Information Collection Request; Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Personnel Surety Program, 17680-17701 [2013-06184]

Download as PDF 17680 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices Contact Person: Xincheng Zheng, Ph.D., M.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, NIH, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 800, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–594–4953, xincheng.zheng@nih.gov. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: March 18, 2013. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. 2013–06571 Filed 3–21–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140–01–P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Closed Meeting srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Special Emphasis Panel, NIAAA Member Conflict Applications. Date: April 4, 2013. Time: 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. Place: 5635 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call). Contact Person: Ranga Srinivas, Ph.D., Chief, Extramural Project Review Branch EPRB, NIAAA, National Institutes of Health, 5365 Fishers Lane, Room 2085, Rockville, MD 20852 (301) 451–2067 srinivar@mail.nih.gov. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: March 18, 2013. Carolyn A. Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. 2013–06572 Filed 3–21–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140–01–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:27 Mar 21, 2013 Jkt 229001 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [Docket No. DHS–2012–0061] Information Collection Request; Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Personnel Surety Program National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS. ACTION: 60-Day notice and request for comments; New Information Collection Request: 1670—NEW. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP), Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (ISCD) will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This is a new information collection and follows the withdrawal of a previous ICR on the same topic.1 The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments during a 60-day public comment period prior to the submission of this ICR to OMB. The submission describes the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (in hours), and the estimated burden cost necessary to implement the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) Personnel Surety Program pursuant to 6 CFR 27.230(a)(12)(iv). DATES: Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until May 21, 2013. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposed information collection through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. All 1 A 60-day public notice for comments was published in the Federal Register on June 10, 2009. See 74 FR 27555. Comments submitted by the public may be found on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID DHS–2009–0026. The Department’s responses were included in a Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 30-day Federal Register notice. The 30-day public notice for comments was published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2010. See 75 FR 18850. Comments submitted by the public may be found on http:// www.regulations.gov under Docket ID DHS–2009– 0026. The Department’s responses were published in a separate Federal Register notice on June 14, 2011. See 76 FR 34720. Concurrently with publication of the June 14, 2011 Federal Register notice, the Department submitted an Information Collection Request about the CFATS Personnel Surety Program to OMB. See http:// www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201105-1670-002. In July 2012, the Department withdrew that ICR. PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 submissions received must include the words ‘‘Department of Homeland Security’’ and the docket number DHS– 2012–0061. Except as provided below, comments received will be posted without alteration at http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Comments that include trade secrets, confidential commercial or financial information, Chemical-terrorism Vulnerability Information (CVI),2 Sensitive Security Information (SSI),3 or Protected Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII) 4 should not be submitted to the public regulatory docket. Please submit such comments separately from other comments in response to this notice. Comments containing trade secrets, confidential commercial or financial information, CVI, SSI, or PCII should be appropriately marked and packaged in accordance with applicable requirements and submitted by mail to the DHS/NPPD/IP/ISCD CFATS Program Manager at the Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane, SW., Mail Stop 0610, Arlington, VA 20528–0610. Comments must be identified by docket number DHS– 2012–0061. Table of Contents I. Supplementary Information • Summary of Options Available to HighRisk Chemical Facilities To Comply With RBPS 12(iv) • Scope of This Notice and Commitment To Explore Additional Options in the Future • Who Is Impacted by The CFATS Personnel Surety Program? • What/Who Is the Source of the Information Under Option 1 and Option 2 • CSAT User Roles and Responsibilities • Burden Resulting From the Submission of Duplicate Records About an Affected Individual • Compliance With RBPS 12(iv) and the Potential for Increased Burden To Enter the Restricted Areas or Critical Assets at a High-Risk Chemical Facility • Compliance With RBPS 12(iv) and Infrequent ‘‘Unescorted Visitors’’ • Additional Data Privacy Considerations II. Information Collected About Affected Individuals • Option 1: Collecting Information To Conduct Direct Vetting 2 For more information about CVI see 6 CFR 27.400 and the CVI Procedural Manual at http:// www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ chemsec_cvi_proceduresmanual.pdf. 3 For more information about SSI see 49 CFR part 1520 and the SSI Program Web page at http:// www.tsa.gov/ssi. 4 For more information about PCII see 6 CFR part 29 and the PCII Program Web page at http:// ww.dhs.gov/pcii. E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM 22MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES • Option 2: Collecting Information To Use of Vetting Conducted Under Other DHS Programs • Option 3: Electronic Verification of TWIC • Other Information Collected III. Request for Exception to the Requirement Under 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3) IV. Responses to Previous Comments V. The Department’s Methodology in Estimating the Burden • Frequency • Affected Public • Number of Respondents Æ Number and Type of High-Risk Chemical Facilities Æ Estimated Number of Affected Individuals at Each Type of High-Risk Chemical Facility—Unescorted Visitors With Access to Restricted Areas or Critical Assets Æ Estimated Number of Affected Individuals at Each Type of High-Risk Chemical Facilities—Facility Personnel With Access to Restricted Areas or Critical Assets Æ Summary of Alternatives To Estimate the Number of Respondents Æ Limitation of Respondents to Tier 1 and Tier 2 Facilities • Estimated Time per Respondent • Total Burden Hours • Total Burden Cost (Capital/Startup) Æ Estimating Capital Costs for Option 3— Number and Type of High-Risk Chemical Facilities That May Choose To Use Option 3 Æ Estimating Capital Costs for Option 3— TWIC Readers Costs Æ Consideration of Other Capital Costs • Recordkeeping Costs • Total Burden Cost (Operating/ Maintaining) VI. Solicitation of Comments VII. Analysis I. Supplementary Information Section 550 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, Public Law 109–295 (2006) (‘‘Section 550’’), provides the Department with the authority to identify and regulate the security of high-risk chemical facilities using a riskbased approach. On April 9, 2007, the Department issued the CFATS Interim Final Rule (IFR) implementing this statutory mandate. See 72 FR 17688. Section 550 requires that the Department establish risk-based performance standards (RBPS) for highrisk chemical facilities and under CFATS the Department promulgated 18 RBPS. Each chemical facility that has been finally determined by the Department to be high-risk must submit a Site Security Plan (SSP), or an Alternative Security Program (ASP) if the facility so chooses, for Department approval that satisfies each applicable RBPS. RBPS 12—Personnel Surety— requires high-risk chemical facilities to: Perform appropriate background checks on and ensure appropriate credentials for VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:27 Mar 21, 2013 Jkt 229001 facility personnel, and as appropriate, for unescorted visitors with access to restricted areas or critical assets, including, (i) Measures designed to verify and validate identity; (ii) Measures designed to check criminal history; (iii) Measures designed to verify and validate legal authorization to work; and (iv) Measures designed to identify people with terrorist ties[.] See 6 CFR 27.230(a)(12). As explained by the Department in the preamble to the CFATS IFR, the ability to identify affected individuals (i.e., facility personnel or unescorted visitors with access to restricted areas or critical assets at high-risk chemical facilities) who have terrorist ties is an inherently governmental function and necessarily requires the use of information held in governmentmaintained databases that are unavailable to high-risk chemical facilities. See 72 FR 17709 (April 9, 2007). Thus, under RBPS 12(iv), the Department and high-risk chemical facilities must work together to satisfy the ‘‘terrorist ties’’ aspect of the Personnel Surety performance standard. As a result, the CFATS Personnel Surety Program will identify individuals with terrorist ties that have or are seeking access to the restricted areas and/or critical assets at the nation’s high-risk chemical facilities. Accordingly, in the preamble to the CFATS IFR, the Department outlined two potential approaches to help high-risk chemical facilities satisfy that particular standard, both of which would involve high-risk chemical facilities submitting certain information to the Department. See id. The first approach would involve facilities submitting certain information about affected individuals to the Department, which the Department would use to vet those individuals for terrorist ties. Specifically, identifying information about affected individuals would be compared against identifying information of known or suspected terrorists contained in the Federal Government’s consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist, the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), which is maintained on behalf of the federal government by the Department of Justice (DOJ) Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC).5 In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of terrorist screening, the Department also described an additional approach under which high-risk chemical facilities would submit information about affected individuals possessing certain credentials that rely 5 For more information about the TSDB, see DOJ/ FBI—019 Terrorist Screening Records System, 72 FR 47073 (August 22, 2007). PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 17681 on Security Threat Assessments conducted by the Department. See 72 FR 17709 (April 9, 2007). The Department has now developed a CFATS Personnel Surety Program that will provide high-risk chemical facilities additional options to comply with RBPS 12(iv) while continuing to make available the two alternatives outlined in the preamble to the CFATS IFR. In addition to the alternatives expressly described in this document, the Department also intends to permit high-risk chemical facilities to propose other alternative measures for terrorist ties identification in their SSPs or ASPs, which the Department will consider on a case-by-case basis in evaluating highrisk chemical facilities’ SSPs or ASPs. As a result of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program, regardless of the option, the Department will identify individuals with terrorist ties that have or are seeking access to the restricted areas and/or critical assets at the nation’s high-risk chemical facilities. The first option is consistent with the primary approach described in the CFATS IFR preamble, as discussed above. Under Option 1—Direct Vetting, high-risk chemical facilities (or others acting on their behalf) would submit certain information about affected individuals to the Department through a Personnel Surety application in an online technology system developed under CFATS called the Chemical Security Assessment Tool (CSAT). Access to and the use of CSAT is provided free of charge to high-risk chemical facilities (or others acting on their behalf). Under this option, information about affected individuals submitted by, or on behalf of, high-risk chemical facilities would be vetted against information contained in the Federal Government’s consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist. The second option is also consistent with the second approach described in the CFATS IFR preamble. Under Option 2—Use Of Vetting Conducted Under Other DHS Programs, high-risk chemical facilities (or others acting on their behalf) would also submit certain information about affected individuals to the Department through the CSAT Personnel Surety application. Option 2 would, however, allow highrisk chemical facilities and the Department to take advantage of the vetting for terrorist ties already being conducted on affected individuals enrolled in the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Program, Hazardous Materials Endorsement (HME) Program, as well as the NEXUS, Secure Electronic Network E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM 22MRN1 17682 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES for Travelers Rapid Inspection (SENTRI), Free and Secure Trade (FAST), and Global Entry Trusted Traveler Programs.6 All of these programs conduct terrorist ties vetting equivalent to the terrorist ties vetting that would be conducted under Option 1.7 Under Option 2, high-risk chemical facilities, or their designees (e.g., third parties), could submit information to the Department about affected individuals possessing the appropriate credentials to enable the Department to electronically verify the affected individuals’ enrollments in these other programs. The Department would subsequently notify the designee of the high-risk chemical facility (e.g., the Submitter) whether or not an affected individual’s enrollment in one of these other DHS programs was electronically verified. The Department would also periodically re-verify each affected individual’s continued enrollment in one of these other programs, and notify the appropriate designee of the high-risk chemical facility of significant changes in the status of an affected individual’s enrollment (e.g., if an affected individual who has been enrolled in the HME Program ceases to be enrolled, the Department would change the status of the affected individual in the CSAT Personnel Surety application and notify the Submitter). Electronic verification and re-verification would enable the Department and the high-risk chemical facility to ensure that an affected individual’s credential or endorsement is appropriate to rely on (i.e., an indicator that the affected individual is being recurrently vetted for terrorist ties) in compliance with RBPS 12(iv). In addition to Option 1 and Option 2, the Department has considered other potential options to help high-risk chemical facilities satisfy RBPS 12(iv). In particular, the Department has investigated the feasibility of options that would not involve the submission of information about an affected individual if the affected individual participated in one of the programs identified under Option 2. The 6 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has introduced SENTRI and Global Entry as Trusted Traveler Programs since the publication of CFATS in April 2007. The Department, therefore, intends to enable high-risk chemical facilities (or their designees) to submit information about affected individuals’ SENTRI and Global Entry enrollments to DHS under Option 2, even though SENTRI and Global Entry were not listed along with the other Trusted Traveler Programs in the CFATS IFR preamble. See 72 FR 17709 (April 9, 2007). 