[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 56 (Friday, March 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17680-17701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06184]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
[Docket No. DHS-2012-0061]
Information Collection Request; Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism
Standards Personnel Surety Program
AGENCY: National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.
ACTION: 60-Day notice and request for comments; New Information
Collection Request: 1670--NEW.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Protection
and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Office of Infrastructure Protection
(IP), Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (ISCD) will submit
the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35). This is a new information collection and follows the
withdrawal of a previous ICR on the same topic.\1\ The purpose of this
notice is to solicit comments during a 60-day public comment period
prior to the submission of this ICR to OMB. The submission describes
the nature of the information collection, the categories of
respondents, the estimated burden (in hours), and the estimated burden
cost necessary to implement the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism
Standards (CFATS) Personnel Surety Program pursuant to 6 CFR
27.230(a)(12)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A 60-day public notice for comments was published in the
Federal Register on June 10, 2009. See 74 FR 27555. Comments
submitted by the public may be found on http://www.regulations.gov
under Docket ID DHS-2009-0026. The Department's responses were
included in a Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 30-day Federal Register
notice. The 30-day public notice for comments was published in the
Federal Register on April 13, 2010. See 75 FR 18850. Comments
submitted by the public may be found on http://www.regulations.gov
under Docket ID DHS-2009-0026. The Department's responses were
published in a separate Federal Register notice on June 14, 2011.
See 76 FR 34720. Concurrently with publication of the June 14, 2011
Federal Register notice, the Department submitted an Information
Collection Request about the CFATS Personnel Surety Program to OMB.
See http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201105-1670-002. In July 2012, the Department withdrew that ICR.
DATES: Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until May 21, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the
proposed information collection through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
at http://www.regulations.gov. All submissions received must include
the words ``Department of Homeland Security'' and the docket number
DHS-2012-0061. Except as provided below, comments received will be
posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
Comments that include trade secrets, confidential commercial or
financial information, Chemical-terrorism Vulnerability Information
(CVI),\2\ Sensitive Security Information (SSI),\3\ or Protected
Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII) \4\ should not be submitted
to the public regulatory docket. Please submit such comments separately
from other comments in response to this notice. Comments containing
trade secrets, confidential commercial or financial information, CVI,
SSI, or PCII should be appropriately marked and packaged in accordance
with applicable requirements and submitted by mail to the DHS/NPPD/IP/
ISCD CFATS Program Manager at the Department of Homeland Security, 245
Murray Lane, SW., Mail Stop 0610, Arlington, VA 20528-0610. Comments
must be identified by docket number DHS-2012-0061.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For more information about CVI see 6 CFR 27.400 and the CVI
Procedural Manual at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/chemsec_cvi_proceduresmanual.pdf.
\3\ For more information about SSI see 49 CFR part 1520 and the
SSI Program Web page at http://www.tsa.gov/ssi.
\4\ For more information about PCII see 6 CFR part 29 and the
PCII Program Web page at http://ww.dhs.gov/pcii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
I. Supplementary Information
Summary of Options Available to High-Risk Chemical
Facilities To Comply With RBPS 12(iv)
Scope of This Notice and Commitment To Explore
Additional Options in the Future
Who Is Impacted by The CFATS Personnel Surety Program?
What/Who Is the Source of the Information Under Option
1 and Option 2
CSAT User Roles and Responsibilities
Burden Resulting From the Submission of Duplicate
Records About an Affected Individual
Compliance With RBPS 12(iv) and the Potential for
Increased Burden To Enter the Restricted Areas or Critical Assets at
a High-Risk Chemical Facility
Compliance With RBPS 12(iv) and Infrequent ``Unescorted
Visitors''
Additional Data Privacy Considerations
II. Information Collected About Affected Individuals
Option 1: Collecting Information To Conduct Direct
Vetting
[[Page 17681]]
Option 2: Collecting Information To Use of Vetting
Conducted Under Other DHS Programs
Option 3: Electronic Verification of TWIC
Other Information Collected
III. Request for Exception to the Requirement Under 5 CFR
1320.8(b)(3)
IV. Responses to Previous Comments
V. The Department's Methodology in Estimating the Burden
Frequency
Affected Public
Number of Respondents
[cir] Number and Type of High-Risk Chemical Facilities
[cir] Estimated Number of Affected Individuals at Each Type of
High-Risk Chemical Facility--Unescorted Visitors With Access to
Restricted Areas or Critical Assets
[cir] Estimated Number of Affected Individuals at Each Type of
High-Risk Chemical Facilities--Facility Personnel With Access to
Restricted Areas or Critical Assets
[cir] Summary of Alternatives To Estimate the Number of
Respondents
[cir] Limitation of Respondents to Tier 1 and Tier 2 Facilities
Estimated Time per Respondent
Total Burden Hours
Total Burden Cost (Capital/Startup)
[cir] Estimating Capital Costs for Option 3--Number and Type of
High-Risk Chemical Facilities That May Choose To Use Option 3
[cir] Estimating Capital Costs for Option 3--TWIC Readers Costs
[cir] Consideration of Other Capital Costs
Recordkeeping Costs
Total Burden Cost (Operating/Maintaining)
VI. Solicitation of Comments
VII. Analysis
I. Supplementary Information
Section 550 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations
Act of 2007, Public Law 109-295 (2006) (``Section 550''), provides the
Department with the authority to identify and regulate the security of
high-risk chemical facilities using a risk-based approach. On April 9,
2007, the Department issued the CFATS Interim Final Rule (IFR)
implementing this statutory mandate. See 72 FR 17688.
Section 550 requires that the Department establish risk-based
performance standards (RBPS) for high-risk chemical facilities and
under CFATS the Department promulgated 18 RBPS. Each chemical facility
that has been finally determined by the Department to be high-risk must
submit a Site Security Plan (SSP), or an Alternative Security Program
(ASP) if the facility so chooses, for Department approval that
satisfies each applicable RBPS. RBPS 12--Personnel Surety--requires
high-risk chemical facilities to:
Perform appropriate background checks on and ensure appropriate
credentials for facility personnel, and as appropriate, for
unescorted visitors with access to restricted areas or critical
assets, including, (i) Measures designed to verify and validate
identity; (ii) Measures designed to check criminal history; (iii)
Measures designed to verify and validate legal authorization to
work; and (iv) Measures designed to identify people with terrorist
ties[.]
See 6 CFR 27.230(a)(12).
As explained by the Department in the preamble to the CFATS IFR,
the ability to identify affected individuals (i.e., facility personnel
or unescorted visitors with access to restricted areas or critical
assets at high-risk chemical facilities) who have terrorist ties is an
inherently governmental function and necessarily requires the use of
information held in government-maintained databases that are
unavailable to high-risk chemical facilities. See 72 FR 17709 (April 9,
2007). Thus, under RBPS 12(iv), the Department and high-risk chemical
facilities must work together to satisfy the ``terrorist ties'' aspect
of the Personnel Surety performance standard. As a result, the CFATS
Personnel Surety Program will identify individuals with terrorist ties
that have or are seeking access to the restricted areas and/or critical
assets at the nation's high-risk chemical facilities. Accordingly, in
the preamble to the CFATS IFR, the Department outlined two potential
approaches to help high-risk chemical facilities satisfy that
particular standard, both of which would involve high-risk chemical
facilities submitting certain information to the Department. See id.
The first approach would involve facilities submitting certain
information about affected individuals to the Department, which the
Department would use to vet those individuals for terrorist ties.
Specifically, identifying information about affected individuals would
be compared against identifying information of known or suspected
terrorists contained in the Federal Government's consolidated and
integrated terrorist watchlist, the Terrorist Screening Database
(TSDB), which is maintained on behalf of the federal government by the
Department of Justice (DOJ) Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in
the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For more information about the TSDB, see DOJ/FBI--019
Terrorist Screening Records System, 72 FR 47073 (August 22, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of terrorist screening,
the Department also described an additional approach under which high-
risk chemical facilities would submit information about affected
individuals possessing certain credentials that rely on Security Threat
Assessments conducted by the Department. See 72 FR 17709 (April 9,
2007).
The Department has now developed a CFATS Personnel Surety Program
that will provide high-risk chemical facilities additional options to
comply with RBPS 12(iv) while continuing to make available the two
alternatives outlined in the preamble to the CFATS IFR. In addition to
the alternatives expressly described in this document, the Department
also intends to permit high-risk chemical facilities to propose other
alternative measures for terrorist ties identification in their SSPs or
ASPs, which the Department will consider on a case-by-case basis in
evaluating high-risk chemical facilities' SSPs or ASPs.
As a result of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program, regardless of
the option, the Department will identify individuals with terrorist
ties that have or are seeking access to the restricted areas and/or
critical assets at the nation's high-risk chemical facilities.
The first option is consistent with the primary approach described
in the CFATS IFR preamble, as discussed above. Under Option 1--Direct
Vetting, high-risk chemical facilities (or others acting on their
behalf) would submit certain information about affected individuals to
the Department through a Personnel Surety application in an online
technology system developed under CFATS called the Chemical Security
Assessment Tool (CSAT). Access to and the use of CSAT is provided free
of charge to high-risk chemical facilities (or others acting on their
behalf).
Under this option, information about affected individuals submitted
by, or on behalf of, high-risk chemical facilities would be vetted
against information contained in the Federal Government's consolidated
and integrated terrorist watchlist.
The second option is also consistent with the second approach
described in the CFATS IFR preamble. Under Option 2--Use Of Vetting
Conducted Under Other DHS Programs, high-risk chemical facilities (or
others acting on their behalf) would also submit certain information
about affected individuals to the Department through the CSAT Personnel
Surety application.
Option 2 would, however, allow high-risk chemical facilities and
the Department to take advantage of the vetting for terrorist ties
already being conducted on affected individuals enrolled in the
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Program,
Hazardous Materials Endorsement (HME) Program, as well as the NEXUS,
Secure Electronic Network
[[Page 17682]]
for Travelers Rapid Inspection (SENTRI), Free and Secure Trade (FAST),
and Global Entry Trusted Traveler Programs.\6\ All of these programs
conduct terrorist ties vetting equivalent to the terrorist ties vetting
that would be conducted under Option 1.\7\ Under Option 2, high-risk
chemical facilities, or their designees (e.g., third parties), could
submit information to the Department about affected individuals
possessing the appropriate credentials to enable the Department to
electronically verify the affected individuals' enrollments in these
other programs. The Department would subsequently notify the designee
of the high-risk chemical facility (e.g., the Submitter) whether or not
an affected individual's enrollment in one of these other DHS programs
was electronically verified. The Department would also periodically re-
verify each affected individual's continued enrollment in one of these
other programs, and notify the appropriate designee of the high-risk
chemical facility of significant changes in the status of an affected
individual's enrollment (e.g., if an affected individual who has been
enrolled in the HME Program ceases to be enrolled, the Department would
change the status of the affected individual in the CSAT Personnel
Surety application and notify the Submitter). Electronic verification
and re-verification would enable the Department and the high-risk
chemical facility to ensure that an affected individual's credential or
endorsement is appropriate to rely on (i.e., an indicator that the
affected individual is being recurrently vetted for terrorist ties) in
compliance with RBPS 12(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has introduced
SENTRI and Global Entry as Trusted Traveler Programs since the
publication of CFATS in April 2007. The Department, therefore,
intends to enable high-risk chemical facilities (or their designees)
to submit information about affected individuals' SENTRI and Global
Entry enrollments to DHS under Option 2, even though SENTRI and
Global Entry were not listed along with the other Trusted Traveler
Programs in the CFATS IFR preamble. See 72 FR 17709 (April 9, 2007).
