60-Day FRN

17680

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices

Contact Person: Xincheng Zheng, Ph.D.,
M.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific
Review Branch, National Institute of
Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases,
NIH, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 800,
Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–594–4953,
[email protected].
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Nos. 93.846, Arthritis,
Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research,
National Institutes of Health, HHS)
Dated: March 18, 2013.
Carolyn Baum,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory
Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013–06571 Filed 3–21–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse
and Alcoholism; Closed Meeting

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is
hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the
public in accordance with the
provisions set forth in sections
552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.,
as amended. The grant applications and
the discussions could disclose
confidential trade secrets or commercial
property such as patentable material,
and personal information concerning
individuals associated with the grant
applications, the disclosure of which
would constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy.
Name of Committee: National Institute on
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Special
Emphasis Panel, NIAAA Member Conflict
Applications.
Date: April 4, 2013.
Time: 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant
applications.
Place: 5635 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD
20852 (Telephone Conference Call).
Contact Person: Ranga Srinivas, Ph.D.,
Chief, Extramural Project Review Branch
EPRB, NIAAA, National Institutes of Health,
5365 Fishers Lane, Room 2085, Rockville,
MD 20852 (301) 451–2067
[email protected].
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Nos. 93.273, Alcohol Research
Programs; National Institutes of Health, HHS)
Dated: March 18, 2013.
Carolyn A. Baum,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory
Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013–06572 Filed 3–21–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140–01–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:27 Mar 21, 2013

Jkt 229001

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
[Docket No. DHS–2012–0061]

Information Collection Request;
Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism
Standards Personnel Surety Program
National Protection and
Programs Directorate, DHS.
ACTION: 60-Day notice and request for
comments; New Information Collection
Request: 1670—NEW.
AGENCY:

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).
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
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.

PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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.
Table of Contents
I. Supplementary Information
• Summary of Options Available to HighRisk 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
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.

E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM

22MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

• 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
Æ Number and Type of High-Risk
Chemical Facilities
Æ Estimated Number of Affected
Individuals at Each Type of High-Risk
Chemical Facility—Unescorted Visitors
With Access to Restricted Areas or
Critical Assets
Æ Estimated Number of Affected
Individuals at Each Type of High-Risk
Chemical Facilities—Facility Personnel
With Access to Restricted Areas or
Critical Assets
Æ Summary of Alternatives To Estimate
the Number of Respondents
Æ Limitation of Respondents to Tier 1 and
Tier 2 Facilities
• Estimated Time per Respondent
• Total Burden Hours
• Total Burden Cost (Capital/Startup)
Æ Estimating Capital Costs for Option 3—
Number and Type of High-Risk Chemical
Facilities That May Choose To Use
Option 3
Æ Estimating Capital Costs for Option 3—
TWIC Readers Costs
Æ 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 riskbased 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 highrisk 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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:27 Mar 21, 2013

Jkt 229001

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 governmentmaintained 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
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
5 For more information about the TSDB, see DOJ/
FBI—019 Terrorist Screening Records System, 72
FR 47073 (August 22, 2007).

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

17681

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 highrisk 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 highrisk 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

E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM

22MRN1

17682

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

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).
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
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.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:27 Mar 21, 2013

Jkt 229001

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
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 highrisk 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
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 highrisk 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.

PO 00000

Frm 00056

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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), highrisk 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 HighRisk 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

E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM

22MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

• 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. Highrisk 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.
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.
10 See

footnote 1, supra.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:27 Mar 21, 2013

Jkt 229001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

17683

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 highrisk 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.
High-risk chemical facilities will be
able to structure their CSAT user roles
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#.

E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM

22MRN1

17684

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices

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 highrisk 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 highrisk chemical facilities on a companywide basis.

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

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 highrisk 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.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:27 Mar 21, 2013

Jkt 229001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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 highrisk 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 EGovernment Act, the Homeland
Security Act, and Departmental policy.
The United States also follows
international instruments on privacy, all

E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM

22MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices
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.

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

17685

• 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, highrisk 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
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

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Data elements submitted to the department

For a U.S. person

Full Name ....................................................................................

Required

Date of Birth ................................................................................

Required

For a nonU.S. person

Gender .........................................................................................
Citizenship ...................................................................................

Must provide Citizenship or Gender ...........................................

Optional.
Required.

Passport Information and/or Alien Registration Number .............

N/A ..............................................................................................

Required.

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

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:27 Mar 21, 2013

Jkt 229001

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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.

Framework can be found at http://export.gov/
safeharbor.
14 For more information about Redress Numbers,
please go to http://www.dhs.gov/one-stop-travelersredress-process#1.

E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM

22MRN1

17686

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices
TABLE 2—AFFECTED INDIVIDUAL REQUIRED AND OPTIONAL DATA UNDER OPTION 2

Data elements submitted to the
department

For affected individual with a
TWIC

Full Name ......................................

Required

Date of Birth ...................................

Required

Expiration Date ..............................

Required

Unique Identifying Number ............
Issuing State of CDL .....................

TWIC Serial Number: Required ...
N/A ................................................

CDL Number: Required ................
Required .......................................

