Appendix to Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards, 65396-65435 [07-5585]
Download as PDF
65396
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Table of Contents
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
6 CFR Part 27
[DHS–2006–0073]
RIN 1601–AA41
Appendix to Chemical Facility AntiTerrorism Standards
Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Final rule.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This final rule revises the list
of chemicals of interest, or COI, which
the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS or the Department) included as
Appendix A to the Chemical Facility
Anti-Terrorism Standards Interim Final
Rule. Appendix A lists chemicals of
interest and screening threshold
quantities, or STQs. Any facility that
possesses (or later comes into
possession of) the listed chemicals in
quantities that meet or exceed the STQ
for any applicable security issue must
complete and submit a Top-Screen. This
will assist the Department in
determining whether a facility presents
a high level of security risk.
In this final rule, DHS, among other
things: (i) Adjusts the STQs for certain
COI; (ii) defines the specific security
issue or issues implicated by each
chemical of interest, and in some cases,
establishes different STQs for COI based
upon the security issue presented; and
(iii) adds provisions that instruct
facilities on how to calculate the
quantities of COI that they have in their
possession.
These refinements to Appendix A will
assist the Department in more precisely
identifying facilities that may be
designated as high risk, while reducing
the burden on facilities that possess
chemicals in smaller amounts.
EFFECTIVE DATES: The effective date of
Appendix A to part 27, as added on
April 9, 2007 (72 FR 17688) and revised
by this rule is November 20, 2007.
Additionally, the regulations published
in this document are effective November
20, 2007. The incorporation by reference
of certain publications listed in the rule
is approved by the Director of the
Federal Register as of November 20,
2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marybeth Kelliher, Chemical Security
Compliance Division, Department of
Homeland Security, 703–235–5263.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Note that
for brevity, all references to CFR parts
will be to parts in Title 6 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (6 CFR), unless
otherwise noted.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
I. Background
II. The Final Rule: The Revised List of
Chemicals
A. Overall Approach to Appendix A
B. Effect of a Final Appendix A
C. Provisions by Security Issue
1. Release-Toxics and Release-Flammables
2. Release-Explosives
3. Theft/Diversion-Chemical Weapons/
Chemical Weapons Precursors
4. Theft/Diversion-Weapons of Mass Effect
5. Theft/Diversion-Explosives/Improvised
Explosive Device Precursors
6. Sabotage/Contamination
D. Chemicals With a Specialized Approach
1. Propane
2. Chlorine
3. Ammonium Nitrate
E. Technical Corrections
III. Discussion of Comments
A. Specific Chemicals or Types of
Chemicals
1. In General
2. Propane
3. Chlorine
4. Ammonium Nitrate
5. Acetone and Urea
6. Chemical Weapons and Chemical
Weapons Precursors
7. Explosives
8. Hydrogen Peroxide
B. Coverage of Appendix A
1. Colleges and Universities
2. Medical Research Organizations and
Similar Laboratories
3. Farms and the Agricultural Industry;
Fumigation Industry
4. Overlap With Other Federal Entities
5. Concerns About Being Over-Inclusive
C. Screening Threshold Quantities
1. In General
2. Modifying the ‘‘Any Amount’’ STQ
3. Mixtures and Solutions
D. Revisions to the COI List
1. Technical Corrections
2. Formatting and Approach
E. Other Comments
1. Procedural Issues
2. Compliance Issues
3. Miscellaneous Comments
IV. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Abbreviations and Terms Used in This
Document
ACG—A Commercial Grade
AN—Ammonium Nitrate
APA—A Placarded Amount
ASP—Alternative Security Program
CAS—Chemical Abstract Service
CGA—Compressed Gas Association
COI—Chemicals of Interest
CSAC—Chemical Security Analysis Center
CSAT—Chemical Security Assessment Tool
CUM 100g—Cumulative STQ of 100 grams
for Designated Chemical Weapons
CVI—Chemical-terrorism Vulnerability
Information
CW—Chemical Weapons
CWC—Chemical Weapons Convention
CWP—Chemical Weapons Precursors
DOT—U.S. Department of Transportation
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
EPA—Environmental Protection Agency
EXP—Explosives
FBI—Federal Bureau of Investigation
IED—Improvised Explosive Device
IEDP—Improvised Explosive Device
Precursors
LNG—Liquefied Natural Gas
NFPA—National Fire Protection Association
NOS—Not Otherwise Specified
NPGA—National Propane Gas Association
RMP—EPA’s Risk Management Program
SVA—Security Vulnerability Assessment
SSP—Site Security Plan
STQ—Screening Threshold Quantity
TQ—Threshold Quantity
TSA—Transportation Security
Administration
VBIED—Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive
Device
WME—Weapon of Mass Effect
I. Background
On October 4, 2006, President George
W. Bush signed the Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations Act
of 2007 (the Act), which provided the
Department of Homeland Security with
the authority to regulate the security of
high risk chemical facilities. See Pub. L.
109–295, § 550. Section 550 required the
Secretary of Homeland Security to
promulgate interim final regulations
‘‘establishing risk-based performance
standards for security of chemical
facilities’’ by April 4, 2007 and specified
that the regulations ‘‘shall apply to
chemical facilities that, in the discretion
of the Secretary, present high levels of
security risk.’’ Id.
Pursuant to Section 550, on December
28, 2006, the Department issued an
Advance Notice of Rulemaking
(Advance Notice), which discussed a
range of regulatory and implementation
issues. See 71 FR 78276. By directing
the Secretary to issue ‘‘interim final
regulations,’’ Congress authorized the
Secretary to proceed without the
traditional notice and comment required
by the Administrative Procedure Act.
See 71 FR 78276, 78277. The
Department, however, saw great benefit
in soliciting comments on as much of
the program as was practicable in the
short timeframe permitted under the
statute and therefore voluntarily sought
comment on the Advance Notice,
including a range of significant
programmatic issues and regulatory text.
On April 9, 2007, the Department
issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR),
which responded to the comments to
the Advance Notice and established a
new part 27 to Title 6 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. See 72 FR 17688.
Part 27 establishes risk-based
performance standards for the security
of our Nation’s chemical facilities. The
rule requires covered chemical facilities
to prepare Security Vulnerability
Assessments (SVAs) that identify
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
facility security vulnerabilities. The rule
also requires covered chemical facilities
to develop and implement Site Security
Plans (SSPs) that identify measures that
satisfy the identified risk-based
performance standards. It also allows
certain covered chemical facilities, in
specified circumstances, to submit
Alternate Security Programs (ASPs) in
lieu of an SVA, SSP, or both. In
addition, the rule contains associated
provisions addressing inspections and
audits, recordkeeping, and the
protection of information that
constitutes Chemical-terrorism
Vulnerability Information (CVI). Finally,
the rule provides the Department with
authority to compel compliance through
the issuance of orders, including orders
assessing civil penalties and orders to
cease operations.
The IFR, except for Appendix A to
part 27, went into effect on June 8, 2007.
Appendix A contained a tentative list of
Chemicals of Interest (COI). DHS
accepted comments on the tentative list
of chemicals in Appendix A (hereafter
referred to as proposed Appendix A or
proposed appendix) for 30 days until
May 9, 2007. With this final rule, the
Department responds to those
comments and provides a final list of
Chemicals of Interest in Appendix A.
The same principles that guided the
Department during the development of
the proposed list have guided the
Department during the development of
this revised list, and those main
principles are summarized here. First,
DHS did not use any single, existing list
as its sole source or classify all
chemicals on any existing list in a
particular way. Instead, DHS used
multiple sources, so that it could obtain
a more complete picture of the universe
of facilities that may qualify as high
risk. Second, in identifying the
chemicals and STQs for chemicals, the
Department sought to strike an
appropriate balance: Sufficiently
inclusive of chemicals in quantities that
might present a high level of risk under
the statute without being overly
inclusive and thereby capturing
facilities that are unlikely to present a
high level of risk. Third, the Department
has identified chemicals by considering
security issue(s) associated with a
chemical. The Department has
identified the COI for preliminary
screening based on the belief that these
chemicals, if released, stolen or
diverted, and/or contaminated, have the
potential to create significant human life
and/or health consequences.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
II. The Final Rule: The Revised List of
Chemicals
A. Overall Approach to Appendix A
While the universe of chemicals in
Appendix A has remained substantially
the same, the Department has restructured the format of the appendix
and has more clearly defined the
provisions associated with these
chemicals. The Department has
included a considerable amount of
additional information in the appendix
as well as some new provisions to the
regulatory text. The changes that the
Department has made have come
directly from comments or otherwise
logically resulted from comments where
DHS agreed that the comments raised
valid points and were within the scope
of the proposed appendix.
The proposed appendix listed only a
chemical and a corresponding Chemical
Abstract Service (CAS) number,1
however the final appendix includes
that information as well as a new
column with commonly-used synonyms
for certain chemicals. The final
appendix also adds several new
columns that identify the security
issue(s) associated with each chemical
of interest (COI).2 In addition, the
Department has assigned an STQ and
minimum concentration provision to
each chemical of interest. The final
appendix, unlike the proposed
appendix, does not trigger reporting
obligations based on possession of an
STQ of ‘‘any amount.’’ 3
In the final appendix, the Department
has listed the security issue(s)
associated with each chemical of
interest. Although these same security
issues drove the Department’s selection
of chemicals for inclusion in the
proposed appendix, the Department did
not list (in the proposed appendix) the
security issue(s) for each particular
chemical. This additional information
provides guidance to regulated entities,
so that they better understand how to
use the appendix, and it explains the
Department’s rationale(s) for including
these chemicals, at these STQs, on the
list.
The seven columns on the far right of
the appendix contain the chemical
facility security issues that the
Department has identified for this
appendix. There are three main
categories of security issues: Release,
theft/diversion, and sabotage/
1 CAS numbers are unique identifiers for
chemical substances.
2 The Department has added definitions for
Chemical of Interest (COI) and Security Issue to
§ 27.105 ‘‘Definitions.’’
3 See footnote 64.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65397
contamination.4 Two categories have
three subcategories each. The ‘‘release’’
category has three subcategories: (1)
Release-Toxic: Chemicals with the
potential to create a toxic cloud that
would affect populations within and
beyond the facility, if intentionally
released; (2) Release-Flammables:
chemicals with the potential to create a
vapor cloud explosion that would affect
populations within and beyond the
facility, if intentionally released; and (3)
Release-Explosives: chemicals with the
potential to affect populations within
and beyond the facility if intentionally
detonated. The ‘‘theft and diversion’’
category also has three subcategories: (1)
Theft/Diversion-Chemical Weapons
(CW)/Chemical Weapons Precursors
(CWP): chemicals that could be stolen or
diverted and used as CW or easily
converted into CW; (2) Theft/DiversionWeapons of Mass Effect (WME):
chemicals that could be stolen or
diverted and used directly as WME; and
(3) Theft/Diversion-Explosives (EXP)/
Improvised Explosive Device Precursors
(IEDP): chemicals that could be stolen or
diverted and used in explosives or IEDs.
The third category, ‘‘sabotage/
contamination,’’ refers to those
chemicals that, if mixed with other
readily-available materials, have the
potential to create significant adverse
consequences for human life or health.
The Department has established
baseline STQs for the chemicals of
interest for each security issue. (DHS
discusses the baselines in this preamble
and also summarizes the general rules
in Table 1: ‘‘Summary of General Rules
by Security Issue’’ at the end of this
section). DHS has set the STQ for each
chemical of interest at the baseline
amount for that chemical’s security
issue(s). Where necessary, the
Department has identified a few
exceptions. Most notably, DHS has
developed a specialized approach for
propane, chlorine, and ammonium
nitrate.
Each chemical in Appendix A
presents at least one security issue, and
4 As noted in the IFR and consistent with the
definition of ‘‘security issue’’ in § 27.105, the
Department recognizes one additional security
issue—critical to government mission and national
economy. (DHS has added a definition of security
issue in this final rule at § 27.105.) The loss or
interruption in production of certain chemicals,
materials, or facilities could create significant
adverse consequences for national security, the
national or regional economy, and/or the ability of
the government to deliver essential services. The
Department plans to assess currently-available
information and to collect new information (e.g.,
through the Top-Screen process) as a means of
identifying facilities responsible for these types of
chemicals. At this time, DHS is not including any
chemicals in the appendix based on this security
issue, though it may do so in the future.
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
65398
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
some chemicals present multiple
security issues. Where there are
multiple issues associated with a
chemical, a facility must complete and
submit a Top-Screen if it meets or
exceeds the STQ for any of the
applicable security issues. For example,
there are two security issues associated
with arsenic trichloride: release-toxic
and theft/diversion-CW/CWP. In the
Security Issue columns of the appendix,
there is a mark in the box for releasetoxic and for theft/diversion-CW/CWP,
and there is a STQ (and minimum
concentration) listed under the Release
column and under the Theft column. If
the facility meets or exceeds the STQ
listed in either the Release column or
the Theft column (using the appropriate
calculation provisions discussed below),
the facility must complete and submit a
Top-Screen. The Department has
revised the regulatory text in
§ 27.200(b)(2) and § 27.210(a)(1)(i) to
reflect this change.
The Department will periodically
update the list of chemicals in
Appendix A and will do so subject to
notice and comment. The Department
may add or remove chemicals, or
categories of chemicals, or may change
STQs based on new or additional
information.
In revising Appendix A, the
Department has found it necessary to
revise the regulatory text, clarifying how
facilities should use the appendix. The
Department added § 27.203, which
instructs facilities on how to calculate
the STQ for a given chemical and
§ 27.204, which addresses mixtures. In
this section of the preamble, DHS
discusses provisions that are general or
that apply to multiple security issues.
DHS discusses provisions related to
specific security issues in section II(C).
Section 27.203(a) provides specific
exclusions from the calculation
requirements that apply to chemicals of
interest in all security issue categories.
Facilities need not count chemicals of
interest covered by these exclusions,
because chemicals in such
circumstances or forms are unlikely to
contribute to the potential consequences
of a successful attack. DHS has adopted
several of these exclusions from the
Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) Risk Management Program (RMP)
regulation. Sections 27.203(a)(1)–(5), (6),
and (8) track the EPA exemptions in 40
CFR 68.115(b)(4)(i)–(iv), 68.115(b)(3),
and 68.115(b)(2)(iii), respectively. The
concepts are the same, though DHS has
adjusted the language to make it
consistent with the language in part 27
(e.g., whereas EPA considers TQs
present at a ‘‘stationary source,’’ DHS
considers STQs at a ‘‘facility’’). Note
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
that EPA applies these exemptions to
release chemicals (i.e., those which it
regulates under RMP), while DHS
applies these exclusions to all part 27
chemicals of interest (i.e., to all
chemicals associated with the security
issues of release, theft/diversion, and
sabotage/contamination).
DHS has formulated one other
exclusion specifically for this
regulation. In § 27.203(a)(7), DHS
exempts chemicals of interest in solid
waste (including hazardous waste)
regulated under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
(42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) DHS does not
believe that it is necessary for facilities
to count COI in RCRA-regulated solid
waste toward their STQ, because the
Department does not believe that this
waste is a likely target of a terrorist
attack or contains COI that are likely
sources of terrorist uses. As stated in the
regulatory text, though, this exclusion
does not apply to waste covered by 40
CFR 261.33, ‘‘Discarded commercial
chemical products, off-specification
species, container residues, and spill
residues thereof.’’ This type of waste
can include virtually pure chemicals
(including off-specification products
that may merely be inconsistent with a
customer’s specifications) that have
been discarded. DHS thinks it is
important for facilities to include this
waste in the STQ calculation, because
this waste is a potential source of COI
that would be just as attractive to a
terrorist as the chemical product itself.
Paragraph (b) of § 27.203 addresses
STQ calculations related to release
chemicals. Section 27.203(b)(1) provides
instructions concerning the substances
that facilities shall include when
determining whether they possess
quantities of a release chemical that
meet or exceed the STQ. Proposed
Appendix A did not contain the
instructions enumerated in
§ 27.203(b)(1), but further consideration
and a review of the comments caused
DHS to provide these instructions.
Pursuant to § 27.203(b)(1)(i), facilities
must include chemicals in a vessel,
which, pursuant to 40 CFR 68.3, ‘‘means
any reactor, tank, drum, barrel, cylinder,
vat, kettle, boiler, pipe, hose, or other
container.’’ Facilities must also include
chemicals of interest stored in
magazines, as defined in 27 CFR 555.11.
Pursuant to that Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
definition, a magazine is ‘‘any building
or structure, other than an explosives
manufacturing building used for storage
of explosive materials.’’ In addition,
facilities must include chemicals of
interest in underground storage
facilities. For purposes of part 27, an
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
underground storage facility refers to a
below-ground storage location for
chemicals of interest or mixtures of
chemicals of interest (e.g., petroleumbased materials) that are placed in the
storage location (until needed) after
having been extracted from the ground
and refined or processed. Such facilities
include, but are not limited to, depleted
reservoirs in oil and/or oil gas fields,
aquifers, and salt cavern formations.
DHS understands that certain products
(e.g., propane, natural gas, petroleum)
may be stored in these underground
storage facilities, and DHS wants to
ensure that facilities count this material
toward the amount of their COI.
Pursuant to § 27.203(b)(1)(ii), facilities
must count chemicals of interest in
specified transportation containers
toward the STQ amount for release
chemicals. In using this terminology,
DHS is referring to the same category of
transportation containers that EPA
refers to in its RMP regulation—that is,
transportation containers used for
storage not incident to transportation,
including transportation containers
connected to equipment at a facility for
loading or unloading and transportation
containers detached from the motive
power that delivered the container to
the facility. See 40 CFR 68.3 (containing
a description of transportation
containers within the definition of
‘‘stationary source’’). These
transportation containers would
include, for example, tank cars attached
to processing units and tank cars
detached from motive power that had
delivered the tank car to the facility.
While the EPA RMP regulation at 40
CFR 68.3 does not specifically mention
transportation containers detached from
the motive power, EPA discusses such
provision in its Final Rule titled ‘‘List of
Regulated Substances and Thresholds
for Accidental Release Prevention;
Amendments’’ 5 and in its Frequently
Asked Questions on the EPA Web site.6
Part 27 (like EPA’s RMP regulation)
does not require facilities to include
chemicals of interest in transportation
when calculating their STQs. DHS
adopts the EPA definition of
transportation, and accordingly
considers a container to be in
transportation as long as it is attached
to the motive power (e.g., truck or
locomotive) that delivered it to the site.
If the tank car is detached from the
motive power, and therefore no longer
in transportation, the facility must
5 See
63 FR 640 (January 6, 1998).
FAQ II.C.2 on the EPA Web site at https://
yosemite.epa.gov/oswer/ceppoweb.nsf/content/caafaqs.htm.
6 See
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
consider the contents of the tank car in
calculating its STQ.
Pursuant to § 27.203(b)(1)(iii),
facilities must also include chemicals of
interest that are present as process
intermediates, by-products, and
incidental production materials. This
means, for example, that a refinery must
count toward the STQ for hydrogen
sulfide the quantity of hydrogen sulfide
produced as a by-product of any of its
various processes. Or a facility should
count toward the STQ for 37%
hydrochloric acid the quantity of 37%
hydrochloric acid produced from the
absorption of hydrogen chloride gas into
water and stored temporarily prior to
subsequent dilution below the threshold
concentration. DHS requires the
inclusion of these items in calculating
the STQ, because while they may not be
present at all times, when present, they
could be released and contribute to the
consequences of an attack.
The remaining two subsections in
§ 27.203(b)(1) are items that EPA
exempted, but which DHS believes are
important to include in this regulatory
program; they have the potential to
create a significant offsite impact in the
event of a successful attack. First, when
calculating the amount of a chemical of
interest, facilities must include
chemicals in natural gas or liquefied
natural gas (LNG) stored in ‘‘peak
shaving facilities.’’ See
§ 27.203(b)(1)(iv). Companies typically
store natural gas or LNG in peak shaving
facilities when demand for product is
low or slows. The natural gas or LNG is
stored until it is used later during peak
consumption periods. EPA excludes the
chemicals in these peak shaving
facilities by virtue of the fact that EPA
considers them storage incident to
transportation, and EPA does not
subject that type of storage to its RMP
regulation.7 Within DHS, TSA is the
lead agency for the security of pipeline
transportation and of transportationrelated facilities; however, such
facilities (e.g., peak shaving facilities)
may be required to provide information
under part 27. TSA and the Chemical
Security Compliance Division will work
together to ensure that DHS efforts
7 Under the RMP rule, EPA considers there to be
a threshold quantity of a substance if it is present
at a stationary source. 40 CFR 68.115(a). ‘‘The term
stationary source does not apply to transportation,
including storage incident to transportation, of any
regulated substance * * *.’’ 40 CFR 68.3. EPA
‘‘considers the transportation exemption to include
storage fields for natural gas where gas taken from
pipelines is stored during non-peak periods, to be
returned to the pipelines when needed.’’ 63 FR 640,
642 (Jan. 6, 1998). Because EPA considers this type
of storage incident to transportation, the type of
storage is not subject to EPA’s RMP rule.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
directed at pipelines are
complementary.
Second, facilities must also include
chemicals of interest in fuels when
stored in above-ground tank farms,
including tank farms that are part of
pipeline systems. See § 27.203(b)(1)(v).
This includes fuels with any one of the
four National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) flammability hazard
ratings and not just fuels with an NFPA
flammability hazard rating of 4. EPA
excludes these fuels by virtue of the
provisions in its mixtures rule for
regulated flammable substances. See 40
CFR 68.115(b)(2). These fuels also
would have been excluded under DHS’s
flammable mixtures provisions (see
§ 27.204(a)(2) 8) except that DHS
specifically included these fuels
through this provision here in
§ 27.203(b)(1)(v), because of concern
that they could create significant human
life or health consequences if an
intentional attack by a terrorist were
successful.
In § 27.203(c), DHS provides that
facilities shall only count theft/
diversion chemicals of interest that are
in a transportation packaging. DHS has
adopted the Department of
Transportation (DOT) definition of
packaging, which refers to ‘‘a receptacle
and any other components or materials
necessary for the receptacle to perform
its containment function in
conformance with the minimum
packing requirements of [DOT’s
Hazardous Materials Regulations].’’ See
49 CFR 171.8. This includes, but is not
limited to, cylinders, bulk bags, bottles
inside or outside of a box, cargo tanks,
and tank cars. DHS has focused the
universe of theft/diversion chemicals of
interest in this fashion, because the
theft/diversion security issue revolves
around portable and transportable
amounts of certain chemicals. DHS is
concerned about both the theft of
portable amounts of these chemicals
and the diversion of shipments of these
chemicals.
8 Section 27.204(a)(2) provides that ‘‘except as
provided in § 27.203(b)(1)(v) for fuels that are stored
in aboveground tank farms (including farms that are
part of pipeline systems), if a release-flammable
chemical of interest is present in a mixture in a
concentration equal to or greater than one percent
(1%), and the mixture has a National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) flammability hazard
rating of 1, 2, or 3, the facility shall count the entire
weight of the mixture toward the STQ.’’ Without
the ‘‘exception’’ clause, DHS would have excluded
these fuels by virtue of the fact that these fuels are
mixtures that likely have NFPA flammability
hazard ratings of 1, 2, and 3. Pursuant to
§ 27.204(a)(2), facilities need not count the entire
amount of these mixtures (i.e., mixtures with COI
present in a concentration equal to or greater than
one percent (1%) and with a flammability hazard
rating of 1, 2, or 3) toward the STQ.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65399
The Department has also added
§ 27.204, which addresses mixtures. It
provides a minimum concentration
provision for each security issue. The
Department included this provision in
response to commenters, who requested
guidance on how to treat mixtures of
chemicals of interest. See § 27.204. A
facility must count toward the STQ for
a given chemical all quantities of that
chemical that meet or exceed the listed
minimum concentration amount. These
minimum concentration provisions are
derived from existing federal regulatory
programs (including EPA’s RMP
program and the Department of
Commerce’s Chemical Weapons
Convention (CWC)) Regulations, as well
as from industry technical standards
(see, e.g., Standard for Classification of
Toxic Gas Mixtures, CGA P–20–2003).
The specific minimum concentration
provision for each security issue is
discussed in the sections below.
In calculating chemical amounts,
facilities should consider the chemicals
in their possession within the
framework for each of the three separate
and distinct security issues categories
(release, theft/diversion, and sabotage/
contamination). A facility must count
each chemical of interest in its
possession, using the relevant
calculation provisions for each of the
categories, and if the facility possesses
an amount that meets or exceeds the
STQ for any one of the categories (i.e.,
security issues), the facility must
complete and submit a Top-Screen. To
illustrate that point, the Department
highlights sulfur dioxide, which is both
a release-toxic (STQ: 5,000 pounds) and
theft/diversion-WME (STQ: 500
pounds).
—Toward the release STQ of 5,000
pounds, a facility must count all
quantities of sulfur dioxide in vessels
and underground storage facilities; in
transportation containers used for
storage not incident to transportation,
including storage containers
connected to equipment at a facility
for loading or unloading and storage
containers detached from the motive
power that delivered the container to
the facility; and present as process
intermediates, by-products, and
material produced incidental to the
production of a product if they exist
at any given time.
—Toward the theft/diversion-WME STQ
of 500 pounds, a facility must count
all quantities of sulfur dioxide in a
transportation packaging.
If the facility has 5,000 pounds or
more of sulfur dioxide aggregated onsite
in vessel(s), transportation packaging(s),
etc. or 500 pounds or more of sulfur
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
65400
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
dioxide in transportation packagings (or
both), the facility must complete and
submit a Top-Screen.
Facilities must consider each security
issue framework independently. As a
result, there may be chemicals of
interest that a facility counts under
more than one security issue framework.