7 Each of the DHS programs conducts recurrent vetting, which is a Department best practice. Recurrent vetting compares an affected individual’s information against new and/or updated TSDB records as those new and/or updated records become available. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:27 Mar 21, 2013 Jkt 229001 Department believes that, for the purpose of compliance with RBPS 12(iv), simply relying on a visual inspection of a credential or endorsement is inadequate because the credential or endorsement could be expired, revoked, or fraudulent. However, the Department has concluded that information about an affected individual, enrolled in a DHS program that conducts vetting for terrorist ties equivalent to the vetting that would be conducted under Option 1, would not need to be submitted to the Department if the credential in the possession of the affected individual is electronically verified and validated. Accordingly, the Department plans to offer high-risk chemical facilities a third option. Under Option 3—Electronic Verification of TWIC, a high-risk chemical facility (or others acting on their behalf) would not submit information about affected individuals in possession of TWICs to the Department if the high-risk chemical facility (or others acting on their behalf) electronically verify and validate the affected individuals’ TWICs through the use of TWIC readers (or other technology that is periodically updated using the Canceled Card List).8 Any high-risk chemical facilities that choose this option would need to describe in their SSPs or ASPs the procedures they will follow if they choose to use TWIC readers for compliance with RBPS 12(iv).9 High-risk chemical facilities would have discretion as to which option(s) to use for an affected individual. For example, even though a high-risk chemical facility could comply with RBPS 12(iv) for certain affected individuals by using Option 2, the highrisk chemical facility could choose to use Option 1 for those affected individuals. Similarly, a high-risk chemical facility, at its discretion, may choose to use either Option 1 or Option 2 rather than Option 3 for affected individuals who have TWICs. High-risk chemical facilities also may choose to combine Option 1 with Option 2 and/ or Option 3, as appropriate, to ensure 8 For more information about the Canceled Card List, please visit http://www.tsa.gov/sites/default/ files/publications/pdf/twic/ canceled_card_list_ccl_faq.pdf. 9 Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, the U.S. Coast Guard has published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled ‘‘TWIC Reader Requirements.’’ The procedures for using TWIC readers that are discussed in that NPRM would not apply to high-risk chemical facilities regulated under CFATS. Likewise, the ways in which highrisk chemical facilities could leverage TWICs as part of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program do not apply to maritime facilities or vessels regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard. PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 that adequate terrorist ties checks are performed on different types of affected individuals (e.g., employees, contractors, unescorted visitors). Each high-risk chemical facility will need to describe how it will comply with RBPS 12(iv) in its SSP or ASP. In addition to the options described above for satisfying RBPS 12(iv), highrisk chemical facilities are welcome to propose alternative or supplemental options not described in this PRA notice in their SSPs or ASPs. The Department will assess the adequacy of such alternative or supplemental options on a facility-by-facility basis, in the course of evaluating each facility’s SSP or ASP. Although outside the scope of this PRA notice and the underlying ICR, the Department would like to highlight that high-risk chemical facilities also have other methods to address, or minimize the impacts of, compliance with RBPS 12(iv). For example, facilities may restrict the numbers and types of persons whom they allow to access their restricted areas and critical assets, thus limiting the number of persons who will need to be checked for terrorist ties. Facilities also have wide latitude in how they define their restricted areas and critical assets in their SSPs or ASPs, thus potentially limiting the number of persons who will need to be checked for terrorist ties. High-risk chemical facilities also may choose to escort visitors to restricted areas and critical assets in lieu of performing the background checks required by RBPS 12. For example, high-risk chemical facilities could propose in their SSPs or ASPs traditional escorting solutions and/or innovative escorting alternatives such as video monitoring (which may reduce facility security costs), as appropriate, to address the unique security risks present at each facility. Summary of Options Available to HighRisk Chemical Facilities To Comply With RBPS 12(iv) The purpose of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program is to identify individuals with terrorist ties that have or are seeking access to the restricted areas and/or critical assets at the nation’s high-risk chemical facilities. As described above, under the CFATS Personnel Surety Program, for each affected individual a high-risk chemical facility would have at least three options under RBPS 12(iv): • Option 1—Direct Vetting: High-risk chemical facilities (or their designees) may submit information to the Department about an affected individual to be compared against information about known or suspected terrorists, and/or E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM 22MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES • Option 2—Use of Vetting Conducted Under Other DHS Programs: High-risk chemical facilities (or their designees) may submit information to the Department about an affected individual’s enrollment in another DHS program so that the Department may electronically verify and validate that the affected individual is enrolled in the other program, and/or • Option 3—Electronic Verification of TWIC: High-risk chemical facilities may electronically verify and validate an affected individual’s TWIC, through the use of TWIC readers (or other technology which is periodically updated using the Canceled Card List), rather than submitting information about the affected individual to the Department. Regardless of the option, in the event that there is a potential match, the Department has procedures in place that it will follow to resolve the match and coordinate with appropriate law enforcement entities as necessary. Highrisk chemical facilities may be contacted as part of law enforcement investigation activity, depending on the nature of the investigation. Scope of This Notice and Commitment To Explore Additional Options in the Future Since withdrawing the previous CFATS Personnel Surety Program ICR in July 2012,10 the Department has had substantial dialogue with key CFATS stakeholders. The discussion included program design issues, the CSAT Personnel Surety application, options the Department has been considering to date, and additional options stakeholders have recommended for the Department’s consideration, both in the short and long term. The options described in this notice and, if approved, the subsequent ICR that the Department intends to submit to OMB would allow high-risk chemical facilities and the Department to implement the CFATS Personnel Surety Program within the Department’s existing statutory and regulatory authority, and U.S. Government watchlisting policies. The Department is committed, however, to continuing to work with interested stakeholders to identify additional potential options that could further reduce the burdens related to the CFATS Personnel Surety Program, while still meeting the national security mandate to reduce the risk of an individual with terrorist ties obtaining access to the restricted areas or critical assets at a high-risk chemical facility. 10 See footnote 1, supra. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:27 Mar 21, 2013 Jkt 229001 The Department will consider and review any alternatives suggested as part of public comments on this notice and on any subsequent notices related to the CFATS Personnel Surety Program. Through both the PRA process and other ongoing dialogues, the Department will, as appropriate, also continue to work with stakeholders to identify potential additional alternatives as new technologies emerge, and as other terrorist ties vetting programs are modified or become available over time, so as to reduce the burden of this new information collection. Who is impacted by the CFATS personnel surety program? The CFATS Personnel Surety Program will provide high-risk chemical facilities the ability to submit certain biographic information about affected individuals to the Department. As explained above, affected individuals are (1) facility personnel who have access, either unescorted or otherwise, to restricted areas or critical assets, and (2) unescorted visitors who have access to restricted areas or critical assets. There are also certain groups of persons that the Department does not consider to be affected individuals, such as (1) Federal officials that gain unescorted access to restricted areas or critical assets as part of their official duties; (2) state and local law enforcement officials that gain unescorted access to restricted areas or critical assets as part of their official duties; and (3) emergency responders at the state or local level that gain unescorted access to restricted areas or critical assets during emergency situations. In some emergency or exigent situations, access to restricted areas or critical assets by other individuals who have not had appropriate background checks under RBPS 12 may be necessary. For example, emergency responders not described above may require such access as part of their official duties under appropriate circumstances. If high-risk chemical facilities anticipate that any individuals will require access to restricted areas or critical assets without visitor escorts or without the background checks listed in RBPS 12 under exceptional circumstances, facilities may describe such situations and the types of individuals who might require access in those situations in their SSPs or ASPs. The Department will assess the appropriateness of such situations, and any security measures to mitigate the inherent vulnerability in such situations, on a case-by-case basis as it PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 17683 reviews each high-risk chemical facility’s SSP or ASP. What/Who Is the Source of the Information Under Option 1 and Option 2 High-risk chemical facilities are responsible for complying with RBPS 12(iv). However, companies operating multiple high-risk chemical facilities, as well as companies operating only one high-risk chemical facility, may comply with RBPS 12(iv) in a variety of ways. High-risk chemical facilities, or their parent companies, may choose to comply with RBPS 12(iv) by identifying and submitting the information about affected individuals to the Department directly. Alternatively, high-risk chemical facilities, or their parent companies, may choose to comply with RBPS 12(iv) by outsourcing the information submission process to third parties. The Department anticipates that many high-risk chemical facilities will rely on businesses that provide contract services (e.g., complex turn-arounds, freight delivery services, lawn mowing) to the high-risk chemical facilities to identify and submit the appropriate information about affected individuals they employ to the Department for vetting pursuant to RBPS 12(iv). Businesses that provide services to highrisk chemical facilities may in turn choose to manage compliance with RBPS 12(iv) themselves or to acquire the services of other third party companies to submit appropriate information about affected individuals to the Department. CSAT User Roles and Responsibilities To minimize the burden of submitting information about affected individuals, under Options 1 and 2 (as described above), high-risk chemical facilities would have wide latitude in assigning CSAT user roles to align with their business operations and/or the business operations of third parties that provide contracted services to