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

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

For affected individual with an
HME

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:27 Mar 21, 2013

Jkt 229001

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
6 CFR 27.300–345.
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

For affected individual enrolled in
a Trusted Traveler Program
(NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST, or
Global Entry)

PASS ID Number: Required
N/A

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 highrisk 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 highrisk 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.

15 See

16 More

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Personnel Surety Program, dated May 4, 2011, and
available at http://www.dhs.gov/privacydocuments-national-protection-and-programsdirectorate-nppd.

E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM

22MRN1

17687

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices
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
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.
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.
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 highrisk 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

Initial Submission Of Affected Individuals’ Information.

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Submission Of A New Affected Individual’s Information.

Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3

Tier 4

60 days after the day
when both conditions
are true:
(1) DHS issues your facility a letter of authorization or approval which
directs you to comply
with RBPS 12(iv), AND.
(2) DHS provides notification that it has implemented the CFATS Personnel Surety Program.
48 hours prior to access to
restricted areas or critical assets.

60 days after the day
when both conditions
are true:
(1) DHS issues your facility a letter of authorization or approval which
directs you to comply
with RBPS 12(iv), AND.
(2) DHS provides notification that it has implemented the CFATS Personnel Surety Program.
48 hours prior to access to
restricted areas or critical assets.

90 days after the day
when both conditions
are true:
(1) DHS issues your facility a letter of authorization or approval which
directs you to comply
with RBPS 12(iv), AND.
(2) DHS provides notification that it has implemented the CFATS Personnel Surety Program.
48 hours prior to access to
restricted areas or critical assets.

90 days after the day
when both conditions
are true:
(1) DHS issues your facility a letter of authorization or approval which
directs you to comply
with RBPS 12(iv), AND
(2) DHS provides notification that it has implemented the CFATS Personnel Surety Program.
48 hours prior to access to
restricted areas or critical assets.

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-pianppd-cfats-ps.pdf.
18 The docket for the CFATS Personnel Surety
Program System of Records Notice may be found at

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:27 Mar 21, 2013

Jkt 229001

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DHS2011-0032.
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

PO 00000

Frm 00061

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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.

E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM

22MRN1

17688

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices

TABLE 3—COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE FOR OPTION 1 AND OPTION 2 UNDER THE CFATS PERSONNEL SURETY PROGRAM—
Continued

Submission Of Updates
And Corrections To An
Affected Individual’s Information.
Submission Of Notification
That An Affected Individual No Longer Has
Access.

Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3

Tier 4

Within 90 days of becoming aware of the need
for an update or correction.
Within 90 days of access
being removed.

Within 90 days of becoming aware of the need
for an update or correction.
Within 90 days of access
being removed.

Within 90 days of becoming aware of the need
for an update or correction.
Within 90 days of access
being removed.

Within 90 days of becoming aware of the need
for an update or correction.
Within 90 days of access
being removed.

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 highrisk 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,
• 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

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.

22 See CFATS Regulatory Assessment Section 5.1
(April 1, 2007), http://www.regulations.gov/
#!documentDetail;D=DHS-2006-0073-0116.

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.

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

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.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:27 Mar 21, 2013

Jkt 229001

PO 00000

Frm 00062

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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.

E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM

22MRN1

17689

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices
TABLE 4—NUMBER OF FACILITIES IN EACH MODEL FACILITY CATEGORY
2007 CFATS
regulatory
assessment

Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier

1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4

2012 CFATS
personnel
surety
program
analysis
(raw data)

Group A .........................................................................................................................................................
Group B .........................................................................................................................................................
Group C .........................................................................................................................................................
Theft ..............................................................................................................................................................
Group A .........................................................................................................................................................
Group B .........................................................................................................................................................
Group C .........................................................................................................................................................
Theft ..............................................................................................................................................................
Group A .........................................................................................................................................................
Group B .........................................................................................................................................................
Group C .........................................................................................................................................................
Theft ..............................................................................................................................................................
Group A .........................................................................................................................................................
Group B .........................................................................................................................................................
Group C .........................................................................................................................................................
Theft ..............................................................................................................................................................

81
89
24
6
166
64
80
189
315
438
329
718
242
690
599
970

4
6
10
93
8
16
15
400
22
33
66
935
72
190
13
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.

TABLE 5—NUMBER OF HIGH-RISK CHEMICAL FACILITIES IN EACH MODEL FACILITY CATEGORY
[Normalized to 4,000 facilities]

2007 CFATS
regulatory
assessment

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier

1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4

2012 CFATS
personnel
surety
program
analysis
(normalized)

Group A .........................................................................................................................................................
Group B .........................................................................................................................................................
Group C .........................................................................................................................................................
Theft ..............................................................................................................................................................
Group A .........................................................................................................................................................
Group B .........................................................................................................................................................
Group C .........................................................................................................................................................
Theft ..............................................................................................................................................................
Group A .........................................................................................................................................................
Group B .........................................................................................................................................................
Group C .........................................................................................................................................................
Theft ..............................................................................................................................................................
Group A .........................................................................................................................................................
Group B .........................................................................................................................................................
Group C .........................................................................................................................................................
Theft ..............................................................................................................................................................