That is completely appropriate, as there
is a different focus (and therefore
distinct counting and mixtures rules) for
each security issue. For example, with
respect to sulfur dioxide, a facility will
count toward its release STQ quantities
of sulfur dioxide in a tank car when that
tank car is connected to equipment at
the facility for loading and unloading
and when that tank car is detached from
the motive power that delivered it to the
facility (see § 27.203(b)(1)(ii)) and it will
count toward its theft/diversion-WME
STQ quantities of sulfur dioxide in tank
cars (see § 27.203(c)). Under both
frameworks (release and theft), the
facility may, in fact, count the same
sulfur dioxide. As there are separate
purposes for each framework, however,
this is appropriate. The theft-STQ is
focused on preventing someone from
stealing or diverting the shipment of
sulfur dioxide in the tank car and
weaponizing it. The release-STQ is
focused on preventing someone from
intentionally releasing a quantity of
sulfur dioxide that could affect the
population within and beyond the
facility.
TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF GENERAL RULES BY SECURITY ISSUE
Security issue
STQ 9
Release—Toxic .........................................
500–20,000 lbs .........................................
Release—Flammable ...............................
10,000 lbs .................................................
Release—Explosive ..................................
Theft/Diversion—CW/CWP .......................
Theft/Diversion—WME .............................
Theft/Diversion—EXP/IEDP ......................
Sabotage/Contamination ..........................
5,000 lbs ...................................................
CUM 100 grams–220 lbs .........................
15–500 lbs ................................................
100–400 lbs ..............................................
A Placarded Amount ................................
COI to exclude
27.203(a)
27.203(b)(2)
27.203(a)
27.203(b)(2)
27.203(b)(3)
27.203(a)
27.203(a)
27.203(a)
27.203(a)
27.203(a)
COI to include
Minimum
concentration
27.203(b)(1)
27.204(a)(1)
27.203(b)(1)
27.204(a)(2)
27.204(a)(1)
27.203(b)(1)
27.203(c)
27.203(c)
27.203(c)
27.203(d)
27.204(a)(3)
27.204(b)(1)
27.204(b)(2)
27.204(b)(3)
27.204(c)
27.204(a)(2)
Under Section 550, the Department
has the authority to use its best
judgment and all available information
in determining whether a facility
presents a high level of security risk.
Appendix A will assist the Department
in determining which facilities present
a high level of security risk. In
Appendix A, the Department has
identified chemicals of interest (at
specified STQs) that trigger preliminary
screening requirements. If a facility
possesses a chemical of interest at or
above the STQ for any applicable
security issue, the facility must
complete and submit a Chemical
Security Assessment Tool (CSAT) TopScreen. The STQ is not the threshold for
establishing whether a given facility is
a high risk facility, but it is a threshold
for determining whether the facility
must complete and submit a TopScreen.
Only after the Department gathers
additional information through the TopScreen process will the Department
make a determination 10 as to whether a
facility presents a high level of security
risk and therefore must comply with the
substantive requirements in part 27.
Accordingly, the presence or amount of
a particular chemical is not the sole
factor in determining whether a facility
presents a high level of security risk; it
is not the only indicator of a facility’s
coverage under part 27.
Sections 27.200(b)(2) and 27.210
contain the requirements related to
Appendix A, and those requirements are
fully operative upon publication of this
final rule in the Federal Register.
Section 27.200(b)(2) requires facilities to
complete and submit a Top-Screen if
they possess any of the chemicals
identified in Appendix A at or above the
STQ for any applicable security issue. If
a facility possesses even one of the
chemicals of interest listed in Appendix
A at or above the applicable STQ, the
facility has an obligation to complete
and submit a Top-Screen. Section
27.210(a)(1)(i) provides the initial
submissions schedule for facilities that
have to submit a Top-Screen pursuant to
Appendix A.
Pursuant to § 27.210(a), the
Department uses two methods to require
facilities to undergo preliminary
screening (i.e., complete and submit a
Top-Screen). The first method, found in
§ 27.210(a)(1)(i), is linked to Appendix
A. From the effective date of a final
Appendix A (i.e., this final rule),
facilities that possess any of the
chemicals listed in Appendix A at or
above the STQ for any applicable
security issue will have 60 calendar
days to complete and submit a TopScreen to DHS. Facilities that later come
into possession of such chemicals at or
above the STQ for any applicable
security issue will have to complete and
submit a Top-Screen within 60 calendar
days of coming into possession of such
chemicals. See § 27.210(a)(1)(i). In
addition, covered facilities 11 have an
ongoing obligation to complete and
update the Top-Screen as provided in
§ 27.210(d). Covered facilities that make
material modifications to their
operations or site must complete and
submit a revised Top-Screen within 60
days of the material modification. See
§ 27.210(d).
The second method, found in
§ 27.210(a)(1)(ii), allows the Department
to contact facilities independently of
9 Specialized STQs apply to ammonium nitrate,
chlorine, and propane.
10 Based on the information the Department
receives in accordance with § 27.200 and § 27.205
(including information submitted through the TopScreen), the Department makes a preliminary
determination as to a facility’s placement in a riskbased tier. See § 27.220(a). Following review of a
covered facility’s Security Vulnerability Assessment
(SVA), the Department makes a final determination
as to a facility’s placement in a risk-based tier. See
§ 27.220(b).
11 As used herein, a ‘‘covered facility’’ (or
‘‘covered chemical facility’’), means ‘‘a chemical
facility determined by the Assistant Secretary to
present high levels of security risk. * * *’’ and
differs from a ‘‘chemical facility’’ (or ‘‘facility’’),
which refers to ‘‘any establishment that possesses
or plans to possess, at any relevant point in time,
a quantity of a chemical substance determined by
the Secretary to be potentially dangerous or that
meets other risk-related criteria identified by the
Department.’’ See § 27.105. Although DHS will
require many facilities to complete and submit a
Top-Screen, DHS will only require covered facilities
to develop a chemical facility security program (i.e.,
complete a SVA pursuant to § 27.215, develop and
implement a SSP pursuant to § 27.225, etc.).
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
B. Effect of a Final Appendix A
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Appendix A. Facilities must complete
and submit a Top-Screen if the
Department notifies the facility to do so
through a Federal Register notice or on
an individual basis through written
notification. The Department may
choose to contact facilities in this
manner based on new or additional
information or based on intelligence
information about terrorists’ interest in
certain chemicals or certain facilities.
The Department will specify the time
frame for these Top-Screen submissions
in the written notification. Since the
effective date of the IFR, the Department
has used the second method (i.e.,
contacting certain facilities individually
and directing them to complete the TopScreen). With the publication of this
final rule, both triggering requirements
for completing the Top-Screen will be in
effect.
C. Provisions by Security Issue
1. Release-Toxics and ReleaseFlammables
chemicals 14 that it had included in the
proposed appendix. While these three
toxic chemicals appear on EPA’s RMP
list, they do not meet the RMP listing
criteria for vapor pressure. EPA
included these three chemicals in their
RMP list, because Congress specifically
required their inclusion pursuant to
§ 7412(r)(3) of the Clean Air Act, 42
U.S.C. 7401 et seq.15 Because these
chemicals do not otherwise meet the
RMP listing criteria for toxic chemicals,
DHS has removed them from Appendix
A.
For release-flammable chemicals,
DHS also uses the same listing criteria
as EPA does for release-flammable
chemicals. EPA, and now DHS,
identifies flammable gases and volatile
flammable liquids based on the flash
point and boiling point criteria that the
NFPA uses for its highest flammability
hazard ranking (Class IA). The criteria
can be found in EPA’s Final List Rule.
See 59 FR 4478, 4480 (January 31,
1994).
To identify the release chemicals for
Appendix A, the Department looked to
the list of substances in the EPA’s RMP
rule.12 See Tables 1 and 2 to 40 CFR
§ 68.130 for release-toxics and Tables 3
and 4 to 40 CFR 68.130 for releaseflammables. The Department had
included all of the EPA RMP substances
in proposed Appendix A,13 and aside
from the exceptions noted below,
continues to do so in this final
appendix. For release-toxics, the
Department uses the same listing
criteria, including the EPA acute
toxicity criteria and vapor pressure cutoff, which can be found in EPA’s final
rule, ‘‘List of Regulated Substances and
Threshold for Accidental Release
Prevention; requirements for Petitions
Under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air
Act as Amended.’’ See 59 FR 4478, 4482
(January 31, 1994). EPA includes a toxic
substance on its RMP list if the
substance is an acute toxic that has
vapor pressure high enough that the
release could result in an offsite
poisonous inhalation hazard.
In this final appendix, the Department
has removed three release-toxic
b. STQ
DHS set the STQ for release-toxics at
the same amount that EPA set the
Threshold Quantity (TQ) for toxic
substances under its RMP regulation.16
That amount ranges from 500 to 20,000
pounds, depending on the toxicity and
volatility of the substance. Likewise,
DHS set the STQ for release-flammables
at the same amount as EPA—10,000
pounds. The Department has adopted
the EPA RMP TQs, because DHS accepts
the same rationale that EPA used when
setting its TQs—i.e., that they are
amounts that, if released, have the
potential to create significant human
health effects. The Department realizes
that, in developing these TQs, EPA
collected extensive input on and
conducted a thorough analysis, and
DHS wants to leverage that knowledge
base.
Whereas the Department had
proposed to set the STQs for these
release chemicals at seventy-five
percent of the EPA RMP TQs in the IFR,
the Department has instead set these
STQs at the same amount as the EPA
RMP TQs. In doing so, the Department
accepted the recommendation of many
commenters to set the STQ for these
release chemicals at, rather than below,
12 The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.)
provides that the EPA shall promulgate a list of
substances that ‘‘in the case of accidental release,
are known to cause or may reasonably be
anticipated to cause death, injury, or serious
adverse effects to human health or the
environment.’’ See 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(3).
13 Note that some of these chemicals present not
only a release issue, but present additional security
issue(s) too (e.g., theft and diversion or sabotage and
contamination).
14 The three release-toxics are: Toluene 2,4diisocyanate; Toluene 2,6-diisocyanate; and
Toluene diisocyanate (unspecified isomer).
15 In 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(3), Congress directed
EPA to include toluene diisocyanate (TDI) in its
RMP list. EPA looked to the types of TDI in
commercial production (i.e., those types listed on
the Toxic Substances Control Act Chemical
Substance Inventory) and listed the three forms
noted in footnote 14.
16 See 40 CFR part 68.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
a. Chemicals
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65401
the EPA RMP TQs. The Department
realized that it did not need to reduce
its STQs to a level below that of the EPA
TQs, because even though DHS and EPA
are seeking to satisfy two different
mandates (i.e., DHS to prevent an
intentional release and EPA to prevent
an accidental release), DHS has made
accommodations for that difference. The
DHS method for calculating an STQ is
more conservative than that of the EPA
for TQs. Under part 27, except for the
exclusions listed in § 27.203(a), (b)(2),
and (b)(3), a facility must aggregate the
total amount of COI that it possesses at
its facility, including COI that may exist
in separate processes. By contrast, under
EPA’s RMP regulation, a facility must
consider the total quantity of a regulated
substance ‘‘contained in a process’’ that
exceeds the TQ. See 40 CFR 68.115(a).
For example, a facility that has multiple
processes (involving an RMP substance),
with each process below the threshold
for the reportable TQ, would not be
covered under RMP. That facility,
however, would be covered under part
27 if the total quantity of all the
processes (associated with a chemical of
interest) was at or above the STQ.
DHS believes that, in the case of an
intentional terrorist attack, chemicals or
materials would likely be released from
multiple vessels rather than a single
vessel. As a result, the Department
believes that setting the STQ at an
amount that reflects the entire inventory
of the facility better captures the
potential consequences of an intentional
attack. The Department believes this is
more appropriate than EPA’s valid
assumption for accidents that the worstcase release 17 would be a release from
the largest vessel.
Despite the general rule for release
chemicals (i.e., that the DHS STQs are
the same as the EPA TQs), there are a
few differences between the EPA TQs
and the DHS STQs. First, as discussed
below in section II(D)(1), DHS treats
propane differently than all other
release-flammables. Second, the RMP
TQ for toxic substances applies to all
DHS release-toxics except for eleven 18
that meet the RMP listing criteria for
both toxicity and flammability. EPA
treats these substances as toxics in its
RMP rule; however, DHS lists these
substances as flammables (and sets the
17 In 40 CFR 68.3, EPA defines ‘‘worst-case
release’’ as ‘‘the release of the largest quantity of a
regulated substance from a vessel or process line
failure that results in the greatest distance to an
endpoint defined in § 68.22(a).’’
18 The eleven RMP release-toxics are: ethylene
oxide, furan, hydrazine, hydrogen selenide, methyl
chloride, methyl mercaptan, nickel carbonyl,
peracetic acid, phosphine, propylene oxide, and
tetranitromethane.
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
65402
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
STQ at 10,000 pounds), because, in an
intentional release, they are more likely
to act like flammables and potentially
create an explosive vapor cloud.
In calculating whether a facility meets
the STQ for release-toxic or releaseflammable chemicals, the facility need
not include release-toxic or releaseflammable chemicals of interest that a
facility manufactures, processes, or uses
in a laboratory at the facility under the
supervision of a technically qualified
individual as defined in 40 CFR 720.3.
See § 27.203(b)(2). DHS adopted this
laboratory quantities exclusion,
including the definition of ‘‘technically
qualified individual,’’ from EPA. The
comparable EPA laboratory quantities
exemption is located in EPA’s RMP
regulation at 40 CFR 68.115(b)(5), and
EPA’s definition of ‘‘technically
qualified individual’’ is located at 40
CFR 720.3(ee). EPA defines a
‘‘technically qualified individual’’ to
mean ‘‘a person or persons (1) who,
because of education, training, or
experience, or a combination of these
factors, is capable of understanding the
health and environmental risks
associated with the chemical substance
which is used under his or her
supervision, (2) who is responsible for
enforcing appropriate methods of
conducting scientific experimentation,
analysis, or chemical research to
minimize such risks, and (3) who is
responsible for the safety assessments
and clearances related to the
procurement, storage, use, and disposal
of the chemical substance as may be
appropriate or required within the scope
of conducting a research and
development activity.’’ Like EPA, the
DHS laboratory quantities exclusion
does not apply to specialty chemical
production; manufacture, processing, or
use of substances in pilot plant scale
operations; or activities, including
research and development, involving
chemicals of interest conducted outside
the laboratory. Facilities that engage in
such activities must count those
chemicals toward their STQ.
DHS believes that, in a release, a lab
quantity of a release chemical would not
significantly contribute to the
consequentiality of an attack. Moreover,
under this provision, DHS believes that,
where lab quantities of release
chemicals are used, there are
appropriate controls by virtue of the fact
it is done so under the supervision of a
technically qualified individual. In
adding this laboratory quantity
provision, DHS was responsive to the
numerous commenters, including those
from colleges, universities, and
industrial laboratories, who requested
such a provision.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
As noted above, DHS adopted this
laboratory quantities exclusion from the
EPA. DHS, however, has made one
minor clarifying adjustment to the
language that it adopted from EPA. In
response to comments, DHS added
language to § 27.203(b)(2)(i) to make
explicit that activities conducted
outside the laboratory may include
research and development activities. A
facility must count all quantities of COI
involved in activities conducted outside
of the laboratory (including research
and development) toward its STQ. In
other words, such COI would not be
subject to the laboratory quantities
exclusion.
c. Minimum Concentration (Mixtures)
Pursuant to § 27.204(a) and as noted
in the ‘‘minimum concentration’’ entries
in the appendix, the minimum
concentration of a release-toxic or
release-flammable chemical of interest
that a facility must include when
counting the amount of COI is one
percent (1%) by weight. Pursuant to
§ 27.204(a)(1), if a release-toxic chemical
is present in a mixture, and the
concentration of the chemical is equal to
or greater than one percent (1%) by
weight, the facility shall count the
amount of the chemical of interest in the
mixture toward the STQ. For example,
if a facility has 500 pounds of a toxic
mixture containing five percent (5%)
acrolein, the facility should count five
percent (5%) of the weight of the
mixture, or 25 pounds of acrolein,
toward the STQ of 5,000 pounds. Except
for oleum, if a facility can measure or
estimate (and document) that the partial
pressure of the regulated substance in
the mixture is less than 10 mm Hg, the
facility need not consider the mixture
when determining the STQ. If a releasetoxic chemical of interest is present in
a mixture, and the concentration of the
chemical is less than one percent (1%)
by weight of the mixture, the facility
need not count the amount of that
chemical in the mixture in determining
whether the facility possesses the STQ.
Note that these mixture provisions track
those of the EPA in its RMP regulation.
See 40 CFR 68.115(b)(1).
Pursuant to § 27.204(a)(2), if a releaseflammable chemical of interest is
present in a mixture in a concentration
equal to or greater than one percent
(1%) by weight of the mixture, and the
mixture has a NFPA flammability
hazard rating of 4, the facility shall
count the entire weight of the mixture
toward the STQ. For example, if a
facility has 500 pounds of a flammable
mixture containing five percent (5%)
pentane and the mixture as a whole has
a NFPA flammability hazard rating of 4,
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the facility shall count the entire weight
of the mixture, or 500 pounds, toward
the STQ of 10,000 pounds. If a releaseflammable chemical of interest is
present in a mixture in a concentration
equal to or greater than one percent
(1%) by weight of the mixture, and the
mixture has a NFPA flammability
hazard rating lower than 4 (i.e., NFPA
hazard rating of 1, 2, or 3), the facility
need not count the entire weight of the
mixture toward the STQ. If a releaseflammable chemical of interest is
present in a mixture, and the
concentration of the chemical is less
than one percent (1%) by weight, the
facility need not count the mixture in
determining whether the facility
possesses the STQ. Note that these
mixture provisions track those of the
EPA in its RMP regulation. See 40 CFR
68.115(b)(2).
2. Release-Explosives
a. Chemicals
To identify release chemicals that
present an explosive hazard, DHS
looked to the DOT hazardous materials
regulations (see 49 CFR 171–180) and
the EPA’s original listing rule for RMP
(see 59 FR 4478 (January 31, 1994)).
DOT identifies explosives as one of nine
classes of hazardous materials that it
regulates and divides explosives (‘‘Class
1 explosives’’) into six divisions. See 49
CFR 173.50(b). Although DHS had
included explosives from the six DOT
explosives divisions in the proposed
Appendix A, DHS is only including
Division 1.1 explosives in this final
appendix.19 After consideration of
comments and further review, DHS
decided to focus on Division 1.1
explosives, which are those that have a
mass explosion hazard. A mass
explosion hazard is one which affects
almost the entire load instantaneously.
DHS has incorporated all of the DOT
Class 1, Division 1.1 explosive
chemicals with only two broad
exceptions. First, the Department does
not include those explosive materials
for which DOT uses a generic shipping
name with the suffix ‘‘N.O.S.’’ 20 This
refers to materials with generic
descriptions in the Hazardous Materials
Table in 49 CFR 172.101 (e.g.,
Substances, explosive, n.o.s.). The
Department has instead identified the
relevant Class 1 explosive materials as
only those that DOT specifically names
in its Hazardous Materials Table.
Second, DHS does not include articles
19 As a result of that decision, DHS removed
chemicals such as dinitrosobenzene, sodium
dinitro-o-cresolate, sodium picramate, tetrazol-1acetic acid, and zirconium picramate.
20 N.O.S. refers to ‘‘not otherwise specified.’’
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
or devices that DOT lists in its
Hazardous Material Table. Examples of
those articles and devices include
charges, guns, detonators, detonator
assemblies, fuses, primers, cartridges,
and motors. DHS does not believe, at
this time, that it is necessary to include
this broader universe of substances and
materials. Coverage of chemical
facilities that present a high level of risk
and that include these materials will be
triggered by other STQ provisions of
this rule. If the Department finds that is
not the case for a particular facility, the
Department will seek information from
that facility.
DHS believes it is appropriate to
include DOT Class 1, Division 1.1
explosive materials in Appendix A
despite the EPA’s exclusion of these
materials. At the onset of the RMP
program, EPA had listed DOT Division
1.1 explosives as a regulated substance.
EPA set the TQ at 5,000 pounds,
because the EPA believed that a blast
wave from such an amount had the
potential to cause offsite impacts. See 59
FR 4478 (January 31, 1994). EPA later
issued a final rule, delisting Class 1,
Division 1.1 explosives. See 63 FR 640
(January 6, 1998). In the final rule, EPA
concluded that ‘‘current regulations and
current and contemplated industry
practices promote safety and accident
prevention in storage, handling,
transportation, and use of explosives. As
a result, these regulations and practices
adequately protect the public and the
environment from the hazards of
accidents involving explosives.’’ See 63
FR 640, 641. DHS notes that EPA’s
decisions were based on safety and the
prevention of an accidental release. DHS
is concerned with an intentional attack
on an explosives facility, which has the
potential to generate significant impacts
for human life and health beyond the
facility. Given the different focus of
DHS’s regulation, it is important that
DHS consider DOT Class 1, Division 1.1
explosives; there is the potential for a
serious off-site effect from an intentional
and successful attack on a facility with
these explosives.
b. STQ
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
DHS proposed an STQ of 2,000
pounds 21 for release-explosives but
21 In the proposed appendix in the IFR, DHS set
the STQ for these explosive chemicals at 2,000
pounds. In the IFR, however, DHS was only
considering the theft/diversion concern. In the IFR,
had DHS set the STQ for these explosive chemicals
(using the method of calculating the STQ at 75%
of the EPA RMP TQ) based on a release concern the
STQ would have been 3,750 pounds. As discussed
in this preamble, while the current EPA RMP does
not contain release-explosives, EPA had previously
included release-explosives in the RMP program,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
now sets the STQ for release-explosives
at 5,000 pounds. As discussed above in
relation to release-toxics and releaseflammables, DHS has decided to set the
STQ for release chemicals at the EPA
TQs. Five thousands pounds is the TQ
that EPA had used for DOT Division 1.1
explosives when the DOT Division 1.1
explosives were part of the EPA RMP
program. In addition, this is the same
quantity that TSA now proposes to use
for DOT explosives in its Rail
Transportation Security NPRM.22 All
release-explosives are also listed as
theft/diversion-EXP/IEDP chemicals
(although all theft/diversion-EXP/IEDP
chemicals are not listed as releaseexplosives, because the theft/diversionEXP/IEDP category includes both actual
explosives and precursors to
explosives). A facility that possesses a
chemical that presents both a releaseexplosive hazard and a theft/diversionEXP/IEDP hazard must consider both of
the applicable STQs, and if the facility
possesses a quantity that satisfies either
STQ, the facility must complete and
submit the Top-Screen.
In calculating whether a facility meets
the STQ for release-explosive chemicals,
the facility need not include releaseexplosive chemicals of interest that a
facility manufactures, processes, or uses
in a laboratory at the facility under the
supervision of a technically qualified
individual as defined in 40 CFR 720.3.
See § 27.203(b)(2). This provision is
identical to the laboratory quantities
provision that applies to release-toxic
and release-flammable chemicals and
that is discussed above.23
c. Minimum Concentration (Mixtures)
Section 27.204(a)(3) provides that a
facility shall count toward the STQ the
total quantity of all commercial grades
of release-explosives. DHS has added a
definition of ‘‘A Commercial Grade’’
(ACG) to § 27.105. ACG refers to any
quality or concentration of a chemical of
interest offered for commercial sale that
a facility uses, stores, manufactures, or
ships.
3. Theft/Diversion-CW/CWP
a. Chemicals
In identifying chemical weapons (CW)
and their precursors that are at risk for
theft or diversion, the Department
looked to the chemicals covered by the
Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC).24 The chemicals covered by the
and when doing so, EPA set the TQ at 5,000
pounds.
22 71 FR 76852 (December 21, 2006). See
proposed 49 CFR 1580.100(b)(1).
23 See § II(C)(1)(b) above.
24 The Convention on the Prohibition of the
Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65403
CWC regulations are divided into three
lists, or ‘‘schedules,’’ based on their
previous use as a CW or possible utility
in developing chemical weapons.25
Schedule 1 covers chemical weapons
agents and their immediate precursors.
They have very limited industrial and
medical applications. Schedule 2 covers
chemicals and precursors that have
some industrial uses. Schedule 3 covers
chemicals and precursors with broad
commercial applications, some of which
were formerly weaponized.26
While the Department included
chemicals from all three Schedules 27 in
proposed Appendix A, the Department
has only included select chemicals from
the CWC Schedules in final Appendix
A. The Department continues to include
all specifically identified Schedule 1
chemicals, because they are actual CW
agents and their immediate precursors.
Note that, based on comments, the
Department has listed these Schedule 1
chemicals by their individual common
name along with their chemical name.
With respect to Schedule 2 and 3
chemicals, the Department has only
included those Schedule 2 and 3
chemicals and precursors that are
‘‘easily weaponizable’’—that is, they
could be easily converted into chemical
weapons using simple chemistry,
equipment, and techniques.28 DHS
made the determination about
‘‘weaponizability’’ after consulting with
several sources, including the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the
DHS Chemical Security Analysis Center
(CSAC).29 As a result of this approach,
the Department removed chemicals that
had appeared on the proposed list but
Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction is an
international arms control, disarmament, and nonproliferation treaty, which is implemented by 22
U.S.C. 6701, et. seq. The Department of Commerce
administers the implementing regulations. See 15
CFR part 710.
25 Schedule 1 chemicals are provided in
Supplement No. 1 to 15 CFR part 712, Schedule 2
chemicals are provided in Supplement No. 2 to 15
CFR part 713, and Schedule 3 chemicals are
provided in Supplement No. 3 to 15 CFR part 714.
26 See ‘‘The Chemical Weapons Convention
Regulations: Frequently Asked Questions and
Answers on Industry Compliance,’’ U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and
Security, Publication CWC–006 (Updated May
2006).
27 There were a few Schedule 1 chemicals,
however, that were inadvertently omitted from the
proposed appendix.
28 Among the Schedule 2 chemicals, DHS
included certain easily-weaponizable chemicals
that are representative of ‘‘families’’ of Schedule 2
chemicals (as opposed to uniquely identifiable
Schedule 2 chemicals).