\7\ Each of the DHS programs conducts recurrent vetting, which
is a Department best practice. Recurrent vetting compares an
affected individual's information against new and/or updated TSDB
records as those new and/or updated records become available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to Option 1 and Option 2, the Department has considered
other potential options to help high-risk chemical facilities satisfy
RBPS 12(iv). In particular, the Department has investigated the
feasibility of options that would not involve the submission of
information about an affected individual if the affected individual
participated in one of the programs identified under Option 2. The
Department believes that, for the purpose of compliance with RBPS
12(iv), simply relying on a visual inspection of a credential or
endorsement is inadequate because the credential or endorsement could
be expired, revoked, or fraudulent. However, the Department has
concluded that information about an affected individual, enrolled in a
DHS program that conducts vetting for terrorist ties equivalent to the
vetting that would be conducted under Option 1, would not need to be
submitted to the Department if the credential in the possession of the
affected individual is electronically verified and validated.
Accordingly, the Department plans to offer high-risk chemical
facilities a third option. Under Option 3--Electronic Verification of
TWIC, a high-risk chemical facility (or others acting on their behalf)
would not submit information about affected individuals in possession
of TWICs to the Department if the high-risk chemical facility (or
others acting on their behalf) electronically verify and validate the
affected individuals' TWICs through the use of TWIC readers (or other
technology that is periodically updated using the Canceled Card
List).\8\ Any high-risk chemical facilities that choose this option
would need to describe in their SSPs or ASPs the procedures they will
follow if they choose to use TWIC readers for compliance with RBPS
12(iv).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For more information about the Canceled Card List, please
visit http://www.tsa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/twic/canceled_card_list_ccl_faq.pdf.
\9\ Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, the U.S.
Coast Guard has published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
titled ``TWIC Reader Requirements.'' The procedures for using TWIC
readers that are discussed in that NPRM would not apply to high-risk
chemical facilities regulated under CFATS. Likewise, the ways in
which high-risk chemical facilities could leverage TWICs as part of
the CFATS Personnel Surety Program do not apply to maritime
facilities or vessels regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-risk chemical facilities would have discretion as to which
option(s) to use for an affected individual. For example, even though a
high-risk chemical facility could comply with RBPS 12(iv) for certain
affected individuals by using Option 2, the high-risk chemical facility
could choose to use Option 1 for those affected individuals. Similarly,
a high-risk chemical facility, at its discretion, may choose to use
either Option 1 or Option 2 rather than Option 3 for affected
individuals who have TWICs. High-risk chemical facilities also may
choose to combine Option 1 with Option 2 and/or Option 3, as
appropriate, to ensure that adequate terrorist ties checks are
performed on different types of affected individuals (e.g., employees,
contractors, unescorted visitors). Each high-risk chemical facility
will need to describe how it will comply with RBPS 12(iv) in its SSP or
ASP.
In addition to the options described above for satisfying RBPS
12(iv), high-risk chemical facilities are welcome to propose
alternative or supplemental options not described in this PRA notice in
their SSPs or ASPs. The Department will assess the adequacy of such
alternative or supplemental options on a facility-by-facility basis, in
the course of evaluating each facility's SSP or ASP.
Although outside the scope of this PRA notice and the underlying
ICR, the Department would like to highlight that high-risk chemical
facilities also have other methods to address, or minimize the impacts
of, compliance with RBPS 12(iv). For example, facilities may restrict
the numbers and types of persons whom they allow to access their
restricted areas and critical assets, thus limiting the number of
persons who will need to be checked for terrorist ties. Facilities also
have wide latitude in how they define their restricted areas and
critical assets in their SSPs or ASPs, thus potentially limiting the
number of persons who will need to be checked for terrorist ties. High-
risk chemical facilities also may choose to escort visitors to
restricted areas and critical assets in lieu of performing the
background checks required by RBPS 12. For example, high-risk chemical
facilities could propose in their SSPs or ASPs traditional escorting
solutions and/or innovative escorting alternatives such as video
monitoring (which may reduce facility security costs), as appropriate,
to address the unique security risks present at each facility.
Summary of Options Available to High-Risk Chemical Facilities To Comply
With RBPS 12(iv)
The purpose of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program is to identify
individuals with terrorist ties that have or are seeking access to the
restricted areas and/or critical assets at the nation's high-risk
chemical facilities. As described above, under the CFATS Personnel
Surety Program, for each affected individual a high-risk chemical
facility would have at least three options under RBPS 12(iv):
Option 1--Direct Vetting: High-risk chemical facilities
(or their designees) may submit information to the Department about an
affected individual to be compared against information about known or
suspected terrorists, and/or
[[Page 17683]]
Option 2--Use of Vetting Conducted Under Other DHS
Programs: High-risk chemical facilities (or their designees) may submit
information to the Department about an affected individual's enrollment
in another DHS program so that the Department may electronically verify
and validate that the affected individual is enrolled in the other
program, and/or
Option 3--Electronic Verification of TWIC: High-risk
chemical facilities may electronically verify and validate an affected
individual's TWIC, through the use of TWIC readers (or other technology
which is periodically updated using the Canceled Card List), rather
than submitting information about the affected individual to the
Department.
Regardless of the option, in the event that there is a potential
match, the Department has procedures in place that it will follow to
resolve the match and coordinate with appropriate law enforcement
entities as necessary. High-risk chemical facilities may be contacted
as part of law enforcement investigation activity, depending on the
nature of the investigation.
Scope of This Notice and Commitment To Explore Additional Options in
the Future
Since withdrawing the previous CFATS Personnel Surety Program ICR
in July 2012,\10\ the Department has had substantial dialogue with key
CFATS stakeholders. The discussion included program design issues, the
CSAT Personnel Surety application, options the Department has been
considering to date, and additional options stakeholders have
recommended for the Department's consideration, both in the short and
long term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See footnote 1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The options described in this notice and, if approved, the
subsequent ICR that the Department intends to submit to OMB would allow
high-risk chemical facilities and the Department to implement the CFATS
Personnel Surety Program within the Department's existing statutory and
regulatory authority, and U.S. Government watchlisting policies.
The Department is committed, however, to continuing to work with
interested stakeholders to identify additional potential options that
could further reduce the burdens related to the CFATS Personnel Surety
Program, while still meeting the national security mandate to reduce
the risk of an individual with terrorist ties obtaining access to the
restricted areas or critical assets at a high-risk chemical facility.
The Department will consider and review any alternatives suggested as
part of public comments on this notice and on any subsequent notices
related to the CFATS Personnel Surety Program. Through both the PRA
process and other ongoing dialogues, the Department will, as
appropriate, also continue to work with stakeholders to identify
potential additional alternatives as new technologies emerge, and as
other terrorist ties vetting programs are modified or become available
over time, so as to reduce the burden of this new information
collection.
Who is impacted by the CFATS personnel surety program?
The CFATS Personnel Surety Program will provide high-risk chemical
facilities the ability to submit certain biographic information about
affected individuals to the Department. As explained above, affected
individuals are (1) facility personnel who have access, either
unescorted or otherwise, to restricted areas or critical assets, and
(2) unescorted visitors who have access to restricted areas or critical
assets.
There are also certain groups of persons that the Department does
not consider to be affected individuals, such as (1) Federal officials
that gain unescorted access to restricted areas or critical assets as
part of their official duties; (2) state and local law enforcement
officials that gain unescorted access to restricted areas or critical
assets as part of their official duties; and (3) emergency responders
at the state or local level that gain unescorted access to restricted
areas or critical assets during emergency situations.
In some emergency or exigent situations, access to restricted areas
or critical assets by other individuals who have not had appropriate
background checks under RBPS 12 may be necessary. For example,
emergency responders not described above may require such access as
part of their official duties under appropriate circumstances. If high-
risk chemical facilities anticipate that any individuals will require
access to restricted areas or critical assets without visitor escorts
or without the background checks listed in RBPS 12 under exceptional
circumstances, facilities may describe such situations and the types of
individuals who might require access in those situations in their SSPs
or ASPs. The Department will assess the appropriateness of such
situations, and any security measures to mitigate the inherent
vulnerability in such situations, on a case-by-case basis as it reviews
each high-risk chemical facility's SSP or ASP.
What/Who Is the Source of the Information Under Option 1 and Option 2
High-risk chemical facilities are responsible for complying with
RBPS 12(iv). However, companies operating multiple high-risk chemical
facilities, as well as companies operating only one high-risk chemical
facility, may comply with RBPS 12(iv) in a variety of ways. High-risk
chemical facilities, or their parent companies, may choose to comply
with RBPS 12(iv) by identifying and submitting the information about
affected individuals to the Department directly. Alternatively, high-
risk chemical facilities, or their parent companies, may choose to
comply with RBPS 12(iv) by outsourcing the information submission
process to third parties.
The Department anticipates that many high-risk chemical facilities
will rely on businesses that provide contract services (e.g., complex
turn-arounds, freight delivery services, lawn mowing) to the high-risk
chemical facilities to identify and submit the appropriate information
about affected individuals they employ to the Department for vetting
pursuant to RBPS 12(iv). Businesses that provide services to high-risk
chemical facilities may in turn choose to manage compliance with RBPS
12(iv) themselves or to acquire the services of other third party
companies to submit appropriate information about affected individuals
to the Department.
CSAT User Roles and Responsibilities
To minimize the burden of submitting information about affected
individuals, under Options 1 and 2 (as described above), high-risk
chemical facilities would have wide latitude in assigning CSAT user
roles to align with their business operations and/or the business
operations of third parties that provide contracted services to
them.\11\ In response to previous comments submitted to the Department
about the CFATS Personnel Surety Program, the Department intends to
structure the CSAT Personnel Surety application to allow designees of
high-risk chemical facilities to submit information about affected
individuals to the Department on behalf of high-risk chemical
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ CSAT user registration and the assignment of user roles
within CSAT are covered under a different Information Collection
(i.e., 1670-0007), which can be found at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201001-1670-007#.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-risk chemical facilities will be able to structure their CSAT
user roles
[[Page 17684]]
to submit information about affected individuals to the Department in
three ways:
(1) A high-risk chemical facility could directly submit information
about affected individuals, and designate one or more officers or
employees of the facility as a Personnel Surety Submitter; and/or
(2) A high-risk chemical facility could submit information about
affected individuals by designating one or more individuals affiliated
with a third party (or with multiple third parties) to a user role(s)
designated for third parties; and/or
(3) A company owning several high-risk chemical facilities could
consolidate its submission process for affected individuals.