them.11 In response to previous comments submitted to the Department about the CFATS Personnel Surety Program, the Department intends to structure the CSAT Personnel Surety application to allow designees of high-risk chemical facilities to submit information about affected individuals to the Department on behalf of high-risk chemical facilities. High-risk chemical facilities will be able to structure their CSAT user roles 11 CSAT user registration and the assignment of user roles within CSAT are covered under a different Information Collection (i.e., 1670–0007), which can be found at http://www.reginfo.gov/ public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201001-1670-007#. E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM 22MRN1 17684 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices to submit information about affected individuals to the Department in three ways: (1) A high-risk chemical facility could directly submit information about affected individuals, and designate one or more officers or employees of the facility as a Personnel Surety Submitter; and/or (2) A high-risk chemical facility could submit information about affected individuals by designating one or more individuals affiliated with a third party (or with multiple third parties) to a user role(s) designated for third parties; and/ or (3) A company owning several highrisk chemical facilities could consolidate its submission process for affected individuals. Specifically, the company could designate one or more persons as CSAT users, and those users could submit information about affected individuals on behalf of all of the highrisk chemical facilities on a companywide basis. srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Burden Resulting From the Submission of Duplicate Records About an Affected Individual The Department is aware that an affected individual may be associated with multiple high-risk chemical facilities, and thus information about an affected individual may be submitted to the Department multiple times by different high-risk chemical facilities and/or their designated third parties. However, the Department has learned in its dialogue with stakeholders (including third-party companies that conduct background checks for highrisk chemical facilities) that the duplicate submission of records about affected individuals is a common industry practice for companies when managing information about individuals. Specifically, when a person who has already had a background check (e.g., verification of legal authorization to work or criminal history) needs a new background check for different companies or for a new or different purpose (e.g., change in jobs or contract), third parties that routinely conduct background checks routinely will submit information about a person again to agencies responsible for maintaining relevant information (e.g., state motor vehicle databases, e-verify). Therefore, for the purpose of this notice, the Department’s estimation of burden accounts for potential multiple submissions of information about affected individuals by high-risk chemical facilities and their designated third parties. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:27 Mar 21, 2013 Jkt 229001 Compliance With RBPS 12(iv) and the Potential for Increased Burden To Enter the Restricted Areas or Critical Assets at a High-Risk Chemical Facility Since the Department first began seeking to implement the CFATS Personnel Surety Program, stakeholders have expressed concern that the submission of information about affected individuals under Option 1 and Option 2 to the Department would impede the ability of affected individuals to enter the restricted areas or critical assets at high-risk chemical facilities. The Department does not believe that if a facility complies with RBPS 12(iv) the high-risk chemical facility will, on a routine basis, experience an unreasonable impact in allowing affected individuals access to restricted areas or critical assets. In general, the Department expects that high-risk chemical facilities or their designees (e.g., third parties or companies employing affected individuals that provide services to high-risk chemical facilities) will already possess much, if not all, of the necessary information about affected individuals as a result of standard business practices related to employment or managing of service contracts. In the event that high-risk chemical facilities, or their designees, need to collect any additional information for the purpose of complying with RBPS 12(iv), they have significant flexibility in how to collect this information since CFATS does not prescribe how to do so. The Department also expects that high-risk chemical facilities will likely consolidate RBPS 12(iv) processing with related routine hiring and access control procedures involving background checks that are already occurring prior to access by facility personnel or unescorted visitors to restricted areas or critical assets. Consolidating RBPS 12(iv) processing with these other routine procedures would allow submission of personal information already collected and maintained by facilities or their designees (e.g., a third party, contracted service company, or third party acting on behalf of a contracted service company) to the Department under RBPS 12(iv) before affected individuals require access to restricted areas or critical assets. As mentioned above, third parties could submit screening information to the Department on behalf of high-risk chemical facilities as part of facilities’ routine hiring and access control procedures. Some stakeholders have expressed concerns to the Department about submission of screening PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 information by third parties, suggesting that in such cases facilities would not be able to adequately oversee third parties’ work to ensure appropriate information submission to the Department. The Department expects, however, that highrisk chemical facilities could audit and/ or review their third party designees’ information collection and submission processes, to ensure that their designees submit appropriate information. Compliance With RBPS 12(iv) and Infrequent ‘‘Unescorted Visitors’’ Since the Department first began developing the CFATS Personnel Surety Program, some stakeholders have expressed concern that the submission of information to DHS about unescorted visitors who have only rare or infrequent access to high-risk chemical facilities would be overly burdensome and would make access by such infrequent unescorted visitors too difficult. As a general matter, however, the Department does not believe it likely that many high-risk chemical facilities will propose in their SSPs or ASPs to allow large numbers of visitors who visit the high-risk chemical facility infrequently to have unescorted access to restricted areas and critical assets, because then all four types of background checks listed in RBPS 12 would be required to be conducted for them. High-risk chemical facilities could choose to escort infrequent visitors in lieu of performing the four types of RBPS 12 background checks on them. However, even for infrequent unescorted visitors that the high-risk chemical facility chooses to conduct all four types of background checks on, the Department does not expect data submission to the Department in compliance with RBPS 12(iv) to impede routine access procedures because the data submission is likely to be accomplished in concert with the other routine hiring and access control involving background check described above. Additional Data Privacy Considerations There are various privacy requirements for high-risk chemical facilities, their designees, and the Department related to the exchange of personally identifiable information (PII) for the CFATS Personnel Surety Program. Upon receipt of PII, the Department complies with all applicable federal privacy requirements including the Privacy Act, the EGovernment Act, the Homeland Security Act, and Departmental policy. The United States also follows international instruments on privacy, all E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM 22MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices of which are consistent with the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs).12 High-risk chemical facilities, or their designees, are responsible for complying with the federal, state, and national privacy laws applicable to the jurisdictions in which they do business. The Department believes that high-risk chemical facilities, or their designees, have multiple, established legal avenues that enable them to submit PII to the Department, which may include the Safe Harbor Framework,13 and meet their privacy obligations. II. Information Collected About Affected Individuals Option 1: Collecting Information To Conduct Direct Vetting If high-risk chemical facilities select Option 1 to satisfy RBPS 12(iv) for any affected individuals, the following information about these affected individuals would be submitted to the Department: • For U.S. Persons (U.S. citizens and nationals as well as U.S. lawful permanent residents): • Full Name • Date of Birth • Citizenship or Gender • For Non-U.S. Persons: • Full Name • Date of Birth • Citizenship 17685 • Passport information and/or alien registration number To reduce the likelihood of false positives in matching against records in the Federal Government’s consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist, highrisk chemical facilities would also be able to submit the following optional information about affected individuals to the Department: • Aliases • Gender (for Non-U.S. Persons) • Place of Birth • Redress Number 14 If a high-risk chemical facility chooses to submit information about an affected individual under Option 1, the following table summarizes the biographic data that would be submitted to the Department. TABLE 1—AFFECTED INDIVIDUAL REQUIRED AND OPTIONAL DATA UNDER OPTION 1 Data elements submitted to the department For a U.S. person Full Name .................................................................................... Required Date of Birth ................................................................................ For a nonU.S. person Required Gender ......................................................................................... Citizenship ................................................................................... Must provide Citizenship or Gender ........................................... Optional. Required. Passport Information and/or Alien Registration Number ............. N/A .............................................................................................. Required. Aliases ......................................................................................... Optional Place of Birth ............................................................................... Optional Redress number .......................................................................... Optional srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Option 2: Collecting Information To USE of Vetting Conducted Under Other DHS Programs In lieu of submitting information to the Department under Option 1 for terrorist ties vetting, chemical facilities would also have the option, where appropriate, to submit information to the Department to electronically verify that an affected individual is currently enrolled in one of the following DHS programs: • TWIC Program; • HME Program; • Trusted Traveler Programs, including: • NEXUS; • FAST; • SENTRI; and • Global Entry. Information collected by the Department about affected individuals under Option 2 would not be used to conduct duplicative vetting against the Federal Government’s consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist. To verify an affected individual’s enrollment in one of these programs under Option 2, the Department would collect the following information about the affected individual: • Full Name; • Date of Birth; and • Program-specific information or credential information, such as unique number, or issuing entity (e.g., State for Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) associated with an HME). To further reduce the potential for misidentification, high-risk chemical facilities may also submit the following optional information about affected individuals to the Department: • Aliases • Gender • Place of Birth • Citizenship If a high-risk chemical facility chooses to submit information about an affected individual under Option 2, the following table summarizes the biographic data that would be submitted to the Department. 12 Examples of the international privacy instruments which the United States has endorsed are: (1) Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Trans-border Flows of Personal Data (1980), and (2) Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Privacy Framework (2004). 13 The Safe Harbor Framework, which applies to commercial information, was developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce in consultation with the European Commission in order to provide a streamlined means for U.S. organizations to comply with the European Union Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC. More information on the Safe Harbor Framework can be found at http://export.gov/ safeharbor. 14 For more information about Redress Numbers, please go to http://www.dhs.gov/one-stop-travelersredress-process#1. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:27 Mar 21, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM 22MRN1 17686 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices TABLE 2—AFFECTED INDIVIDUAL REQUIRED AND OPTIONAL DATA UNDER OPTION 2 Data elements submitted to the department For affected individual with a TWIC For affected individual with an HME Full Name ...................................... Required Date of Birth ................................... Required Expiration Date .............................. Required Unique Identifying Number ............ Issuing State of CDL ..................... TWIC Serial Number: Required ... N/A ................................................ CDL Number: Required ................ Required ....................................... Aliases ........................................... Optional Place of Birth ................................. Optional Citizenship ..................................... PASS ID Number: Required N/A Optional Gender ........................................... Optional Under the CFATS Personnel Surety Program, a high-risk chemical facility would be able to choose to follow the process described for Option 1, and would not have to implement Option 2, even if an affected individual seeking access to the high-risk chemical facility is already enrolled in the TWIC Program, HME Program, or one of the Trusted Traveler Programs. Option 3: Electronic Verification of TWIC Under Option 3, a high-risk chemical facility would not need to submit information about an affected individual enrolled in the TWIC Program to the Department, if the high-risk chemical facility is able to electronically verify and validate the affected individual’s TWIC through the use of a TWIC reader (or other technology that is periodically updated using the Canceled Card List). As discussed above, under the CFATS Personnel Surety Program, high-risk chemical facilities would also be able to choose to follow the processes described for Option 1 and/or Option 2, for some or all affected individuals already enrolled in the TWIC Program, in lieu of or in addition to Option 3. Other Information Collected srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES For affected individual enrolled in a Trusted Traveler Program (NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST, or Global Entry) In addition to the information about affected individuals collected under Options 1 and 2, the Department plans to collect certain information that identifies the high-risk chemical facility, or facilities, at which each affected individual has or is seeking access to restricted areas or critical assets. The Department may also contact a high-risk chemical facility or its designees to request additional information (e.g., visa information) pertaining to affected individuals in VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:27 Mar 21, 2013 Jkt 229001 order to clarify suspected data errors or resolve potential matches (e.g., in situations where an affected individual has a common name). Such requests will not imply, and should not be construed to indicate, that an affected individual’s information has been confirmed as a match to a record of an individual with terrorist ties. In the event that a confirmed match is identified as part of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program, the Department may obtain references to and/or information from other government law enforcement and intelligence databases, or other relevant databases that may contain terrorism information. The Department may collect information necessary to assist in the submission and transmission of records, including electronic verification that the Department has received a particular record. The Department may also collect information about points of contact who the Department or Federal law enforcement personnel may contact with follow-up questions. A request for additional information from the Department does not imply, and should not be construed to indicate, that an individual is known or suspected to be associated with terrorism. The Department may also collect information provided by individuals or high-risk chemical facilities in support of any adjudications requested under Subpart C of the CFATS regulation,15 or in support of any other redress requests.16 6 CFR 27.300–345. information about access, correction, and redress requests under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act can be found in Section 7.0 of the Privacy Impact Assessment for the CFATS The Department may request information pertaining to affected individuals, previously provided to the Department by high-risk chemical facilities or their designees, in order to confirm the accuracy of that information, or to conduct data accuracy reviews and audits as part of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program. The Department will also collect administrative or programmatic information (e.g., affirmations or certifications of compliance, extension requests, brief surveys for process improvement) necessary to manage the CFATS Personnel Surety Program. Under Options 1 and 2, the Department will also collect information that will allow high-risk chemical facilities and their designees to manage their data submissions. Specifically, the Department will make available to highrisk chemical facilities and their designees blank data fields. These blank data fields may be used by a high-risk chemical facility or its designees to assign each record of an affected individual a unique designation or number that is meaningful to the highrisk chemical facility. Collecting this information will enable a high-risk chemical facility to manage the electronic records it submits into the CSAT Personnel Surety application. Entering this information into the CSAT Personnel Surety application will be voluntary, and is intended solely to enable high-risk chemical facilities and their designees to search through, sort, and manage the electronic records they submit. 15 See 16 More PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Personnel Surety Program, dated May 4, 2011, and available at http://www.dhs.gov/privacydocuments-national-protection-and-programsdirectorate-nppd. E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM 22MRN1 17687 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices III. Request for Exception to the Requirement Under 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3) The Department is requesting from OMB an exception for the CFATS Personnel Surety Program to the PRA notice requirement in 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3), which requires Federal agencies to confirm that their information collections provide certain reasonable notices under the PRA to affected individuals. If this exception is granted, the Department will be relieved of the potential obligation to require high-risk chemical facilities to collect signatures or other positive affirmations of these notices from affected individuals. Whether or not this exception is granted, Submitters must affirm that the required privacy notice regarding the collection of personal information has been provided to affected individuals before personal information is submitted to the Department.17 The Department’s request for an exception to the PRA notice requirement under 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3) would not exempt high-risk chemical facilities from having to adhere to applicable Federal, state, local, or tribal laws, or to regulations or policies pertaining to the privacy of affected individuals. IV. Responses to Previous Comments In June 2011, the Department submitted an ICR for the CFATS Personnel Surety Program to OMB for review. OMB subsequently received four comments about that ICR from members of the public and forwarded the comments to the Department for response. Each of the comments and the Department’s responsive letters will be posted on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket number DHS–2012–0061. In June 2011, the Department solicited comments for 30 days about the CFATS Personnel Surety Program System of Records Notice (SORN) under Docket DHS–2011–0032.18 Under Docket DHS– 2011–0032, the Department received a comment that addressed the CFATS Personnel Surety Program ICR. The comment did not address the SORN or other CFATS Personnel Surety Program privacy issues. Therefore, the Department reviewed the comment and has responded to the comment under this docket in concert with the other comments submitted in June 2011 to OMB and the Department related to the CFATS Personnel Surety Program ICR. In June 2011, the Department also solicited comments for 30 days about the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to exempt the CFATS Personnel Surety Program System of Records from portions of the Privacy Act under Docket DHS–2011–0033.19 Under Docket DHS–2011–0033, the Department received an additional comment that addressed the CFATS Personnel Surety Program ICR.20 While the comment did support Privacy Act exemptions, the comment primarily addressed other aspects of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program not related to privacy issues. Therefore, the Department reviewed the comment and has responded to the comment under this docket as well in concert with the other comments submitted to OMB and the Department related to the CFATS Personnel Surety Program ICR. V. The Department’s Methodology in Estimating the Burden Frequency The Department will expect, unless otherwise noted in an authorized or approved SSP or ASP, that high-risk chemical facilities submit information, under Option 1 and/or Option 2, about affected individuals in accordance with the schedule outlined below in Table 3. Facilities may suggest alternative schedules for Option 1 or Option 2 based on their unique circumstances in their SSPs or ASPs. The schedule below would not apply to Option 3. Schedules for implementing Option 3, or alternative security measures other than Option 1 or Option 2, could vary from high-risk chemical facility to high-risk chemical facility, as described in individual facilities’ SSPs or ASPs, subject to approval by the Department. The Department will expect a highrisk chemical facility to begin submitting information about affected individuals under Option 1 and/or Option 2 under the schedule below after: (1) the high-risk chemical facility has received a letter of authorization or approval for its SSP or ASP that directs the high-risk chemical facility to comply with RBPS 12(iv); and (2) the high-risk chemical facility has been notified that the Department has implemented the CFATS Personnel Surety Program. TABLE 3—COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE FOR OPTION 1 AND OPTION 2 UNDER THE CFATS PERSONNEL SURETY PROGRAM Tier 1 Initial Submission Of Affected Individuals’ Information. srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Submission Of A New Affected Individual’s Information. Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 60 days after the day when both conditions are true: (1) DHS issues your facility a letter of authorization or approval which directs you to comply with RBPS 12(iv), AND. (2) DHS provides notification that it has implemented the CFATS Personnel Surety Program. 48 hours prior to access to restricted areas or critical assets. 60 days after the day when both conditions are true: (1) DHS issues your facility a letter of authorization or approval which directs you to comply with RBPS 12(iv), AND. (2) DHS provides notification that it has implemented the CFATS Personnel Surety Program. 48 hours prior to access to restricted areas or critical assets. 90 days after the day when both conditions are true: (1) DHS issues your facility a letter of authorization or approval which directs you to comply with RBPS 12(iv), AND. (2) DHS provides notification that it has implemented the CFATS Personnel Surety Program. 48 hours prior to access to restricted areas or critical assets. 90 days after the day when both conditions are true: (1) DHS issues your facility a letter of authorization or approval which directs you to comply with RBPS 12(iv), AND (2) DHS provides notification that it has implemented the CFATS Personnel Surety Program. 48 hours prior to access to restricted areas or critical assets. 17 For more information. please see the CFATS Personnel Surety Program Privacy Impact Assessment, dated May 4, 2011 at http:// www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy-pianppd-cfats-ps.pdf. 18 The docket for the CFATS Personnel Surety Program System of Records Notice may be found at VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:27 Mar 21, 2013 Jkt 229001 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DHS2011-0032. 19 The docket for the notice of proposed rulemaking to exempt portions of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program System or Records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act may be PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 found at http://www.regulations.gov/ #!docketDetail;D=DHS-2011-0033. 20 Document DHS–2011–0033–0004 is viewable at http://www.regulations.gov/ #!documentDetail;D=DHS-2011-0033-0004. E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM 22MRN1 17688 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices TABLE 3—COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE FOR OPTION 1 AND OPTION 2 UNDER THE CFATS PERSONNEL SURETY PROGRAM— Continued Tier 1 Submission Of Updates And Corrections To An Affected Individual’s Information. Submission Of Notification That An Affected Individual No Longer Has Access. Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Within 90 days of becoming aware of the need for an update or correction. Within 90 days of access being removed. Within 90 days of becoming aware of the need for an update or correction. Within 90 days of access being removed. Within 90 days of becoming aware of the need for an update or correction. Within 90 days of access being removed. Within 90 days of becoming aware of the need for an update or correction. Within 90 days of access being removed. Number of Respondents The number of respondents under this collection is the number of affected individuals that high-risk chemical facilities or their designees submit information about in compliance with RBPS 12(iv). As described more fully below, for the purpose of this notice the number of respondents is estimated by multiplying: • The estimated number and types of high-risk chemical facilities, and • The estimated number of affected individuals at each type of high-risk chemical facility. For the purpose of this notice, the Department estimates the number of affected individuals at each type of high-risk chemical facility as the sum of: • The number of unescorted visitors at each type of high-risk chemical facility, and • The number of facility personnel and resident contractors at each type of high-risk chemical facility. Number and Type of High-Risk Chemical Facilities In previous PRA Federal Register notices about the CFATS Personnel Surety Program, the Department estimated the number and type of highrisk chemical facilities by using the 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment, which established a best estimate of 5,000 high-risk facilities for calculating cost estimates.22 In the 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment, the Department recognized that each chemical facility is unique; however, since it was impractical to estimate costs for each high-risk chemical facility, the Department created four categories of facilities for each tier; three categories of facilities where loss of containment of the chemicals of interest is the primary concern and one category of facilities where theft and diversion of chemicals is the primary concern. Specifically, • Group A includes open facilities with 100 or more employees where loss of containment is the primary concern. These facilities are assumed to have five security entrances for the purpose of the cost analysis. • Group B includes open facilities with 99 or fewer employees where loss of containment is the primary concern. In addition, facilities that store anhydrous ammonia for commercial refrigeration in outdoor vessels are also considered ‘‘open’’ for the purpose of this analysis because it is the outdoor storage that requires protection. These facilities are assumed to have two security entrances for the purpose of the cost analysis. • Group C facilities are enclosed facilities where loss of containment is the primary concern (i.e., warehouses, enclosed manufacturing sites) that manufacture, process, use, store and/or distribute chemicals. The Department did not segment enclosed facilities by size because the same degree of 21 A blank copy of Standard Form 83(i) may be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/ files/omb/inforeg/83i-fill.pdf. Affected Public Most high-risk chemical facilities regulated under CFATS are private businesses, or parts of private businesses. Most people that access the restricted areas and critical assets of high-risk chemical facilities do so for business purposes. Therefore, after evaluating the choices available to the Department on Standard Form 83(i), the Department selected the description of ‘‘Business or other for-profit’’ as the most appropriate selection for this proposed Information Collection. srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES variation between a large open facility (i.e., a 2,000-acre petrochemical complex) and a small open 3–5-acre facility does not exist. These facilities are assumed to have one security entrance for the purpose of the cost analysis. • Theft/Diversion facilities are typically merchant wholesalers (often called chemical distributors), chemical manufacturers, or other manufacturers that manufacture, process, use, store or distribute chemicals that could be the target of theft and diversion. The theft of chemicals could include theft of portable containers by employees, visitors or adversaries. The diversion of chemicals involves what often looks like a legitimate transaction where an adversary, impersonating a legitimate customer, purchases chemicals that could later be turned into weapons. These facilities are assumed to have one security entrance for the purposes of cost analysis. For the purpose of this notice, the Department updated the number and type of high-risk chemical facilities estimated in the 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment. The updated analysis, hereafter referred to as the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis, determined the high-risk chemical facility count for each of the 16 model facility categories identified in the 2007 Regulatory Assessment by analyzing high-risk chemical facilities designated with a final tier under CFATS as of August 2012. A comparison of the number of high-risk chemical facilities, estimated by the 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment, to the number of high-risk chemical facilities identified within the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis is presented in Table 4. 22 See CFATS Regulatory Assessment Section 5.1 (April 1, 2007), http://www.regulations.gov/ #!documentDetail;D=DHS-2006-0073-0116. Therefore, after evaluating the choices available to the Department under Question 16 on the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission form (Standard Form-83(i)),21 the Department believes that the description of ‘‘Other: In accordance with the compliance schedule or the facility SSP or ASP’’ is the most appropriate choice. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:27 Mar 21, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM 22MRN1 17689 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices TABLE 4—NUMBER OF FACILITIES IN EACH MODEL FACILITY CATEGORY 2007 CFATS regulatory assessment Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 2012 CFATS personnel surety program analysis (raw data) Group A ......................................................................................................................................................... Group B ......................................................................................................................................................... Group C ......................................................................................................................................................... Theft .............................................................................................................................................................. Group A ......................................................................................................................................................... Group B ......................................................................................................................................................... Group C ......................................................................................................................................................... Theft .............................................................................................................................................................. Group A ......................................................................................................................................................... Group B ......................................................................................................................................................... Group C ......................................................................................................................................................... Theft .............................................................................................................................................................. Group A ......................................................................................................................................................... Group B ......................................................................................................................................................... Group C ......................................................................................................................................................... Theft .............................................................................................................................................................. 81 89 24 6 166 64 80 189 315 438 329 718 242 690 599 970 4 6 10 93 8 16 15 400 22 33 66 935 72 190 13 1,683 Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 5,000 3,566 As of August 2012, 3,566 high-risk chemical facilities received a final tier determination. For the purpose of this notice, the Department estimates that CFATS will regulate approximately 4,000 high-risk chemical facilities. Therefore, the Department normalized the number of facilities in each model facility category to 4,000 facilities by multiplying the number of high-risk chemical facilities in each category by a factor of 1.22.23 The 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis revised (i.e., normalized) high-risk chemical facility count is compared to the 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment high-risk chemical facility count, by model facility category, in Table 5. TABLE 5—NUMBER OF HIGH-RISK CHEMICAL FACILITIES IN EACH MODEL FACILITY CATEGORY [Normalized to 4,000 facilities] 2007 CFATS regulatory assessment Group A ......................................................................................................................................................... Group B ......................................................................................................................................................... Group C ......................................................................................................................................................... Theft .............................................................................................................................................................. Group A ......................................................................................................................................................... Group B ......................................................................................................................................................... Group C ......................................................................................................................................................... Theft .............................................................................................................................................................. Group A ......................................................................................................................................................... Group B ......................................................................................................................................................... Group C ......................................................................................................................................................... Theft .............................................................................................................................................................. Group A ......................................................................................................................................................... Group B ......................................................................................................................................................... Group C ......................................................................................................................................................... Theft .............................................................................................................................................................. 81 89 24 6 166 64 80 189 315 438 329 718 242 690 599 970 4 7 11 104 9 18 17 449 25 37 74 1,049 81 213 15 1,888 Total .................................................................................................................................................................. srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 2012 CFATS personnel surety program analysis (normalized) 5,000 4,000 In addition to the reduction in the total number of regulated facilities, a comparison of the 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment and the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis identifies one other key difference. In the original 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment, conducted prior to implementation of the CFATS Program, the Department assumed that 38 percent of all high-risk chemical facilities would be regulated due to the risk that one or more chemicals could be subject to theft or diversion for purposes of creating an explosion or producing an 23 The factor of 1.22 was used because (4,000 facilities/3566 facilities) = 1.22. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:27 Mar 21, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM 22MRN1 17690 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices improvised explosive device. However, the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis found that 87 percent of all currently regulated CFATS highrisk chemical facilities are regulated due to the risk that a chemical could be subject to theft or diversion for purposes of creating an explosion or producing an improvised explosive device. For the purpose of this notice, the Department used the number and type of high-risk chemical facilities in each facility category estimated through the normalized 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis because the distribution of facility type (i.e., facility count) is based upon actual historical data. Estimated Number of Affected Individuals at Each Type of High-Risk Chemical Facility—Unescorted Visitors With Access to Restricted Areas or Critical Assets During the 30-day comment period after the Department submitted the previous CFATS Personnel Surety Program ICR to OMB in June 2011, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) provided a detailed burden cost assessment to the Department that included assumptions on visitors.24 Specifically, the ACC provided the Department with an estimate on the number and turnover of frequent and infrequent visitors at high-risk chemical facilities. ACC’s analysis suggests that 1,200 total visitors per year should be expected at large open manufacturing facilities that align with Group A (Tier 1 through 4) model facility categories; 300 visitors each at small open manufacturing facilities (Group B model facility categories, Tier 1 through 4) and enclosed manufacturing facilities (Group C model facility categories, Tier 1 through 4); and 50 visitors expected at theft/diversion model facilities (Tier 1 through 4). ACC estimated an annual turnover rate of 71 percent for frequent visitors (e.g., delivery personnel) and an annual turnover rate of 20 percent for infrequent visitors that only visit the facility once or twice a year (e.g., corporate auditors). Frequent and infrequent visitors were expected to compose equal volume of traffic at highrisk chemical facilities. ACC also assumed that all visitors count towards the number of affected individuals. However, high-risk