29 One of the DHS Science and Technology
Centers, the CSAC leverages existing Department of
Defense (and other) infrastructure and capabilities
to provide analysis and scientific assessment of the
chemical threat against the homeland and the
American public.
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
65404
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
were now determined not to be easily
weaponizable (e.g., chloropicrin). In
addition to including select CWC
chemicals, Appendix A also contains
one other easily weaponizable chemical
(triethanolamine hydrochloride) from
the Australia Group’s 30 ‘‘Export
Controls List: Chemical Weapons
Precursors.’’
b. STQ and Minimum Concentration
(Mixtures)
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
DHS has eliminated the ‘‘any
amount’’ STQ that it used in the
proposed appendix for theft/diversionCW/CWP chemicals. In this final
appendix, DHS has set the STQ for each
theft/diversion-CW/CWP chemical
based on the Schedule from which DHS
adopted the chemical. The STQ for
Schedule 1 chemicals is cumulative, or
‘‘CUM 100g,’’ meaning that all amounts
of Schedule 1 chemicals at a facility
count toward the cumulative STQ of
100 grams. Section 27.203(c) provides
that ‘‘where a theft/diversion-Chemical
Weapons (CW) chemical is designated
by ‘‘CUM 100g,’’ a facility shall total the
quantity of all such designated
chemicals in its possession to determine
whether the facility possesses theft/
diversion-CW chemicals that meet or
exceed the STQ of 100 grams.’’ This is
an aggregate amount and not a per agent
limit. DHS added a definition for ‘‘CUM
100g’’ to § 27.105 ‘‘Definitions’’ and
included this new provision in
§ 27.204(b)(1). ‘‘CUM 100g’’ is the entry
for both the STQ and Minimum
Concentration columns for all Schedule
1 chemicals. DHS decided to use this
amount based on the recommendation
of CSAC, which indicated that this
amount merits proper security for
purposes of preventing theft and
diversion to create significant human
impact and cause widespread panic.
The STQs for Schedule 2 and 3
chemicals, which are based on their
ease of weaponization, are 2.2 pounds
and 220 pounds, respectively.31 Unlike
the STQ for Schedule 1 chemicals, these
STQs are not cumulative. For nonSchedule 1 theft/diversion-CW/CWP
chemicals of interest that are present in
a mixture at or above the minimum
concentration listed in the column in
Appendix A, the facility should count
30 The Australia Group is an informal group of
countries, which aims to allow exporting or
transshipping countries to minimize the risk of
assisting chemical and biological weapon
proliferation. See https://www.australiagroup.net/
en/control_list/precursors.htm.
31 The STQ for the chemical from the Australia
Group, triethanolamine hydrochloride, is 220
pounds.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
the entire amount of the mixture toward
the STQ. See § 27.204(b)(1).
4. Theft/Diversion-WME
a. Chemicals
To identify chemicals that might be
targeted for theft or diversion as
weapons of mass effect (WME), the
Department looked to the DOT
hazardous materials regulations and
considered gases that are poisonous by
inhalation (PIH). In proposed Appendix
A, DHS listed all DOT Division 2.3 PIH
gases including those in Hazard Zones
A through D.32 In this finalized
appendix, the Department has not
included Hazard Zone D PIH gases
(including carbon monoxide and
sulfuryl fluoride), because they do not
rise to a level of consequentiality that
warrants inclusion as a theft/diversionWME chemical.33 In addition, the
Department no longer includes methyl
bromide on the list of chemicals,
because it is being phased out of
domestic manufacture and use under
Clean Air Act regulations implementing
the United States’ obligations as a
signatory to the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer.34 Thus, given the limited and
decreasing availability of methyl
bromide, the Department does not
believe that the potential consequences
of an attack warrant inclusion of that
chemical on the list of chemicals in
Appendix A.
In the proposed appendix, with one
exception, DHS did not include DOT
Division 2.3 PIH gases for which DOT
uses a generic shipping name with the
suffix ‘‘N.O.S.’’ DHS has done the same
in this final appendix. N.O.S. refers to
materials with generic descriptions (e.g.,
Compressed gas, n.o.s. or Compressed
gas, toxic, flammable, corrosive, n.o.s.
32 DOT defines a ‘‘gas poisonous by inhalation’’
in 49 CFR 173.115(c) and assigns hazard zones in
49 CFR 173.116(a).
33 One Hazard Zone D chemical, ethylene oxide,
is listed in the final Appendix A, because of its
inclusion on EPA’s RMP list. DHS lists ethylene
oxide as a release-toxic but not as a theft-WME
chemical.
34 Title VI of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7671,
et seq.), which addresses stratospheric ozone
protection, directs EPA to establish a program for
phasing out production and use of ozone-destroying
chemicals, including methyl bromide. These
requirements are in furtherance of the United
States’ obligations, as a signatory to the 1987
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer, to limit the production and use of
such chemicals. In 2000, EPA issued a direct final
rulemaking, which allowed for the phased
reduction in methyl bromide consumption and
which extended the phase-out to 2005. See 65 FR
70795 (November 28, 2000). EPA has further
extended the phase-out program until alternatives
for all critical uses of the chemical are available.
See 71 FR 38325 (July 6, 2006). See also https://
www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Inhalation Hazard Zone D; or
Insecticide gases n.o.s. or Insecticide
gases, toxic, flammable, n.o.s. Inhalation
hazard Zone A). The Department has
only included PIH gases that the
Department of Transportation
specifically names in the Hazardous
Materials Table in 49 CFR 172.101. In
addition, the Department has included
germanium tetrafluoride.35 While that
chemical is not specifically named in
the DOT Hazardous Materials Table, it
is often named specifically by
convention in industry. Given that it
can be identified by its specific name
and following a positive response from
commenters as to the inclusion of this
chemical, the Department decided to
retain this chemical on the list.
b. STQ
DHS has eliminated the ‘‘any
amount’’ STQ that it used in the
proposed appendix for theft/diversionWME chemicals. DHS developed the
STQs for these chemicals in this final
rule based generally upon
recommendations from the Compressed
Gas Association (CGA) in its comments
to the proposed appendix in the IFR.
The STQs for theft/diversion-WME
chemicals vary based on Hazard Zone,
thereby taking into account their
relative toxicity. See 49 CFR 173.116
‘‘Class 2—Assignment of Hazard Zone.’’
In their comments, CGA indicated that,
aside from lecture bottles and sample
cylinders, the minimum industry
standard commercial size package for
Hazard Zone A PIH gases is five (5)
pounds, and the minimum industry
standard commercial size package for
Hazard Zone B PIH gases is fifteen (15)
pounds. CGA recommended that DHS
set the STQ for Hazard Zone A at any
amount greater than five pounds and the
STQ for Hazard Zone B at any amount
greater than fifteen pounds. In this final
rule, DHS has set the STQ for Hazard
Zone A PIH gases, which are the most
toxic of PIH gases, at fifteen (15)
pounds, and the STQ for Hazard Zone
B PIH gases at forty-five (45) pounds.
These two STQs are the equivalent of
approximately three standard
commercial size packages for Hazard
Zone A and B PIH gases. These two
STQs represent quantities of Hazard
Zone A and/or Hazard Zone B PIH gases
that are likely to generate significant
consequences, including the fact that
portable quantities of these PIH gases
may be subject to theft and/or diversion.
35 The DOT shipping name for germanium
tetrafluoride is ‘‘Liquefied Gas, Toxic, Corrosive,
n.o.s. (Germanium Tetrafluoride)’’ if liquid is
present and ‘‘Compressed Gas, Toxic, Corrosive,
n.o.s. (Germanium Tetrafluoride)’’ if no liquid is
present.
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
The STQ for Hazard Zone C PIH gases
is 500 pounds. That amount is
equivalent to approximately five
standard industrial gas cylinders.
Hazard Zone C PIH gases are less toxic
than those in Hazard Zones A and B,
and DHS therefore has concluded that it
is unlikely for amounts less than 500
pounds to generate a high degree of
consequence.
These general STQ rules apply to all
theft/diversion-WME chemicals except
in two instances. First, DHS has
established specialized provisions for
chlorine, which are discussed below in
section II(D). Second, DHS set the STQ
for two Hazard Zone C PIH gases
(hydrogen fluoride and boron
trichloride) at the STQ associated with
Hazard Zone B PIH gases—i.e., 45
pounds instead of 500 pounds.
Although DOT categorizes these
substances as Hazard Zone C, industry
generally treats these gases as Hazard
Zone B gases because of their toxic
properties. Industry commenters
recommended, and DHS agreed, that the
toxic properties of these chemicals
warrant a higher degree of scrutiny and
unique STQ in the security context.
c. Minimum Concentration (Mixtures)
If a theft/diversion-WME chemical of
interest is present in a mixture at or
above the minimum concentration
amount listed in the Minimum
Concentration column of the appendix,
the facility shall count the entire
amount of the mixture toward the STQ
unless a specific minimum
concentration is assigned in the
Minimum Concentration column of
Appendix A to part 27, in which case
the facility should count the total
quantity of all commercial grades of the
chemicals at the specified minimum
concentration. See § 27.203(b)(2). DHS
derived the minimum concentrations
from the Compressed Gas Association
Standard for Classification of Toxic Gas
Mixtures, CGAP–20–2003.
5. Theft/Diversion-EXP/IEDP
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
a. Chemicals
To identify chemicals that could be
subject to theft or diversion for purposes
of creating an explosion or producing an
Improvised Explosive Device (IED),36
the Department considered several
sources. For proposed Appendix A, the
Department included certain DOT Class
1 explosives.37 The Department also
36 An
IED is a device fabricated in an improvised
manner that incorporates in its design explosives or
destructive, lethal, noxious, pyrotechnic, or
incendiary chemicals. It generally includes a power
supply, a switch or timer, and a detonator or
initiator.
37 See discussion in section II(C)(2) above.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
included IED precursors that the
National Research Council
recommended for additional control in
its report titled ‘‘Containing the Threat
from Illegal Bombings: An Integrated
National Strategy for Marking, Tagging,
Rendering Inert, and Licensing
Explosives and Their Precursors.’’ 38
While the universe of theft/diversionEXP/IEDP chemicals has remained
substantially the same since the IFR,
DHS has added a few chemicals
(including IED precursors) and deleted
a few chemicals at the recommendation
of the FBI.39 The FBI Explosives Unit 40
recommended the inclusion of certain
chemicals based on their experience
investigating IED attacks and evaluating
IED components.
Of note in the realm of deleted
chemicals (especially to the many
commenters who requested their
removal), the Department no longer
includes acetone and urea in the
appendix. Given the Department’s
inclusion of concentrated nitric acid
and concentrated hydrogen peroxide in
the appendix, the Department does not
believe it is necessary to include
acetone and urea. The Department is
concerned about these chemicals,
because they can be mixed to create
explosives (e.g., Triacetone Triperoxide
(TATP) includes both acetone and
hydrogen peroxide). The Department is
electing, therefore, to list the more
critical chemicals (i.e., concentrated
hydrogen peroxide and concentrated
nitric acid) of those mixtures. The effect
is to target regulation to facilities
possessing chemicals of interest to
terrorists in order to thwart terrorism.
The Department’s decision is
supported by the conclusions of the
National Research Council report. In
pertinent part, the National Research
Council provides:
It is not feasible to control all possible
chemical precursors to explosives. Efforts to
38 The National Academy Press published the
Report, which is available online at www.nap.edu.
The National Research Council had appointed ‘‘The
Committee on Marking, Rendering Inert, and
Licensing of Explosive Materials’’ to address areas
related to explosives. This final report presents the
Committee’s conclusions and recommendations.
39 DHS added aluminum (powder), magnesium
(powder), nitrobenzene, potassium permanganate,
sodium azide, sodium hydrosulfite, and zinc
hydrosulfite.
40 As stated on the FBI website, the FBI
Explosives Unit ‘‘examines evidence associated
with bombings. Explosives examinations involve
the identification and function of the components
used in the construction of incendiary as well as
improvised explosive devices. In addition, the Unit
performs chemical analyses to determine the type
of explosive used in an improvised explosive or
incendiary device, which includes bulk substance
analysis as well as analysis of the residues left
behind when an explosive detonates.’’ See https://
www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/org/eu.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65405
control access should focus on the chemicals
identified by the committee as current
candidates for control in the United States.
These chemicals are ammonium nitrate,
sodium nitrate, potassium nitrate,
nitromethane, concentrated nitric acid,
concentrated hydrogen peroxide, sodium
chlorate, potassium chlorate, and potassium
perchlorate. Urea and acetone also meet the
criteria for control but are adequately
controlled if access to nitric acid and
hydrogen peroxide is limited.41 (Emphasis in
the original.)
In its discussion of chemicals that
pose the greatest threat in the United
States because of their ability to be used
to improvise bombs, the National
Research Council further discussed
nitric acid/urea and hydrogen peroxide/
acetone:
Urea can be reacted with nitric acid to
produce the explosive urea nitrate, the
material used in the World Trade Center
bombing. Urea is a nondetonable, ubiquitous,
and inexpensive material with an annual
production volume in North America of 19
million short tons (IFDC, 1997). It is used
extensively as a fertilizer, as a noncorrosive
ice-melting material at public facilities and in
private homes, and as a reagent in many
chemical processes. Because urea is a
relatively innocuous chemical with a wide
range of uses, the committee believes that
preventing access to urea nitrate for illegal
purposes is more easily achieved by
controlling the other critical component
required to make an explosive: nitric acid.42
Nitric acid, which is toxic and highly
corrosive, has many industrial applications
but is not commonly available to the general
public. For that reason, the committee
believes that sales of nitric acid are much
more traceable than those of urea.
Furthermore, controls on nitric acid would
provide greater leverage in efforts to prevent
bomb attacks than would controls on urea,
because nitric acid can be reacted with a
wide range of organic materials (e.g.,
cellulose, glycerine, and amines) to produce
explosives. Although much of the nitric acid
produced is used in on-site chemical
processes, a large amount is shipped in tank
cars to chemical processing plants or
packaged in drums for sale to commercial
businesses such as etchers and metal platers.
All of these uses are amenable to good sales
record keeping. The committee believes that
such sales records are probably adequate for
current law enforcement needs.43
Hydrogen peroxide can be reacted with
acetone to make the powerful explosive
TATP, which has been used by terrorists
abroad but not thus far to any great extent in
the United States. It can be made in large
41 See the Executive Summary of the National
Research Council Report titled ‘‘Containing the
Threat from Illegal Bombings: An Integrated
National Strategy for Marking, Tagging, Rendering
Inert, and Licensing Explosives and Their
Precursors,’’ p. 15.
42 Id. at p. 147.
43 Id. at p. 147.
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
65406
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
quantities but is extremely unstable and
dangerous to handle.44
Acetone, one of the most common organic
solvents, can be purchased readily from
many sources in large quantities. As in the
case of nitric acid and urea, controlling
access to TATP is achieved more readily by
limiting the availability of hydrogen peroxide
than by controlling acetone. As with controls
on nitric acid, controls on hydrogen peroxide
would be preferred because hydrogen
peroxide can be reacted with chemicals other
than acetone to produce explosives.45
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
The Department, after consultation with
the FBI Explosives Unit, finds
persuasive the conclusion of the
National Research Council and removed
acetone and urea from Appendix A. The
Department also removed nitro urea and
urea nitrate, neither of which is
commercially available.
With respect to hydrogen peroxide,
the Department has adjusted the
concentration. In the proposed
appendix, the Department listed a
concentration of ‘‘at least 30%.’’ In this
final appendix, the Department has
increased the concentration for
hydrogen peroxide to 35%, a common
technical and food grade of hydrogen
peroxide. The original 30%
concentration was based on IED
precursor regulations proposed in
Canada. The Department received
comments from various industries about
the importance of hydrogen peroxide
and the most common commercial
grades of the chemicals. In consultation
with the FBI Explosives Unit, the
Department has revised the
concentration it set for hydrogen
peroxide, believing that this change in
concentration will not significantly
increase the likelihood of missing a high
risk chemical facility through the part
27 program.
b. STQ
DHS has changed the STQ for theft/
diversion-EXP/IEDP chemicals from the
proposed amount of 2,000 pounds to
400 pounds. This new STQ equals the
amount that is likely required to
produce a small, vehicle-borne IED
(VBIED). This STQ applies to all theft/
diversion-EXP/IEDP chemicals except
for (1) ammonium nitrate, which the
Department discusses below in section
II(D)(3) and for (2) a few chemicals
where DHS used a different STQ at the
recommendation of the FBI Explosives
Unit. Specifically, DHS set the STQ for
aluminum powder, magnesium powder,
and nitrobenzene at 100 pounds instead
of 400 pounds, because DHS believes
that the effect of these particular
chemicals at these quantities would
44 Id.
45 Id.
at p. 148.
at p. 148.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
have the same effect as the other theft/
diversion-EXP/IEDP chemicals at 400
pounds.
c. Minimum Concentration (Mixtures)
As provided in § 27.204(b)(3), a
facility shall count toward the STQ the
total quantity of all commercial grades
of a theft/diversion-EXP/IEDP chemical
at the facility unless a specific
minimum concentration is assigned in
the Minimum Concentration column of
Appendix A to part 27, in which case
the facility should count the total
quantity of all commercial grades of the
chemicals at or above the specified
minimum concentration. There are
specified minimum concentrations for a
few of the theft/diversion-EXP/IEDP
chemicals, such as hydrogen peroxide
(35%) or ammonium nitrate (nitrogen
concentration of 23% nitrogen or
greater). DHS has added a definition of
‘‘A Commercial Grade’’ (ACG) to
§ 27.105. ACG refers to any quality or
concentration of a chemical of interest
offered for commercial sale that a
facility uses, stores, manufactures, or
ships.
6. Sabotage/Contamination
a. Chemicals
Sabotage/contamination refers to
those chemicals that, if mixed with
other readily-available materials, have
the potential to create significant
adverse consequences for human life or
health. The Department’s list of
sabotage/contamination chemicals is
substantially the same in the final
appendix as it was in the proposed
appendix.
Sabotage/contamination chemicals
currently include those chemicals that
are capable of releasing a poisonous gas
when exposed to water. In identifying
the chemicals for this category, the
Department referred to the table of
‘‘Water-Reactive Materials Which
Produce Toxic Gases’’ in the 2004
Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG
2004).46 The ERG 2004 is a joint
publication of the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Transport Canada, and
the Secretariat of Communications and
Transportation of Mexico. These
materials are listed in the ERG 2004 as
incompatible with water, because they
produce large amounts of Toxic by
Inhalation 47 gases when exposed to
water.
46 The table is located on pages 344–348 of the
ERG 2004, which is available on the Web at
https://hazmat.dot.gov/pubs/erg/gydebook.htm.
47 Toxic by Inhalation (TIH) is synonymous with
Poisonous by Inhalation (PIH).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
b. STQ
In the proposed appendix, the STQ
for sabotage/contamination chemicals
was 2,000 pounds. The STQ now listed
for sabotage/contamination chemicals is
A Placarded Amount (APA). DHS added
a definition of APA to § 27.105,
providing that it refers to the STQ for a
sabotage/contamination chemical of
interest, as calculated in accordance
with § 27.203(d). Section 27.203(d)
provides that ‘‘[a] facility meets the STQ
for a sabotage/contamination chemical
of interest if it ships the chemical and
is required to placard the shipment of
that chemical pursuant to the provisions
of subpart F of 49 CFR part 172.’’
Subpart F of 49 CFR part 172 contains
the DOT placarding requirements
within the DOT Hazardous Materials
regulations.
c. Minimum Concentration (Mixtures)
As provided in § 27.204(c), a facility
shall count toward the STQ the total
quantity of all commercial grades of a
sabotage/contamination chemical that it
possesses unless a specific minimum
concentration is assigned in the
Minimum Concentration column of
Appendix A to part 27, in which case
the facility should count the total
quantity of all commercial grades of the
chemicals at the specified minimum
concentration. DHS has added a
definition of ‘‘A Commercial Grade’’
(ACG) to § 27.105. ACG refers to any
quality or concentration of a chemical of
interest offered for commercial sale that
a facility uses, stores, manufactures, or
ships.
D. Chemicals With a Specialized
Approach
1. Propane
Propane, a release-flammable
chemical, is one of the many RMP
flammable chemicals that DHS adopted
from EPA’s RMP list. In the IFR, the
proposed STQ for propane (an RMP
flammable) was 7,500 pounds, which is
seventy-five percent of the RMP TQ.
Using the revised general DHS rule for
release-flammables, the STQ for
propane would be 10,000 pounds. DHS,
however, set the STQ for propane in this
final rule at 60,000 pounds. Sixty
thousand pounds is the estimated
maximum amount of propane that nonindustrial propane customers, such as
restaurants and farmers, typically use.
The Department believes that nonindustrial users, especially those in
rural areas, do not have the potential to
create a significant risk to human life or
health as would industrial users. The
Department has elected, at this time, to
focus efforts on large commercial
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
propane establishments but may, after
providing the public with an
opportunity for notice and comment,
extend its part 27 screening efforts to
smaller facilities in the future. This
higher STQ will focus DHS’s security
screening effort on industrial and major
consumers, regional suppliers, bulk
retail, and storage sites and away from
non-industrial propane customers. The
minimum concentration and mixtures
provisions for propane are the same as
for all other release-flammables.
Pursuant to § 27.203(b)(3), facilities
need not include propane in tanks of
10,000 pounds or less when calculating
whether a facility has a total inventory
of 60,000 pounds. DHS included this
provision, in part, because of its desire
to exclude farmers and agricultural
users of propane who routinely have
three or more propane tanks 48 for
heating their homes and/or their
chicken/turkey houses. If DHS listed
propane at 10,000 pounds (the STQ for
all other release-flammable chemicals),
many more entities, including
homeowners, farmers, and small
businesses, would have to complete and
submit the Top-Screen. DHS does not
expect that such dispersed inventories,
often located away from population
centers, are likely to meet its definition
of high risk chemical facilities. DHS
believes that the revised approach
toward propane is better geared toward
identifying and addressing the risks
associated with major propane
inventories.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
2. Chlorine
In the proposed appendix, DHS set
the STQ for chlorine at 1,875 pounds.
There are two security issues associated
with chlorine, each with its own STQ.
Using the DHS baseline rules, the STQ
for chorine as a release-toxic would be
2,500 pounds,49 and the STQ for
chlorine as a theft/diversion-WME
chemical would be 45 pounds.50
Consistent with all other release-toxic
chemicals, DHS set the release-toxic
STQ for chlorine at 2,500 pounds and
requires facilities to use the calculation
and mixtures provisions that apply to
all other release-toxic chemicals. See
§§ 27.204(a)(1) and 27.203(b)(1)(i)–(ii).
DHS, however, developed a unique
approach for chlorine where it presents
a theft/diversion-WME security issue.
Instead of 45 pounds, DHS established
48 Typical tank sizes include approximately 2,205
pounds and 4,418 pounds.
49 DHS used the RMP TQ for release-toxic
chemicals, and the RMP TQ for chlorine is 2,500
pounds.
50 Chlorine is a DOT Division 2.3 PIH gas in
Hazard Zone B, and the baseline STQ for Hazard
Zone B PIH gases is generally 45 pounds.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
a higher STQ for the theft-WME STQ for
chlorine—500 pounds.51 Five hundred
pounds is the equivalent of five
standard 100-pound cylinders. (The
minimum concentration for chlorine
that presents a theft-WME security issue
is 9.77%.) Setting the theft/diversionWME STQ for chlorine at 45 pounds
would have been both burdensome for
numerous manufacturers (which are
reliant on chlorine as a starting material)
and difficult for DHS to effectively
implement, manage, and enforce. The
U.S. produces 11 million metric tons of
chlorine per year. The vast majority of
chlorine production is used for
processing a wide range of paper,
plastic, textile, medicine, insecticides,
paint, and other materials. Chlorine is
also used in water and wastewater
treatment. While most chlorine is
consumed at the facility where it is
produced, four million metric tons are
shipped annually in small containers,
one-ton containers, and cargo tank
motor vehicles, and tank cars across the
country.
Given the enormous production,
transportation, and importance of
chlorine, DHS increased the theft/
diversion-WME STQ for chlorine from
45 pounds to 500 pounds. DHS believes
that quantities less than 500 pounds
would capture facilities that are
unlikely to present significant
consequences. This amount is
considered a portable and transportable
amount that could be diverted or stolen.
Overall, DHS’s approach toward
chlorine recognizes that chlorine is
distinct from other WME precursors in
terms of its broad utility and
availability.
3. Ammonium Nitrate (AN)
In proposed Appendix A, the
Department identified only one form of
ammonium nitrate (nitrogen
concentration of 28%–34%) and set the
STQ at 2,000 pounds. Based on the
consideration of comments, the
Department has revised its approach in
this final appendix, identifying AN in
two forms: (1) The DOT Division 1.1
explosive found in 49 CFR 172.101 and
(2) the more common form frequently
used as a fertilizer. DHS assigned a STQ
to each form. Given the breadth of AN’s
use and history, DHS has crafted a
specialized approach to address this
chemical’s specific security concerns.
The first entry for AN in the appendix
addresses AN as an explosive. The
Department has listed the DOT Division
51 As with all theft/diversion chemicals, facilities
must only count toward the theft-WME STQ for
chlorine those quantities of chlorine in
transportation packagings. See § 27.203(c).
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65407
1.1 explosive: Ammonium nitrate [with
more than 0.2 percent combustible
substances, including any organic
substance calculated as carbon, to the
exclusion of any other added
substance].52 As an explosive, AN
presents two security issues: Theft/
diversion-EXP/IEDP and releaseexplosive. DHS is treating the possible
theft/diversion of this form of AN in the
same way that it is treating all other
DOT Division 1.1 explosives.53 Where a
facility has larger amounts of AN as an
explosive, there may also be release
hazards. As that is the case, DHS has set
the STQ for the possible release of AN
as an explosive at 5,000 pounds.54 That
STQ is the same TQ that EPA had set
for DOT Division 1.1 explosives when
EPA included such substances in its
RMP rule.