Specifically, the company could designate one or more persons as CSAT
users, and those users could submit information about affected
individuals on behalf of all of the high-risk chemical facilities on a
company-wide basis.
Burden Resulting From the Submission of Duplicate Records About an
Affected Individual
The Department is aware that an affected individual may be
associated with multiple high-risk chemical facilities, and thus
information about an affected individual may be submitted to the
Department multiple times by different high-risk chemical facilities
and/or their designated third parties. However, the Department has
learned in its dialogue with stakeholders (including third-party
companies that conduct background checks for high-risk chemical
facilities) that the duplicate submission of records about affected
individuals is a common industry practice for companies when managing
information about individuals. Specifically, when a person who has
already had a background check (e.g., verification of legal
authorization to work or criminal history) needs a new background check
for different companies or for a new or different purpose (e.g., change
in jobs or contract), third parties that routinely conduct background
checks routinely will submit information about a person again to
agencies responsible for maintaining relevant information (e.g., state
motor vehicle databases, e-verify). Therefore, for the purpose of this
notice, the Department's estimation of burden accounts for potential
multiple submissions of information about affected individuals by high-
risk chemical facilities and their designated third parties.
Compliance With RBPS 12(iv) and the Potential for Increased Burden To
Enter the Restricted Areas or Critical Assets at a High-Risk Chemical
Facility
Since the Department first began seeking to implement the CFATS
Personnel Surety Program, stakeholders have expressed concern that the
submission of information about affected individuals under Option 1 and
Option 2 to the Department would impede the ability of affected
individuals to enter the restricted areas or critical assets at high-
risk chemical facilities. The Department does not believe that if a
facility complies with RBPS 12(iv) the high-risk chemical facility
will, on a routine basis, experience an unreasonable impact in allowing
affected individuals access to restricted areas or critical assets.
In general, the Department expects that high-risk chemical
facilities or their designees (e.g., third parties or companies
employing affected individuals that provide services to high-risk
chemical facilities) will already possess much, if not all, of the
necessary information about affected individuals as a result of
standard business practices related to employment or managing of
service contracts. In the event that high-risk chemical facilities, or
their designees, need to collect any additional information for the
purpose of complying with RBPS 12(iv), they have significant
flexibility in how to collect this information since CFATS does not
prescribe how to do so.
The Department also expects that high-risk chemical facilities will
likely consolidate RBPS 12(iv) processing with related routine hiring
and access control procedures involving background checks that are
already occurring prior to access by facility personnel or unescorted
visitors to restricted areas or critical assets. Consolidating RBPS
12(iv) processing with these other routine procedures would allow
submission of personal information already collected and maintained by
facilities or their designees (e.g., a third party, contracted service
company, or third party acting on behalf of a contracted service
company) to the Department under RBPS 12(iv) before affected
individuals require access to restricted areas or critical assets.
As mentioned above, third parties could submit screening
information to the Department on behalf of high-risk chemical
facilities as part of facilities' routine hiring and access control
procedures. Some stakeholders have expressed concerns to the Department
about submission of screening information by third parties, suggesting
that in such cases facilities would not be able to adequately oversee
third parties' work to ensure appropriate information submission to the
Department. The Department expects, however, that high-risk chemical
facilities could audit and/or review their third party designees'
information collection and submission processes, to ensure that their
designees submit appropriate information.
Compliance With RBPS 12(iv) and Infrequent ``Unescorted Visitors''
Since the Department first began developing the CFATS Personnel
Surety Program, some stakeholders have expressed concern that the
submission of information to DHS about unescorted visitors who have
only rare or infrequent access to high-risk chemical facilities would
be overly burdensome and would make access by such infrequent
unescorted visitors too difficult. As a general matter, however, the
Department does not believe it likely that many high-risk chemical
facilities will propose in their SSPs or ASPs to allow large numbers of
visitors who visit the high-risk chemical facility infrequently to have
unescorted access to restricted areas and critical assets, because then
all four types of background checks listed in RBPS 12 would be required
to be conducted for them. High-risk chemical facilities could choose to
escort infrequent visitors in lieu of performing the four types of RBPS
12 background checks on them.
However, even for infrequent unescorted visitors that the high-risk
chemical facility chooses to conduct all four types of background
checks on, the Department does not expect data submission to the
Department in compliance with RBPS 12(iv) to impede routine access
procedures because the data submission is likely to be accomplished in
concert with the other routine hiring and access control involving
background check described above.
Additional Data Privacy Considerations
There are various privacy requirements for high-risk chemical
facilities, their designees, and the Department related to the exchange
of personally identifiable information (PII) for the CFATS Personnel
Surety Program. Upon receipt of PII, the Department complies with all
applicable federal privacy requirements including the Privacy Act, the
E-Government Act, the Homeland Security Act, and Departmental policy.
The United States also follows international instruments on privacy,
all
[[Page 17685]]
of which are consistent with the Fair Information Practice Principles
(FIPPs).\12\ High-risk chemical facilities, or their designees, are
responsible for complying with the federal, state, and national privacy
laws applicable to the jurisdictions in which they do business. The
Department believes that high-risk chemical facilities, or their
designees, have multiple, established legal avenues that enable them to
submit PII to the Department, which may include the Safe Harbor
Framework,\13\ and meet their privacy obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Examples of the international privacy instruments which the
United States has endorsed are: (1) Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines on the Protection of
Privacy and Trans-border Flows of Personal Data (1980), and (2) Asia
Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Privacy Framework (2004).
\13\ The Safe Harbor Framework, which applies to commercial
information, was developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce in
consultation with the European Commission in order to provide a
streamlined means for U.S. organizations to comply with the European
Union Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC. More information on the
Safe Harbor Framework can be found at http://export.gov/safeharbor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Information Collected About Affected Individuals
Option 1: Collecting Information To Conduct Direct Vetting
If high-risk chemical facilities select Option 1 to satisfy RBPS
12(iv) for any affected individuals, the following information about
these affected individuals would be submitted to the Department:
For U.S. Persons (U.S. citizens and nationals as well as U.S.
lawful permanent residents):
Full Name
Date of Birth
Citizenship or Gender
For Non-U.S. Persons:
Full Name
Date of Birth
Citizenship
Passport information and/or alien registration number
To reduce the likelihood of false positives in matching against
records in the Federal Government's consolidated and integrated
terrorist watchlist, high-risk chemical facilities would also be able
to submit the following optional information about affected individuals
to the Department:
Aliases
Gender (for Non-U.S. Persons)
Place of Birth
Redress Number \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For more information about Redress Numbers, please go to
http://www.dhs.gov/one-stop-travelers-redress-process#1.
If a high-risk chemical facility chooses to submit information
about an affected individual under Option 1, the following table
summarizes the biographic data that would be submitted to the
Department.
Table 1--Affected Individual Required and Optional Data Under Option 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data elements submitted to the For a non-U.S.
department For a U.S. person person
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Name..................... Required
-----------------------------------------
Date of Birth................. Required
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gender........................ Must provide Optional.
Citizenship or
Gender.
Citizenship................... Required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passport Information and/or N/A.................. Required.
Alien Registration Number.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aliases....................... Optional
-----------------------------------------
Place of Birth................ Optional
-----------------------------------------
Redress number................ Optional
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 2: Collecting Information To USE of Vetting Conducted Under
Other DHS Programs
In lieu of submitting information to the Department under Option 1
for terrorist ties vetting, chemical facilities would also have the
option, where appropriate, to submit information to the Department to
electronically verify that an affected individual is currently enrolled
in one of the following DHS programs:
TWIC Program;
HME Program;
Trusted Traveler Programs, including:
NEXUS;
FAST;
SENTRI; and
Global Entry.
Information collected by the Department about affected individuals
under Option 2 would not be used to conduct duplicative vetting against
the Federal Government's consolidated and integrated terrorist
watchlist.
To verify an affected individual's enrollment in one of these
programs under Option 2, the Department would collect the following
information about the affected individual:
Full Name;
Date of Birth; and
Program-specific information or credential information,
such as unique number, or issuing entity (e.g., State for Commercial
Driver's License (CDL) associated with an HME).
To further reduce the potential for misidentification, high-risk
chemical facilities may also submit the following optional information
about affected individuals to the Department:
Aliases
Gender
Place of Birth
Citizenship
If a high-risk chemical facility chooses to submit information
about an affected individual under Option 2, the following table
summarizes the biographic data that would be submitted to the
Department.
[[Page 17686]]
Table 2--Affected Individual Required and Optional Data Under Option 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For affected individual
enrolled in a Trusted
Data elements submitted to the For affected individual For affected individual Traveler Program
department with a TWIC with an HME (NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST,
or Global Entry)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Name............................ Required
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Birth........................ Required
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expiration Date...................... Required
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unique Identifying Number............ TWIC Serial Number: CDL Number: Required... PASS ID Number:
Required. Required
Issuing State of CDL................. N/A.................... Required............... N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aliases.............................. Optional
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gender............................... Optional
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Place of Birth....................... Optional
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citizenship.......................... Optional
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the CFATS Personnel Surety Program, a high-risk chemical
facility would be able to choose to follow the process described for
Option 1, and would not have to implement Option 2, even if an affected
individual seeking access to the high-risk chemical facility is already
enrolled in the TWIC Program, HME Program, or one of the Trusted
Traveler Programs.
Option 3: Electronic Verification of TWIC
Under Option 3, a high-risk chemical facility would not need to
submit information about an affected individual enrolled in the TWIC
Program to the Department, if the high-risk chemical facility is able
to electronically verify and validate the affected individual's TWIC
through the use of a TWIC reader (or other technology that is
periodically updated using the Canceled Card List).
As discussed above, under the CFATS Personnel Surety Program, high-
risk chemical facilities would also be able to choose to follow the
processes described for Option 1 and/or Option 2, for some or all
affected individuals already enrolled in the TWIC Program, in lieu of
or in addition to Option 3.
Other Information Collected
In addition to the information about affected individuals collected
under Options 1 and 2, the Department plans to collect certain
information that identifies the high-risk chemical facility, or
facilities, at which each affected individual has or is seeking access
to restricted areas or critical assets.
The Department may also contact a high-risk chemical facility or
its designees to request additional information (e.g., visa
information) pertaining to affected individuals in order to clarify
suspected data errors or resolve potential matches (e.g., in situations
where an affected individual has a common name). Such requests will not
imply, and should not be construed to indicate, that an affected
individual's information has been confirmed as a match to a record of
an individual with terrorist ties.
In the event that a confirmed match is identified as part of the
CFATS Personnel Surety Program, the Department may obtain references to
and/or information from other government law enforcement and
intelligence databases, or other relevant databases that may contain
terrorism information.
The Department may collect information necessary to assist in the
submission and transmission of records, including electronic
verification that the Department has received a particular record.
The Department may also collect information about points of contact
who the Department or Federal law enforcement personnel may contact
with follow-up questions. A request for additional information from the
Department does not imply, and should not be construed to indicate,
that an individual is known or suspected to be associated with
terrorism.
The Department may also collect information provided by individuals
or high-risk chemical facilities in support of any adjudications
requested under Subpart C of the CFATS regulation,\15\ or in support of
any other redress requests.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 6 CFR 27.300-345.