81
89
24
6
166
64
80
189
315
438
329
718
242
690
599
970

4
7
11
104
9
18
17
449
25
37
74
1,049
81
213
15
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

23 The factor of 1.22 was used because (4,000
facilities/3566 facilities) = 1.22.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:27 Mar 21, 2013

Jkt 229001

PO 00000

Frm 00063

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM

22MRN1

17690

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices

improvised explosive device. However,
the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety
Program Analysis found that 87 percent
of all currently regulated CFATS highrisk 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.
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 highrisk 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

Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier

1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4

Infrequent
visitors

Frequent
visitors

Infrequent
visitor
annual
turnover
(20%)

Frequent
visitor
annual
turnover
(71%)

Unescorted
visitor annual
turnover

Unescorted
visitor estimate

A

B

C*

D **

E=C+D

A+B+E

Group A .........................................
Group B .........................................
Group C .........................................
Theft ..............................................
Group A .........................................
Group B .........................................
Group C .........................................
Theft ..............................................
Group A .........................................
Group B .........................................
Group C .........................................
Theft ..............................................
Group A .........................................
Group B .........................................
Group C .........................................
Theft ..............................................

600
150
150
25
600
150
150
25
600
150
150
25
600
150
150
25

600
150
150
25
600
150
150
25
600
150
150
25
600
150
150
25

120
30
30
5
120
30
30
5
120
30
30
5
120
30
30
5

426
107
107
18
426
107
107
18
426
107
107
18
426
107
107
18

546
137
137
23
546
137
137
23
546
137
137
23
546
137
137
23

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

* C = A × 0.20, ** D = B × 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

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.

25 See CFATS Regulatory Assessment Section
6.3.7, Table 15 (April 1, 2007), http://www.
regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DHS-20060073-0116.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:27 Mar 21, 2013

Jkt 229001

PO 00000

Frm 00064

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

full time employees and resident
contractors for the 16 model facility
categories, as shown in Table 7.25

E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM

22MRN1

1,746
437
437
73
1,746
437
437
73
1,746
437
437
73
1,746
437
437
73

17691

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices

TABLE 7—2007 CFATS REGULATORY ASSESSMENT ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF FULL TIME EMPLOYEES AND RESIDENT
CONTRACTORS

Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier

1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4

Number of
full time
employees per
facility

Resident
contractors
per facility
(as percent of
full time employees)

A

B

Resident
contractors
per facility

20% Annual
turnover
(full time
employees
and resident
contractors
per facility)

Number of
full time
employees
and resident
contractrs
per facility
(including 20%
annual
turnover)

C*

D **

A+C+D

Group A .....................................................................
Group B .....................................................................
Group C .....................................................................
Theft ..........................................................................
Group A .....................................................................
Group B .....................................................................
Group C .....................................................................
Theft ..........................................................................
Group A .....................................................................
Group B .....................................................................
Group C .....................................................................
Theft ..........................................................................
Group A .....................................................................
Group B .....................................................................
Group C .....................................................................
Theft ..........................................................................

391
35
152
35
279
34
317
35
487
47
310
35
283
139
201
35

30
20
10
10
30
20
10
10
30
20
10
10
30
20
10
10

117
7
15
4
84
7
32
4
146
9
31
4
85
28
20
4

102
8
33
8
73
8
70
8
127
11
68
8
74
33
44
8

610
50
200
47
436
49
419
47
760
67
409
47
442
200
265
47

Total ..............................................................................

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

* C = A × B, ** D = (A + C) × 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.

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

TABLE 8—REVISED 2007 CFATS REGULATORY ASSESSMENT ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF FULL TIME EMPLOYEES AND
RESIDENT CONTRACTORS

Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier

1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4

Group A .....................................................................
Group B .....................................................................
Group C .....................................................................
Theft ..........................................................................
Group A .....................................................................
Group B .....................................................................
Group C .....................................................................
Theft ..........................................................................
Group A .....................................................................
Group B .....................................................................
Group C .....................................................................
Theft ..........................................................................
Group A .....................................................................
Group B .....................................................................

26 The American Fuel and Petrochemical
Manufacturers is the name of the former National
Petrochemical & Refiners Association, whose

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:27 Mar 21, 2013

Jkt 229001

Number of
full time
employees
per facility

Resident
contractors
per facility
(as percent of
full time
employees)

A

B
1,955
35
152
35
1,395
34
317
35
2,435
47
310
35
1,415
139

Frm 00065

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Number of
full time
employees
and resident
contractors
per facility
(including 20%
annual
turnover)

C*

D **

A+C+D

30
20
10
10
30
20
10
10
30
20
10
10
30
20

comment may be found at http://www.regulations.
gov/#!documentDetail;D=DHS-2009-0026-0029.

PO 00000

Resident
contractors
per facility

20% Annual
turnover
(full time
employees
and resident
contractors
per facility)

587
7
15
4
419
7
32
4
731
9
31
4
425
28

508
8
33
8
363
8
70
8
633
11
68
8
368
33

3,050
50
201
46
2,176
49
418
46
3,799
68
409
46
2,207
200

27 See Response To Comments Received During
30 Day Comment Period: New Information
Collection Request 1670–NEW, 76 FR 34720, 34725
(June 14, 2011).