The second entry for AN in the
appendix addresses the more common
form of AN in solid form with a nitrogen
concentration of 23% or greater. This
form of AN is largely used in the
agricultural community and in amounts
that typically exceed 400 pounds (the
STQ for all other theft/diversion-EXP/
IEDP chemicals). Given the
circumstances surrounding its use (i.e.,
extensive use in the agricultural
industry), DHS has set the STQ for this
form of AN at 2,000 pounds. (This form
of AN in a mixture will count toward
the STQ in a minimum concentration of
33% or more.) This STQ is geared
toward ensuring that DHS secures AN
inventories at major manufacturing and
distribution facilities, as opposed to
individual farmers involved mainly in
the application of AN. DHS believes that
terrorists are interested in maximizing
death and injuries from an attack and
are, therefore, less interested in
attacking facilities in rural areas or other
areas with low population densities.
DHS referenced many sources in
developing this approach. In addition to
considering DOT and EPA regulations,
DHS consulted with Departmental
experts, such as the DHS Office for
Bombing Prevention, which administers
the Bomb Making Awareness Program,
and other federal experts, such as the
FBI Explosives Unit. The Department’s
52 The entry for this form of AN can be found in
the DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations at 49 CFR
§ 172.101.
53 Where AN as an explosive presents a theftEXP/IEDP security issue, the STQ is 400 pounds,
and a facility is expected to include all amounts of
ACG of AN when determining whether it meets or
exceeds the STQ. And, per § 27.203(c), in
calculating this theft STQ, facilities need only count
amounts in transportation packagings.
54 Consistent with the mixtures provision for all
release-explosives (see § 27.204(a)(3)), facilities are
expected to include all amounts of ACG of AN in
calculating the STQ.
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
65408
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
approach was further supported by
international resources, including the
British Health and Safety Executive’s
publication titled ‘‘Storing and
Handling Ammonium Nitrate’’ and
Canada’s proposed regulations on
Restricted Components issued pursuant
to Canada’s Explosives Act.55
E. Technical Corrections
DHS made several technical
corrections to the chemicals listed in
Appendix A, and those corrections,
many of which are highlighted below,
improve the accuracy of the list. Many
commenters assisted DHS in identifying
these items. DHS removed the entries
for certain chemicals (because they were
synonyms for already-listed chemicals)
and instead listed them as synonyms in
the new ‘‘Synonyms’’ column.56 DHS
also corrected the Chemical Abstract
Service (CAS) number for several
chemicals 57 and the spelling and/or
name of other chemicals.58
In addition, DHS made chemicalspecific edits. For example, DHS
separated the entry for ‘‘hydrogen
fluoride/hydrofluoric acid (conc. 50%
or greater)’’ into two entries. DHS had
included them as one listing in the
proposed listing, because they were
included as such on EPA’s RMP list. As
they are two different chemicals (one is
a gas and the other is a fuming liquid),
albeit with the same CAS number, DHS
has separated them into two entries.59
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
55 The
Explosives Regulatory Division (ERD) of
Natural Resources Canada has posted the proposed
regulation on their Web site at https://
www.nrcan.gc.ca/mms/explosif/pdf/
RestrictedComp_e.pdf.
56 This includes, for example, calcium dithionite
(already listed as calcium hydrosulfite), sodium
dithionite (already listed as sodium hydrosulfite);
zinc dithionite (already listed as zinc hydrosulfite);
and dimethyl phosphoramido-dichloridate (already
listed as N, N-dimethyl phosphoramidic
dichloride).
57 This includes, for example, chromium
oxychloride; DF, dinitroresorcinol; dipicrylamine
[or] hexyl (formerly listed as
hexanitrodiphenylamine, which is now listed as a
synonym); hexyltrichlorosilane; magnesium
aluminum phosphide (now listed separately as
magnesium phosphide and aluminum phosphide);
octonal; octolite; sodium phosphide; strontium
phosphide; torpex (formerly listed as hexotonal);
and trinitronaphthalene.
58 This includes, for example, 1-pentene; boron
trifluoride (and its synonym borane, trifluoro);
boron trifluoride compound with methyl ether (1:1);
pentaerythritol tetranitrate; propyl chloroformate;
sulfur tetrafluoride (and its synonym sulfur
fluoride); and vinyl acetylene.
59 For hydrofluoric acid (conc. 50% or greater),
which presents a release-toxic security issue, DHS
assigns a STQ of 1000 pounds and minimum
concentration of 50% or greater. For hydrogen
fluoride (anhydrous), when it presents a releasetoxic security issue, DHS assigns a STQ of 1,000
pounds and a minimum concentration of 1.00%.
For hydrogen fluoride (anhydrous), when it
presents a theft-WME security issue, DHS assigns a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
As another example, DHS clarified the
inclusion of various explosive
chemicals. The Department added RDX/
cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine (CAS
#121–82–4), which had been
inadvertently omitted in the proposed
appendix. The Department is including
this DOT Division 1.1 explosive,
because the Department is including all
such DOT Division 1.1 explosives, given
the risk of their theft or diversion for
terrorism purposes. The Department
now lists HMX under its common name
(i.e., HMX); in the proposed appendix,
the Department had listed HMX under
its chemical name
(cyclotetramethylenetetranitramine).
Note, however, that the Department has
included HMX’s chemical name in the
synonym column for the HMX entry.
III. Discussion of Comments
In the Interim Final Rule, DHS sought
comment on the proposed list of DHS
Chemicals of Interest in Appendix A to
part 27. DHS received approximately
4,300 public comments, and almost
4,000 of those comments were related to
the issues surrounding propane.
Commenters to the proposed appendix
included trade associations, citizens,
companies, universities, hospitals and
research facilities, and members of
Congress. In the sections below, DHS
provides a topical summary of the
comments and responses to those
comments.
A. Specific Chemicals or Types of
Chemicals
1. In General
Comment: Commenters suggested that
DHS should remove chemicals that are
widely used in the U.S., (e.g., acetone,
chlorine, propane, sodium nitrate, urea),
asserting that such chemicals should not
be regulated as a chemical security risk.
Some argued that commonly available
chemicals are unlikely targets of theft
from a facility. Other commenters
provided specific arguments why DHS
should not regulate commonplace
chemicals: Carbon monoxide is a
common byproduct that can occur
frequently in everyday locations (e.g.,
from a car, heater, or furnace). Hydrogen
sulfide is a natural byproduct that is
easily generated, whether in labs during
reactions or from geothermal facilities.
Yet other commenters thought that
there was only limited harm from other
chemicals, and so DHS should not
regulate those chemicals. For example,
potassium nitrate and sodium nitrate do
not ignite on their own, therefore the
explosive hazard from those chemicals
STQ of 15 pounds and a minimum concentration
of 42.53%.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
is reduced, and so DHS should not
regulate these chemicals on their own.
And, the flashpoint of triethanolamine,
at 212 degrees Fahrenheit, is so high
that it would have to be extremely hot
for the chemical to heat up, ignite, and
become an explosive hazard.
Response: The Department has
included the chemicals of interest in
Appendix A due to their potential,
when used as part of an attack, to create
significant human life or health
consequences. Each of these chemicals
presents at least one of the security
issues described in section II above. Not
only has the Department carefully
weighed the value of including any
given chemical, but the Department has
clearly defined the parameters for each
chemical. In this final rule, the
Department has replaced the ‘‘any
amount’’ STQs (that it proposed in the
IFR) with numerical quantities. The
Department has also provided
instruction on how a facility should
calculate an STQ and how a facility
should consider chemicals of interest in
a mixture. See §§ 27.203 and 27.204.
In addition, the Department reiterates
that possession of a chemical of interest
listed in Appendix A does not equate to
coverage under the standards in part 27.
Possession of a chemical of interest at
the listed STQ is merely a trigger for a
facility to complete and submit a TopScreen. Furthermore, when a facility
completes a Top-Screen, that
information becomes but one factor in
the Department’s determination of
whether a facility presents a high level
of security risk.
In response to the comments about
specific chemicals, the Department
replies as follows: DHS removed carbon
monoxide from the list as part of its
larger decision to remove DOT Division
2.3 PIH gases in Hazard Zone D. Carbon
monoxide is a Hazard Zone D PIH gas.
DHS continues to list hydrogen sulfide
on the list, because it meets the
Department’s criteria for both releasetoxic and theft/diversion-WME
chemicals. EPA lists hydrogen sulfide as
a release-toxic on its RMP list. Aside
from the exceptions noted above, DHS
has included as release-toxics in
Appendix A all of the toxics on EPA’s
RMP list. Also, DOT identifies hydrogen
sulfide as a Division 2.3 PIH gas, Hazard
Zone B. Aside from the exceptions
noted above, DHS has included all of
the DOT Division 2.3 PIH gases as theft/
diversion-WME chemicals in Appendix
A. DHS, however, excludes naturally
occurring sources (such as geothermal
operations) of hydrogen sulfide
pursuant to § 27.203(a)(9). DHS
continues to list potassium nitrate and
sodium nitrate, although they are
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
common oxidizers, they could be used
to create IEDs. Finally, DHS continues
to list triethanolamine, because it can be
easily converted into a chemical
weapon, not because of the flashpoint or
other physical characteristics of the
chemical itself.
Comment: Commenters remarked on
how some Appendix A chemicals of
interest, such as acetone, propane, and
urea, are preferable to possible
substitutes not on Appendix A, due to
their comparatively lower toxicity or
environmental impact. In particular,
they noted that the inclusion of certain
chemicals means that facilities, in an
attempt to avoid going through the
screening process, will transition away
from Appendix A chemicals and
possibly toward more dangerous
substitutes. For example, in lieu of
acetone, facilities might transition to the
use of more toxic solvents.
Response: With respect to the specific
chemicals mentioned, DHS notes that,
for the reasons discussed above, DHS
has removed acetone and urea from the
list of chemicals, and it has
substantially revised the STQ for
propane. As for concerns that facilities
will transition to more dangerous
substitute chemicals, DHS makes the
following points. Appendix A is DHS’s
first attempt to identify chemicals of
interest around which there are serious
security concerns, and the aim of
Appendix A is to provide a screening
tool for the DHS chemical security
regulatory program. If there is a need to
address different or additional
chemicals in the future, DHS has the
option of revising Appendix A, subject
to notice and comment when
appropriate, to include any different or
additional chemicals. The Department
also has the ability to reach out directly
to facilities it believes may present a
high level of security risk, even for
chemicals not included in Appendix A.
See 27 CFR 27.210(a)(1)(ii).
While facilities covered by part 27
have flexibility in deciding how to meet
the part 27 requirements (for example,
a facility can choose to reduce,
substitute, or eliminate its inventory of
an Appendix A chemical of interest at
any time), DHS will, through its review
of Site Security Plans and visits to
facilities, determine whether facilities
have adequately selected, developed,
and implemented risk-based measures
designed to satisfy the risk-based
performance standards. See 27 CFR
27.225 and 27.245.
Comment: One association
recommended that DHS exclude from
the list anhydrous ammonia used for
food refrigeration and contained in
closed-loop refrigeration systems.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
Another individual, however, supported
DHS inclusion of facilities that use
anhydrous ammonia either for
refrigeration during food processing and
storage or as part of emission controls
for coal-fired electrical generation,
because such facilities are typically near
population centers and transportation
systems. Several other commenters
urged DHS to increase the 7,500 pound
STQ for anhydrous ammonia, so that it
would match the TQ for other regulatory
programs.
Response: As a toxic chemical
utilized across industries, DHS believes
that anhydrous ammonia can present a
high risk and, under certain
circumstances, generate major
consequences for human life or health.
Therefore, DHS continues to include
anhydrous ammonia in the list of
chemicals. DHS, however, raised the
STQ for anhydrous ammonia to 10,000
pounds. That tracks the amount that
EPA uses in its RMP regulation. See 40
CFR 68.130, Table 1. DHS expects that
facilities will count toward their STQ
the quantity of anhydrous ammonia
stored as part of a refrigeration system
in addition to the quantity of anhydrous
ammonia in the actual system
Comment: Manufacturing plants
pointed out that most plants need a
minimum inventory of nitric acid to
operate efficiently. Commenters assert
that 2,000 pounds, the amount proposed
in Appendix A, is too low to operate
efficiently, and therefore, large numbers
of manufacturing plants would have to
go through the Top-Screen process.
Other commenters remarked that nitric
acid is included in the inventory of
laboratories at colleges and universities.
Response: The Department continues
to include nitric acid in Appendix A
given the security risks it presents. In
large quantities, nitric acid presents a
release hazard, and so DHS has set the
STQ at 15,000 pounds. In addition, DHS
is aware that nitric acid, in smaller
quantities, is useful in creating IEDs.
DHS has set the STQ for divertible
quantities of nitric acid (i.e., amounts in
transportation packagings) at 400
pounds.
2. Propane
In proposed Appendix A, the
Department included propane on the
list of Chemicals of Interest (COI) with
a STQ of 7,500 pounds.
Comment: DHS received almost 4,000
comments related to propane, and many
of these comments disagreed with the
proposed inclusion of propane and the
proposed STQ for propane. There were
comments from propane distributors
and retailers; agricultural businesses;
private citizens; and numerous small
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65409
business, including forklift operators,
camp grounds, parks, bakeries, and
construction companies.
Agricultural businesses indicated that
they use propane for multiple purposes,
including heating their chicken and/or
turkey houses, drying produce, or
keeping livestock and farm produce
warm. They indicated that many farms
have multiple tanks of propane and that
the regulation will impact many small,
family-owned farms, which will have to
complete the Top-Screen. Others
pointed out that these propane tanks on
farms are often separated by a
significant distance or a building.
Propane distributors and retailers
indicated that their main customer base
is residential, commercial/industrial,
motor fuel, agricultural, and wholesale.
In the residential market, propane is
used primarily for home heating, water
heating, and cooking purposes. Many
commenters stated that a significant
percentage of their customer base,
including residential users, would have
to complete and submit a Top-Screen
under the proposed threshold. They
speculated that this might force propane
users to shift to other more
environmentally hazardous fuel sources.
Retailers and distributors also claimed
that customers had already begun to
request the completion and submission
of the Top-Screen on their behalf.
Commenters asserted that the worst
case scenario of an explosion from a
1,000 gallon tank of propane is only
approximately 500 feet for a 1 psi overpressure condition. While that type of
incident is enough to break windows
and cause injuries due to glass shrapnel,
they did not think it would be likely to
cause structural damage and, hence,
should not be considered as a national
security threat.
Many commenters felt that that DHS
had gone beyond the limitations
contained in Section 550 of the
Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act of 2007, which they
asserted provides that nothing in the
rules can supersede other federal laws
pertaining to the manufacture,
distribution in commerce, use, or sale of
chemicals. See Section 550(f).
Commenters offered suggestions for
revisions. Many commenters suggested
that DHS should incorporate the
statutory exemptions from EPA’s Risk
Management Program rules, including
the statutory exemptions from the
Chemical Safety Information, Site
Security, and Fuels Regulatory Relief
Act (Pub. L. 106–40). Commenters also
proposed that DHS add a footnote to the
Appendix A entry for propane,
indicating that regulated entities need
not count all propane storage tanks of
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
65410
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
less than 1,200 gallons toward the
threshold amount.
Response: The Department continues
to include propane in the list of
chemicals in Appendix A. The
Department has not adopted the
statutory exemption from the Chemical
Safety Information, Site Security, and
Fuels Regulatory Relief Act (Pub. L.
106–40). That Act amended the Clean
Air Act to remove flammable fuels from
the list of substances with respect to
which reporting and other activities are
required under the risk management
plan program, and for other purposes.
EPA codified that provision at 40 CFR
68.126. Congress did not include such a
provision exempting propane in the
authorizing legislation for part 27, and
so DHS has not exempted propane from
part 27. The Department disagrees with
the statement that the Department has
gone beyond the limitations contained
in Section 550. The listing of propane in
Appendix A merely triggers the
requirement that a facility (possessing
the listed amount) complete and submit
a Top-Screen to DHS. That, in no way,
supersedes any other federal law
regulating manufacture, sale, or use of
propane.
The Department, however, has
changed several provisions related to
propane, as discussed in section II(D)(1).
The Department believes its approach to
securing significant stocks of propane is
informed, manageable, and
proportionate to its existing use and risk
profile. In response to the comment
about propane storage tanks, the
Department notes that, per
§ 27.203(b)(3), DHS will not require
facilities to include quantities of
propane in tanks of 10,000 pounds or
less.
3. Chlorine
In proposed Appendix A, the
Department included chlorine on the
list with an STQ of 1,875 pounds.
Comment: Many commenters
provided input on DHS’s inclusion of
chlorine on the COI list. The majority of
commenters encouraged DHS to use the
EPA RMP TQs for all RMP release-toxic
chemicals, including chlorine. They
argued that the RMP TQ of 2,500
pounds is a well-reasoned number and
that the chemical industry is familiar
with that number. As an additional
argument against an STQ of 1,875
pounds, commenters argued that large
amounts of chlorine are readily
available through production or
purchase given its diversified uses in
and across the water treatment,
electronics, steel, pharmaceutical, and
plastics industries. Similarly, other
commenters asserted that water and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
wastewater treatment facilities possess
chlorine, however those locations are
not chemical facilities in a traditional
sense and therefore they are lower risk
locations.
By contrast, one individual
commenter recommended a lower STQ
for chlorine. The commenter suggested
that DHS should lower the STQ for
chlorine to 150 pounds, which is the
size of a commonly available
commercial cylinder. The commenter
was concerned that the theft of small
containers of chlorine would enable a
terrorist to use chlorine gas in attacks on
public gatherings.
Response: While the Department
recognizes the importance of chlorine to
the Nation’s critical infrastructure and
key resources, and especially the
chemical sector, the Department also
realizes that the theft/diversion of
chlorine to develop a WME is a serious
security concern. Recent terrorist
incidents involving chlorine cylinders
in Iraq have reinforced this concern. To
balance these concerns, the Department
has developed a revised approach
toward chlorine, which is discussed in
section II(D)(2) above. With this
approach, the Department hopes to
facilitate the introduction and
implementation of security standards
that prevent the theft or diversion of
chlorine for terrorist purposes without
unduly interfering with the continued,
legitimate production, transportation,
and use of chlorine. In response to the
comment about public water systems
and water treatment systems, the
Department notes that it has excluded
those systems consistent with the
statutory exclusion in Section 550 (see
§ 27.110(b)).
4. Ammonium Nitrate (AN)
In proposed Appendix A, the
Department included ammonium nitrate
(nitrogen concentration of 28%–34%)
on the list of COI with a STQ of 2,000
pounds.
Comment: There were several
comments about AN with most
commenters supporting the inclusion of
AN on the COI list. Several commenters
remarked on the reduced availability of
AN fertilizer due to liability concerns
over its use in terrorism. Commenters
expressed differing opinions on the
percentage of nitrogen in AN that DHS
should consider for purposes of
preventing AN’s use as an explosive
precursor. Commenters requested
clarification of the STQ and whether it
applied to solid, liquid, and/or mixtures
of AN.
Response: DHS revised its approach
toward ammonium nitrate, as discussed
above in section II(D)(3). This revised
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
approach recognizes that AN is integral
to the agriculture and explosives
industries, yet also seeks to satisfy the
DHS mandate to enhance the security of
facilities that present a high level of
risk.
5. Acetone and Urea
In proposed Appendix A, the
Department included acetone and urea
on the list, each with an STQ of 2,000
pounds.
Comment: The Department also
received a large number of comments on
acetone and urea. Commenters from a
wide array of industries remarked on
the important uses and widespread
availability of these two chemicals.
Commenters noted that, while other
regulatory regimes cover acetone and
urea, they typically do so for amounts
lower than the proposed STQ of 2,000
pounds.
Response: The Department’s initial
concerns around acetone and urea
centered on its potential theft and
diversion for use as an explosives
precursor. After considering the
comments received and consulting with
expert sources, including the FBI
Explosives Unit and the report
produced by the National Research
Council, the Department does not
believe that acetone and urea need to be
tracked as closely the Department tracks
other explosives precursors, especially
concentrated hydrogen peroxide and
nitric acid. The Department has
removed acetone and urea from the list
of Chemicals of Interest in Appendix A.
6. Chemical Weapons (CW) and
Chemical Weapons Precursors (CWP)
Comment: While commenters
supported the Department’s reference to
the Schedules of chemicals from the
CWC, commenters generally noted that
applying an STQ of ‘‘any amount’’ for
all CWC chemicals was unnecessarily
low. With the exception of Schedule 1
chemicals, which are weapons and
therefore merit a relatively low STQ,
commenters thought that the ‘‘any
amount’’ STQ would create
unreasonable compliance challenges for
facilities. Commenters urged DHS to use
the CWC Schedule 2 TQs for Schedule
2 CW/CWP chemicals. Commenters also
remarked on the widespread
commercial use of triethanolamine (a
Schedule 3 chemical) in and across the
chemical, personal care, and consumer
products industries.
Response: The Department has
replaced all ‘‘any amount’’ STQs for
theft/diversion-CW/CWP chemicals
with numerical quantities. The
Department did not use the CWC TQs
for Schedule 2 chemicals because those
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
amounts are too high. Those higher
amounts are designed to prevent the
development of state-level chemical
weapons programs, not to prevent acts
of chemical terrorism. DHS identified
the STQ for Schedule 2 chemicals (at
2.2 pounds) by identifying how much
one would need of the chemical to
convert it easily into a weapon using
simple chemistry. DHS included
triethanolamine and several other
Schedule 3 chemicals in the final
appendix due to the ease with which
they may be weaponized.
7. Explosives
Comment: The American
Pyrotechnics Association requested that
DHS remove four oxidizers (ammonium
perchlorate greater than 15 microns in
size, potassium chlorate, potassium
nitrate, and potassium perchlorate) from
the list of chemicals in Appendix A.
The American Pyrotechnics Association
explained that, while these chemicals
are used in pyrotechnic mixtures, they
would neither create a highly toxic
cloud nor could they be used in an
explosive, flammable, or reactive
manner until they were properly
blended with an energetic fuel. In order
to create an oxidizer and fuel bomb, one
must go through extensive and difficult
steps to obtain the materials and then
must have the proper training to mix the
chemicals in the proper ratio. In other
words, terrorists would have to
complete extensive measures to secure
chemicals that would do very little
damage. Commenters noted that neither
DOT nor ATF classify the four oxidizers
as explosives, and so therefore DHS
should not either.
Response: DHS has considered the
American Pyrotechnics Association’s
comments and, based on consultations
with expert sources (including the FBI
Explosives Unit) the Department has
determined that it is still desirable to
include these four oxidizers on the list
of chemicals in Appendix A. DHS is
including ammonium perchlorate on the
list, because it is a DOT Class 1,
Division 1.1 explosive that presents two
security issues (see section II(C) above):
theft/diversion-EXP/IEDP and releaseexplosive. It is at risk of theft and
misuse for making explosives, and it
could present a release hazard from a
successful attack on a facility with a
large (5,000 pounds or greater)
inventory.
DHS is including the three potassium
compounds (potassium chlorate,
potassium nitrate, and potassium
perchlorate), because they are IED
precursors that warrant enhanced
security. The National Research Council
listed these chemicals in its report titled
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
Containing the Threat from Illegal
Bombings: An Integrated National
Strategy for Marking, Tagging,
Rendering Inert, and Licensing
Explosives and Their Precursors. The
FBI’s Explosives Unit has validated
such conclusions for DHS.
8. Hydrogen Peroxide
Comment: Given the availability of
acetone, one commenter requested that
DHS remove acetone from the list and
retain hydrogen peroxide at 30%, if
DHS was concerned about these
chemicals being misused to make
Triacetone Triperoxide (TATP).
Commenters from the food, feed, steel,
cleaning, and other industries remarked
on the varied uses for commercial
strength hydrogen peroxide as well as
hydrogen peroxide formulations. The
majority of commenters recommended
that DHS adopt OSHA’s and EPA’s
standard approach to listing hydrogen
peroxide at a 52% concentration under
their Process Safety Management (PSM)
regulations and Risk Management
Program (RMP), respectively.
Response: DHS listed hydrogen
peroxide in the proposed Appendix A
and continues to list it as a theft/
diversion-EXP/IEDP chemical in final
Appendix A because of its proven
potential as an IEDP. In the final
appendix, the Department listed
‘‘hydrogen peroxide (concentration of at
least 35%)’’ on the list of chemicals and
also set the minimum concentration for
hydrogen peroxide at 35%. For a
discussion of the Department’s
approach to hydrogen peroxide, see
section II(C)(5) above.
Commenters have requested that DHS
use a 52% concentration for hydrogen
peroxide, which they assert would be
consistent with certain OSHA and EPA
standards. While DHS understands
industry’s preference for consistent
rules across federal agencies, DHS notes
that DHS’s mandate is distinct from
other federal agencies that already
regulate hydrogen peroxide. Both OSHA
and EPA are concerned with accidental
release and/or the detonation of
hydrogen peroxide and so regulating
concentrations of 52% or greater is
reasonable given their mandates. DHS is
charged with ensuring effective security
at high risk chemical facilities. The
security issue around hydrogen
peroxide, a common IED precursor,
demanded that DHS identify the
concentration at which hydrogen
peroxide is potentially useful to
terrorists as an IED precursor. DHS, in
consultation with the FBI, has
determined that concentration to be at
or above 35%. In any event, setting the
Appendix A concentration at 35% for
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65411
triggering the Top-Screen requirements
in no way precludes any facility from
meeting OSHA or EPA standards.