\16\ More information about access, correction, and redress
requests under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act
can be found in Section 7.0 of the Privacy Impact Assessment for the
CFATS Personnel Surety Program, dated May 4, 2011, and available at
http://www.dhs.gov/privacy-documents-national-protection-and-programs-directorate-nppd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department may request information pertaining to affected
individuals, previously provided to the Department by high-risk
chemical facilities or their designees, in order to confirm the
accuracy of that information, or to conduct data accuracy reviews and
audits as part of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program.
The Department will also collect administrative or programmatic
information (e.g., affirmations or certifications of compliance,
extension requests, brief surveys for process improvement) necessary to
manage the CFATS Personnel Surety Program.
Under Options 1 and 2, the Department will also collect information
that will allow high-risk chemical facilities and their designees to
manage their data submissions. Specifically, the Department will make
available to high-risk chemical facilities and their designees blank
data fields. These blank data fields may be used by a high-risk
chemical facility or its designees to assign each record of an affected
individual a unique designation or number that is meaningful to the
high-risk chemical facility. Collecting this information will enable a
high-risk chemical facility to manage the electronic records it submits
into the CSAT Personnel Surety application. Entering this information
into the CSAT Personnel Surety application will be voluntary, and is
intended solely to enable high-risk chemical facilities and their
designees to search through, sort, and manage the electronic records
they submit.
[[Page 17687]]
III. Request for Exception to the Requirement Under 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3)
The Department is requesting from OMB an exception for the CFATS
Personnel Surety Program to the PRA notice requirement in 5 CFR
1320.8(b)(3), which requires Federal agencies to confirm that their
information collections provide certain reasonable notices under the
PRA to affected individuals. If this exception is granted, the
Department will be relieved of the potential obligation to require
high-risk chemical facilities to collect signatures or other positive
affirmations of these notices from affected individuals. Whether or not
this exception is granted, Submitters must affirm that the required
privacy notice regarding the collection of personal information has
been provided to affected individuals before personal information is
submitted to the Department.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ For more information. please see the CFATS Personnel Surety
Program Privacy Impact Assessment, dated May 4, 2011 at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy-pia-nppd-cfats-ps.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department's request for an exception to the PRA notice
requirement under 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3) would not exempt high-risk
chemical facilities from having to adhere to applicable Federal, state,
local, or tribal laws, or to regulations or policies pertaining to the
privacy of affected individuals.
IV. Responses to Previous Comments
In June 2011, the Department submitted an ICR for the CFATS
Personnel Surety Program to OMB for review. OMB subsequently received
four comments about that ICR from members of the public and forwarded
the comments to the Department for response. Each of the comments and
the Department's responsive letters will be posted on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket number DHS-2012-
0061.
In June 2011, the Department solicited comments for 30 days about
the CFATS Personnel Surety Program System of Records Notice (SORN)
under Docket DHS-2011-0032.\18\ Under Docket DHS-2011-0032, the
Department received a comment that addressed the CFATS Personnel Surety
Program ICR. The comment did not address the SORN or other CFATS
Personnel Surety Program privacy issues. Therefore, the Department
reviewed the comment and has responded to the comment under this docket
in concert with the other comments submitted in June 2011 to OMB and
the Department related to the CFATS Personnel Surety Program ICR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The docket for the CFATS Personnel Surety Program System of
Records Notice may be found at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DHS-2011-0032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2011, the Department also solicited comments for 30 days
about the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to exempt the CFATS Personnel
Surety Program System of Records from portions of the Privacy Act under
Docket DHS-2011-0033.\19\ Under Docket DHS-2011-0033, the Department
received an additional comment that addressed the CFATS Personnel
Surety Program ICR.\20\ While the comment did support Privacy Act
exemptions, the comment primarily addressed other aspects of the CFATS
Personnel Surety Program not related to privacy issues. Therefore, the
Department reviewed the comment and has responded to the comment under
this docket as well in concert with the other comments submitted to OMB
and the Department related to the CFATS Personnel Surety Program ICR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The docket for the notice of proposed rulemaking to exempt
portions of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program System or Records
from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act may be found at
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DHS-2011-0033.
\20\ Document DHS-2011-0033-0004 is viewable at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DHS-2011-0033-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. The Department's Methodology in Estimating the Burden
Frequency
The Department will expect, unless otherwise noted in an authorized
or approved SSP or ASP, that high-risk chemical facilities submit
information, under Option 1 and/or Option 2, about affected individuals
in accordance with the schedule outlined below in Table 3. Facilities
may suggest alternative schedules for Option 1 or Option 2 based on
their unique circumstances in their SSPs or ASPs. The schedule below
would not apply to Option 3. Schedules for implementing Option 3, or
alternative security measures other than Option 1 or Option 2, could
vary from high-risk chemical facility to high-risk chemical facility,
as described in individual facilities' SSPs or ASPs, subject to
approval by the Department.
The Department will expect a high-risk chemical facility to begin
submitting information about affected individuals under Option 1 and/or
Option 2 under the schedule below after: (1) the high-risk chemical
facility has received a letter of authorization or approval for its SSP
or ASP that directs the high-risk chemical facility to comply with RBPS
12(iv); and (2) the high-risk chemical facility has been notified that
the Department has implemented the CFATS Personnel Surety Program.
Table 3--Compliance Schedule for Option 1 and Option 2 Under the CFATS Personnel Surety Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Submission Of Affected 60 days after the 60 days after the 90 days after the 90 days after the
Individuals' Information. day when both day when both day when both day when both
conditions are conditions are conditions are conditions are
true: true: true: true:
(1) DHS issues (1) DHS issues (1) DHS issues (1) DHS issues
your facility a your facility a your facility a your facility a
letter of letter of letter of letter of
authorization or authorization or authorization or authorization or
approval which approval which approval which approval which
directs you to directs you to directs you to directs you to
comply with RBPS comply with RBPS comply with RBPS comply with RBPS
12(iv), AND. 12(iv), AND. 12(iv), AND. 12(iv), AND
(2) DHS provides (2) DHS provides (2) DHS provides (2) DHS provides
notification that notification that notification that notification that
it has it has it has it has
implemented the implemented the implemented the implemented the
CFATS Personnel CFATS Personnel CFATS Personnel CFATS Personnel
Surety Program. Surety Program. Surety Program. Surety Program.
Submission Of A New Affected 48 hours prior to 48 hours prior to 48 hours prior to 48 hours prior to
Individual's Information. access to access to access to access to
restricted areas restricted areas restricted areas restricted areas
or critical or critical or critical or critical
assets. assets. assets. assets.
[[Page 17688]]
Submission Of Updates And Within 90 days of Within 90 days of Within 90 days of Within 90 days of
Corrections To An Affected becoming aware of becoming aware of becoming aware of becoming aware of
Individual's Information. the need for an the need for an the need for an the need for an
update or update or update or update or
correction. correction. correction. correction.
Submission Of Notification That Within 90 days of Within 90 days of Within 90 days of Within 90 days of
An Affected Individual No access being access being access being access being
Longer Has Access. removed. removed. removed. removed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, after evaluating the choices available to the Department
under Question 16 on the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission form
(Standard Form-83(i)),\21\ the Department believes that the description
of ``Other: In accordance with the compliance schedule or the facility
SSP or ASP'' is the most appropriate choice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ A blank copy of Standard Form 83(i) may be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/83i-fill.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Public
Most high-risk chemical facilities regulated under CFATS are
private businesses, or parts of private businesses. Most people that
access the restricted areas and critical assets of high-risk chemical
facilities do so for business purposes. Therefore, after evaluating the
choices available to the Department on Standard Form 83(i), the
Department selected the description of ``Business or other for-profit''
as the most appropriate selection for this proposed Information
Collection.
Number of Respondents
The number of respondents under this collection is the number of
affected individuals that high-risk chemical facilities or their
designees submit information about in compliance with RBPS 12(iv). As
described more fully below, for the purpose of this notice the number
of respondents is estimated by multiplying:
The estimated number and types of high-risk chemical
facilities, and
The estimated number of affected individuals at each type
of high-risk chemical facility.
For the purpose of this notice, the Department estimates the number
of affected individuals at each type of high-risk chemical facility as
the sum of:
The number of unescorted visitors at each type of high-
risk chemical facility, and
The number of facility personnel and resident contractors
at each type of high-risk chemical facility.
Number and Type of High-Risk Chemical Facilities
In previous PRA Federal Register notices about the CFATS Personnel
Surety Program, the Department estimated the number and type of high-
risk chemical facilities by using the 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment,
which established a best estimate of 5,000 high-risk facilities for
calculating cost estimates.\22\ In the 2007 CFATS Regulatory
Assessment, the Department recognized that each chemical facility is
unique; however, since it was impractical to estimate costs for each
high-risk chemical facility, the Department created four categories of
facilities for each tier; three categories of facilities where loss of
containment of the chemicals of interest is the primary concern and one
category of facilities where theft and diversion of chemicals is the
primary concern. Specifically,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See CFATS Regulatory Assessment Section 5.1 (April 1,
2007), http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DHS-2006-0073-
0116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group A includes open facilities with 100 or more
employees where loss of containment is the primary concern. These
facilities are assumed to have five security entrances for the purpose
of the cost analysis.
Group B includes open facilities with 99 or fewer
employees where loss of containment is the primary concern. In
addition, facilities that store anhydrous ammonia for commercial
refrigeration in outdoor vessels are also considered ``open'' for the
purpose of this analysis because it is the outdoor storage that
requires protection. These facilities are assumed to have two security
entrances for the purpose of the cost analysis.
Group C facilities are enclosed facilities where loss of
containment is the primary concern (i.e., warehouses, enclosed
manufacturing sites) that manufacture, process, use, store and/or
distribute chemicals. The Department did not segment enclosed
facilities by size because the same degree of variation between a large
open facility (i.e., a 2,000-acre petrochemical complex) and a small
open 3-5-acre facility does not exist. These facilities are assumed to
have one security entrance for the purpose of the cost analysis.
Theft/Diversion facilities are typically merchant
wholesalers (often called chemical distributors), chemical
manufacturers, or other manufacturers that manufacture, process, use,
store or distribute chemicals that could be the target of theft and
diversion. The theft of chemicals could include theft of portable
containers by employees, visitors or adversaries. The diversion of
chemicals involves what often looks like a legitimate transaction where
an adversary, impersonating a legitimate customer, purchases chemicals
that could later be turned into weapons. These facilities are assumed
to have one security entrance for the purposes of cost analysis.
For the purpose of this notice, the Department updated the number
and type of high-risk chemical facilities estimated in the 2007 CFATS
Regulatory Assessment. The updated analysis, hereafter referred to as
the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis, determined the high-
risk chemical facility count for each of the 16 model facility
categories identified in the 2007 Regulatory Assessment by analyzing
high-risk chemical facilities designated with a final tier under CFATS
as of August 2012. A comparison of the number of high-risk chemical
facilities, estimated by the 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment, to the
number of high-risk chemical facilities identified within the 2012
CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis is presented in Table 4.