chemical facilities will only be responsible for submitting information for unescorted visitors with access to restricted areas or critical assets. The Department does not expect high-risk chemical facilities to allow large numbers of visitors to have unescorted access to restricted areas or critical assets. As a general matter, the Department does not believe it to be likely that many high-risk chemical facilities will propose in their SSPs under CFATS to allow large numbers of visitors to have unescorted access to the restricted areas and critical assets of high-risk chemical facilities because then these visitors would be subject to all four types of background checks listed in RBPS 12. However, for the purpose of estimating the potential burden this information collection could impose, the Department has determined that it is appropriate to include ACC’s conservative assumptions about frequent and infrequent visitors and treat them all as unescorted visitors. Table 6 provides the Department’s estimated number of visitors. TABLE 6—ESTIMATE OF UNESCORTED VISITORS WITH ACCESS TO RESTRICTED AREAS OR CRITICAL ASSETS Infrequent visitors 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 Infrequent visitor annual turnover (20%) Frequent visitor annual turnover (71%) Unescorted visitor annual turnover Unescorted visitor estimate A Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Frequent visitors B C* D ** E=C+D A+B+E Group A ......................................... Group B ......................................... Group C ......................................... Theft .............................................. Group A ......................................... Group B ......................................... Group C ......................................... Theft .............................................. Group A ......................................... Group B ......................................... Group C ......................................... Theft .............................................. Group A ......................................... Group B ......................................... Group C ......................................... Theft .............................................. 600 150 150 25 600 150 150 25 600 150 150 25 600 150 150 25 600 150 150 25 600 150 150 25 600 150 150 25 600 150 150 25 120 30 30 5 120 30 30 5 120 30 30 5 120 30 30 5 426 107 107 18 426 107 107 18 426 107 107 18 426 107 107 18 546 137 137 23 546 137 137 23 546 137 137 23 546 137 137 23 * C = A × 0.20, ** D = B × 0.71. srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Estimated Number of Affected Individuals at Each Type of High-Risk Chemical Facilities—Facility Personnel With Access to Restricted Areas or Critical Assets The 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment also provided an estimate of 24 This cost estimate has been posted to Docket DHS–2012–0061, which may be accessed through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. 25 See CFATS Regulatory Assessment Section 6.3.7, Table 15 (April 1, 2007), http://www. regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DHS-20060073-0116. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:27 Mar 21, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 full time employees and resident contractors for the 16 model facility categories, as shown in Table 7.25 E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM 22MRN1 1,746 437 437 73 1,746 437 437 73 1,746 437 437 73 1,746 437 437 73 17691 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices TABLE 7—2007 CFATS REGULATORY ASSESSMENT ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF FULL TIME EMPLOYEES AND RESIDENT CONTRACTORS A Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 B Resident contractors per facility 20% Annual turnover (full time employees and resident contractors per facility) Number of full time employees and resident contractrs per facility (including 20% annual turnover) C* Number of full time employees per facility Resident contractors per facility (as percent of full time employees) D ** A+C+D Group A ..................................................................... Group B ..................................................................... Group C ..................................................................... Theft .......................................................................... Group A ..................................................................... Group B ..................................................................... Group C ..................................................................... Theft .......................................................................... Group A ..................................................................... Group B ..................................................................... Group C ..................................................................... Theft .......................................................................... Group A ..................................................................... Group B ..................................................................... Group C ..................................................................... Theft .......................................................................... 391 35 152 35 279 34 317 35 487 47 310 35 283 139 201 35 30 20 10 10 30 20 10 10 30 20 10 10 30 20 10 10 117 7 15 4 84 7 32 4 146 9 31 4 85 28 20 4 102 8 33 8 73 8 70 8 127 11 68 8 74 33 44 8 610 50 200 47 436 49 419 47 760 67 409 47 442 200 265 47 Total .............................................................................. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a * C = A × B, ** D = (A + C) × 0.20. In the June 2011 ICR, the Department updated the estimate of employees and resident contractors in the 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment in response to a survey submitted by the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers 26 during the 30 day comment period associated with the previous CFATS Personnel Surety Program ICR.27 Specifically, the Department increased the estimated number of full time employees/contractors in Group A facilities by 5, as shown in Table 8. TABLE 8—REVISED 2007 CFATS REGULATORY ASSESSMENT ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF FULL TIME EMPLOYEES AND RESIDENT CONTRACTORS srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES A Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 Group A ..................................................................... Group B ..................................................................... Group C ..................................................................... Theft .......................................................................... Group A ..................................................................... Group B ..................................................................... Group C ..................................................................... Theft .......................................................................... Group A ..................................................................... Group B ..................................................................... Group C ..................................................................... Theft .......................................................................... Group A ..................................................................... Group B ..................................................................... 26 The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers is the name of the former National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, whose VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:27 Mar 21, 2013 Jkt 229001 B 1,955 35 152 35 1,395 34 317 35 2,435 47 310 35 1,415 139 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Number of full time employees and resident contractors per facility (including 20% annual turnover) D ** A+C+D 30 20 10 10 30 20 10 10 30 20 10 10 30 20 comment may be found at http://www.regulations. gov/#!documentDetail;D=DHS-2009-0026-0029. PO 00000 Resident contractors per facility 20% Annual turnover (full time employees and resident contractors per facility) C* Number of full time employees per facility Resident contractors per facility (as percent of full time employees) 587 7 15 4 419 7 32 4 731 9 31 4 425 28 508 8 33 8 363 8 70 8 633 11 68 8 368 33 3,050 50 201 46 2,176 49 418 46 3,799 68 409 46 2,207 200 27 See Response To Comments Received During 30 Day Comment Period: New Information Collection Request 1670–NEW, 76 FR 34720, 34725 (June 14, 2011). E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM 22MRN1 17692 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices TABLE 8—REVISED 2007 CFATS REGULATORY ASSESSMENT ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF FULL TIME EMPLOYEES AND RESIDENT CONTRACTORS—Continued A Resident contractors per facility B 20% Annual turnover (full time employees and resident contractors per facility) Number of full time employees and resident contractors per facility (including 20% annual turnover) C* Number of full time employees per facility Resident contractors per facility (as percent of full time employees) D ** A+C+D Tier 4 Group C ..................................................................... Tier 4 Theft .......................................................................... 201 35 10 10 20 4 44 8 265 46 Total .............................................................................. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a * C = A × B, ** D = (A + C) × 0.20. In addition to submitting comments on the Department’s June 2011 estimated burden about unescorted visitors, ACC also suggested that 80 percent of employees/resident contractors have access to restricted areas and/or critical assets at Group A, B and C facilities and only 15 percent of employees/resident contractors have access to theft/diversion facilities. To provide an additional estimate of the number of respondents the Department applied this ACC assumption to the revised 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis. The resulting estimate, referred to as the ‘‘Adjusted June 2011 ICR Estimate of the Number of Full Time Employees and Resident Contractors’’ is shown in Table 9. TABLE 9—ADJUSTED JUNE 2011 ICR ESTIMATE OF THE NUMBER OF FULL TIME EMPLOYEES AND RESIDENT CONTRACTORS A Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 Resident contractors per facility 20% annual turnover (full time employees and resident contractors per facility) Number of full time employees and resident contractors per facility (including 20% annual turnover) ACC’s estimate of full time employees and contractors with access to restricted areas or critical assets (percent) Number of full time employees and resident contractors per facility with access to restricted areas or critical assets (including 20% annual turnover) C* Number of full time employees per facility Resident contractors per facility (as percent of full time employees) D** A+C+D E (A + C + D) × E B Group A ......... Group B ......... Group C ......... Theft .............. Group A ......... Group B ......... Group C ......... Theft .............. Group A ......... Group B ......... Group C ......... Theft .............. Group A ......... Group B ......... Group C ......... Theft .............. 1,955 35 152 35 1,395 34 317 35 2,435 47 310 35 1,415 139 201 35 30 20 10 10 30 20 10 10 30 20 10 10 30 20 10 10 587 7 15 4 419 7 32 4 731 9 31 4 425 28 20 4 508 8 33 8 363 8 70 8 633 11 68 8 368 33 44 8 3,050 50 201 46 2,176 49 418 46 3,799 68 409 46 2,207 200 265 46 80 80 80 15 80 80 80 15 80 80 80 15 80 80 80 15 2,440 40 161 7 1,741 39 335 7 3,039 54 327 7 1,766 160 212 7 Total .................. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES *C = A × B, **D = (A + C) × 0.20. For the purpose of this notice, the Department also evaluated whether or not the 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment should continue to be the basis for the estimate of full time employees and resident contractors. To provide an additional estimate of the number of respondents, the 2012 VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:03 Mar 21, 2013 Jkt 229001 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis analyzed actual information submitted by high-risk chemical facilities in response to Top-Screen 28 28 Top-Screen PO 00000 Frm 00066 is defined at 6 CFR 27.105. Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Question Q:1.45–400.29 Based upon the 29 Q:1.45–400 refers to the specific question reference number in the online Top-Screen application which is not available to the general public. However, the exact text of the question is available on page 20 of the CSAT Top-Screen Survey Application User Guide v1.99 in the row entitled, ‘‘Number of Full Time Employees.’’ See E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM 22MRN1 17693 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices submitted information, the Department was able to estimate full time employees and resident contractors by each model facility category, as shown in Table 10. TABLE 10—2012 CFATS PERSONNEL SURETY PROGRAM ANALYSIS’ ESTIMATE OF THE NUMBER OF FULL TIME EMPLOYEES AND RESIDENT CONTRACTORS Resident contractors per facility 20% Annual turnover (full time employees and resident contractors per facility) Number of full time employees and resident contractors per facility (including 20% annual turnover) B Response to top screen question Q:1.45–400 Resident contractors per facility (as percent of full time employees) A+B A Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 Group A ..................................................................... Group B ..................................................................... Group C ..................................................................... Theft .......................................................................... Group A ..................................................................... Group B ..................................................................... Group C ..................................................................... Theft .......................................................................... Group A ..................................................................... Group B ..................................................................... Group C ..................................................................... Theft .......................................................................... Group A ..................................................................... Group B ..................................................................... Group C ..................................................................... Theft .......................................................................... 