B. Coverage of Appendix A
1. Colleges and Universities
Comment: Colleges, universities, and
university medical centers; associations
that represent these institutions; and
individuals associated with such
institutions requested that DHS exempt
these institutions or modify the rule to
address the use of chemicals of interest
at these institutions. Many colleges and
universities endorsed the comments of
the Campus Safety Health and
Environmental Management Association
(CSHEMA), which asserted that
chemicals of interest do not pose a
significant risk when they are widely
dispersed in many locations, and in
extremely small quantities per location,
as is typical with colleges and
universities. CSHEMA contended that
DHS must not have intended to include
colleges and universities given DHS’s
estimate of the number of affected
facilities. CSHEMA also asserted that
Appendix A imposes a heavy burden on
colleges and universities and that the
task of submitting a Top-Screen will be
onerous for colleges and universities; in
particular CSHEMA asserts that the time
and cost burden of complying with the
Top-Screen requirement will be
exponentially higher than that which
DHS estimated. CSHEMA made several
recommendations; namely, that DHS
replace all ‘‘any amount’’ STQs with a
numeric quantity (CSHEMA suggested a
minimum STQ of 100 pounds).
CSHEMA also recommended that DHS
exclude chemicals in containers of one
pound or less and that DHS create a perlaboratory STQ.
Other commenters provided similar
comments. They explained that
Appendix A includes numerous
chemicals of interest that are found or
synthesized at colleges and universities
in amounts that exceed the ‘‘any
amount’’ STQs. As a result, nearly all
colleges, universities, and university
hospitals would be required to complete
and submit a Top-Screen. Because COI
in extremely small quantities (typically
milligram or gram quantities per
container) are widely dispersed in many
locations throughout universities, the
commenters believe that these facilities
pose no significant security risk.
Commenters were also concerned that,
while no one location on campus might
exceed a threshold, the campus or
university as a whole (particularly since
there might be multiple campuses),
might exceed an STQ. Commenters
suggested that DHS provide an
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
65412
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
exemption, as does OSHA and EPA
regulations, for laboratories that use
small quantities of hazardous materials.
Many college and universities
described the security procedures that
they currently have in place and stated
that such procedures are adequate to
protect against the security risks that
they face. They asserted that it would
impose significant burdens to exceed
these measures. For example, while they
currently do some chemical tracking,
they believe that identifying and
tracking very small amounts of
chemicals for Appendix A purposes
would impose a substantial new burden.
Furthermore, they did not think that the
risk posed by these quantities justifies
the substantial burden that tracking
would impose. Others maintained that,
while locations can be secured, other
security measures contained in the Site
Security Plans would be antithetical to
institutions of higher learning.
As an alternative to seeking an
exemption from the regulation for
colleges and universities, commenters
made a variety of other suggestions. A
few commenters urged DHS to adopt
different STQs or to exclude chemicals
of interest that are used in laboratories
at colleges and universities. They
recommended that DHS replace ‘‘any
amount’’ with numeric threshold
quantities and that DHS base those
quantities on amounts used by other
federal agencies. Other commenters
proposed a per container limit for COI,
similar to what the EPA uses for its Spill
Prevention Control and Countermeasure
regulations. See 40 CFR part 112. As
noted above, CHSEMA proposed a one
pound limit per container. Commenters
also recommended DHS only regulate
pure chemicals, explaining that a
chemical that is part of a commercial
product, formulation, or dilute solution
should not be a COI.
Response: Facilities that possess any
of the chemicals listed in Appendix A
at or above the STQ for any applicable
security issue must complete and
submit a Top-Screen. See § 27.200(b)(2)
and § 27.210(a)(1)(i). Accordingly, the
Department expects that all facilities,
including colleges and universities, that
possess such chemicals will complete
and submit a Top-Screen. Because the
need to do a Top-Screen is driven by the
possession of chemicals, not the
location of the chemicals, DHS can not
simply exempt chemicals located at
colleges and universities. In addition,
the Department notes that existing
federal regulatory schemes (e.g., those of
the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), Drug Enforcement
Agency (DEA), and CWC) do not exempt
colleges, universities, and university
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
medical centers from their chemicalrelated regulatory programs.
Furthermore, given the apparent
current state of security at academic
institutions, DHS believes that
exclusion of colleges and universities is
not warranted. Based on the comments
DHS received from colleges and
universities, the Department
understands that security varies
dramatically across academic
institutions. Representatives of the
academic community acknowledged
that they possess chemicals of interest.
While some adhere to broad security
strategies, others admitted having an
incomplete or non-existent inventory of
the contents and quantities of chemicals
and no affordable or timely means of
compiling an inventory.
While the requirements of Appendix
A will continue to apply to academic
institutions, there are several revisions
to Appendix A, many of which should
allay the concerns of academic
institutions. First, DHS is providing
colleges and universities with the
option to request an extension of time
to complete and submit their TopScreens following the publication of a
final Appendix A. The president, dean,
provost, or other senior official at a
college or university may request an
extension from the Assistant Secretary
for Infrastructure Protection, and DHS
may grant that request for up to 60
additional calendar days following the
publication of final Appendix A.
Second, as discussed throughout this
final rule, the Department has removed
various chemicals from the list. Of note
to academic institutions, the
Department has removed acetone.
Similarly, the Department has adjusted
STQs for chemicals. The Department
has assigned numeric quantities to all of
the previous ‘‘any amount’’ STQs. Of
note to academic institutions, DHS has
changed the STQ for triethanolamine (a
theft/diversion-CW/CWP chemical)
from ‘‘any amount’’ to 220 pounds.
Third, the Department has added an
exclusion for facilities that possess
laboratory quantities of release-toxic,
release-flammable, and releaseexplosive chemicals. See § 27.203(b)(2).
This tracks the exemption that EPA uses
in its RMP program. Note, however, that
while a facility need not count
laboratory quantities of release
chemicals of interest toward the
facility’s STQ, a facility must still count
laboratory quantities of theft/diversion
and sabotage/contamination chemicals
of interest toward the facility’s STQ.
Fourth, all facilities, including
colleges and universities, have
flexibility in defining the boundaries of
their facility and identifying the party at
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
their institution that is responsible for
compliance.60 The requirements of part
27 are facility-specific. As such, an
institution of higher learning can, if
appropriate, submit a Top-Screen on a
building-to-building basis or a campuswide basis. This is comparable to the
situation for owners or operators of a
multi-unit enterprise. See 72 FR 17688,
17697.
Fifth, even if academic institutions get
screened into this regulatory program
(i.e., they complete the Top-Screen,
DHS classifies them as a high-risk
facility, and they have to develop and
implement SVAs and SSPs), the
academic institutions may well have
security measures in place that will help
them meet the applicable risk-based
performance standards. See § 27.230
(indicating that a facility must select,
develop in their SSP, and implement
appropriately risk-based measures
designed to satisfy the risk-based
performance standards listed in
§ 27.230(a)(1)–(19)). In that case, the
additional burden of complying with
this regulation would consist of either
creating a CSAT SSP or referencing
measures in an existing security plan by
way of an Alternate Security Program
(ASP). See § 27.235 ‘‘Alternative
Security Program.’’ Colleges and
universities may benefit from working
together to develop an ASP template
specifically tailored to the research
environment in an academic setting.
2. Medical Research Organizations and
Similar Laboratories
Comment: The assertions in the
comments from medical research
institutes and other similar laboratories
largely resembled those of the colleges
60 Part 27 defines a ‘‘chemical facility or facility’’
as ‘‘any facility that possesses or plans to possess,
at any relevant point in time, a quantity of a
chemical substance determined by the Secretary to
be potentially dangerous or that meets other riskrelated criterion identified by the Department. As
used herein, the term chemical facility or facility
shall also refer to the owner or operator of the
chemical facility. Where multiple owners and/or
operators function within a common infrastructure
or within a single fenced area, the Assistant
Secretary may determine that such owners and/or
operators constitute a single chemical facility or
multiple chemical facilities depending on the
circumstances.’’ See § 27.100.
As noted in the preamble to the IFR, DHS
believes that it will generally be straightforward for
facilities to define their boundaries and identify the
party (at their facility) responsible for compliance
with the regulation. DHS acknowledges that, in
some circumstances, the issue might be more
complex. The Department will address those
situations on a case-by-case basis. See 72 FR 17697.
In addition, as indicated in the definition of
‘‘chemical facility,’’ the Assistant Secretary has the
authority, where necessary, to make a
determination about the operations at given facility
or facilities. The Assistant Secretary may make the
determination that a facility is a single chemical
facility or multiple chemical facilities.
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
and universities. These comments came
not only from medical research
institutes but from non-production, nondiagnostic research laboratories;
ancillary facilities at non-profit, noncommercial research organizations;
operators of pharmaceutical
laboratories; and companies that
conduct research as a part of their
business (e.g., industrial or food
processing research and development
laboratories, environmental testing labs,
and testing or monitoring facilities).
They argued that their institutions are
not ‘‘high risk chemical facilities.’’ They
also claimed that they use COI in the
same way that colleges and universities
do—that is, they have large numbers of
chemicals and reagents in very small
quantities, in small containers, and at
multiple locations within a facility. In
addition, they asserted that they did not
comment on the Advance Notice of
Rulemaking, because they did not
believe that rule would cover them.
Pharmaceutical research facilities
asserted these security efforts would be
very burdensome and would divert a
large amount of time and resources
away from their critical, life-saving
research.
Several of those commenters
expressed concern about the ‘‘any
amount’’ threshold. Those commenters
included individuals and entities that
conduct field calibration for pipelines
and operations, operate compliance
labs, sterilize instruments, and conduct
blood or tissue test. A few commenters
pointed out that the ‘‘any amount’’
threshold would mean that entities like
clinics and dental offices would have to
submit Top-Screens.
Commenters requested that DHS
exempt their laboratories or operations
from the rule. In the alternative, the
commenters requested other forms of
relief, such as replacing the ‘‘any
amount’’ STQ for common laboratory
chemicals with a STQ of 10 pounds per
storage location or 100 pounds per
building; establishing a per container
limit of 1 pound; setting higher levels
for ubiquitous substances (such as
acetone and triethanolamine); or
defining a facility to include a storage
location.
Response: DHS directs readers to the
response provided for colleges and
universities, as that response is directly
applicable to these comments by
medical research institutes and other
similar laboratories. The requirement to
complete the Top-Screen is driven by
the possession of certain chemicals in
specified quantities, and DHS does not
agree that the nature of a facility’s
operation alone warrants an exclusion.
As such, the Department expects that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
medical research institutes and like
institutions that possess any of the
chemicals listed in Appendix A at or
above the STQ for any applicable
security issue will complete and submit
a Top-Screen. See § 27.200(b)(2) and
§ 27.210(a)(1)(i). DHS also directs
readers to the discussion of revisions to
Appendix A, which is provided in the
response to colleges and universities.
Those revisions should address many of
the concerns of medical research
institutes and like institutions.
3. Farms and the Agricultural Industry;
Fumigation Industry
Comment: Several commenters,
including farmers and other agricultural
users of chemicals, asserted that they
should be exempt from this rule,
explaining that they extensively use
chemicals like acrolein, ammonium
nitrate (nitrogen concentration of 28%–
34%), and sodium chlorate. Because
farmers use these chemicals on farms for
agricultural purposes, and often do so in
remote and rural locations, commenters
did not think that these chemicals
raised any security concerns. Other
commenters expressed concern that if
DHS made exceptions for certain
facilities (especially in the agricultural
industry), loopholes would emerge and
companies would exploit those
loopholes in order to gain a financial
edge.
Several commenters asserted that
DHS should exempt urea fertilizer,
because it is widely-used. Another
commenter requested that DHS work
with agricultural producer groups in
order to find appropriate ways to
regulate commonly-used nitrogen
fertilizers such as ammonia solutions,
anhydrous ammonia, and urea.
Commenters believed that the potential
hazard or risk posed by these chemicals,
particularly in a rural farm setting, is
minimal and should not trigger the
regulation of farms as ‘‘chemical
facilities.’’ Yet other commenters agreed
that DHS should exempt urea but for a
different reason; they asserted that
chemicals that are already highly
regulated may not need the additional
requirements of this rule, but the fact
that a chemical like urea is not highly
regulated supports the argument that the
chemical by itself is not harmful.
Commenters from the fumigation
industry pointed out that DHS security
regulation of chemicals (such as methyl
bromide, chloropicrin, and sulfuryl
fluoride) is unnecessary, since these
substances are commonly used in the
fumigation industry and already
regulated under other federal regulatory
schemes. In addition, commenters
pointed out that there are licensing and
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65413
control standards for these substances.
Moreover, these chemicals are usually
kept in small amounts in small
containers under secure conditions by
people who are licensed.
Response: Pursuant to the authorizing
legislation for part 27, the Department
has exempted select facilities from this
regulation. See Section 550(a) and
§ 27.110(b). Commenters to both the
Advance Notice and to Appendix A
requested that DHS exempt additional
facilities and industries, such as
universities, medical research institutes,
and farms. Consistent with its position
in the IFR, DHS has not provided any
additional regulatory text exemptions.
See 67 FR 17688, 17699.
There are risks with facilities
possessing certain amounts of certain
chemicals, and the Department is
seeking to address these risks under its
new authority in Section 550. This
extends to all facilities that present high
levels of security risk and possess
chemicals that may be of interest to
terrorists. Moreover, these risks are
associated with the characteristics and
quantity of the chemical, rather than the
business or activity associated with the
industry or facility. As such, it would
not be appropriate for DHS to exempt,
by regulation, entire types of activities
or industries.
Nevertheless, the Department realizes
the commercial importance of Appendix
A chemicals of interest and does not
seek to undermine their legitimate
production, use, and/or sale. To that
end, the Department has made
numerous changes to the appendix and
discusses them in section II of this
preamble. In short, DHS has clearly
identified the security issue(s)
associated with each chemical, removed
the ‘‘any amount’’ STQs,61 removed
chemicals (including acetone and urea),
and developed a specialized approach
for certain chemicals (including
propane and AN). In addition, as
discussed in the relevant sections above,
DHS notes that it removed methyl
bromide and chloropicrin from the list
of chemicals in Appendix A.
4. Overlap With Other Federal Entities
Comment: Many commenters
expressed concern that the new rule
creates regulatory redundancy. They
indicated that numerous federal
agencies, including ATF, DOT, DOJ,
EPA, OSHA, TSA, and USCG, already
have regulations on the identified
chemicals and that some of these
agencies heavily regulate companies
that deal with chemicals. Commenters
explained that companies that store and
61 See
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
footnote 64.
20NOR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
65414
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
transport these materials must conduct
a comprehensive risk and vulnerability
assessment based on storage prior to
transport, personnel security,
unauthorized access, and en route
security. Commenters indicated that
they would like to see consistency and
cooperation between agencies.
Commenters argued that DHS should
remove chemicals that are already
regulated by other federal agencies and
pointed to several examples.
Commenters asserted that the EPA,
through the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq., and DOT
regulates chemicals such as methyl
bromide, chloropicrin, and sulfuryl
fluoride. Other commenters asserted
that the EPA, through the Emergency
Planning and Community Right to
Know Act, 42 U.S.C.11011 et seq., and
the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration regulate hydrogen
peroxide (concentration of at least 30%).
And yet other commenters pointed out
that DOT regulates propane; DOT, along
with EPA, regulates phosphine; and the
DOC regulates triethanolamine under its
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)
regulations.
Other commenters recommended that
DHS exempt facilities that are regulated
by other federal agencies. Specifically,
commenters requested exemptions for
facilities that have already complied
with EPA’s Risk Management Program;
natural gas pipelines and utility
facilities that DOT’s Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Administration
(PHMSA) regulates; and facilities that
have been screened out of the Maritime
Transportation Security Act (MTSA)
(e.g., offshore oil and gas facilities).
Commenters asserted that the EPA RMP
regulations, PHMSA pipeline and U.S.
Coast Guard MTSA regulations assess
facilities with similar criteria (i.e.,
potential risk to the public, the
environment, and economic health) and
therefore thought that DHS efforts
would be redundant and a waste of
resources. Many small businesses
commented that it would be difficult for
them to keep up with part 27 and other
federal regulations, especially since TQs
and STQs vary between agencies.
Several commenters suggested that
DHS should set its STQs consistent with
those of other federal agencies or
regulatory programs (e.g., OSHA, EPA,
DOC). Commenters most frequently
recommended that DHS use EPA RMP
TQs and either substitute them
categorically for all STQs or at least for
the proposed ‘‘any amount’’ STQs. One
commenter recommended that a
chemical of interest that is also an
extremely hazardous substance under
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
EPA’s Emergency Planning and
Notification regulations at 40 CFR part
355 should have an STQ no lower than
its threshold planning quantity.
With respect to explosives,
commenters pointed out that the
explosives industry is already heavily
regulated by DOT, the Department of
Justice (DOJ), and ATF and is subject to
risk assessments. Commenters believe
the DHS efforts would be redundant and
excessive for a low-threat industry. By
contrast, another commenter suggested
that DHS expand the list of COI to
incorporate those substances regulated
by the ATF. The commenter stated that
explosives present security risks beyond
manufacturing (such as transportation,
end storage, and potential theft) that
need to be taken into account.
Response: The Department recognizes
that multiple federal entities regulate
matters related to chemicals. In the
Advance Notice to part 27, the
Department discussed pre-existing
chemical security and safety programs,
such as those of the USCG, EPA, OSHA,
and ATF. The Department notes,
however, that each entity regulates
chemicals for distinct reasons. Congress
has given each entity a different
mandate, and so each entity must satisfy
its mandate. For example, OSHA is
concerned with, inter alia, the
protection of employees that use certain
chemicals in the workplace. DOT is
concerned with the safe and secure
transportation of hazardous materials.
EPA, through its RMP program, is
concerned with preventing an
accidental release of certain chemicals.
DHS, however, is concerned with the
security implications of facilities
possessing these chemicals. Congress
has given DHS explicit authority to
regulate security at chemical facilities.
To the extent there is overlap in the
jurisdiction and efforts of multiple
federal entities, DHS will work with
those entities to coordinate efforts.
Within DHS, the Department has
already undertaken steps among
headquarters and component offices
(e.g., USCG, DHS Office of Infrastructure
Protection/Chemical Security
Compliance Division (CSCD), and TSA)
to coordinate the application and
enforcement of regulatory programs
related to chemical security. There are
liaison positions within CSCD for
individuals from other DHS offices and
components. In addition, DHS has
developed informal and formal working
groups to coordinate Departmental
regulatory authorities in the chemical
sector. With respect to federal entities
outside of DHS, the Department will
consider the necessity of various
formalized arrangements, such as an
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
inter-agency coordination process to
resolve jurisdictional questions or
conflicts, as this regulatory program
develops.
Despite the differing mandates
between federal agencies that regulate
chemicals, the Department has looked to
the regulatory programs of these other
federal agencies for guidance and
direction. The Department found great
value in considering a number of these
regulatory programs, including those of
the ATF, DOC, Department of Energy
(DOE), DOT, EPA, and OSHA. In fact,
the Department references, uses, and
cites many of these regulations in this
rule.
With respect to offshore oil and gas
facilities, as discussed in the IFR at 72
FR 17699, the Department notes that the
statute (Section 550) and the regulation
(§ 27.110(b)) exempt facilities regulated
pursuant to MTSA.
5. Concerns About Being Over-Inclusive
Section 27.105 defines a chemical
facility as an establishment that
‘‘possesses or plans to possess, at any
relevant point in time, a quantity of a
chemical substance determined by the
Secretary to be potentially dangerous or
that meets other risk-related criteria
identified by the Department.’’
Comment: Numerous commenters
stated that this definition of a ‘‘chemical
facility,’’ along with the chemicals and
STQs listed in proposed Appendix A,
will capture far more facilities than
Congress originally intended.
Commenters were concerned that these
facilities, which they did not consider
high risk facilities, would need to
complete and submit a Top-Screen
because of the proposed COI and STQs.
For example, 105 of the 331 chemicals
on the proposed list have a STQ with no
‘‘de minimis’’ quantity (i.e., an STQ of
‘‘any amount.’’). Among those listed are
many common chemicals (e.g., carbon
monoxide) that can be found in many
low risk facilities. As a result of the
proposed list of COI and STQs, the rule
would end up covering many entities
that would not expect to be covered,
such as rural schools, summer camps,
universities, research facilities, farms,
agricultural retailers, grocery stores,
fumigators, and residential homes.
Commenters asserted that if DHS did
not alter its definition of chemical
facility, the chemicals in the COI list,
and the STQs on the COI list, DHS
would receive a drastically larger
number of Top-Screens (than the 40,000
Top-Screens, which DHS estimated in
regulatory evaluation for the IFR).
Commenters argued that the number of
Top-Screens would be as high as
hundreds of thousands, perhaps even
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
millions. Commenters believe this will
bog down the review process, use too
many resources on low risk facilities,
and become counter-productive in the
attempt to secure the homeland.
Commenters were also concerned that
if entities which did not expect to be
included (e.g., farmers, small business
owners, or home owners) are, in fact,
included in Appendix A and expected
to complete the Top-Screen, those
entities will not know of the
requirement and not comply, thereby
incurring possible penalties and other
consequences (e.g., filing fees, costs
associated with hiring DHS compliance
consultants).
Response: In part 27, the Department
classifies chemical facilities as high risk
based on the presence of chemicals that
may be an attractive target for terrorists.
DHS has identified security issue(s) for
each chemical, and that security issue is
associated with the characteristics and
quantity of the chemical. If a facility
possesses that chemical at the specified
amount, the Department expects that the
facility will complete a Top-Screen.
While the Department has not
narrowed its definition of ‘‘chemical
facility,’’ 62 the Department has refined
the list of chemicals, as well as the
parameters for including chemicals. See
section II of the preamble. Among the
changes, DHS established many new
STQs, eliminated the ‘‘any amount’’
STQ, and has included new calculation
provisions. The Department expects that
these changes will effectively exclude
most farmers, home owners, and small
businesses from the Top-Screen process.
The Department believes that its
estimate regarding entities that will
complete the Top-Screen continues to
be accurate.
In addition, the Department is
providing some clarification on the
coverage of truck terminals. The
Department is taking the same approach
toward truck terminals that it has taken
toward railroad facilities. See 72 FR
17698–17699. DHS presently does not
plan to screen truck terminals for
inclusion in the Section 550 regulatory
program, and therefore DHS will not
request that owners and operators of
truck terminals complete the TopScreen risk assessment methodology.
DHS and its components, including
TSA, have concurrent and overlapping
jurisdiction with respect to certain
aspects of chemical security. DHS is
working, and will continue to work, to
address this overlapping jurisdiction
and to determine whether it would want
to include trucking terminals in its
62 For a discussion on the definition of ‘‘chemical
facility,’’ see footnote 61.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
chemical security program. As with
railroad facilities, DHS may, in the
future re-evaluate the coverage of
trucking terminals. DHS would do so by
issuing a rulemaking considering the
matter.
Finally, in response to commenters
who indicate that there may be a lack
of awareness about these requirements,
the Department notes that publication of
a document in the Federal Register is
official notice of a document’s existence
and its contents to those parties that
may be subject to it or affected by it. In
this case, the IFR and this final rule puts
all affected parties on notice that they
must comply with the terms of part 27.
Despite this fact, the Department has
undertaken outreach efforts since the
publication of this IFR and will
continue to do so.
C. Screening Threshold Quantities
1. In General
Comment: There were many
comments about the STQs assigned to
the chemicals in the list. The majority
of commenters recommended that DHS
increase the STQs, arguing that the
proposed STQs were too low.
Commenters asserted that DHS should
significantly increase the STQs to
relieve the burden on very low risk
facilities. Other commenters argued that
low STQs for common, widely-used
chemicals will impose a huge burden on
industry overall as well as a burden on
small entities that make small amounts
of several, different chemicals. By
contrast, only one individual
commenter recommended a downward
STQ adjustment (for chlorine).
Response: The Department has
revised its approach to Appendix A,
including substantial changes to the
STQs. The changes are discussed in
depth above in section II(C).
Comment: Some individuals noted
that a particular site or facility might
have several locations where there is a
small quantity of a COI, but in the
aggregate the site could have more than
an STQ. The commenters asked whether
the threshold amount should be applied
to the entire site, even if the different
locations within the site are widely
separated from one another. Another
commenter thought that DHS should
clarify its definition of STQ to include
‘‘all sources of a given chemical from a
given facility, not just single sources
with quantities that exceed STQs.’’
Response: As DHS discussed in the
comment response about colleges and
universities, facilities have flexibility to
define their boundaries and identify the
party (or parties) at their institution that
is responsible for compliance. The
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65415
requirements of part 27 are facilityspecific.
Comment: A commenter suggested
that, because of varying uses or toxicity,
DHS list STQs in smaller units of
measures (i.e., grams) in addition to
pounds.
Response: Where appropriate, the
Department has listed STQs in units
other than pounds. For example, the
Department lists the cumulative STQ for
specified theft/diversion-CW/CWP
chemicals at 100 grams.
2. Modifying the ‘‘Any Amount’’ STQ
Comment: Several commenters
expressed an opinion on the ‘‘any
amount’’ STQ in the proposed
appendix. Many commenters urged DHS
to replace the ‘‘any amount’’ STQs with
numeric levels. One commenter
encouraged DHS to set the thresholds at
amounts that reflect what experts
believe is sufficient to produce an offsite consequence to the public as a
result of attack, theft, or conversion into
a weapon of mass destruction.
Yet other commenters asked DHS to
clarify the meaning of ‘‘any amount.’’
For example, one individual asked how
a facility would know when it came into
possession of ‘‘any amount.’’ Other
commenters pointed out that certain
COI are ingredients in many
nonhazardous products, such as foods
and cosmetics, and therefore thought
that DHS would not have intended for
those products to be subject to the rule.
For example, an 8-ounce glass of whole
milk contains approximately 230
milligrams of phosphorus, and yet DHS
listed phosphorus as a COI with an STQ
of ‘‘any amount.’’