[[Page 17689]]
Table 4--Number of Facilities in Each Model Facility Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 CFATS
2007 CFATS personnel
regulatory surety program
assessment analysis (raw
data)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A.......................... 81 4
Tier 1 Group B.......................... 89 6
Tier 1 Group C.......................... 24 10
Tier 1 Theft............................ 6 93
Tier 2 Group A.......................... 166 8
Tier 2 Group B.......................... 64 16
Tier 2 Group C.......................... 80 15
Tier 2 Theft............................ 189 400
Tier 3 Group A.......................... 315 22
Tier 3 Group B.......................... 438 33
Tier 3 Group C.......................... 329 66
Tier 3 Theft............................ 718 935
Tier 4 Group A.......................... 242 72
Tier 4 Group B.......................... 690 190
Tier 4 Group C.......................... 599 13
Tier 4 Theft............................ 970 1,683
-------------------------------
Total............................... 5,000 3,566
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of August 2012, 3,566 high-risk chemical facilities received a
final tier determination. For the purpose of this notice, the
Department estimates that CFATS will regulate approximately 4,000 high-
risk chemical facilities. Therefore, the Department normalized the
number of facilities in each model facility category to 4,000
facilities by multiplying the number of high-risk chemical facilities
in each category by a factor of 1.22.\23\ The 2012 CFATS Personnel
Surety Program Analysis revised (i.e., normalized) high-risk chemical
facility count is compared to the 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment
high-risk chemical facility count, by model facility category, in Table
5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The factor of 1.22 was used because (4,000 facilities/3566
facilities) = 1.22.
Table 5--Number of High-Risk Chemical Facilities in Each Model Facility
Category
[Normalized to 4,000 facilities]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 CFATS
2007 CFATS personnel
regulatory surety program
assessment analysis
(normalized)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A.......................... 81 4
Tier 1 Group B.......................... 89 7
Tier 1 Group C.......................... 24 11
Tier 1 Theft............................ 6 104
Tier 2 Group A.......................... 166 9
Tier 2 Group B.......................... 64 18
Tier 2 Group C.......................... 80 17
Tier 2 Theft............................ 189 449
Tier 3 Group A.......................... 315 25
Tier 3 Group B.......................... 438 37
Tier 3 Group C.......................... 329 74
Tier 3 Theft............................ 718 1,049
Tier 4 Group A.......................... 242 81
Tier 4 Group B.......................... 690 213
Tier 4 Group C.......................... 599 15
Tier 4 Theft............................ 970 1,888
-------------------------------
Total............................... 5,000 4,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the reduction in the total number of regulated
facilities, a comparison of the 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment and
the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis identifies one other
key difference. In the original 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment,
conducted prior to implementation of the CFATS Program, the Department
assumed that 38 percent of all high-risk chemical facilities would be
regulated due to the risk that one or more chemicals could be subject
to theft or diversion for purposes of creating an explosion or
producing an
[[Page 17690]]
improvised explosive device. However, the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety
Program Analysis found that 87 percent of all currently regulated CFATS
high-risk chemical facilities are regulated due to the risk that a
chemical could be subject to theft or diversion for purposes of
creating an explosion or producing an improvised explosive device. For
the purpose of this notice, the Department used the number and type of
high-risk chemical facilities in each facility category estimated
through the normalized 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis
because the distribution of facility type (i.e., facility count) is
based upon actual historical data.
Estimated Number of Affected Individuals at Each Type of High-Risk
Chemical Facility--Unescorted Visitors With Access to Restricted Areas
or Critical Assets
During the 30-day comment period after the Department submitted the
previous CFATS Personnel Surety Program ICR to OMB in June 2011, the
American Chemistry Council (ACC) provided a detailed burden cost
assessment to the Department that included assumptions on visitors.\24\
Specifically, the ACC provided the Department with an estimate on the
number and turnover of frequent and infrequent visitors at high-risk
chemical facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ This cost estimate has been posted to Docket DHS-2012-0061,
which may be accessed through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACC's analysis suggests that 1,200 total visitors per year should
be expected at large open manufacturing facilities that align with
Group A (Tier 1 through 4) model facility categories; 300 visitors each
at small open manufacturing facilities (Group B model facility
categories, Tier 1 through 4) and enclosed manufacturing facilities
(Group C model facility categories, Tier 1 through 4); and 50 visitors
expected at theft/diversion model facilities (Tier 1 through 4). ACC
estimated an annual turnover rate of 71 percent for frequent visitors
(e.g., delivery personnel) and an annual turnover rate of 20 percent
for infrequent visitors that only visit the facility once or twice a
year (e.g., corporate auditors). Frequent and infrequent visitors were
expected to compose equal volume of traffic at high-risk chemical
facilities. ACC also assumed that all visitors count towards the number
of affected individuals. However, high-risk chemical facilities will
only be responsible for submitting information for unescorted visitors
with access to restricted areas or critical assets. The Department does
not expect high-risk chemical facilities to allow large numbers of
visitors to have unescorted access to restricted areas or critical
assets. As a general matter, the Department does not believe it to be
likely that many high-risk chemical facilities will propose in their
SSPs under CFATS to allow large numbers of visitors to have unescorted
access to the restricted areas and critical assets of high-risk
chemical facilities because then these visitors would be subject to all
four types of background checks listed in RBPS 12. However, for the
purpose of estimating the potential burden this information collection
could impose, the Department has determined that it is appropriate to
include ACC's conservative assumptions about frequent and infrequent
visitors and treat them all as unescorted visitors. Table 6 provides
the Department's estimated number of visitors.
Table 6--Estimate of Unescorted Visitors With Access to Restricted Areas or Critical Assets
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrequent Frequent
Infrequent Frequent visitor annual visitor annual Unescorted Unescorted
visitors visitors turnover turnover visitor annual visitor
(20%) (71%) turnover estimate
A B C * D ** E = C + D A + B + E
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A.......................................... 600 600 120 426 546 1,746
Tier 1 Group B.......................................... 150 150 30 107 137 437
Tier 1 Group C.......................................... 150 150 30 107 137 437
Tier 1 Theft............................................ 25 25 5 18 23 73
Tier 2 Group A.......................................... 600 600 120 426 546 1,746
Tier 2 Group B.......................................... 150 150 30 107 137 437
Tier 2 Group C.......................................... 150 150 30 107 137 437
Tier 2 Theft............................................ 25 25 5 18 23 73
Tier 3 Group A.......................................... 600 600 120 426 546 1,746
Tier 3 Group B.......................................... 150 150 30 107 137 437
Tier 3 Group C.......................................... 150 150 30 107 137 437
Tier 3 Theft............................................ 25 25 5 18 23 73
Tier 4 Group A.......................................... 600 600 120 426 546 1,746
Tier 4 Group B.......................................... 150 150 30 107 137 437
Tier 4 Group C.......................................... 150 150 30 107 137 437
Tier 4 Theft............................................ 25 25 5 18 23 73
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* C = A x 0.20, ** D = B x 0.71.
Estimated Number of Affected Individuals at Each Type of High-Risk
Chemical Facilities--Facility Personnel With Access to Restricted Areas
or Critical Assets
The 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment also provided an estimate of
full time employees and resident contractors for the 16 model facility
categories, as shown in Table 7.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See CFATS Regulatory Assessment Section 6.3.7, Table 15
(April 1, 2007), http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DHS-
2006-0073-0116.
[[Page 17691]]
Table 7--2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment Estimate of Number of Full Time Employees and Resident Contractors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of full
Resident 20% Annual time employees
contractors turnover and resident
Number of full per facility Resident (full time contractrs per
time employees (as percent of contractors employees and facility
per facility full time per facility resident (including 20%
employees) contractors annual
per facility) turnover)
A B C * D ** A + C + D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A.................. 391 30 117 102 610
Tier 1 Group B.................. 35 20 7 8 50
Tier 1 Group C.................. 152 10 15 33 200
Tier 1 Theft.................... 35 10 4 8 47
Tier 2 Group A.................. 279 30 84 73 436
Tier 2 Group B.................. 34 20 7 8 49
Tier 2 Group C.................. 317 10 32 70 419
Tier 2 Theft.................... 35 10 4 8 47
Tier 3 Group A.................. 487 30 146 127 760
Tier 3 Group B.................. 47 20 9 11 67
Tier 3 Group C.................. 310 10 31 68 409
Tier 3 Theft.................... 35 10 4 8 47
Tier 4 Group A.................. 283 30 85 74 442
Tier 4 Group B.................. 139 20 28 33 200
Tier 4 Group C.................. 201 10 20 44 265
Tier 4 Theft.................... 35 10 4 8 47
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* C = A x B, ** D = (A + C) x 0.20.
In the June 2011 ICR, the Department updated the estimate of
employees and resident contractors in the 2007 CFATS Regulatory
Assessment in response to a survey submitted by the American Fuel and
Petrochemical Manufacturers \26\ during the 30 day comment period
associated with the previous CFATS Personnel Surety Program ICR.\27\
Specifically, the Department increased the estimated number of full
time employees/contractors in Group A facilities by 5, as shown in
Table 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers is the
name of the former National Petrochemical & Refiners Association,
whose comment may be found at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DHS-2009-0026-0029.
\27\ See Response To Comments Received During 30 Day Comment
Period: New Information Collection Request 1670-NEW, 76 FR 34720,
34725 (June 14, 2011).
Table 8--Revised 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment Estimate of Number of Full Time Employees and Resident
Contractors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of full
Resident 20% Annual time employees
contractors turnover and resident
Number of full per facility Resident (full time contractors
time employees (as percent of contractors employees and per facility
per facility full time per facility resident (including 20%
employees) contractors annual
per facility) turnover)
A B C * D ** A + C + D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A.................. 1,955 30 587 508 3,050
Tier 1 Group B.................. 35 20 7 8 50
Tier 1 Group C.................. 152 10 15 33 201
Tier 1 Theft.................... 35 10 4 8 46
Tier 2 Group A.................. 1,395 30 419 363 2,176
Tier 2 Group B.................. 34 20 7 8 49
Tier 2 Group C.................. 317 10 32 70 418
Tier 2 Theft.................... 35 10 4 8 46
Tier 3 Group A.................. 2,435 30 731 633 3,799
Tier 3 Group B.................. 47 20 9 11 68
Tier 3 Group C.................. 310 10 31 68 409
Tier 3 Theft.................... 35 10 4 8 46
Tier 4 Group A.................. 1,415 30 425 368 2,207
Tier 4 Group B.................. 139 20 28 33 200
[[Page 17692]]
Tier 4 Group C.................. 201 10 20 44 265
Tier 4 Theft.................... 35 10 4 8 46
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* C = A x B, ** D = (A + C) x 0.20.
In addition to submitting comments on the Department's June 2011
estimated burden about unescorted visitors, ACC also suggested that 80
percent of employees/resident contractors have access to restricted
areas and/or critical assets at Group A, B and C facilities and only 15
percent of employees/resident contractors have access to theft/
diversion facilities. To provide an additional estimate of the number
of respondents the Department applied this ACC assumption to the
revised 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis. The resulting
estimate, referred to as the ``Adjusted June 2011 ICR Estimate of the
Number of Full Time Employees and Resident Contractors'' is shown in
Table 9.