E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM

22MRN1

17692

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices

TABLE 8—REVISED 2007 CFATS REGULATORY ASSESSMENT ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF FULL TIME EMPLOYEES AND
RESIDENT CONTRACTORS—Continued

Number of
full time
employees
per facility

Resident
contractors
per facility
(as percent of
full time
employees)

A

B

Resident
contractors
per facility

20% Annual
turnover
(full time
employees
and resident
contractors
per facility)

Number of
full time
employees
and resident
contractors
per facility
(including 20%
annual
turnover)

C*

D **

A+C+D

Tier 4 Group C .....................................................................
Tier 4 Theft ..........................................................................

201
35

10
10

20
4

44
8

265
46

Total ..............................................................................

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

* C = A × B, ** D = (A + C) × 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

Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier

1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4

Number of full
time
employees per
facility

Resident
contractors per
facility (as percent of full
time employees)

A

B

Resident
contractors per
facility

20% annual
turnover
(full time
employees
and resident
contractors per
facility)

Number of full
time employees and resident contractors per facility
(including 20%
annual turnover)

ACC’s estimate of full
time employees and contractors with
access to restricted areas
or critical assets (percent)

Number of full
time employees
and resident contractors per facility with access to
restricted areas
or critical assets
(including 20%
annual turnover)

C*

D**

A+C+D

E

(A + C + D) × E

Group A .........
Group B .........
Group C .........
Theft ..............
Group A .........
Group B .........
Group C .........
Theft ..............
Group A .........
Group B .........
Group C .........
Theft ..............
Group A .........
Group B .........
Group C .........
Theft ..............

1,955
35
152
35
1,395
34
317
35
2,435
47
310
35
1,415
139
201
35

30
20
10
10
30
20
10
10
30
20
10
10
30
20
10
10

587
7
15
4
419
7
32
4
731
9
31
4
425
28
20
4

508
8
33
8
363
8
70
8
633
11
68
8
368
33
44
8

3,050
50
201
46
2,176
49
418
46
3,799
68
409
46
2,207
200
265
46

80
80
80
15
80
80
80
15
80
80
80
15
80
80
80
15

2,440
40
161
7
1,741
39
335
7
3,039
54
327
7
1,766
160
212
7

Total ..................

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

*C = A × B, **D = (A + C) × 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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:03 Mar 21, 2013

Jkt 229001

CFATS Personnel Surety Program
Analysis analyzed actual information
submitted by high-risk chemical
facilities in response to Top-Screen 28

28 Top-Screen

PO 00000

Frm 00066

is defined at 6 CFR 27.105.

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Question Q:1.45–400.29 Based upon the
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

E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM

22MRN1

17693

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices
submitted information, the Department
was able to estimate full time employees

and resident contractors by each model
facility category, as shown in Table 10.

TABLE 10—2012 CFATS PERSONNEL SURETY PROGRAM ANALYSIS’ ESTIMATE OF THE NUMBER OF FULL TIME
EMPLOYEES AND RESIDENT CONTRACTORS

Response to
top screen
question
Q:1.45–400

Resident
contractors per
facility (as percent of full
time employees)

Resident
contractors
per facility

20% Annual
turnover
(full time
employees
and resident
contractors
per facility)

Number of
full time
employees
and resident
contractors
per facility
(including 20%
annual
turnover)

B

A+B

A
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier

1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4

Group A .....................................................................
Group B .....................................................................
Group C .....................................................................
Theft ..........................................................................
Group A .....................................................................
Group B .....................................................................
Group C .....................................................................
Theft ..........................................................................
Group A .....................................................................
Group B .....................................................................
Group C .....................................................................
Theft ..........................................................................
Group A .....................................................................
Group B .....................................................................
Group C .....................................................................
Theft ..........................................................................

599
36
300
653
222
30
489
416
594
33
188
233
737
17
175
195

Total ..............................................................................

n/a

N/A
Top Screen Question Q1:1.45*
400 incorporates estimate of
resident contractors

120
7
60
131
44
6
98
83
119
7
38
47
147
3
85
39

719
43
360
783
267
36
587
499
713
39
225
279
884
20
211
234

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

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

2007 CFATS
regulatory
assessment

Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier

1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4

Group A .................................................................................................
Group B .................................................................................................
Group C .................................................................................................
Theft ......................................................................................................
Group A .................................................................................................
Group B .................................................................................................
Group C .................................................................................................
Theft ......................................................................................................
Group A .................................................................................................
Group B .................................................................................................
Group C .................................................................................................
Theft ......................................................................................................
Group A .................................................................................................
Group B .................................................................................................
Group C .................................................................................................