Other commenters noted that if DHS
retained the ‘‘any amount’’ STQ, every
home, grocery store, and school with
only a detectable amount would have to
comply with the regulation. These
commenters did not think that such a
tiny amount of chemicals would make
a viable terrorist target. Other
commenters suggested that the ‘‘any
amount’’ STQ would create a larger
burden for both DHS and facilities that
would otherwise not be affected by this
rule. This, in turn, would divert limited
resources away from those facilities that
can actually be considered terrorist
targets. A food industry commenter
believed that overly expansive coverage
would cause facilities in the industry to
focus on chemical security compliance
rather than potential threats to the food
supply.
Response: The Department has
removed the ‘‘any amount STQs’’ from
the list, and for the vast majority of
chemicals, DHS assigned a numeric
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
65416
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
quantity to the STQ for each chemical.63
The revised STQs are geared toward the
hazard and consequences associated
with the chemical.
3. Mixtures and Solutions
Comment: Several individuals,
entities, and organizations believed that
the proposed appendix was unclear
about the applicability of STQs to
mixtures and solutions. Commenters
argued that the concentration of a COI
is the most important factor affecting
potential harm. Commenters asserted
that when a COI is listed in Appendix
A without a percent concentration, then
the STQ should apply to the weight of
the pure substance, not to the weight of
a mixture or solution. Alternatively,
commenters suggested that DHS should
establish minimum concentrations for
all COI. Some commenters noted that
the properties of a mixture might be
significantly different from the
properties of the listed COI that caused
the mixture to be considered a health or
security risk. One commenter suggested
that DHS should exclude mixtures from
the list, since most chemical mixtures
do not share the same risk profile as
their pure compound counterpart (e.g.,
acetone, cyanides, fertilizers, and gas
mixtures).
Response: The Department recognizes
the importance of providing guidance
on mixtures, and as discussed in section
II, the Department added a new
regulatory section that addresses
mixtures. See § 27.204. The Department
generally disagrees with commenters
who assert that chemical mixtures are
not a security concern. For example,
toxic chemical mixtures are a security
concern given their ability to vaporize
from the mixture and potentially create
a toxic cloud. Similarly, certain
minimum concentrations of poisonous
gases, particularly the highly toxic
gasses, are potential weapons even in
extremely low concentrations.
D. Revisions to the COI List
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
1. Technical Corrections
Comment: A handful of commenters
noted that DHS had duplicate entries for
chemicals in proposed Appendix A. The
Department listed each of the four
following chemicals twice, with a
different STQ (‘‘any amount’’ and 2000
pounds) for each entry: (1) Phosphorus
oxychloride, (2) phosphorus
63 for sabotage/contamination chemicals, a facility
meets the STQ if it possesses A Placarded
Amount—i.e., if it ships the listed chemical of
interest and is required to placard the shipment of
that chemical pursuant to DOT regulations at 49
CFR part 172. DOT regulations identify the amounts
(such as ‘‘any quantity’’ or ‘‘1,001 lbs or more) for
which placarding is required.’’ See 49 CFR 172.504.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
pentachloride, (3) phosphorus
trichloride, and (4) thionyl chloride.
In addition, the Department listed
each of the following three chemicals
twice by listing the chemical under two
synonymous names: (1) Calcium
dithionite and calcium hydrosulfite, (2)
sodium dithionite and sodium
hydrosulfite, and (3) zinc dithionite and
zinc hydrosulfite. The Department not
only listed each of the following two
chemicals twice by listing the chemical
under two synonymous names, but also
listed a different STQ under each name:
(1) Hydrogen cyanide (any amount) and
hydrocyanic acid (1,875 pounds), and
(2) carbonyl sulfide (any amount) and
carbon oxysulfide (7,500 pounds).
Commenters noted that Appendix A
listed incorrect CAS numbers for the
following six chemicals:
hexyltrichlorosilane, sodium
phosphide, hexotonal, chromium
oxychloride, diethyl phosphate, and
dimethyl phosphate.
Response: The Department
appreciates the input from commenters
on chemical names and CAS numbers.
The Department used that information
to ensure the accuracy of Appendix A.
To that end, the Department has
removed and revised duplicate entries,
corrected CAS numbers, and added a
column to the appendix containing
commonly-used synonyms for certain
chemicals of interest.
2. Formatting and Approach
Comment: A few commenters
recommended that DHS parallel the
DOT hazard class approach in
classifying and listing chemicals. The
Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME)
made this suggestion in the context of
explosives. To illustrate their point, the
IME provided examples of chemicals in
the same hazard class as several COI
included in the Department’s chemicalby-chemical approach.
Response: As noted in the IFR, DHS’s
primary approach in this appendix is
through the association of individual
chemicals with specific security issues.
While DHS will not preclude the use of
hazard classes for other purposes (e.g.,
in the risk-based performance standard
guidelines), DHS is not using the DOT
hazard class approach at this point in
time.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that DHS add the following generic ‘‘Not
Otherwise Specified’’ (N.O.S.)
chemicals to the COI list: Poison Gas,
N.O.S.; Flammable Gas, N.O.S.;
Flammable Liquid, N.O.S.; Spontaneous
Combustible Liquid, N.O.S.; Organic
Peroxide, N.O.S.; Poison Inhalation
Hazard, N.O.S. The commenter
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
suggested that DHS assign large STQ
values to these N.O.S. chemicals.
Response: For the reasons discussed
above in sections II(C)(2) and II(C)(4),
the Department is not using the DOT
approach of categorizing chemicals,64
and so DHS has not included N.O.S.
chemicals on the COI list.65 Instead,
DHS has included chemicals on the COI
list if they are uniquely identifiable. The
Department, of course, retains its
discretion to expand the COI list to
include these or other chemicals in the
future, as necessary.
Comment: A commenter requested
that DHS list the chemicals in CAS
numerical sequence in addition to
listing them in alphabetical order.
Response: At this time, the
Department will not list chemicals in
CAS numerical sequence. The
Department has, however, re-formatted
the final Appendix, making it more
user-friendly.
E. Other Comments
1. Procedural Issues
Comment: Many commenters were
upset that DHS did not publish
Appendix A in the Advance Notice. A
large number of commenters wanted the
comment period for Appendix A
extended for an additional 30 to 60
days. Many commenters thought that 30
days was not a sufficient amount of time
to fully digest and analyze the
regulations.
Response: Congress provided the
Department with six months to
promulgate interim final regulations on
chemical security. See Section 550(a).
The Department not only met that short
deadline, but it published both an
Advance Notice and IFR within that sixmonth period. While the Department
did not include Appendix A in the
Advance Notice, it nonetheless has
provided the public with an opportunity
to comment on the appendix.
In the IFR, the Department provided
the public with 30 days to comment on
proposed Appendix A. The Department
was unable to extend that time period,
given that the Department is seeking to
facilitate the expeditious
implementation of this chemical
security regulatory program. Until the
Department finalizes Appendix A, the
64 Through its Hazardous Material Table in 49
CFR 172.101, DOT regulates the transportation of
hazardous materials. For each material listed, DOT
identifies a hazard class, provides the proper
shipping name, and specifies the applicable
requirements (e.g., labeling, packaging, etc). To
denote hazardous materials without a specific
shipping name, DOT uses the suffix ‘‘N.O.S.’’ and
a generic shipping name.
65 The only exception is germanium tetrafluoride,
which DHS discusses in section (II)(C)(4)(a) above.
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Department cannot fully implement this
program.
Comment: A few commenters asked
that DHS incorporate procedures for
changing the chemicals and STQs in
Appendix A. Commenters want to be
able to request that DHS delist (or
remove) a chemical from Appendix A.
Other commenters asked that DHS
provide a 90 day comment period when
adding chemicals.
Response: DHS plans to periodically
update the list of chemicals in
Appendix A and will do so through
notice and comment. At this time, DHS
is not including a petition process like
that of EPA, where members of the
public may petition the EPA to add or
delete substances from the RMP list. See
40 CFR 27.120.
Comment: Commenters asked that the
media be more involved in conveying
information about the final rule, because
they believe that there are many smaller
businesses that are potentially affected
and yet are not aware of these new
standards. Commenters are concerned
that individuals and businesses could
face severe financial penalties or unfair
prosecution if they lack a full
understanding of the rule and fail to
comply.
Response: The Department recognizes
the need for ongoing and expanded
outreach on this regulatory program,
and the Department has already
initiated such outreach. For example,
the Department began participating in
conferences soon after the effective date
of part 27 (e.g., the American Chemistry
Council’s ChemSecure Security
Conference and Expo from April 17–19,
2007). The Department has also
supported other events, such as the
2007 Chemical Sector Security Summit
on June 11–13, 2007, which was
convened by the Chemical Sector
Coordinating Council.66 In addition, the
Department provides informative and
up-to-date resources about part 27 on its
Web site (https://www.dhs.gov/
chemicalsecurity). The Department is
interested in collaborating with private
and public stakeholders, as well as the
media, in the interest of promoting a full
understanding of, and effective
compliance with, part 27.
2. Compliance Issues
Comment: Several commenters asked
DHS for clarification on identifying the
responsible party for submitting
information through the Top-Screen.
One commenter asked who, if anyone,
is responsible to submit a Top-Screen,
66 For information on the conference, see https://
www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/
gc_1176736485793.shtm
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
in each of the following three scenarios:
(1) If an American company buys a COI
from one country and ships it directly
to another country without ever
possessing it; (2) If an American
company buys a COI from a foreign
nation and temporarily stores it for
resale to another USA or Canadian
company; and, (3) If an American
company buys a COI above the
threshold limit from an overseas
producer and sells it to another USA
company without ever handling it in
their facility.
Response: Part 27 applies to facilities
located in the U.S. All facilities located
in the U.S., including both domestic and
foreign companies, that possess
chemicals at the applicable STQ must
complete and submit a Top-Screen. The
converse is that a facility which does
not operate in the U.S. and never
possesses chemicals in the U.S., even if
it is a U.S. company, does not have to
complete and submit a Top-Screen.
An American company that purchases
chemicals of interest from one foreign
country and ships it to another foreign
country, without ever possessing the
chemical in the U.S. does not need to
complete and submit a Top-Screen. Any
company, whether domestic or foreign,
that stores chemicals of interest in the
U.S. in quantities that at any time meet
or exceed the STQ must complete and
submit a Top-Screen. The Department
realizes there are numerous,
complicated business arrangements.
Where a facility is unsure about its
responsibility for compliance, the
facility should consult with the
Department pursuant to § 27.120, and
the Department can work with the
facility to resolve those issues.
Comment: Other commenters raised
concerns about third party
responsibility. Commenters wanted to
know who was responsible for
complying with part 27 if a company or
individual relies upon a third party to
store and secure an Appendix A
chemical above the STQ. There was also
confusion over third party contractors/
vendors who temporarily store COI onsite while completing a job.
Commenters explained that the
challenge is to determine who
completes and submits, and how often,
a Top-Screen for a temporary tank.
Storage of COI may be temporary or
transient in nature, which creates
confusion about how to apply the
definition of facility to COI. A few
commenters asked if a landlord is
responsible for ensuring compliance
with DHS regulations if their tenant
company leases a warehouse and stores
a COI above its allotted threshold.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65417
Response: Whether a landlord or
tenant is responsible for submitting a
Top-Screen will depend on which party
is responsible for security of the
chemical. The party responsible for the
security of the chemical is responsible
for submitting the Top-Screen. This may
vary depending on the operational and/
or contractual relationship between the
parties.
Comment: A few commenters
suggested that, in determining whether
a facility possesses the chemicals in
Appendix A at the quantities that trigger
a Top-Screen, DHS should not include
quantities of a chemical of interest that
a facility is using or processing on-site.
In some cases, a process might create a
chemical of interest but not result in the
storage of that chemical of interest. For
example, carbon monoxide produced
during combustion is transitory, and
sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide are
created and consumed during flue gas
conditioning.
Response: A facility shall calculate
the STQ for release-toxic chemicals,
such as sulfur trioxide, based on a
facility’s total inventory of the chemical.
The Department has added clarity to
this issue, by adding calculation
provisions for each security issue.
Section § 27.203(b)(1)(iii), in particular,
provides that facilities shall include in
their release STQ chemicals of interest
that are present as process
intermediates, by-products, or materials
produced incidental to the production
of a product. The Department notes that
it no longer includes carbon monoxide
on the list of chemicals in Appendix A.
Comment: Commenters asked
whether a facility, after not having a COI
for an extended period of time, would
have to re-submit a Top-Screen if the
facility obtained a COI above the STQ.
Response: Under § 27.210(a)(1)(i), a
facility that possesses any of the
chemicals listed in Appendix A at or
above the corresponding STQs must
complete and submit a Top-Screen
within 60 calendar days of the effective
date of this final rule. In addition, a
facility that comes into possession of
any of the chemicals in Appendix A at
the listed STQs must complete and
submit a Top-Screen within 60 calendar
days of coming into possession of the
chemicals (emphasis added).
Comment: Commenters suggested that
DHS establish a ‘‘holding-time’’
threshold for chemicals, with time
frames including 30 days and 60 days.
Some commenters suggested an
exemption for facilities that possess
chemicals only for short periods of time.
Response: DHS has not established a
‘‘holding-time’’ threshold for chemicals.
If terrorists have a reason to know that
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
65418
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
an attractive chemical is present at a
facility, the duration for which it is
present is largely irrelevant. As a result,
a facility must submit and complete a
Top-Screen if it possesses chemicals of
interest in a quantity that at any time
meets the STQ.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
3. Miscellaneous
Comment: One commenter was
concerned that there was a lack of
information describing the tier-based
risk assessments. Another commenter
indicated that they were unable to
submit comprehensive comments,
because DHS has not established criteria
and performance standards for
determining risk-based tiers.
Response: Although these comments
are outside the scope of the rulemaking,
the Department provides a response, in
the hopes of promoting a fuller
understanding of part 27. The
Department is preparing a
comprehensive guidance document that
provides detailed explanations for the
requirements by tier. The Department
will make this guidance document
available to facilities that have a need to
know the information.
Comment: Commenters expressed
concerns about the financial impact of
these new regulations on the American
economy. Some feel that the regulations
would impose a larger financial burden
on U.S.-based companies, giving foreign
companies an advantage. One
commenter, in particular, was
concerned that there will be an undue
economic burden on local businesses if
DHS requires background checks for any
level of facility. This, in turn, could lead
to non-compliance.
A few commenters requested that
DHS establish and publish
qualifications for reviewers 67 and that
DHS require reviewers to register with
CSAT. Other commenters noted that the
EPA and other agencies release
operating information to the public;
they thought that DHS, however,
should, for security reasons, maintain as
classified the information that it collects
because of part 27. Another commenter,
after noting that registration is only
internet-based, requested that paper
registration be made available for areas
that do not have public internet access.
One commenter was concerned that
the Chemical Security Regulatory Task
Force, which consists of five trained
individuals, would not be able to guide
the thousands of facilities seeking
facility has the option of designating a
reviewer for its facility. A reviewer is an individual
who can review, but not enter, edit, or submit,
information in the CSAT system. A facility can add
a reviewer any time after the CSAT User
Registration process.
guidance on these regulations. A few
commenters were concerned about
DHS’s ability to process information
requests quickly enough so that
requesting companies would not be
denied or penalized as a result.
A commenter recommended that DHS
replace the open-ended questions in the
Top-Screen (which asks for the value of
products shipped from facilities) with a
pull down menu listing ranges of
values. The commenter thought that this
would help incorporate the smaller sites
that are exempt from the comparatively
high thresholds for declaring and
hosting inspections of chemical
weapons and their precursors under the
CWC.
Response: These comments are
outside the scope of this rulemaking,
which addresses the list of chemicals in
Appendix A.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
DHS prepared and placed in the
docket a Regulatory Assessment
addressing the economic impact of the
IFR. See 72 FR 172688. That Regulatory
Assessment is applicable to this final
rule.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
mandates that an agency conduct an
RFA analysis when an agency is
required to publish a notice of proposed
rulemaking. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
Because the Department was not
required to publish a notice of proposed
rulemaking for part 27,68 the
Department was not required to conduct
a RFA analysis. Nevertheless, the
Department did consider the impacts of
part 27 on small entities, providing that
analysis in the Regulatory Assessment
for the IFR. See 72 FR 172688. That
analysis is applicable to this final rule.
List of Subjects
Chemical security, Facilities,
Incorporation by reference, Reporting
and recordkeeping, Security measures.
The Final Rule
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Department of Homeland
Security revises part 27 to Title 6, Code
of Federal Regulations, to read as
follows:
67 A
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
68 By directing the Secretary to issue ‘‘interim
final regulations,’’ Congress authorized the
Secretary to proceed without the traditional noticeand-comment required by the Administrative
Procedure Act. See 71 FR 78276.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Title 6—Department of Homeland
Security
Chapter 1—Department of Homeland
Security, Office of the Secretary
PART 27—CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTITERRORISM STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 27
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: Pub. L. 109–295, sec. 550.
2. Add the following definitions, in
alphabetical order, to § 27.105, to read
as follows:
I
§ 27.105
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
A Commercial Grade (ACG) shall refer
to any quality or concentration of a
chemical of interest offered for
commercial sale that a facility uses,
stores, manufactures, or ships.
A Placarded Amount (APA) shall refer
to the STQ for a sabotage and
contamination chemical of interest, as
calculated in accordance with
§ 27.203(d).
*
*
*
*
*
Chemical of Interest shall refer to a
chemical listed in Appendix A to part
27.
*
*
*
*
*
CUM 100g shall refer to the
cumulative STQ of 100 grams for
designated theft/diversion-CW/CWP
chemicals and which is located in
Appendix A to part 27 as the entry for
the STQ and Minimum Concentration of
certain theft/diversion-CW/CWP
chemicals.
*
*
*
*
*
Security Issue shall refer to the type
of risks associated with a given
chemical. For purposes of this part,
there are four main security issues:
(1) Release (including toxic,
flammable, and explosive);
(2)Theft and diversion (including
chemical weapons and chemical
weapons precursors, weapons of mass
effect, and explosives and improvised
explosive device precursors),
(3) Sabotage and contamination, and
(4) Critical to government mission and
national economy.
*
*
*
*
*
I 3. Amend § 27.200 by revising
paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
§ 27.200 Information regarding security
risk for a chemical facility.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) A facility must complete and
submit a Top-Screen in accordance with
the schedule provided in § 27.210, the
calculation provisions in § 27.203, and
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
the minimum concentration provisions
in § 27.204 if it possesses any of the
chemicals listed in Appendix A to this
part at or above the STQ for any
applicable Security Issue.
*
*
*
*
*
I 4. Add § 27.203 to read as follows:
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
§ 27.203 Calculating the screening
threshold quantity by security issue.
(a) General. In calculating whether a
facility possesses a chemical of interest
that meets the STQ for any security
issue, a facility need not include
chemicals of interest:
(1) Used as a structural component;
(2) Used as products for routine
janitorial maintenance;
(3) Contained in food, drugs,
cosmetics, or other personal items used
by employees;
(4) In process water or non-contact
cooling water as drawn from
environment or municipal sources;
(5) In air either as compressed air or
as part of combustion;
(6) Contained in articles, as defined in
40 CFR 68.3;
(7) In solid waste (including
hazardous waste) regulated under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et. seq., except for
the waste described in 40 CFR 261.33;
(8) in naturally occurring hydrocarbon
mixtures prior to entry of the mixture
into a natural gas processing plant or a
petroleum refining process unit.
Naturally occurring hydrocarbon
mixtures include condensate, crude oil,
field gas, and produced water as defined
in 40 CFR 68.3.
(b) Release Chemicals.—(1) ReleaseToxic, Release-Flammable, and ReleaseExplosive Chemicals. Except as
provided in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3),
in calculating whether a facility
possesses an amount that meets the STQ
for release chemicals of interest, the
facility shall only include release
chemicals of interest:
(i) In a vessel as defined in 40 CFR
68.3, in a underground storage facility,
or stored in a magazine as defined in 27
CFR 555.11;
(ii) In transportation containers used
for storage not incident to
transportation, including transportation
containers connected to equipment at a
facility for loading or unloading and
transportation containers detached from
the motive power that delivered the
container to the facility;
(iii) Present as process intermediates,
by-products, or materials produced
incidental to the production of a
product if they exist at any given time;
(iv) In natural gas or liquefied natural
gas stored in peak shaving facilities; and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
(v) In gasoline, diesel, kerosene or jet
fuel (including fuels that have
flammability hazard ratings of 1, 2, 3, or
4, as determined by using National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) 704:
Standard System for the Identification
of the Hazards of Materials for
Emergency Response [2007 ed.], which
is incorporated by reference at
27.204(a)(2)) stored in aboveground tank
farms, including tank farms that are part
of pipeline systems;
(2) Release-Toxic, Release-Flammable,
and Release-Explosive Chemicals.
Except as provided in paragraph
(c)(2)(i), in calculating whether a facility
possesses an amount that meets the STQ
for release-toxic, release-flammable, and
release-explosive chemicals, a facility
need not include release-toxic, releaseflammable, or release-explosive
chemicals of interest that a facility
manufactures, processes or uses in a
laboratory at the facility under the
supervision of a technically qualified
individual as defined in 40 CFR 720.3.
(i) This exemption does not apply to
specialty chemical production;
manufacture, processing, or use of
substances in pilot plant scale
operations; or activities, including
research and development, involving
chemicals of interest conducted outside
the laboratory.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) Propane. In calculating whether a
facility possesses an amount that meets
the STQ for propane, a facility need not
include propane in tanks of 10,000
pounds or less.
(c) Theft and Diversion Chemicals. In
calculating whether a facility possesses
an amount of a theft/diversion chemical
of interest that meets the STQ, the
facility shall only include theft/
diversion chemicals of interest in a
transportation packaging, as defined in
49 CFR 171.8. Where a theft/diversionChemical Weapons (CW) chemical is
designated by ‘‘CUM 100g,’’ a facility
shall total the quantity of all such
designated chemicals in its possession
to determine whether the facility
possesses theft/diversion-CW chemicals
that meet or exceed the STQ of 100
grams.
(d) Sabotage and Contamination
Chemicals. A facility meets the STQ for
a sabotage/contamination chemical of
interest if it ships the chemical and is
required to placard the shipment of that
chemical pursuant to the provisions of
subpart F of 49 CFR part 172.
I 5. Add § 27.204 to read as follows:
§ 27.204 Minimum concentration by
security issue.
(a) Release Chemicals—(1) ReleaseToxic Chemicals. If a release-toxic
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65419
chemical of interest is present in a
mixture, and the concentration of the
chemical is equal to or greater than one
percent (1%) by weight, the facility
shall count the amount of the chemical
of interest in the mixture toward the
STQ. If a release-toxic chemical of
interest is present in a mixture, and the
concentration of the chemical is less
than one percent (1%) by weight of the
mixture, the facility need not count the
amount of that chemical in the mixture
in determining whether the facility
possesses the STQ. Except for oleum, if
the concentration of the chemical of
interest in the mixture is one percent
(1%) or greater by weight, but the
facility can demonstrate that the partial
pressure of the regulated substance in
the mixture (solution) under handling or
storage conditions in any portion of the
process is less than 10 millimeters of
mercury (mm Hg), the amount of the
substance in the mixture in that portion
of a vessel need not be considered when
determining the STQ. The facility shall
document this partial pressure
measurement or estimate.
(2) Release-Flammable Chemicals. If a
release-flammable chemical of interest
is present in a mixture in a
concentration equal to or greater than
one percent (1%) by weight of the
mixture, and the mixture has a National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
flammability hazard rating of 4, the
facility shall count the entire amount of
the mixture toward the STQ. Except as
provided in § 27.203(b)(1)(v) for fuels
that are stored in aboveground tank
farms (including farms that are part of
pipeline systems), if a release-flammable
chemical of interest is present in a
mixture in a concentration equal to or
greater than one percent (1%) by weight
of the mixture, and the mixture has a
National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) flammability hazard rating of 1,
2, or 3, the facility need not count the
mixture toward the STQ. The
flammability hazard ratings are defined
in NFPA 704: Standard System for the
Identification of the Hazards of
Materials for Emergency Response [2007
ed.]. The Director of the Federal Register
approves the incorporation by reference
of this standard in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You
may obtain a copy of the incorporated
standard from the National Fire
Protection Association at 1
Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169–
7471 or https://www.nfpa.org. You may
inspect a copy of the incorporated
standard at the Department of
Homeland Security, 1621 Kent Street,
9th Floor, Rosslyn VA (please call 703–
235–0709) to make an appointment or at
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
65420
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
the or at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030,
or go to https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html. If a releaseflammable chemical of interest is
present in a mixture, and the
concentration of the chemical is less
than one percent (1%) by weight, the
facility need not count the mixture in
determining whether the facility
possesses the STQ.
(3) Release-Explosive Chemicals. For
each release-explosive chemical of
interest, a facility shall count the total
quantity of all commercial grades of the
chemical of interest toward the STQ,
unless a specific minimum
concentration is assigned in the
Minimum Concentration column of
Appendix A to part 27, in which case
the facility should count the total
quantity of all commercial grades of the
chemical at the specified minimum
concentration.
(b) Theft and Diversion Chemicals. (1)
Theft/Diversion-Chemical Weapons
(CW) and Chemical Weapons Precursors
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
(CWP Chemicals: Where a theft/
diversion-CWC/CWP chemical of
interest is not designated by ‘‘CUM
100g’’ in Appendix A, and the chemical
is present in a mixture at or above the
minimum concentration amount listed
in the Minimum Concentration column
of Appendix A to part 27, the facility
shall count the entire amount of the
mixture toward the STQ.
(2) Theft/Diversion-Weapon of Mass
Effect (WME) Chemicals: If a theft/
diversion-WME chemical of interest is
present in a mixture at or above the
minimum concentration amount listed
in the Minimum Concentration column
of Appendix A to part 27, the facility
shall count the entire amount of the
mixture toward the STQ.