Table 9--Adjusted June 2011 ICR Estimate of the Number of Full Time Employees and Resident Contractors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of full
ACC's estimate time employees
20% annual Number of full of full time and resident
Resident turnover time employees employees and contractors per
Number of full contractors Resident (full time and resident contractors facility with
time per facility contractors employees and contractors with access to access to
employees per (as percent of per facility resident per facility restricted restricted areas
facility full time contractors (including 20% areas or or critical
employees) per facility) annual critical assets
turnover) assets (including 20%
(percent) annual turnover)
A B C* D** A + C + D E (A + C + D) x E
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A........................ 1,955 30 587 508 3,050 80 2,440
Tier 1 Group B........................ 35 20 7 8 50 80 40
Tier 1 Group C........................ 152 10 15 33 201 80 161
Tier 1 Theft.......................... 35 10 4 8 46 15 7
Tier 2 Group A........................ 1,395 30 419 363 2,176 80 1,741
Tier 2 Group B........................ 34 20 7 8 49 80 39
Tier 2 Group C........................ 317 10 32 70 418 80 335
Tier 2 Theft.......................... 35 10 4 8 46 15 7
Tier 3 Group A........................ 2,435 30 731 633 3,799 80 3,039
Tier 3 Group B........................ 47 20 9 11 68 80 54
Tier 3 Group C........................ 310 10 31 68 409 80 327
Tier 3 Theft.......................... 35 10 4 8 46 15 7
Tier 4 Group A........................ 1,415 30 425 368 2,207 80 1,766
Tier 4 Group B........................ 139 20 28 33 200 80 160
Tier 4 Group C........................ 201 10 20 44 265 80 212
Tier 4 Theft.......................... 35 10 4 8 46 15 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*C = A x B, **D = (A + C) x 0.20.
For the purpose of this notice, the Department also evaluated
whether or not the 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment should continue to
be the basis for the estimate of full time employees and resident
contractors. To provide an additional estimate of the number of
respondents, the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis analyzed
actual information submitted by high-risk chemical facilities in
response to Top-Screen \28\ Question Q:1.45-400.\29\ Based upon the
[[Page 17693]]
submitted information, the Department was able to estimate full time
employees and resident contractors by each model facility category, as
shown in Table 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Top-Screen is defined at 6 CFR 27.105.
\29\ Q:1.45-400 refers to the specific question reference number
in the online Top-Screen application which is not available to the
general public. However, the exact text of the question is available
on page 20 of the CSAT Top-Screen Survey Application User Guide
v1.99 in the row entitled, ``Number of Full Time Employees.'' See
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/chemsec_csattopscreenusersmanual.pdf.
Table 10--2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis' Estimate of the Number of Full Time Employees and
Resident Contractors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of full
Resident 20% Annual time employees
Response to contractors turnover and resident
top screen per facility Resident (full time contractors
question (as percent of contractors employees and per facility
Q:1.45-400 full time per facility resident (including 20%
employees) contractors annual
per facility) turnover)
A .............. .............. B A + B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A.................. 599 120 719
Tier 1 Group B.................. 36 7 43
Tier 1 Group C.................. 300 60 360
Tier 1 Theft.................... 653 131 783
Tier 2 Group A.................. 222 44 267
Tier 2 Group B.................. 30 6 36
Tier 2 Group C.................. 489 98 587
Tier 2 Theft.................... 416 N/A 83 499
Tier 3 Group A.................. 594 Top Screen Question Q1:1.45* 119 713
Tier 3 Group B.................. 33 400 incorporates estimate of 7 39
Tier 3 Group C.................. 188 resident contractors 38 225
Tier 3 Theft.................... 233 47 279
Tier 4 Group A.................. 737 147 884
Tier 4 Group B.................. 17 3 20
Tier 4 Group C.................. 175 85 211
Tier 4 Theft.................... 195 39 234
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... n/a n/a n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In question Top Screen Question Q:1.45-400, facilities provide both full time employees and resident
contractors.
Table 11 compares the estimates of full time employees and resident
contractors in the: (1) 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment; (2) ICR
submitted in June of 2011; (3) adjusted June 2011 ICR Estimate of the
Number of Full Time Employees and Resident Contractors; and (4) 2012
CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis.
Table 11--Average Number of Full Time Employees and Contractors per Facility by Model Facility Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 2011 ICR
(adjusted with
ACC's
assumption on
2007 CFATS Estimate used facility 2012 CFATS
regulatory in June 2011 personnel with personnel
assessment ICR access to surety program
restricted analysis
areas or
critical
assets)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A.................................. 610 3,050 2,440 719
Tier 1 Group B.................................. 50 50 40 43
Tier 1 Group C.................................. 200 201 161 360
Tier 1 Theft.................................... 47 46 7 783
Tier 2 Group A.................................. 436 2,176 1,741 267
Tier 2 Group B.................................. 49 49 39 36
Tier 2 Group C.................................. 419 418 335 587
Tier 2 Theft.................................... 47 46 7 499
Tier 3 Group A.................................. 760 3,799 3,039 713
Tier 3 Group B.................................. 67 68 54 39
Tier 3 Group C.................................. 409 409 327 225
Tier 3 Theft.................................... 47 46 7 279
Tier 4 Group A.................................. 442 2,207 1,766 884
Tier 4 Group B.................................. 200 200 160 20
Tier 4 Group C.................................. 265 265 212 211
[[Page 17694]]
Tier 4 Theft.................................... 47 46 7 234
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When evaluating the reasonable alternatives (see next section) to
estimate the total number of respondents, the Department did not
consider alternatives that used an assumption about the full time
employees and resident contractors estimates from the 2007 CFATS
Regulatory Assessment or the estimate in the June 2011 ICR.
Rather, when evaluating the reasonable alternatives to estimate the
total number of respondents (see the next section of this document for
this evaluation), the Department opted to use the best available
industry estimates, as well as actual historical data collected
directly from high-risk chemical facilities, to estimate the full time
employees and resident contractors. Namely:
(1) The adjusted June 2011 ICR estimate of full time employees and
resident contractors, and
(2) The estimate of full time employees and resident contractors in
the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis.
Summary of Alternatives To Estimate the Number of Respondents
As mentioned above, for the purpose of this notice the number of
respondents is estimated by multiplying:
The number and type of high-risk chemical facilities, and
The number of affected individuals at each type of high-
risk chemical facility.
For the purpose of this notice, the Department estimates the number
of affected individuals at each type of high-risk chemical facility as
the sum of:
The number of unescorted visitors at each type of high-
risk chemical facility, and
The number of facility personnel and resident contractors
at each type of high-risk chemical facility.
In light of the data submitted by commenters and the Department's
own analysis, three alternatives for the total number of respondents
were considered by the Department.
First, the total number of respondents is based on:
a. the number and type of high-risk chemical facilities assumed in
the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis;
b. the ACC's estimates about unescorted visitors; and
c. the adjusted June 2011 ICR estimate of the number of full time
employees and resident contractors.
This alternative results in an estimate of an initial 972,584
respondents with an annual turnover of 290,459 respondents. See Table
12.
Table 12--Estimate of Number of Respondents--Alternative 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full time
employees
and
resident
contractors
Number of CFATS ACC
full time personnel Unescorted
employees Estimate of surety Visitor
and full time program ICR Estimate CFATS
resident employees withdrawn (including personnel
contractors and in July of 71% Number of surety ACC
CFATS contractors 2012 with turnover initial program ICR unescorted
personnel with access estimates for Number of respondents withdrawn visitors Annual
surety to of frequent facilities (include in July of annual respondent
program ICR restricted percentage visitors, (Table 5) 20% annual 2011 20% turnover turnover
withdrawn areas or of 20% turnover) annual (Table 6)
in July of critical employees/ turnover turnover
2012 assets resident for (Table 9)
(including (percent) contractors infrequent
20% annual with vistors)
turnover) restricted (Table 6)
(Table 8) area and/or
critical
asset
access
(Table 9)
A B A B C (A + B) x C D E (D + E) x C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A..................... 3,050 80 2,440 1,746 4 18,781 508 546 4,730
Tier 1 Group B..................... 50 80 40 437 7 3,209 8 137 975
Tier 1 Group C..................... 201 80 161 437 11 6,697 33 137 1,906
Tier 1 Theft....................... 46 15 7 73 104 8,312 8 23 3,177
Tier 2 Group A..................... 2,176 80 1,741 1,746 9 31,291 363 546 8,154
Tier 2 Group B..................... 49 80 39 437 18 8,537 8 137 2,596
Tier 2 Group C..................... 418 80 335 437 17 12,977 70 137 3,470
Tier 2 Theft....................... 46 15 7 73 449 35,751 8 23 13,662
Tier 3 Group A..................... 3,799 80 3,039 1,746 25 118,079 633 546 29,097
Tier 3 Group B..................... 68 80 54 437 37 18,162 11 137 5,470
[[Page 17695]]
Tier 3 Group C..................... 409 80 327 437 74 56,550 68 137 15,154
Tier 3 Theft....................... 46 15 7 73 1,049 83,568 8 23 31,936
Tier 4 Group A..................... 2,207 80 1,766 1,746 81 283,632 368 546 73,809
Tier 4 Group B..................... 200 80 160 437 213 127,156 33 137 36,201
Tier 4 Group C..................... 265 80 212 437 15 9,460 44 137 2,635
Tier 4 Theft....................... 46 15 7 73 1,888 150,422 8 23 57,484
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................... n/a n/a n/a n/a 4,000 972,584 n/a n/a 290,459
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the total number of respondents is based on:
a. The number and type of high-risk chemical facilities assumed in
the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis;
b. The ACC's estimates about unescorted visitors;
c. The number of full time employees and resident contractors
estimated by the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis; and
d. ACC's estimate of the percentage of resident employees and
contractors with access to restricted areas or critical assets.
This alternative results in an estimate of an initial 896,286
respondents with an annual turnover of 393,519 respondents. See Table
13.