Estimate used
in June 2011
ICR

June 2011
ICR (adjusted
with ACC’s
assumption
on facility
personnel
with access
to restricted
areas or critical
assets)

3,050
50
201
46
2,176
49
418
46
3,799
68
409
46
2,207
200
265

2,440
40
161
7
1,741
39
335
7
3,039
54
327
7
1,766
160
212

610
50
200
47
436
49
419
47
760
67
409
47
442
200
265

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/
chemsec_csattopscreenusersmanual.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:03 Mar 21, 2013

Jkt 229001

PO 00000

Frm 00067

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM

22MRN1

2012 CFATS
personnel
surety
program
analysis

719
43
360
783
267
36
587
499
713
39
225
279
884
20
211

17694

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices

TABLE 11—AVERAGE NUMBER OF FULL TIME EMPLOYEES AND CONTRACTORS PER FACILITY BY MODEL FACILITY
CATEGORY—Continued

2007 CFATS
regulatory
assessment

Tier 4 Theft ......................................................................................................

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

Estimate used
in June 2011
ICR

June 2011
ICR (adjusted
with ACC’s
assumption
on facility
personnel
with access
to restricted
areas or critical
assets)

46

7

47

(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

2012 CFATS
personnel
surety
program
analysis

234

• 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.

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

TABLE 12—ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS—ALTERNATIVE 1

Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier

1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3

Number of
full time
employees
and resident
contractors
CFATS
personnel
surety
program
ICR
withdrawn in
July of 2012
(including
20% annual
turnover)
(Table 8)

Estimate of
full time
employees
and
contractors
with access
to restricted
areas or
critical
assets
(percent)

Full time
employees
and resident
contractors
CFATS personnel surety program
ICR withdrawn in
July of 2012
with estimates of
percentage
of employees/resident
contractors
with restricted area
and/or critical asset
access
(Table 9)

A

B

A

Group A ..........................
Group B ..........................
Group C ..........................
Theft ................................
Group A ..........................
Group B ..........................
Group C ..........................
Theft ................................
Group A ..........................
Group B ..........................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:03 Mar 21, 2013

3,050
50
201
46
2,176
49
418
46
3,799
68

Jkt 229001

80
80
80
15
80
80
80
15
80
80

PO 00000

ACC
Unescorted
Visitor
Estimate
(including
71% turnover for frequent visitors, 20%
turnover for
infrequent
vistors)
(Table 6)

Number of
facilities
(Table 5)

B

C

2,440
40
161
7
1,741
39
335
7
3,039
54

Frm 00068

Fmt 4703

1,746
437
437
73
1,746
437
437
73
1,746
437

Sfmt 4703

4
7
11
104
9
18
17
449
25
37

Number of
initial
respondents
(include
20% annual
turnover)

CFATS
personnel
surety
program
ICR
withdrawn in
July of 2011
20% annual
turnover
(Table 9)

ACC
unescorted
visitors
annual
turnover
(Table 6)

Annual
respondent
turnover

(A + B) × C

D

E

(D + E) × C

18,781
3,209
6,697
8,312
31,291
8,537
12,977
35,751
118,079
18,162

E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM

22MRN1

508
8
33
8
363
8
70
8
633
11

546
137
137
23
546
137
137
23
546
137

4,730
975
1,906
3,177
8,154
2,596
3,470
13,662
29,097
5,470

17695

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices
TABLE 12—ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS—ALTERNATIVE 1—Continued

Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier

3
3
4
4
4
4

Number of
full time
employees
and resident
contractors
CFATS
personnel
surety
program
ICR
withdrawn in
July of 2012
(including
20% annual
turnover)
(Table 8)

Estimate of
full time
employees
and
contractors
with access
to restricted
areas or
critical
assets
(percent)

Full time
employees
and resident
contractors
CFATS personnel surety program
ICR withdrawn in
July of 2012
with estimates of
percentage
of employees/resident
contractors
with restricted area
and/or critical asset
access
(Table 9)

A

B

A

ACC
Unescorted
Visitor
Estimate
(including
71% turnover for frequent visitors, 20%
turnover for
infrequent
vistors)
(Table 6)

Number of
facilities
(Table 5)

B

C

Number of
initial
respondents
(include
20% annual
turnover)

CFATS
personnel
surety
program
ICR
withdrawn in
July of 2011
20% annual
turnover
(Table 9)

ACC
unescorted
visitors
annual
turnover
(Table 6)

Annual
respondent
turnover

(A + B) × C

D

E

(D + E) × C

Group C ..........................
Theft ................................
Group A ..........................
Group B ..........................
Group C ..........................
Theft ................................

409
46
2,207
200
265
46

80
15
80
80
80
15

327
7
1,766
160
212
7

437
73
1,746
437
437
73

74
1,049
81
213
15
1,888

56,550
83,568
283,632
127,156
9,460
150,422

68
8
368
33
44
8

137
23
546
137
137
23

15,154
31,936
73,809
36,201
2,635
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.

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

TABLE 13—ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS—ALTERNATIVE 2

Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier

1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4

2012
CFATS personnel surety program
analysis average number of full
time employees and
contractors
(including
20% turnover) (Table
10)

Estimate of
full time employees and
contractors
with access
to restricted
areas or
critical assets (percent)

A

B

Average
number of
full time employees and
contractors
(including
20% turnover)

ACC
unescorted
visitor estimate (including 71%
turnover for
frequent
visitors,
20% turnover for infrequent
visitors)
(Table 6)

(A × B) = C

D

Number of
facilities
(Table 5)

Number of
Initial respondents
(includes
20% annual
turnover)

2012
CFATS personnel surety program
analysis
20% anual
turnover
(Table 10)

ACC
unescorted
visitors annual turnover (Table
6)

Annual respondent
turnover

E

(C + D) × E

F

G

(F + G) × E

Group A ..........................
Group B ..........................
Group C ..........................
Theft ................................
Group A ..........................
Group B ..........................
Group C ..........................
Theft ................................
Group A ..........................
Group B ..........................
Group C ..........................
Theft ................................
Group A ..........................
Group B ..........................
Group C ..........................
Theft ................................