(3) Theft/Diversion-Explosives/
Improvised Explosive Device Precursor
(EXP/IEDP) Chemicals. For each theft/
diversion-EXP/IEDP chemical of
interest, a facility shall count the total
quantity of all commercial grades of the
chemical toward the STQ, unless a
specific minimum concentration is
assigned in the Minimum Concentration
column of Appendix A to part 27, in
which case the facility should count the
total quantity of all commercial grades
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
of the chemical at the specified
minimum concentration.
(c) Sabotage and Contamination
Chemicals. For each sabotage/
contamination chemical of interest, a
facility shall count the total quantity of
all commercial grades of the chemical
toward the STQ.
I 6. Amend § 27.210 by revising
paragraph (a)(1)(i) to read as follows:
§ 27.210
Submissions Schedule.
*
*
*
*
*
(a)(1)(i) Unless otherwise notified,
within 60 calendar days of November
20, 2007 for facilities that possess any
of the chemicals listed in Appendix A
at or above the STQ for any applicable
Security Issue, or within 60 calendar
days for facilities that come into
possession of any of the chemicals listed
in Appendix A at or above the STQ for
any applicable Security Issue; or
*
*
*
*
*
7. Revise Appendix A to part 27 to
read as follows:
I
Appendix A to Part 27: DHS Chemicals
of Interest
BILLING CODE 4410–10–P
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
65421
ER20NO07.008
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
ER20NO07.009
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
65422
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
65423
ER20NO07.010
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
ER20NO07.011
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
65424
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
65425
ER20NO07.012
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
ER20NO07.013
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
65426
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
65427
ER20NO07.014
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
ER20NO07.015
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
65428
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
65429
ER20NO07.016
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
ER20NO07.017
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
65430
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
65431
ER20NO07.018
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
ER20NO07.019
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
65432
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
65433
ER20NO07.020
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
ER20NO07.021
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
65434
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary of Homeland Security, Department
of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 07–5585 Filed 11–19–07; 8:45 am]
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
BILLING CODE 4410–10–C
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:50 Nov 19, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM
20NOR2
65435
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 20, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65396-65435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5585]
[[Page 65395]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Homeland Security
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
6 CFR Part 27
Appendix to Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 72 , No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 65396]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
6 CFR Part 27
[DHS-2006-0073]
RIN 1601-AA41
Appendix to Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards
AGENCY: Department of Homeland Security.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule revises the list of chemicals of interest, or
COI, which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS or the Department)
included as Appendix A to the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism
Standards Interim Final Rule. Appendix A lists chemicals of interest
and screening threshold quantities, or STQs. Any facility that
possesses (or later comes into possession of) the listed chemicals in
quantities that meet or exceed the STQ for any applicable security
issue must complete and submit a Top-Screen. This will assist the
Department in determining whether a facility presents a high level of
security risk.
In this final rule, DHS, among other things: (i) Adjusts the STQs
for certain COI; (ii) defines the specific security issue or issues
implicated by each chemical of interest, and in some cases, establishes
different STQs for COI based upon the security issue presented; and
(iii) adds provisions that instruct facilities on how to calculate the
quantities of COI that they have in their possession.
These refinements to Appendix A will assist the Department in more
precisely identifying facilities that may be designated as high risk,
while reducing the burden on facilities that possess chemicals in
smaller amounts.
EFFECTIVE DATES: The effective date of Appendix A to part 27, as added
on April 9, 2007 (72 FR 17688) and revised by this rule is November 20,
2007. Additionally, the regulations published in this document are
effective November 20, 2007. The incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the
Federal Register as of November 20, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marybeth Kelliher, Chemical Security
Compliance Division, Department of Homeland Security, 703-235-5263.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Note that for brevity, all references to CFR
parts will be to parts in Title 6 of the Code of Federal Regulations (6
CFR), unless otherwise noted.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. The Final Rule: The Revised List of Chemicals
A. Overall Approach to Appendix A
B. Effect of a Final Appendix A
C. Provisions by Security Issue
1. Release-Toxics and Release-Flammables
2. Release-Explosives
3. Theft/Diversion-Chemical Weapons/Chemical Weapons Precursors
4. Theft/Diversion-Weapons of Mass Effect
5. Theft/Diversion-Explosives/Improvised Explosive Device
Precursors
6. Sabotage/Contamination
D. Chemicals With a Specialized Approach
1. Propane
2. Chlorine
3. Ammonium Nitrate
E. Technical Corrections
III. Discussion of Comments
A. Specific Chemicals or Types of Chemicals
1. In General
2. Propane
3. Chlorine
4. Ammonium Nitrate
5. Acetone and Urea
6. Chemical Weapons and Chemical Weapons Precursors
7. Explosives
8. Hydrogen Peroxide
B. Coverage of Appendix A
1. Colleges and Universities
2. Medical Research Organizations and Similar Laboratories
3. Farms and the Agricultural Industry; Fumigation Industry
4. Overlap With Other Federal Entities
5. Concerns About Being Over-Inclusive
C. Screening Threshold Quantities
1. In General
2. Modifying the ``Any Amount'' STQ
3. Mixtures and Solutions
D. Revisions to the COI List
1. Technical Corrections
2. Formatting and Approach
E. Other Comments
1. Procedural Issues
2. Compliance Issues
3. Miscellaneous Comments
IV. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Abbreviations and Terms Used in This Document
ACG--A Commercial Grade
AN--Ammonium Nitrate
APA--A Placarded Amount
ASP--Alternative Security Program
CAS--Chemical Abstract Service
CGA--Compressed Gas Association
COI--Chemicals of Interest
CSAC--Chemical Security Analysis Center
CSAT--Chemical Security Assessment Tool
CUM 100g--Cumulative STQ of 100 grams for Designated Chemical
Weapons
CVI--Chemical-terrorism Vulnerability Information
CW--Chemical Weapons
CWC--Chemical Weapons Convention
CWP--Chemical Weapons Precursors
DOT--U.S. Department of Transportation
EPA--Environmental Protection Agency
EXP--Explosives
FBI--Federal Bureau of Investigation
IED--Improvised Explosive Device
IEDP--Improvised Explosive Device Precursors
LNG--Liquefied Natural Gas
NFPA--National Fire Protection Association
NOS--Not Otherwise Specified
NPGA--National Propane Gas Association
RMP--EPA's Risk Management Program
SVA--Security Vulnerability Assessment
SSP--Site Security Plan
STQ--Screening Threshold Quantity
TQ--Threshold Quantity
TSA--Transportation Security Administration
VBIED--Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Device
WME--Weapon of Mass Effect
I. Background
On October 4, 2006, President George W. Bush signed the Department
of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007 (the Act), which
provided the Department of Homeland Security with the authority to
regulate the security of high risk chemical facilities. See Pub. L.
109-295, Sec. 550. Section 550 required the Secretary of Homeland
Security to promulgate interim final regulations ``establishing risk-
based performance standards for security of chemical facilities'' by
April 4, 2007 and specified that the regulations ``shall apply to
chemical facilities that, in the discretion of the Secretary, present
high levels of security risk.'' Id.
Pursuant to Section 550, on December 28, 2006, the Department
issued an Advance Notice of Rulemaking (Advance Notice), which
discussed a range of regulatory and implementation issues. See 71 FR
78276. By directing the Secretary to issue ``interim final
regulations,'' Congress authorized the Secretary to proceed without the
traditional notice and comment required by the Administrative Procedure
Act. See 71 FR 78276, 78277. The Department, however, saw great benefit
in soliciting comments on as much of the program as was practicable in
the short timeframe permitted under the statute and therefore
voluntarily sought comment on the Advance Notice, including a range of
significant programmatic issues and regulatory text.
On April 9, 2007, the Department issued an Interim Final Rule
(IFR), which responded to the comments to the Advance Notice and
established a new part 27 to Title 6 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. See 72 FR 17688. Part 27 establishes risk-based
performance standards for the security of our Nation's chemical
facilities. The rule requires covered chemical facilities to prepare
Security Vulnerability Assessments (SVAs) that identify
[[Page 65397]]
facility security vulnerabilities. The rule also requires covered
chemical facilities to develop and implement Site Security Plans (SSPs)
that identify measures that satisfy the identified risk-based
performance standards. It also allows certain covered chemical
facilities, in specified circumstances, to submit Alternate Security
Programs (ASPs) in lieu of an SVA, SSP, or both. In addition, the rule
contains associated provisions addressing inspections and audits,
recordkeeping, and the protection of information that constitutes
Chemical-terrorism Vulnerability Information (CVI). Finally, the rule
provides the Department with authority to compel compliance through the
issuance of orders, including orders assessing civil penalties and
orders to cease operations.
The IFR, except for Appendix A to part 27, went into effect on June
8, 2007. Appendix A contained a tentative list of Chemicals of Interest
(COI). DHS accepted comments on the tentative list of chemicals in
Appendix A (hereafter referred to as proposed Appendix A or proposed
appendix) for 30 days until May 9, 2007. With this final rule, the
Department responds to those comments and provides a final list of
Chemicals of Interest in Appendix A. The same principles that guided
the Department during the development of the proposed list have guided
the Department during the development of this revised list, and those
main principles are summarized here. First, DHS did not use any single,
existing list as its sole source or classify all chemicals on any
existing list in a particular way. Instead, DHS used multiple sources,
so that it could obtain a more complete picture of the universe of
facilities that may qualify as high risk. Second, in identifying the
chemicals and STQs for chemicals, the Department sought to strike an
appropriate balance: Sufficiently inclusive of chemicals in quantities
that might present a high level of risk under the statute without being
overly inclusive and thereby capturing facilities that are unlikely to
present a high level of risk. Third, the Department has identified
chemicals by considering security issue(s) associated with a chemical.
The Department has identified the COI for preliminary screening based
on the belief that these chemicals, if released, stolen or diverted,
and/or contaminated, have the potential to create significant human
life and/or health consequences.
II. The Final Rule: The Revised List of Chemicals
A. Overall Approach to Appendix A
While the universe of chemicals in Appendix A has remained
substantially the same, the Department has re-structured the format of
the appendix and has more clearly defined the provisions associated
with these chemicals. The Department has included a considerable amount
of additional information in the appendix as well as some new
provisions to the regulatory text. The changes that the Department has
made have come directly from comments or otherwise logically resulted
from comments where DHS agreed that the comments raised valid points
and were within the scope of the proposed appendix.
The proposed appendix listed only a chemical and a corresponding
Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number,\1\ however the final appendix
includes that information as well as a new column with commonly-used
synonyms for certain chemicals. The final appendix also adds several
new columns that identify the security issue(s) associated with each
chemical of interest (COI).\2\ In addition, the Department has assigned
an STQ and minimum concentration provision to each chemical of
interest. The final appendix, unlike the proposed appendix, does not
trigger reporting obligations based on possession of an STQ of ``any
amount.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CAS numbers are unique identifiers for chemical substances.
\2\ The Department has added definitions for Chemical of
Interest (COI) and Security Issue to Sec. 27.105 ``Definitions.''
\3\ See footnote 64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the final appendix, the Department has listed the security
issue(s) associated with each chemical of interest. Although these same
security issues drove the Department's selection of chemicals for
inclusion in the proposed appendix, the Department did not list (in the
proposed appendix) the security issue(s) for each particular chemical.
This additional information provides guidance to regulated entities, so
that they better understand how to use the appendix, and it explains
the Department's rationale(s) for including these chemicals, at these
STQs, on the list.
The seven columns on the far right of the appendix contain the
chemical facility security issues that the Department has identified
for this appendix. There are three main categories of security issues:
Release, theft/diversion, and sabotage/contamination.\4\ Two categories
have three subcategories each. The ``release'' category has three
subcategories: (1) Release-Toxic: Chemicals with the potential to
create a toxic cloud that would affect populations within and beyond
the facility, if intentionally released; (2) Release-Flammables:
chemicals with the potential to create a vapor cloud explosion that
would affect populations within and beyond the facility, if
intentionally released; and (3) Release-Explosives: chemicals with the
potential to affect populations within and beyond the facility if
intentionally detonated. The ``theft and diversion'' category also has
three subcategories: (1) Theft/Diversion-Chemical Weapons (CW)/Chemical
Weapons Precursors (CWP): chemicals that could be stolen or diverted
and used as CW or easily converted into CW; (2) Theft/Diversion-Weapons
of Mass Effect (WME): chemicals that could be stolen or diverted and
used directly as WME; and (3) Theft/Diversion-Explosives (EXP)/
Improvised Explosive Device Precursors (IEDP): chemicals that could be
stolen or diverted and used in explosives or IEDs. The third category,
``sabotage/contamination,'' refers to those chemicals that, if mixed
with other readily-available materials, have the potential to create
significant adverse consequences for human life or health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ As noted in the IFR and consistent with the definition of
``security issue'' in Sec. 27.105, the Department recognizes one
additional security issue--critical to government mission and
national economy. (DHS has added a definition of security issue in
this final rule at Sec. 27.105.) The loss or interruption in
production of certain chemicals, materials, or facilities could
create significant adverse consequences for national security, the
national or regional economy, and/or the ability of the government
to deliver essential services. The Department plans to assess
currently-available information and to collect new information
(e.g., through the Top-Screen process) as a means of identifying
facilities responsible for these types of chemicals. At this time,
DHS is not including any chemicals in the appendix based on this
security issue, though it may do so in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has established baseline STQs for the chemicals of
interest for each security issue. (DHS discusses the baselines in this
preamble and also summarizes the general rules in Table 1: ``Summary of
General Rules by Security Issue'' at the end of this section). DHS has
set the STQ for each chemical of interest at the baseline amount for
that chemical's security issue(s). Where necessary, the Department has
identified a few exceptions. Most notably, DHS has developed a
specialized approach for propane, chlorine, and ammonium nitrate.
Each chemical in Appendix A presents at least one security issue,
and
[[Page 65398]]
some chemicals present multiple security issues. Where there are
multiple issues associated with a chemical, a facility must complete
and submit a Top-Screen if it meets or exceeds the STQ for any of the
applicable security issues. For example, there are two security issues
associated with arsenic trichloride: release-toxic and theft/diversion-
CW/CWP. In the Security Issue columns of the appendix, there is a mark
in the box for release-toxic and for theft/diversion-CW/CWP, and there
is a STQ (and minimum concentration) listed under the Release column
and under the Theft column. If the facility meets or exceeds the STQ
listed in either the Release column or the Theft column (using the
appropriate calculation provisions discussed below), the facility must
complete and submit a Top-Screen. The Department has revised the
regulatory text in Sec. 27.200(b)(2) and Sec. 27.210(a)(1)(i) to
reflect this change.
The Department will periodically update the list of chemicals in
Appendix A and will do so subject to notice and comment. The Department
may add or remove chemicals, or categories of chemicals, or may change
STQs based on new or additional information.
In revising Appendix A, the Department has found it necessary to
revise the regulatory text, clarifying how facilities should use the
appendix. The Department added Sec. 27.203, which instructs facilities
on how to calculate the STQ for a given chemical and Sec. 27.204,
which addresses mixtures. In this section of the preamble, DHS
discusses provisions that are general or that apply to multiple
security issues. DHS discusses provisions related to specific security
issues in section II(C).
Section 27.203(a) provides specific exclusions from the calculation
requirements that apply to chemicals of interest in all security issue
categories. Facilities need not count chemicals of interest covered by
these exclusions, because chemicals in such circumstances or forms are
unlikely to contribute to the potential consequences of a successful
attack. DHS has adopted several of these exclusions from the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Risk Management Program (RMP)
regulation. Sections 27.203(a)(1)-(5), (6), and (8) track the EPA
exemptions in 40 CFR 68.115(b)(4)(i)-(iv), 68.115(b)(3), and
68.115(b)(2)(iii), respectively. The concepts are the same, though DHS
has adjusted the language to make it consistent with the language in
part 27 (e.g., whereas EPA considers TQs present at a ``stationary
source,'' DHS considers STQs at a ``facility''). Note that EPA applies
these exemptions to release chemicals (i.e., those which it regulates
under RMP), while DHS applies these exclusions to all part 27 chemicals
of interest (i.e., to all chemicals associated with the security issues
of release, theft/diversion, and sabotage/contamination).
DHS has formulated one other exclusion specifically for this
regulation. In Sec. 27.203(a)(7), DHS exempts chemicals of interest in
solid waste (including hazardous waste) regulated under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) DHS does
not believe that it is necessary for facilities to count COI in RCRA-
regulated solid waste toward their STQ, because the Department does not
believe that this waste is a likely target of a terrorist attack or
contains COI that are likely sources of terrorist uses. As stated in
the regulatory text, though, this exclusion does not apply to waste
covered by 40 CFR 261.33, ``Discarded commercial chemical products,
off-specification species, container residues, and spill residues
thereof.'' This type of waste can include virtually pure chemicals
(including off-specification products that may merely be inconsistent
with a customer's specifications) that have been discarded. DHS thinks
it is important for facilities to include this waste in the STQ
calculation, because this waste is a potential source of COI that would
be just as attractive to a terrorist as the chemical product itself.
Paragraph (b) of Sec. 27.203 addresses STQ calculations related to
release chemicals. Section 27.203(b)(1) provides instructions
concerning the substances that facilities shall include when
determining whether they possess quantities of a release chemical that
meet or exceed the STQ. Proposed Appendix A did not contain the
instructions enumerated in Sec. 27.203(b)(1), but further
consideration and a review of the comments caused DHS to provide these
instructions. Pursuant to Sec. 27.203(b)(1)(i), facilities must
include chemicals in a vessel, which, pursuant to 40 CFR 68.3, ``means
any reactor, tank, drum, barrel, cylinder, vat, kettle, boiler, pipe,
hose, or other container.'' Facilities must also include chemicals of
interest stored in magazines, as defined in 27 CFR 555.11. Pursuant to
that Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
definition, a magazine is ``any building or structure, other than an
explosives manufacturing building used for storage of explosive
materials.'' In addition, facilities must include chemicals of interest
in underground storage facilities. For purposes of part 27, an
underground storage facility refers to a below-ground storage location
for chemicals of interest or mixtures of chemicals of interest (e.g.,
petroleum-based materials) that are placed in the storage location
(until needed) after having been extracted from the ground and refined
or processed. Such facilities include, but are not limited to, depleted
reservoirs in oil and/or oil gas fields, aquifers, and salt cavern
formations. DHS understands that certain products (e.g., propane,
natural gas, petroleum) may be stored in these underground storage
facilities, and DHS wants to ensure that facilities count this material
toward the amount of their COI.
Pursuant to Sec. 27.203(b)(1)(ii), facilities must count chemicals
of interest in specified transportation containers toward the STQ
amount for release chemicals. In using this terminology, DHS is
referring to the same category of transportation containers that EPA
refers to in its RMP regulation--that is, transportation containers
used for storage not incident to transportation, including
transportation containers connected to equipment at a facility for
loading or unloading and transportation containers detached from the
motive power that delivered the container to the facility. See 40 CFR
68.3 (containing a description of transportation containers within the
definition of ``stationary source''). These transportation containers
would include, for example, tank cars attached to processing units and
tank cars detached from motive power that had delivered the tank car to
the facility.
While the EPA RMP regulation at 40 CFR 68.3 does not specifically
mention transportation containers detached from the motive power, EPA
discusses such provision in its Final Rule titled ``List of Regulated
Substances and Thresholds for Accidental Release Prevention;
Amendments'' \5\ and in its Frequently Asked Questions on the EPA Web
site.\6\ Part 27 (like EPA's RMP regulation) does not require
facilities to include chemicals of interest in transportation when
calculating their STQs. DHS adopts the EPA definition of
transportation, and accordingly considers a container to be in
transportation as long as it is attached to the motive power (e.g.,
truck or locomotive) that delivered it to the site. If the tank car is
detached from the motive power, and therefore no longer in
transportation, the facility must
[[Page 65399]]
consider the contents of the tank car in calculating its STQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 63 FR 640 (January 6, 1998).
\6\ See FAQ II.C.2 on the EPA Web site at https://
yosemite.epa.gov/oswer/ceppoweb.nsf/content/caa-faqs.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Sec. 27.203(b)(1)(iii), facilities must also include
chemicals of interest that are present as process intermediates, by-
products, and incidental production materials. This means, for example,
that a refinery must count toward the STQ for hydrogen sulfide the
quantity of hydrogen sulfide produced as a by-product of any of its
various processes. Or a facility should count toward the STQ for 37%
hydrochloric acid the quantity of 37% hydrochloric acid produced from
the absorption of hydrogen chloride gas into water and stored
temporarily prior to subsequent dilution below the threshold
concentration. DHS requires the inclusion of these items in calculating
the STQ, because while they may not be present at all times, when
present, they could be released and contribute to the consequences of
an attack.
The remaining two subsections in Sec. 27.203(b)(1) are items that
EPA exempted, but which DHS believes are important to include in this
regulatory program; they have the potential to create a significant
offsite impact in the event of a successful attack. First, when
calculating the amount of a chemical of interest, facilities must
include chemicals in natural gas or liquefied natural gas (LNG) stored
in ``peak shaving facilities.'' See Sec. 27.203(b)(1)(iv). Companies
typically store natural gas or LNG in peak shaving facilities when
demand for product is low or slows. The natural gas or LNG is stored
until it is used later during peak consumption periods. EPA excludes
the chemicals in these peak shaving facilities by virtue of the fact
that EPA considers them storage incident to transportation, and EPA
does not subject that type of storage to its RMP regulation.\7\ Within
DHS, TSA is the lead agency for the security of pipeline transportation
and of transportation-related facilities; however, such facilities
(e.g., peak shaving facilities) may be required to provide information
under part 27. TSA and the Chemical Security Compliance Division will
work together to ensure that DHS efforts directed at pipelines are
complementary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Under the RMP rule, EPA considers there to be a threshold
quantity of a substance if it is present at a stationary source. 40
CFR 68.115(a). ``The term stationary source does not apply to
transportation, including storage incident to transportation, of any
regulated substance * * *.'' 40 CFR 68.3. EPA ``considers the
transportation exemption to include storage fields for natural gas
where gas taken from pipelines is stored during non-peak periods, to
be returned to the pipelines when needed.'' 63 FR 640, 642 (Jan. 6,
1998). Because EPA considers this type of storage incident to
transportation, the type of storage is not subject to EPA's RMP
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, facilities must also include chemicals of interest in fuels
when stored in above-ground tank farms, including tank farms that are
part of pipeline systems. See Sec. 27.203(b)(1)(v). This includes
fuels with any one of the four National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) flammability hazard ratings and not just fuels with an NFPA
flammability hazard rating of 4. EPA excludes these fuels by virtue of
the provisions in its mixtures rule for regulated flammable substances.
See 40 CFR 68.115(b)(2). These fuels also would have been excluded
under DHS's flammable mixtures provisions (see Sec. 27.204(a)(2) \8\)
except that DHS specifically included these fuels through this
provision here in Sec. 27.203(b)(1)(v), because of concern that they
could create significant human life or health consequences if an
intentional attack by a terrorist were successful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Section 27.204(a)(2) provides that ``except as provided in
Sec. 27.203(b)(1)(v) for fuels that are stored in aboveground tank
farms (including farms that are part of pipeline systems), if a
release-flammable chemical of interest is present in a mixture in a
concentration equal to or greater than one percent (1%), and the
mixture has a National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
flammability hazard rating of 1, 2, or 3, the facility shall count
the entire weight of the mixture toward the STQ.'' Without the
``exception'' clause, DHS would have excluded these fuels by virtue
of the fact that these fuels are mixtures that likely have NFPA
flammability hazard ratings of 1, 2, and 3. Pursuant to Sec.
27.204(a)(2), facilities need not count the entire amount of these
mixtures (i.e., mixtures with COI present in a concentration equal
to or greater than one percent (1%) and with a flammability hazard
rating of 1, 2, or 3) toward the STQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Sec. 27.203(c), DHS provides that facilities shall only count
theft/diversion chemicals of interest that are in a transportation
packaging. DHS has adopted the Department of Transportation (DOT)
definition of packaging, which refers to ``a receptacle and any other
components or materials necessary for the receptacle to perform its
containment function in conformance with the minimum packing
requirements of [DOT's Hazardous Materials Regulations].'' See 49 CFR
171.8. This includes, but is not limited to, cylinders, bulk bags,
bottles inside or outside of a box, cargo tanks, and tank cars. DHS has
focused the universe of theft/diversion chemicals of interest in this
fashion, because the theft/diversion security issue revolves around
portable and transportable amounts of certain chemicals. DHS is
concerned about both the theft of portable amounts of these chemicals
and the diversion of shipments of these chemicals.
The Department has also added Sec. 27.204, which addresses
mixtures. It provides a minimum concentration provision for each
security issue. The Department included this provision in response to
commenters, who requested guidance on how to treat mixtures of
chemicals of interest. See Sec. 27.204. A facility must count toward
the STQ for a given chemical all quantities of that chemical that meet
or exceed the listed minimum concentration amount. These minimum
concentration provisions are derived from existing federal regulatory
programs (including EPA's RMP program and the Department of Commerce's
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)) Regulations, as well as from
industry technical standards (see, e.g., Standard for Classification of
Toxic Gas Mixtures, CGA P-20-2003). The specific minimum concentration
provision for each security issue is discussed in the sections below.
In calculating chemical amounts, facilities should consider the
chemicals in their possession within the framework for each of the
three separate and distinct security issues categories (release, theft/
diversion, and sabotage/contamination). A facility must count each
chemical of interest in its possession, using the relevant calculation
provisions for each of the categories, and if the facility possesses an
amount that meets or exceeds the STQ for any one of the categories
(i.e., security issues), the facility must complete and submit a Top-
Screen. To illustrate that point, the Department highlights sulfur
dioxide, which is both a release-toxic (STQ: 5,000 pounds) and theft/
diversion-WME (STQ: 500 pounds).
