental entities, 
or their designated representative trade or equivalent associations, 
identified as members of existing GCCs:

American Red Cross
Association of Food and Drug Officials
North American Securities Administration Association
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control 
Administrators
Association of State and Territorial Health Officials
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Conference of State Bank Supervisors
Farm Credit Administration
Federal Communications Commission
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Housing Finance Board
Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Federal Reserve Board
Interagency Security Committee
Intertribal Agriculture Council
National Association of County and City Health Officials
National Association of Departments of Agriculture
National Association of State Chief Information Officers
National Association of State Credit Union Supervisors
National Credit Union Administration
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Securities Investor Protection Corporation
Tennessee Valley Authority
United States Army Corps of Engineers
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Commerce
United States Department of Defense
United States Department of Education
United States Department of Energy
United States Department of Health and Human Services
United States Department of Homeland Security
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
United States Department of Interior
United States Department of Justice
United States Department of Labor
United States Department of Transportation
United States Department of the Treasury
United States Environmental Protection Agency
United States National Archives and Records Administration
United States Securities and Exchange Commission

[FR Doc. 06-2892 Filed 3-23-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P