719
43
360
783
267
36
587
499
713
39
225
279
884
20
211
234

80
80
80
15
80
80
80
15
80
80
80
15
80
80
80
15

575
34
288
118
213
29
469
75
571
31
180
42
707
16
168
35

1,746
437
437
73
1,746
437
437
73
1,746
437
437
73
1,746
437
437
73

4
7
11
104
9
18
17
449
25
37
74
1,049
81
213
15
1,888

10,413
3,169
8,124
19,847
17,583
8,355
15,243
66,200
57,169
17,321
45,660
120,269
198,148
96,461
8,821
203,505

120
7
60
131
44
6
98
83
119
7
38
47
147
3
35
39

546
137
137
23
546
137
137
23
546
137
137
23
546
137
137
23

2,987
967
2,203
15,993
5,298
2,558
3,942
47,494
16,408
5,295
12,886
72,714
56,000
29,806
2,502
116,465

Total ...................................

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

4,000

896,286

n/a

n/a

393,519

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:03 Mar 21, 2013

Jkt 229001

PO 00000

Frm 00069

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM

22MRN1

17696

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices

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

Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier

1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4

2012
CFATS personnel surety program
analysis average number of full
time employees and
contractors
(including
20% turnover)
(Table 10)

Estimate of
full time
employees
and contractors with access to restricted
areas or
critical assets (percent)

A

B

Average
number of
full time
employees
and contractors (including 20%
turnover)

ACC
unescorted
visitors estimate (including 71%
turnover for
frequent
visitors,
20% turnover for
infrequent
visitors)
(Table 6)

(A × B) = C

D

Number of
facilities
(Table 5)

Number of
initial
respondents
(includes
20% annual
turnover)

2012
CFATS
personnel
surety program analysis 20%
annual turnover (Table
10)

ACC
unescorted
visitors
annual
turnover
(Table 6)

Annual
respondent
turnover

E

(C + D) × E

F

G

(F + G) × E

Group A ..........................
Group B ..........................
Group C ..........................
Theft ................................
Group A ..........................
Group B ..........................
Group C ..........................
Theft ................................
Group A ..........................
Group B ..........................
Group C ..........................
Theft ................................
Group A ..........................
Group B ..........................
Group C ..........................
Theft ................................

719
43
360
783
267
36
587
499
713
39
225
279
884
20
211
234

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

719
43
360
783
267
36
587
499
713
39
225
279
884
20
211
234

1,746
437
437
73
1,746
437
437
73
1,746
437
437
73
1,746
437
437
73

4
7
11
104
9
18
17
449
25
37
74
1,049
81
213
15
1,888

11,058
3,227
8,930
89,306
18,061
8,485
17,218
256,361
60,689
17,611
48,997
369,426
212,432
97,319
9,435
578,440

120
7
60
131
44
6
98
83
119
7
38
47
147
3
35
39

546
137
137
23
546
137
137
23
546
137
137
23
546
137
137
23

2,987
967
2,203
15,993
5,298
2,558
3,942
47,494
16,408
5,295
12,886
72,714
56,000
29,806
2,502
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
Initial/year

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Alternative 1 .....................................................................................................
Alternative 2 .....................................................................................................
Alternative 3 .....................................................................................................

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.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:03 Mar 21, 2013

Jkt 229001

972,584
896,286
1,806,996

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

PO 00000

Frm 00070

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Year 2

290,459
393,519
393,519

Year 3

290,459
393,519
393,519

Number of
respondents
(annual
average)
517,834
561,108
864,678

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.

E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM

22MRN1

17697

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices
TABLE 16—ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF TIER 1 AND 2 RESPONDENTS

Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier

1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2

2012
CFATS
personnel
surety program analysis average number
of full time
employees
and
contractors
(including
20% turnover)
(table 10)

Estimate of
full time
employees
and
contractors
with access
to restricted
areas or
critical
assets
(percent)

A

B

Average
number of
full time
employees
and
contractors
(including
20%
turnover)

ACC
unescorted
visitors estimate
(including
71% turnover for frequent visitors, 20%
turnover for
infrequent
visttors)
(table 6)

(A × B) = C

D

Number of
facilities
(table 5)

Number of
initial
respondents
(includes
20% annual
turnover)

2012
CFATS
personnel
surety
program
analysis
20% annual
turnover
(table 10)

ACC
unescorted
visitors
annual turnover
(table 6)

Annual
respondent
turnover

E

(C + D) × E

F

G

(F + G) × E

Group A ..........................
Group B ..........................
Group C ..........................
Theft ................................
Group A ..........................
Group B ..........................
Group C ..........................
Theft ................................