--Toward the release STQ of 5,000 pounds, a facility must count all
quantities of sulfur dioxide in vessels and underground storage
facilities; in transportation containers used for storage not incident
to transportation, including storage containers connected to equipment
at a facility for loading or unloading and storage containers detached
from the motive power that delivered the container to the facility; and
present as process intermediates, by-products, and material produced
incidental to the production of a product if they exist at any given
time.
--Toward the theft/diversion-WME STQ of 500 pounds, a facility must
count all quantities of sulfur dioxide in a transportation packaging.
If the facility has 5,000 pounds or more of sulfur dioxide
aggregated onsite in vessel(s), transportation packaging(s), etc. or
500 pounds or more of sulfur
[[Page 65400]]
dioxide in transportation packagings (or both), the facility must
complete and submit a Top-Screen.
Facilities must consider each security issue framework
independently. As a result, there may be chemicals of interest that a
facility counts under more than one security issue framework. That is
completely appropriate, as there is a different focus (and therefore
distinct counting and mixtures rules) for each security issue. For
example, with respect to sulfur dioxide, a facility will count toward
its release STQ quantities of sulfur dioxide in a tank car when that
tank car is connected to equipment at the facility for loading and
unloading and when that tank car is detached from the motive power that
delivered it to the facility (see Sec. 27.203(b)(1)(ii)) and it will
count toward its theft/diversion-WME STQ quantities of sulfur dioxide
in tank cars (see Sec. 27.203(c)). Under both frameworks (release and
theft), the facility may, in fact, count the same sulfur dioxide. As
there are separate purposes for each framework, however, this is
appropriate. The theft-STQ is focused on preventing someone from
stealing or diverting the shipment of sulfur dioxide in the tank car
and weaponizing it. The release-STQ is focused on preventing someone
from intentionally releasing a quantity of sulfur dioxide that could
affect the population within and beyond the facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Specialized STQs apply to ammonium nitrate, chlorine, and
propane.
Table 1.--Summary of General Rules by Security Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum
Security issue STQ \9\ COI to exclude COI to include concentration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Release--Toxic..................... 500-20,000 lbs....... 27.203(a) 27.203(b)(1) 27.204(a)(1)
27.203(b)(2) 27.204(a)(1)
Release--Flammable................. 10,000 lbs........... 27.203(a) 27.203(b)(1) 27.204(a)(2)
27.203(b)(2) 27.204(a)(2)
27.203(b)(3)
Release--Explosive................. 5,000 lbs............ 27.203(a) 27.203(b)(1) 27.204(a)(3)
Theft/Diversion--CW/CWP............ CUM 100 grams-220 lbs 27.203(a) 27.203(c) 27.204(b)(1)
Theft/Diversion--WME............... 15-500 lbs........... 27.203(a) 27.203(c) 27.204(b)(2)
Theft/Diversion--EXP/IEDP.......... 100-400 lbs.......... 27.203(a) 27.203(c) 27.204(b)(3)
Sabotage/Contamination............. A Placarded Amount... 27.203(a) 27.203(d) 27.204(c)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Effect of a Final Appendix A
Under Section 550, the Department has the authority to use its best
judgment and all available information in determining whether a
facility presents a high level of security risk. Appendix A will assist
the Department in determining which facilities present a high level of
security risk. In Appendix A, the Department has identified chemicals
of interest (at specified STQs) that trigger preliminary screening
requirements. If a facility possesses a chemical of interest at or
above the STQ for any applicable security issue, the facility must
complete and submit a Chemical Security Assessment Tool (CSAT) Top-
Screen. The STQ is not the threshold for establishing whether a given
facility is a high risk facility, but it is a threshold for determining
whether the facility must complete and submit a Top-Screen.
Only after the Department gathers additional information through
the Top-Screen process will the Department make a determination \10\ as
to whether a facility presents a high level of security risk and
therefore must comply with the substantive requirements in part 27.
Accordingly, the presence or amount of a particular chemical is not the
sole factor in determining whether a facility presents a high level of
security risk; it is not the only indicator of a facility's coverage
under part 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Based on the information the Department receives in
accordance with Sec. 27.200 and Sec. 27.205 (including information
submitted through the Top-Screen), the Department makes a
preliminary determination as to a facility's placement in a risk-
based tier. See Sec. 27.220(a). Following review of a covered
facility's Security Vulnerability Assessment (SVA), the Department
makes a final determination as to a facility's placement in a risk-
based tier. See Sec. 27.220(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections 27.200(b)(2) and 27.210 contain the requirements related
to Appendix A, and those requirements are fully operative upon
publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. Section
27.200(b)(2) requires facilities to complete and submit a Top-Screen if
they possess any of the chemicals identified in Appendix A at or above
the STQ for any applicable security issue. If a facility possesses even
one of the chemicals of interest listed in Appendix A at or above the
applicable STQ, the facility has an obligation to complete and submit a
Top-Screen. Section 27.210(a)(1)(i) provides the initial submissions
schedule for facilities that have to submit a Top-Screen pursuant to
Appendix A.
Pursuant to Sec. 27.210(a), the Department uses two methods to
require facilities to undergo preliminary screening (i.e., complete and
submit a Top-Screen). The first method, found in Sec. 27.210(a)(1)(i),
is linked to Appendix A. From the effective date of a final Appendix A
(i.e., this final rule), facilities that possess any of the chemicals
listed in Appendix A at or above the STQ for any applicable security
issue will have 60 calendar days to complete and submit a Top-Screen to
DHS. Facilities that later come into possession of such chemicals at or
above the STQ for any applicable security issue will have to complete
and submit a Top-Screen within 60 calendar days of coming into
possession of such chemicals. See Sec. 27.210(a)(1)(i). In addition,
covered facilities \11\ have an ongoing obligation to complete and
update the Top-Screen as provided in Sec. 27.210(d). Covered
facilities that make material modifications to their operations or site
must complete and submit a revised Top-Screen within 60 days of the
material modification. See Sec. 27.210(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ As used herein, a ``covered facility'' (or ``covered
chemical facility''), means ``a chemical facility determined by the
Assistant Secretary to present high levels of security risk. * * *''
and differs from a ``chemical facility'' (or ``facility''), which
refers to ``any establishment that possesses or plans to possess, at
any relevant point in time, a quantity of a chemical substance
determined by the Secretary to be potentially dangerous or that
meets other risk-related criteria identified by the Department.''
See Sec. 27.105. Although DHS will require many facilities to
complete and submit a Top-Screen, DHS will only require covered
facilities to develop a chemical facility security program (i.e.,
complete a SVA pursuant to Sec. 27.215, develop and implement a SSP
pursuant to Sec. 27.225, etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second method, found in Sec. 27.210(a)(1)(ii), allows the
Department to contact facilities independently of
[[Page 65401]]
Appendix A. Facilities must complete and submit a Top-Screen if the
Department notifies the facility to do so through a Federal Register
notice or on an individual basis through written notification. The
Department may choose to contact facilities in this manner based on new
or additional information or based on intelligence information about
terrorists' interest in certain chemicals or certain facilities. The
Department will specify the time frame for these Top-Screen submissions
in the written notification. Since the effective date of the IFR, the
Department has used the second method (i.e., contacting certain
facilities individually and directing them to complete the Top-Screen).
With the publication of this final rule, both triggering requirements
for completing the Top-Screen will be in effect.
C. Provisions by Security Issue
1. Release-Toxics and Release-Flammables
a. Chemicals
To identify the release chemicals for Appendix A, the Department
looked to the list of substances in the EPA's RMP rule.\12\ See Tables
1 and 2 to 40 CFR Sec. 68.130 for release-toxics and Tables 3 and 4 to
40 CFR 68.130 for release-flammables. The Department had included all
of the EPA RMP substances in proposed Appendix A,\13\ and aside from
the exceptions noted below, continues to do so in this final appendix.
For release-toxics, the Department uses the same listing criteria,
including the EPA acute toxicity criteria and vapor pressure cut-off,
which can be found in EPA's final rule, ``List of Regulated Substances
and Threshold for Accidental Release Prevention; requirements for
Petitions Under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act as Amended.'' See
59 FR 4478, 4482 (January 31, 1994). EPA includes a toxic substance on
its RMP list if the substance is an acute toxic that has vapor pressure
high enough that the release could result in an offsite poisonous
inhalation hazard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.) provides that
the EPA shall promulgate a list of substances that ``in the case of
accidental release, are known to cause or may reasonably be
anticipated to cause death, injury, or serious adverse effects to
human health or the environment.'' See 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(3).
\13\ Note that some of these chemicals present not only a
release issue, but present additional security issue(s) too (e.g.,
theft and diversion or sabotage and contamination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this final appendix, the Department has removed three release-
toxic chemicals \14\ that it had included in the proposed appendix.
While these three toxic chemicals appear on EPA's RMP list, they do not
meet the RMP listing criteria for vapor pressure. EPA included these
three chemicals in their RMP list, because Congress specifically
required their inclusion pursuant to Sec. 7412(r)(3) of the Clean Air
Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.\15\ Because these chemicals do not
otherwise meet the RMP listing criteria for toxic chemicals, DHS has
removed them from Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The three release-toxics are: Toluene 2,4-diisocyanate;
Toluene 2,6-diisocyanate; and Toluene diisocyanate (unspecified
isomer).
\15\ In 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7412(r)(3), Congress directed EPA to
include toluene diisocyanate (TDI) in its RMP list. EPA looked to
the types of TDI in commercial production (i.e., those types listed
on the Toxic Substances Control Act Chemical Substance Inventory)
and listed the three forms noted in footnote 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For release-flammable chemicals, DHS also uses the same listing
criteria as EPA does for release-flammable chemicals. EPA, and now DHS,
identifies flammable gases and volatile flammable liquids based on the
flash point and boiling point criteria that the NFPA uses for its
highest flammability hazard ranking (Class IA). The criteria can be
found in EPA's Final List Rule. See 59 FR 4478, 4480 (January 31,
1994).
b. STQ
DHS set the STQ for release-toxics at the same amount that EPA set
the Threshold Quantity (TQ) for toxic substances under its RMP
regulation.\16\ That amount ranges from 500 to 20,000 pounds, depending
on the toxicity and volatility of the substance. Likewise, DHS set the
STQ for release-flammables at the same amount as EPA--10,000 pounds.
The Department has adopted the EPA RMP TQs, because DHS accepts the
same rationale that EPA used when setting its TQs--i.e., that they are
amounts that, if released, have the potential to create significant
human health effects. The Department realizes that, in developing these
TQs, EPA collected extensive input on and conducted a thorough
analysis, and DHS wants to leverage that knowledge base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 40 CFR part 68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whereas the Department had proposed to set the STQs for these
release chemicals at seventy-five percent of the EPA RMP TQs in the
IFR, the Department has instead set these STQs at the same amount as
the EPA RMP TQs. In doing so, the Department accepted the
recommendation of many commenters to set the STQ for these release
chemicals at, rather than below, the EPA RMP TQs. The Department
realized that it did not need to reduce its STQs to a level below that
of the EPA TQs, because even though DHS and EPA are seeking to satisfy
two different mandates (i.e., DHS to prevent an intentional release and
EPA to prevent an accidental release), DHS has made accommodations for
that difference. The DHS method for calculating an STQ is more
conservative than that of the EPA for TQs. Under part 27, except for
the exclusions listed in Sec. 27.203(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3), a
facility must aggregate the total amount of COI that it possesses at
its facility, including COI that may exist in separate processes. By
contrast, under EPA's RMP regulation, a facility must consider the
total quantity of a regulated substance ``contained in a process'' that
exceeds the TQ. See 40 CFR 68.115(a). For example, a facility that has
multiple processes (involving an RMP substance), with each process
below the threshold for the reportable TQ, would not be covered under
RMP. That facility, however, would be covered under part 27 if the
total quantity of all the processes (associated with a chemical of
interest) was at or above the STQ.
DHS believes that, in the case of an intentional terrorist attack,
chemicals or materials would likely be released from multiple vessels
rather than a single vessel. As a result, the Department believes that
setting the STQ at an amount that reflects the entire inventory of the
facility better captures the potential consequences of an intentional
attack. The Department believes this is more appropriate than EPA's
valid assumption for accidents that the worst-case release \17\ would
be a release from the largest vessel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ In 40 CFR 68.3, EPA defines ``worst-case release'' as ``the
release of the largest quantity of a regulated substance from a
vessel or process line failure that results in the greatest distance
to an endpoint defined in Sec. 68.22(a).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the general rule for release chemicals (i.e., that the DHS
STQs are the same as the EPA TQs), there are a few differences between
the EPA TQs and the DHS STQs. First, as discussed below in section
II(D)(1), DHS treats propane differently than all other release-
flammables. Second, the RMP TQ for toxic substances applies to all DHS
release-toxics except for eleven \18\ that meet the RMP listing
criteria for both toxicity and flammability. EPA treats these
substances as toxics in its RMP rule; however, DHS lists these
substances as flammables (and sets the
[[Page 65402]]
STQ at 10,000 pounds), because, in an intentional release, they are
more likely to act like flammables and potentially create an explosive
vapor cloud.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The eleven RMP release-toxics are: ethylene oxide, furan,
hydrazine, hydrogen selenide, methyl chloride, methyl mercaptan,
nickel carbonyl, peracetic acid, phosphine, propylene oxide, and
tetranitromethane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In calculating whether a facility meets the STQ for release-toxic
or release-flammable chemicals, the facility need not include release-
toxic or release-flammable chemicals of interest that a facility
manufactures, processes, or uses in a laboratory at the facility under
the supervision of a technically qualified individual as defined in 40
CFR 720.3. See Sec. 27.203(b)(2). DHS adopted this laboratory
quantities exclusion, including the definition of ``technically
qualified individual,'' from EPA. The comparable EPA laboratory
quantities exemption is located in EPA's RMP regulation at 40 CFR
68.115(b)(5), and EPA's definition of ``technically qualified
individual'' is located at 40 CFR 720.3(ee). EPA defines a
``technically qualified individual'' to mean ``a person or persons (1)
who, because of education, training, or experience, or a combination of
these factors, is capable of understanding the health and environmental
risks associated with the chemical substance which is used under his or
her supervision, (2) who is responsible for enforcing appropriate
methods of conducting scientific experimentation, analysis, or chemical
research to minimize such risks, and (3) who is responsible for the
safety assessments and clearances related to the procurement, storage,
use, and disposal of the chemical substance as may be appropriate or
required within the scope of conducting a research and development
activity.'' Like EPA, the DHS laboratory quantities exclusion does not
apply to specialty chemical production; manufacture, processing, or use
of substances in pilot plant scale operations; or activities, including
research and development, involving chemicals of interest conducted
outside the laboratory. Facilities that engage in such activities must
count those chemicals toward their STQ.
DHS believes that, in a release, a lab quantity of a release
chemical would not significantly contribute to the consequentiality of
an attack. Moreover, under this provision, DHS believes that, where lab
quantities of release chemicals are used, there are appropriate
controls by virtue of the fact it is done so under the supervision of a
technically qualified individual. In adding this laboratory quantity
provision, DHS was responsive to the numerous commenters, including
those from colleges, universities, and industrial laboratories, who
requested such a provision.
As noted above, DHS adopted this laboratory quantities exclusion
from the EPA. DHS, however, has made one minor clarifying adjustment to
the language that it adopted from EPA. In response to comments, DHS
added language to Sec. 27.203(b)(2)(i) to make explicit that
activities conducted outside the laboratory may include research and
development activities. A facility must count all quantities of COI
involved in activities conducted outside of the laboratory (including
research and development) toward its STQ. In other words, such COI
would not be subject to the laboratory quantities exclusion.
c. Minimum Concentration (Mixtures)
Pursuant to Sec. 27.204(a) and as noted in the ``minimum
concentration'' entries in the appendix, the minimum concentration of a
release-toxic or release-flammable chemical of interest that a facility
must include when counting the amount of COI is one percent (1%) by
weight. Pursuant to Sec. 27.204(a)(1), if a release-toxic chemical is
present in a mixture, and the concentration of the chemical is equal to
or greater than one percent (1%) by weight, the facility shall count
the amount of the chemical of interest in the mixture toward the STQ.
For example, if a facility has 500 pounds of a toxic mixture containing
five percent (5%) acrolein, the facility should count five percent (5%)
of the weight of the mixture, or 25 pounds of acrolein, toward the STQ
of 5,000 pounds. Except for oleum, if a facility can measure or
estimate (and document) that the partial pressure of the regulated
substance in the mixture is less than 10 mm Hg, the facility need not
consider the mixture when determining the STQ. If a release-toxic
chemical of interest is present in a mixture, and the concentration of
the chemical is less than one percent (1%) by weight of the mixture,
the facility need not count the amount of that chemical in the mixture
in determining whether the facility possesses the STQ. Note that these
mixture provisions track those of the EPA in its RMP regulation. See 40
CFR 68.115(b)(1).
Pursuant to Sec. 27.204(a)(2), if a release-flammable chemical of
interest is present in a mixture in a concentration equal to or greater
than one percent (1%) by weight of the mixture, and the mixture has a
NFPA flammability hazard rating of 4, the facility shall count the
entire weight of the mixture toward the STQ. For example, if a facility
has 500 pounds of a flammable mixture containing five percent (5%)
pentane and the mixture as a whole has a NFPA flammability hazard
rating of 4, the facility shall count the entire weight of the mixture,
or 500 pounds, toward the STQ of 10,000 pounds. If a release-flammable
chemical of interest is present in a mixture in a concentration equal
to or greater than one percent (1%) by weight of the mixture, and the
mixture has a NFPA flammability hazard rating lower than 4 (i.e., NFPA
hazard rating of 1, 2, or 3), the facility need not count the entire
weight of the mixture toward the STQ. If a release-flammable chemical
of interest is present in a mixture, and the concentration of the
chemical is less than one percent (1%) by weight, the facility need not
count the mixture in determining whether the facility possesses the
STQ. Note that these mixture provisions track those of the EPA in its
RMP regulation. See 40 CFR 68.115(b)(2).
2. Release-Explosives
a. Chemicals
To identify release chemicals that present an explosive hazard, DHS
looked to the DOT hazardous materials regulations (see 49 CFR 171-180)
and the EPA's original listing rule for RMP (see 59 FR 4478 (January
31, 1994)). DOT identifies explosives as one of nine classes of
hazardous materials that it regulates and divides explosives (``Class 1
explosives'') into six divisions. See 49 CFR 173.50(b). Although DHS
had included explosives from the six DOT explosives divisions in the
proposed Appendix A, DHS is only including Division 1.1 explosives in
this final appendix.\19\ After consideration of comments and further
review, DHS decided to focus on Division 1.1 explosives, which are
those that have a mass explosion hazard. A mass explosion hazard is one
which affects almost the entire load instantaneously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ As a result of that decision, DHS removed chemicals such as
dinitrosobenzene, sodium dinitro-o-cresolate, sodium picramate,
tetrazol-1-acetic acid, and zirconium picramate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS has incorporated all of the DOT Class 1, Division 1.1 explosive
chemicals with only two broad exceptions. First, the Department does
not include those explosive materials for which DOT uses a generic
shipping name with the suffix ``N.O.S.'' \20\ This refers to materials
with generic descriptions in the Hazardous Materials Table in 49 CFR
172.101 (e.g., Substances, explosive, n.o.s.). The Department has
instead identified the relevant Class 1 explosive materials as only
those that DOT specifically names in its Hazardous Materials Table.
Second, DHS does not include articles
[[Page 65403]]
or devices that DOT lists in its Hazardous Material Table. Examples of
those articles and devices include charges, guns, detonators, detonator
assemblies, fuses, primers, cartridges, and motors. DHS does not
believe, at this time, that it is necessary to include this broader
universe of substances and materials. Coverage of chemical facilities
that present a high level of risk and that include these materials will
be triggered by other STQ provisions of this rule. If the Department
finds that is not the case for a particular facility, the Department
will seek information from that facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ N.O.S. refers to ``not otherwise specified.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS believes it is appropriate to include DOT Class 1, Division 1.1
explosive materials in Appendix A despite the EPA's exclusion of these
materials. At the onset of the RMP program, EPA had listed DOT Division
1.1 explosives as a regulated substance. EPA set the TQ at 5,000
pounds, because the EPA believed that a blast wave from such an amount
had the potential to cause offsite impacts. See 59 FR 4478 (January 31,
1994). EPA later issued a final rule, delisting Class 1, Division 1.1
explosives. See 63 FR 640 (January 6, 1998). In the final rule, EPA
concluded that ``current regulations and current and contemplated
industry practices promote safety and accident prevention in storage,
handling, transportation, and use of explosives. As a result, these
regulations and practices adequately protect the public and the
environment from the hazards of accidents involving explosives.'' See
63 FR 640, 641. DHS notes that EPA's decisions were based on safety and
the prevention of an accidental release. DHS is concerned with an
intentional attack on an explosives facility, which has the potential
to generate significant impacts for human life and health beyond the
facility. Given the different focus of DHS's regulation, it is
important that DHS consider DOT Class 1, Division 1.1 explosives; there
is the potential for a serious off-site effect from an intentional and
successful attack on a facility with these explosives.
b. STQ
DHS proposed an STQ of 2,000 pounds \21\ for release-explosives but
now sets the STQ for release-explosives at 5,000 pounds. As discussed
above in relation to release-toxics and release-flammables, DHS has
decided to set the STQ for release chemicals at the EPA TQs. Five
thousands pounds is the TQ that EPA had used for DOT Division 1.1
explosives when the DOT Division 1.1 explosives were part of the EPA
RMP program. In addition, this is the same quantity that TSA now
proposes to use for DOT explosives in its Rail Transportation Security
NPRM.\22\ All release-explosives are also listed as theft/diversion-
EXP/IEDP chemicals (although all theft/diversion-EXP/IEDP chemicals are
not listed as release-explosives, because the theft/diversion-EXP/IEDP
category includes both actual explosives and precursors to explosives).
A facility that possesses a chemical that presents both a release-
explosive hazard and a theft/diversion-EXP/IEDP hazard must consider
both of the applicable STQs, and if the facility possesses a quantity
that satisfies either STQ, the facility must complete and submit the
Top-Screen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ In the proposed appendix in the IFR, DHS set the STQ for
these explosive chemicals at 2,000 pounds. In the IFR, however, DHS
was only considering the theft/diversion concern. In the IFR, had
DHS set the STQ for these explosive chemicals (using the method of
calculating the STQ at 75% of the EPA RMP TQ) based on a release
concern the STQ would have been 3,750 pounds. As discussed in this
preamble, while the current EPA RMP does not contain release-
explosives, EPA had previously included release-explosives in the
RMP program, and when doing so, EPA set the TQ at 5,000 pounds.
\22\ 71 FR 76852 (December 21, 2006). See proposed 49 CFR
1580.100(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In calculating whether a facility meets the STQ for release-
explosive chemicals, the facility need not include release-explosive
chemicals of interest that a facility manufactures, processes, or uses
in a laboratory at the facility under the supervision of a technically
qualified individual as defined in 40 CFR 720.3. See Sec.
27.203(b)(2). This provision is identical to the laboratory quantities
provision that applies to release-toxic and release-flammable chemicals
and that is discussed above.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Sec. II(C)(1)(b) above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Minimum Concentration (Mixtures)
Section 27.204(a)(3) provides that a facility shall count toward
the STQ the total quantity of all commercial grades of release-
explosives. DHS has added a definition of ``A Commercial Grade'' (ACG)
to Sec. 27.105. ACG refers to any quality or concentration of a
chemical of interest offered for commercial sale that a facility uses,
stores, manufactures, or ships.
3. Theft/Diversion-CW/CWP
a. Chemicals
In identifying chemical weapons (CW) and their precursors that are
at risk for theft or diversion, the Department looked to the chemicals
covered by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).\24\ The chemicals
covered by the CWC regulations are divided into three lists, or
``schedules,'' based on their previous use as a CW or possible utility
in developing chemical weapons.\25\ Schedule 1 covers chemical weapons
agents and their immediate precursors. They have very limited
industrial and medical applications. Schedule 2 covers chemicals and
precursors that have some industrial uses. Schedule 3 covers chemicals
and precursors with broad commercial applications, some of which were
formerly weaponized.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development,
Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their
Destruction is an international arms control, disarmament, and non-
proliferation treaty, which is implemented by 22 U.S.C. 6701, et.
seq. The Department of Commerce administers the implementing
regulations. See 15 CFR part 710.
\25\ Schedule 1 chemicals are provided in Supplement No. 1 to 15
CFR part 712, Schedule 2 chemicals are provided in Supplement No. 2
to 15 CFR part 713, and Schedule 3 chemicals are provided in
Supplement No. 3 to 15 CFR part 714.
\26\ See ``The Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations:
Frequently Asked Questions and Answers on Industry Compliance,''
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security,
Publication CWC-006 (Updated May 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Department included chemicals from all three Schedules
\27\ in proposed Appendix A, the Department has only included select
chemicals from the CWC Schedules in final Appendix A. The Department
continues to include all specifically identified Schedule 1 chemicals,
because they are actual CW agents and their immediate precursors. Note
that, based on comments, the Department has listed these Schedule 1
chemicals by their individual common name along with their chemical
name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ There were a few Schedule 1 chemicals, however, that were
inadvertently omitted from the proposed appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to Schedule 2 and 3 chemicals, the Department has only
included those Schedule 2 and 3 chemicals and precursors that are
``easily weaponizable''--that is, they could be easily converted into
chemical weapons using simple chemistry, equipment, and techniques.\28\
DHS made the determination about ``weaponizability'' after consulting
with several sources, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) and the DHS Chemical Security Analysis Center (CSAC).\29\ As a
result of this approach, the Department removed chemicals that had
appeared on the proposed list but
[[Page 65404]]
were now determined not to be easily weaponizable (e.g., chloropicrin).
In addition to including select CWC chemicals, Appendix A also contains
one other easily weapo