Table 13--Estimate of Number of Respondents--Alternative 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACC
2012 CFATS unescorted
personnel Estimate of visitor
surety full time estimate
program employees Average (including 2012 CFATS
analysis and number of 71% Number of personnel ACC
average contractors full time turnover Initial surety unescorted
number of with access employees for Number of respondents program visitors Annual
full time to and frequent facilities (includes analysis annual respondent
employees restricted contractors visitors, (Table 5) 20% annual 20% anual turnover turnover
and areas or (including 20% turnover) turnover (Table 6)
contractors critical 20% turnover (Table 10)
(including assets turnover) for
20% (percent) infrequent
turnover) visitors)
(Table 10) (Table 6)
A B (A x B) = C D E (C + D) x E F G (F + G) x E
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A..................... 719 80 575 1,746 4 10,413 120 546 2,987
Tier 1 Group B..................... 43 80 34 437 7 3,169 7 137 967
Tier 1 Group C..................... 360 80 288 437 11 8,124 60 137 2,203
Tier 1 Theft....................... 783 15 118 73 104 19,847 131 23 15,993
Tier 2 Group A..................... 267 80 213 1,746 9 17,583 44 546 5,298
Tier 2 Group B..................... 36 80 29 437 18 8,355 6 137 2,558
Tier 2 Group C..................... 587 80 469 437 17 15,243 98 137 3,942
Tier 2 Theft....................... 499 15 75 73 449 66,200 83 23 47,494
Tier 3 Group A..................... 713 80 571 1,746 25 57,169 119 546 16,408
Tier 3 Group B..................... 39 80 31 437 37 17,321 7 137 5,295
Tier 3 Group C..................... 225 80 180 437 74 45,660 38 137 12,886
Tier 3 Theft....................... 279 15 42 73 1,049 120,269 47 23 72,714
Tier 4 Group A..................... 884 80 707 1,746 81 198,148 147 546 56,000
Tier 4 Group B..................... 20 80 16 437 213 96,461 3 137 29,806
Tier 4 Group C..................... 211 80 168 437 15 8,821 35 137 2,502
Tier 4 Theft....................... 234 15 35 73 1,888 203,505 39 23 116,465
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................... n/a n/a n/a n/a 4,000 896,286 n/a n/a 393,519
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17696]]
Third, the total number of respondents is based on:
a. The number and type of high-risk chemical facilities assumed in
the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis;
b. The ACC's estimates about unescorted visitors;
c. The number of full time employees and resident contractors
estimated by the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis; and
d. Does not include ACC's estimate of the percentage of resident
employees and contractors with access to restricted areas or critical
assets.
This alternative results in an estimate of an initial 1,806,996
respondents with an annual turnover of 393,519 respondents. See Table
14.
Table 14--Estimate of Number of Respondents--Alternative 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACC
2012 CFATS unescorted
personnel Estimate of visitors
surety full time estimate
program employees Average (including 2012 CFATS
analysis and number of 71% Number of personnel ACC
average contractors full time turnover initial surety unescorted
number of with access employees for Number of respondents program visitors Annual
full time to and frequent facilities (includes analysis annual respondent
employees restricted contractors visitors, (Table 5) 20% annual 20% annual turnover turnover
and areas or (including 20% turnover) turnover (Table 6)
contractors critical 20% turnover (Table 10)
(including assets turnover) for
20% (percent) infrequent
turnover) visitors)
(Table 10) (Table 6)
A B (A x B) = C D E (C + D) x E F G (F + G) x E
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A..................... 719 100 719 1,746 4 11,058 120 546 2,987
Tier 1 Group B..................... 43 100 43 437 7 3,227 7 137 967
Tier 1 Group C..................... 360 100 360 437 11 8,930 60 137 2,203
Tier 1 Theft....................... 783 100 783 73 104 89,306 131 23 15,993
Tier 2 Group A..................... 267 100 267 1,746 9 18,061 44 546 5,298
Tier 2 Group B..................... 36 100 36 437 18 8,485 6 137 2,558
Tier 2 Group C..................... 587 100 587 437 17 17,218 98 137 3,942
Tier 2 Theft....................... 499 100 499 73 449 256,361 83 23 47,494
Tier 3 Group A..................... 713 100 713 1,746 25 60,689 119 546 16,408
Tier 3 Group B..................... 39 100 39 437 37 17,611 7 137 5,295
Tier 3 Group C..................... 225 100 225 437 74 48,997 38 137 12,886
Tier 3 Theft....................... 279 100 279 73 1,049 369,426 47 23 72,714
Tier 4 Group A..................... 884 100 884 1,746 81 212,432 147 546 56,000
Tier 4 Group B..................... 20 100 20 437 213 97,319 3 137 29,806
Tier 4 Group C..................... 211 100 211 437 15 9,435 35 137 2,502
Tier 4 Theft....................... 234 100 234 73 1,888 578,440 39 23 116,465
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................... n/a n/a n/a n/a 4,000 1,806,996 n/a n/a 393,519
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These three alternatives are summarized in Table 15.
Table 15--Comparison of Number of Respondents for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
respondents
Initial/year Year 2 Year 3 (annual
average)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 1................................... 972,584 290,459 290,459 517,834
Alternative 2................................... 896,286 393,519 393,519 561,108
Alternative 3................................... 1,806,996 393,519 393,519 864,678
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the purpose of this notice the Department selected alternative
3. Alternative 3 reasonably reflects the type and number of facilities
regulated by CFATS, is based upon the actual number of full time
employees and contractors as reported by high-risk chemical facilities,
and explicitly estimates unescorted visitors as a separate population
from facility employees and resident contractors.
Limitation of Respondents to Tier 1 and Tier 2 Facilities
The Department is proposing to limit this information collection,
and to limit initial CFATS Personnel Surety Program implementation, to
only Tier 1 and Tier 2 high-risk chemical facilities. A limited
implementation would enable the Department to implement the CFATS
Personnel Surety Program for those facilities presenting the highest
risk, while not imposing the burden on all CFATS regulated facilities.
Assuming this information collection request is approved, a subsequent
ICR would be published and submitted to OMB for approval to incorporate
any lessons learned and potential improvements to the CFATS Personnel
Surety Program prior to collecting information from Tier 3 and Tier 4
high-risk chemical facilities. Table 16 provides the estimate of the
number of respondents using alternative 3 for Tier 1 and 2 high-risk
chemical facilities.
[[Page 17697]]
Table 16--Estimate of Number of Tier 1 and 2 Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACC
2012 CFATS unescorted
personnel Estimate of visitors
surety full time estimate
program employees Average (including 2012 CFATS
analysis and number of 71% Number of personnel ACC
average contractors full time turnover initial surety unescorted
number of with access employees for Number of respondents program visitors Annual
full time to and frequent facilities (includes analysis annual respondent
employees restricted contractors visitors, (table 5) 20% annual 20% annual turnover turnover
and areas or (including 20% turnover) turnover (table 6)
contractors critical 20% turnover (table 10)
(including assets turnover) for
20% (percent) infrequent
turnover) visttors)
(table 10) (table 6)
A B (A x B) = C D E (C + D) x E F G (F + G) x E
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A..................... 719 100 719 1,746 4 11,058 120 546 2,987
Tier 1 Group B..................... 43 100 43 437 7 3,227 7 137 967
Tier 1 Group C..................... 360 100 360 437 11 8,930 60 137 2,203
Tier 1 Theft....................... 783 100 783 73 104 89,306 131 23 15,993
Tier 2 Group A..................... 267 100 267 1,746 9 18,061 44 546 5,298
Tier 2 Group B..................... 36 100 36 437 18 8,485 6 137 2,558
Tier 2 Group C..................... 587 100 587 437 17 17,218 98 137 3,942
Tier 2 Theft....................... 499 100 499 73 449 256,361 83 23 47,494
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................... n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 412,647 n/a n/a 81,443
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the annual average number of respondents is equal to
191,845, as shown in Table 17. The Department's rounded estimate is
192,000 respondents.
Table 17--Estimate of Annual Number of Respondents for Tier 1 and 2 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Total Total Total respondents
respondents respondents respondents (annual
year 1 year 2 year 3 average)
A B C (A + B + C)/3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A.................................. 11,058 2,987 2,987 5,677
Tier 1 Group B.................................. 3,227 967 967 1,720
Tier 1 Group C.................................. 8,930 2,203 2,203 4,446
Tier 1 Theft.................................... 89,306 15,993 15,993 40,431
Tier 2 Group A.................................. 18,061 5,298 5,298 9,553
Tier 2 Group B.................................. 8,485 2,558 2,558 4,534
Tier 2 Group C.................................. 17,218 3,942 3,942 8,367
Tier 2 Theft.................................... 256,361 47,494 47,494 117,116
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 412,647 81,443 81,443 191,845
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Time per Respondent
For the purpose of estimating the time per respondent, the
Department considered making an assumption about the percentage of
affected individuals under the three options outlined in the summary
section of this notice (e.g., information about one-third of affected
individuals would be submitted for direct vetting against the Federal
Government's consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist,
information about one-third of affected individuals would be submitted
to verify enrollment in other DHS programs, and information about one-
third of affected individuals would not be submitted because they
possess TWICs that high-risk chemical facilities would electronically
verify through the use of TWIC readers). However, the Department
concluded that such an assumption was unwarranted because: (1) The
assumption would be without any factual basis; (2) the burden to submit
information about an affected individual for direct vetting is
approximately the same as the burden to submit information in order to
verify enrollment (i.e., similar number of required data elements); and
(3) the most conservative burden estimate would assume that information
is submitted for all affected individuals (i.e., no facilities will
choose to electronically verify the TWIC in the possession of an
affected individual).
To avoid making unjustified assumptions, and to avoid
underestimating the time per respondent, the Department decided to
estimate the average burden per respondent by assuming each and every
respondent's information will be manually submitted, rather than
uploaded via a bulk file, to the Department for vetting for terrorist
ties.
Accordingly, the Department's ``estimated time per respondent'' is
the average burden for each respondent/submission, as shown in Table
18. The estimate includes (1) 30 minutes to type and submit each and
every affected individual's required information during initial
submission, (2) 10 minutes to type and submit each update/correction
for five percent of the affected individuals, (3) 10 minutes to update
information on 20 percent of the affected individuals expected to no
[[Page 17698]]
longer have access to a high-risk chemical facility restricted area(s)
or critical asset(s) each year. Therefore, for the purpose of this
notice, the estimated time per respondent is 0.54 hours.
Table 18--Estimate of Burden Time per Response
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
population Duration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Submission (100%).................... 1.00 0.50
Updates/Corrections (5%)..................... 0.05 0.17
Removal--Turnover (20%)...................... 0.20 0.17
Estimated Time per respondent................ ........... 0.5425
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Burden Hours
Annual burden hours are the sum of: (1) The number of respondents
multiplied by the estimated time per respondent; (2) the number of
respondents for which a high-risk chemical facility will need to
update/correct information (five percent of the number of respondents)
multiplied by the number of hours necessary to type and submit each
update/correction (i.e., 0.17 hours or 10 minutes); and (3) the number
of respondents that are expected to no longer have access to a high-
risk chemical facility's restricted area(s) or critical asset(s) (i.e.,
20 percent of the number of respondents) multiplied by the number of
hours necessary to notify the Department (i.e., 0.17 hours or 10
minutes). Therefore, the average annual burden is 104,076 hours, as
shown in Table 19. The Department's rounded estimate is 104,100 hours.
Table 19--Estimate of Annual Burden Hours for Tier 1 & Tier 2 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
respondents Duration Burden (hours)
A B (A x B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Submission (100%)....................................... 191,845 0.50 95,922
Updates/Corrections (5%)........................................ 9,592 0.17 1,631
Removal--Turnover (20%)......................................... 38,369 0.17 6,523
---------------
Total Burden Hours.......................................... .............. .............. 104,076
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Burden Cost (Capital/Startup)
The Department expects no capital/startup cost for facilities that
choose to implement Option 1 or Option 2.