719
43
360
783
267
36
587
499

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

719
43
360
783
267
36
587
499

1,746
437
437
73
1,746
437
437
73

4
7
11
104
9
18
17
449

11,058
3,227
8,930
89,306
18,061
8,485
17,218
256,361

120
7
60
131
44
6
98
83

546
137
137
23
546
137
137
23

2,987
967
2,203
15,993
5,298
2,558
3,942
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

Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier

1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2

Total
respondents
year 2

Total
respondents
year 3

Number of
respondents
(annual
average)

A

B

C

(A + B + C)/3

Group A .................................................................................................
Group B .................................................................................................
Group C .................................................................................................
Theft ......................................................................................................
Group A .................................................................................................
Group B .................................................................................................
Group C .................................................................................................
Theft ......................................................................................................

11,058
3,227
8,930
89,306
18,061
8,485
17,218
256,361

2,987
967
2,203
15,993
5,298
2,558
3,942
47,494

2,987
967
2,203
15,993
5,298
2,558
3,942
47,494

5,677
1,720
4,446
40,431
9,553
4,534
8,367
117,116

Total ..........................................................................................................

412,647

81,443

81,443

191,845

Estimated Time per Respondent

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Total
respondents
year 1

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 onethird of affected individuals would not
be submitted because they possess
TWICs that high-risk chemical facilities
would electronically verify through the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:09 Mar 21, 2013

Jkt 229001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00071

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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

E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM

22MRN1

17698

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices

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
Initial Submission (100%)
Updates/Corrections (5%)
Removal—
Turnover
(20%) ...........

Duration

1.00

0.50

0.05

0.17

0.20

0.17

number of respondents) multiplied by
the number of hours necessary to type
and submit each update/correction (i.e.,
Percent of
0.17 hours or 10 minutes); and (3) the
Duration
population
number of respondents that are
expected to no longer have access to a
Estimated Time
high-risk chemical facility’s restricted
per respondent ............... ....................
0.5425 area(s) or critical asset(s) (i.e., 20
percent of the number of respondents)
multiplied by the number of hours
Total Burden Hours
necessary to notify the Department (i.e.,
Annual burden hours are the sum of:
0.17 hours or 10 minutes). Therefore,
(1) The number of respondents
the average annual burden is 104,076
multiplied by the estimated time per
hours, as shown in Table 19. The
respondent; (2) the number of
Department’s rounded estimate is
respondents for which a high-risk
104,100 hours.
chemical facility will need to update/
correct information (five percent of the

TABLE 18—ESTIMATE OF BURDEN
TIME PER RESPONSE—Continued

TABLE 19—ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL BURDEN HOURS FOR TIER 1 & TIER 2 FACILITIES
Annual
respondents

Duration

Burden
(hours)

A

B

(A × B)

Initial Submission (100%) ............................................................................................................
Updates/Corrections (5%) ...........................................................................................................
Removal—Turnover (20%) ..........................................................................................................

191,845
9,592
38,369

0.50
0.17
0.17

95,922
1,631
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.

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

TABLE 20—ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF HIGH-RISK CHEMICAL FACILITIES THAT MAY CHOOSE TO USE TWIC READERS

Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier

1
1
1
1

2012 CFATS
personnel surety
program analysis

2012 CFATS
personnel surety
program analysis
(normalized)

A

A × 1.22

Group A .................................................................................................................................................
Group B .................................................................................................................................................
Group C .................................................................................................................................................
Theft ......................................................................................................................................................

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:03 Mar 21, 2013

Jkt 229001

question is available on page 22 of the CSAT TopScreen Survey Application User Guide v1.99. See

PO 00000

Frm 00072

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

0
0
0
0

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/
chemsec_csattopscreenusersmanual.pdf.

E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM

22MRN1

0
0
0
0

17699

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices

TABLE 20—ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF HIGH-RISK CHEMICAL FACILITIES THAT MAY CHOOSE TO USE TWIC READERS—
Continued

Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier

2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4

2012 CFATS
personnel surety
program analysis

2012 CFATS
personnel surety
program analysis
(normalized)

A

A × 1.22

Group A .................................................................................................................................................
Group B .................................................................................................................................................
Group C .................................................................................................................................................
Theft ......................................................................................................................................................
Group A .................................................................................................................................................
Group B .................................................................................................................................................
Group C .................................................................................................................................................
Theft ......................................................................................................................................................
Group A .................................................................................................................................................
Group B .................................................................................................................................................
Group C .................................................................................................................................................
Theft ......................................................................................................................................................

0
0
1
3
3
0
2
13
1
2
0
7

0
0
1
3
3
0
2
15
1
2
0
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

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 × 3))/3].
The Department then calculated the
capital costs for the 35 high-risk
chemical facilities, as shown in Table
21.

terminals, large passenger vessels/
terminals, petroleum facilities, breakbulk 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

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

TABLE 21—CAPITAL COST BURDEN ESTIMATE FOR HIGH-RISK CHEMICAL FACILITIES THAT MAY CHOOSE TO USE TWIC
READERS

Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier

1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4

Number of
facilities

Average TWIC
reader
implementation
cost per facility

Capital cost of
TWIC reader
implementation

A

B

(A × B)

Group A .................................................................................................................
Group B .................................................................................................................
Group C .................................................................................................................
Theft ......................................................................................................................
Group A .................................................................................................................
Group B .................................................................................................................
Group C .................................................................................................................
Theft ......................................................................................................................
Group A .................................................................................................................
Group B .................................................................................................................
Group C .................................................................................................................
Theft ......................................................................................................................
Group A .................................................................................................................
Group B .................................................................................................................
Group C .................................................................................................................
Theft ......................................................................................................................

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
3
0
2
15
1
2
0
8

$99,953
99,953
99,953
99,953
99,953
99,953
99,953
99,953
99,953
99,953
99,953
99,953
99,953
99,953
99,953
99,953

$0
0
0
0
0
0
99,953
299,860
299,860
0
199,907
1,499,300
99,953
199,907
0
799,627

Total ..........................................................................................................................

35

n/a

3,498,367

31 See

TWIC Reader Requirements NPRM Table 4.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:27 Mar 21, 2013

Jkt 229001

PO 00000

Frm 00073

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM

22MRN1

17700

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices

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

Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier

1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2

Average TWIC
reader
implementation
cost per facility

Capital cost of
TWIC reader
implementation

A

B

(A × B)

Group A .................................................................................................................
Group B .................................................................................................................
Group C .................................................................................................................
Theft ......................................................................................................................
Group A .................................................................................................................
Group B .................................................................................................................
Group C .................................................................................................................
Theft ......................................................................................................................

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3

$99,953
99,953
99,953
99,953
99,953
99,953
99,953
99,953

$0
0
0
0
0
0
99,953
299,860

Total ..........................................................................................................................

4

n/a

399,813

Consideration of Other Capital Costs

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Number of
facilities

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 highrisk chemical facility’s SSP or ASP, are
properly estimated in the recordkeeping
estimates associated with the SSP
Instrument under Information
Collection 1670–0007.32
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.

32 Information Collection 1670–0007 may be
viewed at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201001-1670-007#.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:27 Mar 21, 2013

Jkt 229001

PO 00000

Frm 00074

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM

22MRN1

17701

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices
TABLE 23—ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL BURDEN COST FOR TIER 1 & TIER 2 FACILITIES
Wage rate

Cost

A

B

(A × B)

Initial Submission .........................................................................................................................
Updates/Corrections ....................................................................................................................
Removal—Turnover .....................................................................................................................

95,922
1,631
6,523

42
42
42

$4,028,738
68,489
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.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):
$399,800.
Total Recordkeeping Burden: $0.
Total Burden Cost (operating/
maintaining): $4,771,000.

VI. Solicitation of Comments

Dated: March 13, 2013.
Scott Libby,
Deputy Chief Information Officer, National
Protection and Programs Directorate,
Department of Homeland Security.

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

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Burden
(hours)

Agency: Department of Homeland
Security, National Protection and
Programs Directorate, Office of
Infrastructure Protection, Infrastructure
Security Compliance Division.
Title: Chemical Facility AntiTerrorism 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 forprofit.
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.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:27 Mar 21, 2013

Jkt 229001

[FR Doc. 2013–06184 Filed 3–21–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–9P–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services
[OMB Control Number 1615–0095]

Agency Information Collection
Activities: Notice of Appeal or Motion,
Form I–290B; Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection
ACTION:

60-Day Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) invites
the general public and other Federal
agencies to comment upon this
proposed revision of a currently
approved collection of information. In
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the
information collection notice is
published in the Federal Register to
obtain comments regarding the nature of
the information collection, the
categories of respondents, the estimated
burden (i.e. the time, effort, and
resources used by the respondents to
respond), the estimated cost to the
respondent, and the actual information
collection instruments.
DATES: Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted for 60 days until May
21, 2013.
ADDRESSES: All submissions received
must include the OMB Control Number
1615–0095 in the subject box, the
agency name and Docket ID USCIS–
2008–0027. To avoid duplicate

PO 00000

Frm 00075

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

submissions, please use only one of the
following methods to submit comments:
(1) Online. Submit comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at
www.Regulations.gov under e-Docket ID
number USCIS–2008–0027;
(2) Email. Submit comments to
[email protected];
(3) Mail. Submit written comments to
DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and
Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination
Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20529–2140.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments: Regardless of the method
used for submitting comments or
material, all submissions will be posted,
without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://
www.regulations.gov, and will include
any personal information you provide.
Therefore, submitting this information
makes it public. You may wish to
consider limiting the amount of
personal information that you provide
in any voluntary submission you make
to DHS. DHS may withhold information
provided in comments from public
viewing that it determines may impact
the privacy of an individual or is
offensive. For additional information,
please read the Privacy Act notice that
is available via the link in the footer of
http://www.regulations.gov.
Note: The address listed in this notice
should only be used to submit comments
concerning this information collection.
Please do not submit requests for individual
case status inquiries to this address. If you
are seeking information about the status of
your individual case, please check ‘‘My Case
Status’’ online at: https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/
Dashboard.do, or call the USCIS National
Customer Service Center at 1–800–375–5283.

Written comments and suggestions
from the public and affected agencies
should address one or more of the
following four points:
(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

E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM

22MRN1