Although there are no costs associated with facilities providing
information to the Department under Option 3, the Department has
nonetheless estimated the potential capital costs incurred by
facilities that choose to implement Option 3 under the CFATS Personnel
Surety Program to ensure an appropriate accounting of the costs
potentially incurred by this Information Collection. The capital cost
of Option 3 can be estimated by multiplying (1) the number of
facilities that are likely to implement Option 3 by (2) the cost to
acquire, install, and maintain TWIC readers at the facilities.
Estimating Capital Costs for Option 3--Number and Type of High-Risk
Chemical Facilities That May Choose To Use Option 3
High-risk chemical facilities and their designees have wide
latitude in how they may implement Option 3, if they choose to do so.
High-risk chemical facilities could propose, in their SSPs or ASPs, to
share the costs of TWIC readers and any associated infrastructure at
central locations, or high-risk chemical facilities could propose to
purchase and install TWIC readers for their own use. The Department
will assess the adequacy of such proposals on a facility-by-facility
basis, in the course of evaluating each facility's SSP or ASP.
For the purpose of this notice, the Department estimates that the
number of high-risk chemical facilities that are likely to implement
Option 3 is the number of high-risk chemical facilities likely to have
affected individuals who possess TWICs accessing their restricted areas
or critical assets. Through the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program
Analysis, the Department determined that there are currently 32 high-
risk chemical facilities that have claimed a partial Maritime
Transportation Security Act (MTSA) exemption \30\ and have received a
final tier determination under CFATS. The Department then normalized
the facility count by multiplying the number of facilities that claimed
a partial exemption in each category by a factor of 1.22 (as it did in
estimating the total number of facilities in Table 5 above), as shown
in Table 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Facilities that are partially regulated under both MTSA and
CFATS have the opportunity to identify themselves in the CSAT Top-
Screen. The text of the question is available on page 22 of the CSAT
Top-Screen Survey Application User Guide v1.99. See http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/chemsec_csattopscreenusersmanual.pdf.
Table 20--Estimate of Number of High-Risk Chemical Facilities That May
Choose To Use TWIC Readers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 CFATS
2012 CFATS personnel surety
personnel surety program analysis
program analysis (normalized)
A A x 1.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A...................... 0 0
Tier 1 Group B...................... 0 0
Tier 1 Group C...................... 0 0
Tier 1 Theft........................ 0 0
[[Page 17699]]
Tier 2 Group A...................... 0 0
Tier 2 Group B...................... 0 0
Tier 2 Group C...................... 1 1
Tier 2 Theft........................ 3 3
Tier 3 Group A...................... 3 3
Tier 3 Group B...................... 0 0
Tier 3 Group C...................... 2 2
Tier 3 Theft........................ 13 15
Tier 4 Group A...................... 1 1
Tier 4 Group B...................... 2 2
Tier 4 Group C...................... 0 0
Tier 4 Theft........................ 7 8
-----------------------------------
Total........................... 32 35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimating Capital Costs for Option 3--TWIC Readers Costs
For the purpose of this notice, the Department has based the
potential per facility capital costs related to Option 3 on the TWIC
Reader Requirements notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.\31\ In the TWIC Reader
Requirements NPRM, the Department estimated the initial phase-in costs
annual recurring costs, and annual recurring costs that considers
equipment replacement for container terminals, large passenger vessels/
terminals, petroleum facilities, break-bulk terminals and small
passenger vessels/towboats. For the purpose of this notice, the
Department has based the capital costs related to Option 3 on the costs
incurred by the petroleum facilities (i.e., bulk liquid facilities) in
the TWIC Reader Requirements NPRM. Specifically, the Department
estimated the capital costs in this notice to be the average of the
initial phase-in cost plus three years of the annual reoccurring cost
without equipment replacement. NPPD opted to use the annual reoccurring
cost without equipment replacement to align with the TWIC Reader
Requirements NPRM assumption that equipment replacement cost occurs
every five years. This notice estimates average annual costs for a
three year period. Thus, for the purposes of this notice the estimated
capital costs per facility is $99,953.33, [($256,267 + ($14,531 x 3))/
3].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See TWIC Reader Requirements NPRM Table 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department then calculated the capital costs for the 35 high-
risk chemical facilities, as shown in Table 21.
Table 21--Capital Cost Burden Estimate for High-Risk Chemical Facilities That May Choose To Use TWIC Readers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average TWIC
reader Capital cost of
Number of implementation TWIC reader
facilities cost per implementation
facility
A B (A x B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A............................................ 0 $99,953 $0
Tier 1 Group B............................................ 0 99,953 0
Tier 1 Group C............................................ 0 99,953 0
Tier 1 Theft.............................................. 0 99,953 0
Tier 2 Group A............................................ 0 99,953 0
Tier 2 Group B............................................ 0 99,953 0
Tier 2 Group C............................................ 1 99,953 99,953
Tier 2 Theft.............................................. 3 99,953 299,860
Tier 3 Group A............................................ 3 99,953 299,860
Tier 3 Group B............................................ 0 99,953 0
Tier 3 Group C............................................ 2 99,953 199,907
Tier 3 Theft.............................................. 15 99,953 1,499,300
Tier 4 Group A............................................ 1 99,953 99,953
Tier 4 Group B............................................ 2 99,953 199,907
Tier 4 Group C............................................ 0 99,953 0
Tier 4 Theft.............................................. 8 99,953 799,627
-----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 35 n/a 3,498,367
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17700]]
The capital cost for the 35 high-risk chemical facilities totals
$3,498,367.67; however, the Department intends to limit this
information collection to only Tier 1 and Tier 2 facilities. Therefore,
for the purpose of this notice, the Department estimates the capital
cost for the implementation of TWIC readers is $399,813, as shown in
Table 22. The Department's rounded estimate is $399,800.
Table 22--Capital Cost Burden Estimate for Tier 1 & 2 High-Risk Chemical Facilities That May Choose To Use TWIC
Readers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average TWIC
reader Capital cost of
Number of implementation TWIC reader
facilities cost per implementation
facility
A B (A x B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A............................................ 0 $99,953 $0
Tier 1 Group B............................................ 0 99,953 0
Tier 1 Group C............................................ 0 99,953 0
Tier 1 Theft.............................................. 0 99,953 0
Tier 2 Group A............................................ 0 99,953 0
Tier 2 Group B............................................ 0 99,953 0
Tier 2 Group C............................................ 1 99,953 99,953
Tier 2 Theft.............................................. 3 99,953 299,860
-----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 4 n/a 399,813
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consideration of Other Capital Costs
The burden estimates outlined in this notice are limited in scope
to those activities listed in 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(1). Specifically, 5 CFR
1320.3(b)(1) and 5 CFR 1320.8 require the Department to estimate the
total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. Therefore, many costs (e.g., physical modification of
the facility layout) a facility may choose to incur to develop or
implement its SSP or ASP should not be accounted for when estimating
the capital costs associated with this information collection.
The Department did consider estimating certain facility capital
costs such as: (1) Capital costs for computer, telecommunications
equipment, software, and storage to manage the data collection,
submissions, and tracking; (2) capital and ongoing costs for designing,
deploying and operating information technology (IT) systems necessary
to maintain the data collection, submissions, and tracking; (3) cost of
training facility personnel to maintain the data collection,
submissions, and tracking; and (4) site security officer time to manage
the data collection, submissions, and tracking. However, the Department
has concluded that these costs should be excluded in accordance with 5
CFR 1320.3(b)(2), which directs federal agencies to not count the costs
associated with the time, effort, and financial resources incurred in
the normal course of their activities (e.g., in compiling and
maintaining business records) if the reporting, recordkeeping, or
disclosure activities are usual and customary.
The Department believes that the time, effort, and financial
resources are usual and customary costs because these are costs that
high-risk chemical facilities would incur to conduct background checks
for identity, criminal history, and legal authorization to work under 6
CFR 27.230(a)(12)(i-iii), and also under various other Federal, state,
or local laws or regulations.
Recordkeeping Costs
High-risk chemical facilities are not required to create, keep, or
retain records under RBPS 12(iv). If a high-risk chemical facility
elects, for its own business purposes, to create, keep, or retain
records that identify and manage the submission of information about
affected individuals, those records are not government records.
The recordkeeping costs, if any, to create, keep, or retain records
pertaining to background checks as part of a high-risk chemical
facility's SSP or ASP, are properly estimated in the recordkeeping
estimates associated with the SSP Instrument under Information
Collection 1670-0007.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Information Collection 1670-0007 may be viewed at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201001-1670-007#.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department considered estimating the potential recordkeeping
burden associated with RBPS 12(iv), but subsequently concluded that no
potential recordkeeping should be estimated in this notice in
accordance with 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2), which directs federal agencies to
not count the costs associated with the time, effort, and financial
resources incurred in the normal course of their activities (e.g., in
compiling and maintaining business records) if the reporting,
recordkeeping, or disclosure activities are usual and customary. The
Department believes that the types of recordkeeping associated with
RBPS 12(iv) are usual and customary costs that high-risk chemical
facilities would incur to conduct background checks for identity,
criminal history, and legal authorization to work as required by RBPS
(12)(i)-(iii) and also by various other Federal, state, or local laws
or regulations.
Total Burden Cost (Operating/Maintaining)
The annual burden cost is equal to the sum of the: (1) Annual
burden hours multiplied by the hourly wage rate for appropriate
facility personnel; (2) the capital costs ($399,800); and (3)
recordkeeping costs ($0).
Comments associated with the previous ICR suggested an appropriate
wage rate between $20 and $40 per hour; the Department picked the
midpoint of $30 to estimate the hourly direct wage rate, which
corresponds to a fully loaded wage rate of $42.
Therefore, the annual burden not including capital costs and
recordkeeping costs is $4,371,181 as shown in Table 23. The rounded
estimate is $4,371,000.
[[Page 17701]]
Table 23--Estimate of Annual Burden Cost for Tier 1 & Tier 2 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burden
(hours) Wage rate Cost
A B (A x B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Submission.............................................. 95,922 42 $4,028,738
Updates/Corrections............................................. 1,631 42 68,489
Removal--Turnover............................................... 6,523 42 273,954
-----------------------------------------------
Total Burden Cost (operating/maintaining)................... 104,076 42 4,371,181
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the total annual burden cost is $4,770,994, after the
inclusion of the $399,813 capital cost burden. The Department's rounded
estimate is $4,771,000.
VI. Solicitation of Comments
OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submissions of responses.
VII. Analysis
Agency: Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and
Programs Directorate, Office of Infrastructure Protection,
Infrastructure Security Compliance Division.
Title: Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) Personnel
Surety Program.
OMB Number: 1670--NEW.
Frequency: Other: In accordance with the compliance schedule or the
facility Site Security Plan or Alternative Security Plan.
Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
Number of Respondents: 192,000 affected individuals.
Estimated Time per Respondent: 0.54 hours (32.4 minutes).
Total Burden Hours: 104,100 annual burden hours.
Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $399,800.
Total Recordkeeping Burden: $0.
Total Burden Cost (operating/maintaining): $4,771,000.
Dated: March 13, 2013.
Scott Libby,
Deputy Chief Information Officer, National Protection and Programs
Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2013-06184 Filed 3-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-9P-P