599 36 300 653 222 30 489 416 594 33 188 233 737 17 175 195 Total .............................................................................. 120 7 60 131 44 6 98 83 119 7 38 47 147 3 85 39 n/a n/a N/A Top Screen Question Q1:1.45* 400 incorporates estimate of resident contractors 719 43 360 783 267 36 587 499 713 39 225 279 884 20 211 234 n/a * In question Top Screen Question Q:1.45–400, facilities provide both full time employees and resident contractors. Table 11 compares the estimates of full time employees and resident contractors in the: (1) 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment; (2) ICR submitted in June of 2011; (3) adjusted June 2011 ICR Estimate of the Number of Full Time Employees and Resident Contractors; and (4) 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis. TABLE 11—AVERAGE NUMBER OF FULL TIME EMPLOYEES AND CONTRACTORS PER FACILITY BY MODEL FACILITY CATEGORY srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 2007 CFATS regulatory assessment Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 Group A ................................................................................................. Group B ................................................................................................. Group C ................................................................................................. Theft ...................................................................................................... Group A ................................................................................................. Group B ................................................................................................. Group C ................................................................................................. Theft ...................................................................................................... Group A ................................................................................................. Group B ................................................................................................. Group C ................................................................................................. Theft ...................................................................................................... Group A ................................................................................................. Group B ................................................................................................. Group C ................................................................................................. Estimate used in June 2011 ICR June 2011 ICR (adjusted with ACC’s assumption on facility personnel with access to restricted areas or critical assets) 3,050 50 201 46 2,176 49 418 46 3,799 68 409 46 2,207 200 265 2,440 40 161 7 1,741 39 335 7 3,039 54 327 7 1,766 160 212 610 50 200 47 436 49 419 47 760 67 409 47 442 200 265 http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ chemsec_csattopscreenusersmanual.pdf. VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:03 Mar 21, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM 22MRN1 2012 CFATS personnel surety program analysis 719 43 360 783 267 36 587 499 713 39 225 279 884 20 211 17694 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices TABLE 11—AVERAGE NUMBER OF FULL TIME EMPLOYEES AND CONTRACTORS PER FACILITY BY MODEL FACILITY CATEGORY—Continued Estimate used in June 2011 ICR 46 2007 CFATS regulatory assessment Tier 4 Theft ...................................................................................................... When evaluating the reasonable alternatives (see next section) to estimate the total number of respondents, the Department did not consider alternatives that used an assumption about the full time employees and resident contractors estimates from the 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment or the estimate in the June 2011 ICR. Rather, when evaluating the reasonable alternatives to estimate the total number of respondents (see the next section of this document for this evaluation), the Department opted to use the best available industry estimates, as well as actual historical data collected directly from high-risk chemical facilities, to estimate the full time employees and resident contractors. Namely: (1) The adjusted June 2011 ICR estimate of full time employees and resident contractors, and June 2011 ICR (adjusted with ACC’s assumption on facility personnel with access to restricted areas or critical assets) 7 47 (2) The estimate of full time employees and resident contractors in the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis. Summary of Alternatives To Estimate the Number of Respondents As mentioned above, for the purpose of this notice the number of respondents is estimated by multiplying: • The number and type of high-risk chemical facilities, and • The number of affected individuals at each type of high-risk chemical facility. For the purpose of this notice, the Department estimates the number of affected individuals at each type of high-risk chemical facility as the sum of: • The number of unescorted visitors at each type of high-risk chemical facility, and 2012 CFATS personnel surety program analysis 234 • The number of facility personnel and resident contractors at each type of high-risk chemical facility. In light of the data submitted by commenters and the Department’s own analysis, three alternatives for the total number of respondents were considered by the Department. First, the total number of respondents is based on: a. the number and type of high-risk chemical facilities assumed in the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis; b. the ACC’s estimates about unescorted visitors; and c. the adjusted June 2011 ICR estimate of the number of full time employees and resident contractors. This alternative results in an estimate of an initial 972,584 respondents with an annual turnover of 290,459 respondents. See Table 12. TABLE 12—ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS—ALTERNATIVE 1 Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 Estimate of full time employees and contractors with access to restricted areas or critical assets (percent) A srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Number of full time employees and resident contractors CFATS personnel surety program ICR withdrawn in July of 2012 (including 20% annual turnover) (Table 8) Full time employees and resident contractors CFATS personnel surety program ICR withdrawn in July of 2012 with estimates of percentage of employees/resident contractors with restricted area and/or critical asset access (Table 9) B A Group A .......................... Group B .......................... Group C .......................... Theft ................................ Group A .......................... Group B .......................... Group C .......................... Theft ................................ Group A .......................... Group B .......................... VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:03 Mar 21, 2013 3,050 50 201 46 2,176 49 418 46 3,799 68 Jkt 229001 80 80 80 15 80 80 80 15 80 80 PO 00000 ACC Unescorted Visitor Estimate (including 71% turnover for frequent visitors, 20% turnover for infrequent vistors) (Table 6) Number of facilities (Table 5) B C 2,440 40 161 7 1,741 39 335 7 3,039 54 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 1,746 437 437 73 1,746 437 437 73 1,746 437 Sfmt 4703 ACC unescorted visitors annual turnover (Table 6) Annual respondent turnover (A + B) × C 4 7 11 104 9 18 17 449 25 37 Number of initial respondents (include 20% annual turnover) CFATS personnel surety program ICR withdrawn in July of 2011 20% annual turnover (Table 9) D E (D + E) × C 18,781 3,209 6,697 8,312 31,291 8,537 12,977 35,751 118,079 18,162 E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM 22MRN1 508 8 33 8 363 8 70 8 633 11 546 137 137 23 546 137 137 23 546 137 4,730 975 1,906 3,177 8,154 2,596 3,470 13,662 29,097 5,470 17695 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices TABLE 12—ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS—ALTERNATIVE 1—Continued Number of full time employees and resident contractors CFATS personnel surety program ICR withdrawn in July of 2012 (including 20% annual turnover) (Table 8) A Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier 3 3 4 4 4 4 Estimate of full time employees and contractors with access to restricted areas or critical assets (percent) Full time employees and resident contractors CFATS personnel surety program ICR withdrawn in July of 2012 with estimates of percentage of employees/resident contractors with restricted area and/or critical asset access (Table 9) B A ACC Unescorted Visitor Estimate (including 71% turnover for frequent visitors, 20% turnover for infrequent vistors) (Table 6) Number of facilities (Table 5) B C Number of initial respondents (include 20% annual turnover) CFATS personnel surety program ICR withdrawn in July of 2011 20% annual turnover (Table 9) ACC unescorted visitors annual turnover (Table 6) Annual respondent turnover (A + B) × C D E (D + E) × C Group C .......................... Theft ................................ Group A .......................... Group B .......................... Group C .......................... Theft ................................ 409 46 2,207 200 265 46 80 15 80 80 80 15 327 7 1,766 160 212 7 437 73 1,746 437 437 73 74 1,049 81 213 15 1,888 56,550 83,568 283,632 127,156 9,460 150,422 68 8 368 33 44 8 137 23 546 137 137 23 15,154 31,936 73,809 36,201 2,635 57,484 Total ................................... n/a n/a n/a n/a 4,000 972,584 n/a n/a 290,459 Second, the total number of respondents is based on: a. The number and type of high-risk chemical facilities assumed in the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis; b. The ACC’s estimates about unescorted visitors; c. The number of full time employees and resident contractors estimated by the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis; and d. ACC’s estimate of the percentage of resident employees and contractors with access to restricted areas or critical assets. This alternative results in an estimate of an initial 896,286 respondents with an annual turnover of 393,519 respondents. See Table 13. TABLE 13—ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS—ALTERNATIVE 2 Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 Estimate of full time employees and contractors with access to restricted areas or critical assets (percent) A srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 2012 CFATS personnel surety program analysis average number of full time employees and contractors (including 20% turnover) (Table 10) B Average number of full time employees and contractors (including 20% turnover) ACC unescorted visitor estimate (including 71% turnover for frequent visitors, 20% turnover for infrequent visitors) (Table 6) (A × B) = C D Number of facilities (Table 5) Number of Initial respondents (includes 20% annual turnover) 2012 CFATS personnel surety program analysis 20% anual turnover (Table 10) ACC unescorted visitors annual turnover (Table 6) Annual respondent turnover E (C + D) × E F G (F + G) × E Group A .......................... Group B .......................... Group C .......................... Theft ................................ Group A .......................... Group B .......................... Group C .......................... Theft ................................ Group A .......................... Group B .......................... Group C .......................... Theft ................................ Group A .......................... Group B .......................... Group C .......................... Theft ................................ 719 43 360 783 267 36 587 499 713 39 225 279 884 20 211 234 80 80 80 15 80 80 80 15 80 80 80 15 80 80 80 15 575 34 288 118 213 29 469 75 571 31 180 42 707 16 168 35 1,746 437 437 73 1,746 437 437 73 1,746 437 437 73 1,746 437 437 73 4 7 11 104 9 18 17 449 25 37 74 1,049 81 213 15 1,888 10,413 3,169 8,124 19,847 17,583 8,355 15,243 66,200 57,169 17,321 45,660 120,269 198,148 96,461 8,821 203,505 120 7 60 131 44 6 98 83 119 7 38 47 147 3 35 39 546 137 137 23 546 137 137 23 546 137 137 23 546 137 137 23 2,987 967 2,203 15,993 5,298 2,558 3,942 47,494 16,408 5,295 12,886 72,714 56,000 29,806 2,502 116,465 Total ................................... n/a n/a n/a n/a 4,000 896,286 n/a n/a 393,519 VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:03 Mar 21, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM 22MRN1 17696 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices Third, the total number of respondents is based on: a. The number and type of high-risk chemical facilities assumed in the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis; b. The ACC’s estimates about unescorted visitors; c. The number of full time employees and resident contractors estimated by the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis; and d. Does not include ACC’s estimate of the percentage of resident employees and contractors with access to restricted areas or critical assets. This alternative results in an estimate of an initial 1,806,996 respondents with an annual turnover of 393,519 respondents. See Table 14. TABLE 14—ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS—ALTERNATIVE 3 2012 CFATS personnel surety program analysis average number of full time employees and contractors (including 20% turnover) (Table 10) A Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 Estimate of full time employees and contractors with access to restricted areas or critical assets (percent) B Average number of full time employees and contractors (including 20% turnover) ACC unescorted visitors estimate (including 71% turnover for frequent visitors, 20% turnover for infrequent visitors) (Table 6) (A × B) = C D Number of facilities (Table 5) Number of initial respondents (includes 20% annual turnover) 2012 CFATS personnel surety program analysis 20% annual turnover (Table 10) ACC unescorted visitors annual turnover (Table 6) Annual respondent turnover E (C + D) × E F G (F + G) × E Group A .......................... Group B .......................... Group C .......................... Theft ................................ Group A .......................... Group B .......................... Group C .......................... Theft ................................ Group A .......................... Group B .......................... Group C .......................... Theft ................................ Group A .......................... Group B .......................... Group C .......................... Theft ................................ 719 43 360 783 267 36 587 499 713 39 225 279 884 20 211 234 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 719 43 360 783 267 36 587 499 713 39 225 279 884 20 211 234 1,746 437 437 73 1,746 437 437 73 1,746 437 437 73 1,746 437 437 73 4 7 11 104 9 18 17 449 25 37 74 1,049 81 213 15 1,888 11,058 3,227 8,930 89,306 18,061 8,485 17,218 256,361 60,689 17,611 48,997 369,426 212,432 97,319 9,435 578,440 120 7 60 131 44 6 98 83 119 7 38 47 147 3 35 39 546 137 137 23 546 137 137 23 546 137 137 23 546 137 137 23 2,987 967 2,203 15,993 5,298 2,558 3,942 47,494 16,408 5,295 12,886 72,714 56,000 29,806 2,502 116,465 Total ................................... n/a n/a n/a n/a 4,000 1,806,996 n/a n/a 393,519 These three alternatives are summarized in Table 15. TABLE 15—COMPARISON OF NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS FOR ALTERNATIVES 1, 2 AND 3 Initial/year srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................... Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................... Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................... For the purpose of this notice the Department selected alternative 3. Alternative 3 reasonably reflects the type and number of facilities regulated by CFATS, is based upon the actual number of full time employees and contractors as reported by high-risk chemical facilities, and explicitly estimates unescorted visitors as a separate population from facility employees and resident contractors. VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:03 Mar 21, 2013 Jkt 229001 972,584 896,286 1,806,996 Limitation of Respondents to Tier 1 and Tier 2 Facilities The Department is proposing to limit this information collection, and to limit initial CFATS Personnel Surety Program implementation, to only Tier 1 and Tier 2 high-risk chemical facilities. A limited implementation would enable the Department to implement the CFATS Personnel Surety Program for those facilities presenting the highest risk, while not imposing the burden on all PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Year 2 290,459 393,519 393,519 Year 3 290,459 393,519 393,519 Number of respondents (annual average) 517,834 561,108 864,678 CFATS regulated facilities. Assuming this information collection request is approved, a subsequent ICR would be published and submitted to OMB for approval to incorporate any lessons learned and potential improvements to the CFATS Personnel Surety Program prior to collecting information from Tier 3 and Tier 4 high-risk chemical facilities. Table 16 provides the estimate of the number of respondents using alternative 3 for Tier 1 and 2 high-risk chemical facilities. E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM 22MRN1 17697 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices TABLE 16—ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF TIER 1 AND 2 RESPONDENTS 2012 CFATS personnel surety program analysis average number of full time employees and contractors (including 20% turnover) (table 10) A Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Estimate of full time employees and contractors with access to restricted areas or critical assets (percent) B Average number of full time employees and contractors (including 20% turnover) ACC unescorted visitors estimate (including 71% turnover for frequent visitors, 20% turnover for infrequent visttors) (table 6) (A × B) = C D Number of facilities (table 5) Number of initial respondents (includes 20% annual turnover) 2012 CFATS personnel surety program analysis 20% annual turnover (table 10) ACC unescorted visitors annual turnover (table 6) Annual respondent turnover E (C + D) × E F G (F + G) × E Group A .......................... Group B .......................... Group C .......................... Theft ................................ Group A .......................... Group B .......................... Group C .......................... Theft ................................ 719 43 360 783 267 36 587 499 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 719 43 360 783 267 36 587 499 1,746 437 437 73 1,746 437 437 73 4 7 11 104 9 18 17 449 11,058 3,227 8,930 89,306 18,061 8,485 17,218 256,361 120 7 60 131 44 6 98 83 546 137 137 23 546 137 137 23 2,987 967 2,203 15,993 5,298 2,558 3,942 47,494 Total ................................... n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 412,647 n/a n/a 81,443 Therefore, the annual average number of respondents is equal to 191,845, as shown in Table 17. The Department’s rounded estimate is 192,000 respondents. TABLE 17—ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS FOR TIER 1 AND 2 FACILITIES Total respondents year 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Total respondents year 3 Number of respondents (annual average) A Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Total respondents year 2 B C (A + B + C)/3 Group A ................................................................................................. Group B ................................................................................................. Group C ................................................................................................. Theft ...................................................................................................... Group A ................................................................................................. Group B ................................................................................................. Group C ................................................................................................. Theft ...................................................................................................... 11,058 3,227 8,930 89,306 18,061 8,485 17,218 256,361 2,987 967 2,203 15,993 5,298 2,558 3,942 47,494 2,987 967 2,203 15,993 5,298 2,558 3,942 47,494 5,677 1,720 4,446 40,431 9,553 4,534 8,367 117,116 Total .......................................................................................................... 412,647 81,443 81,443 191,845 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Estimated Time per Respondent For the purpose of estimating the time per respondent, the Department considered making an assumption about the percentage of affected individuals under the three options outlined in the summary section of this notice (e.g., information about one-third of affected individuals would be submitted for direct vetting against the Federal Government’s consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist, information about one-third of affected individuals would be submitted to verify enrollment in other DHS programs, and information about onethird of affected individuals would not be submitted because they possess TWICs that high-risk chemical facilities would electronically verify through the VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:09 Mar 21, 2013 Jkt 229001 use of TWIC readers). However, the Department concluded that such an assumption was unwarranted because: (1) The assumption would be without any factual basis; (2) the burden to submit information about an affected individual for direct vetting is approximately the same as the burden to submit information in order to verify enrollment (i.e., similar number of required data elements); and (3) the most conservative burden estimate would assume that information is submitted for all affected individuals (i.e., no facilities will choose to electronically verify the TWIC in the possession of an affected individual). To avoid making unjustified assumptions, and to avoid underestimating the time per PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 respondent, the Department decided to estimate the average burden per respondent by assuming each and every respondent’s information will be manually submitted, rather than uploaded via a bulk file, to the Department for vetting for terrorist ties. Accordingly, the Department’s ‘‘estimated time per respondent’’ is the average burden for each respondent/ submission, as shown in Table 18. The estimate includes (1) 30 minutes to type and submit each and every affected individual’s required information during initial submission, (2) 10 minutes to type and submit each update/correction for five percent of the affected individuals, (3) 10 minutes to update information on 20 percent of the affected individuals expected to no E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM 22MRN1 17698 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices longer have access to a high-risk chemical facility restricted area(s) or critical asset(s) each year. Therefore, for the purpose of this notice, the estimated time per respondent is 0.54 hours. TABLE 18—ESTIMATE OF BURDEN TIME PER RESPONSE Percent of population Initial Submission (100%) Updates/Corrections (5%) Removal— Turnover (20%) ........... Duration 1.00 0.50 0.05 0.17 0.20 0.17 number of respondents) multiplied by the number of hours necessary to type and submit each update/correction (i.e., Percent of 0.17 hours or 10 minutes); and (3) the Duration population number of respondents that are expected to no longer have access to a Estimated Time high-risk chemical facility’s restricted per respondent ............... .................... 0.5425 area(s) or critical asset(s) (i.e., 20 percent of the number of respondents) multiplied by the number of hours Total Burden Hours necessary to notify the Department (i.e., Annual burden hours are the sum of: 0.17 hours or 10 minutes). Therefore, (1) The number of respondents the average annual burden is 104,076 multiplied by the estimated time per hours, as shown in Table 19. The respondent; (2) the number of Department’s rounded estimate is respondents for which a high-risk 104,100 hours. chemical facility will need to update/ correct information (five percent of the TABLE 18—ESTIMATE OF BURDEN TIME PER RESPONSE—Continued TABLE 19—ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL BURDEN HOURS FOR TIER 1 & TIER 2 FACILITIES Annual respondents Duration Burden (hours) A B (A × B) Initial Submission (100%) ............................................................................................................ Updates/Corrections (5%) ........................................................................................................... Removal—Turnover (20%) .......................................................................................................... 191,845 9,592 38,369 0.50 0.17 0.17 95,922 1,631 6,523 Total Burden Hours .............................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 104,076 Total Burden Cost (Capital/Startup) The Department expects no capital/ startup cost for facilities that choose to implement Option 1 or Option 2. Although there are no costs associated with facilities providing information to the Department under Option 3, the Department has nonetheless estimated the potential capital costs incurred by facilities that choose to implement Option 3 under the CFATS Personnel Surety Program to ensure an appropriate accounting of the costs potentially incurred by this Information Collection. The capital cost of Option 3 can be estimated by multiplying (1) the number of facilities that are likely to implement Option 3 by (2) the cost to acquire, install, and maintain TWIC readers at the facilities. Estimating Capital Costs for Option 3— Number and Type of High-Risk Chemical Facilities That May Choose To Use Option 3 High-risk chemical facilities and their designees have wide latitude in how they may implement Option 3, if they choose to do so. High-risk chemical facilities could propose, in their SSPs or ASPs, to share the costs of TWIC readers and any associated infrastructure at central locations, or high-risk chemical facilities could propose to purchase and install TWIC readers for their own use. The Department will assess the adequacy of such proposals on a facility-by-facility basis, in the course of evaluating each facility’s SSP or ASP. For the purpose of this notice, the Department estimates that the number of high-risk chemical facilities that are likely to implement Option 3 is the number of high-risk chemical facilities likely to have affected individuals who possess TWICs accessing their restricted areas or critical assets. Through the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis, the Department determined that there are currently 32 high-risk chemical facilities that have claimed a partial Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) exemption 30 and have received a final tier determination under CFATS. The Department then normalized the facility count by multiplying the number of facilities that claimed a partial exemption in each category by a factor of 1.22 (as it did in estimating the total number of facilities in Table 5 above), as shown in Table 20. TABLE 20—ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF HIGH-RISK CHEMICAL FACILITIES THAT MAY CHOOSE TO USE TWIC READERS Tier Tier Tier Tier 1 1 1 1 2012 CFATS personnel surety program analysis (normalized) A srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 2012 CFATS personnel surety program analysis A × 1.22 Group A ................................................................................................................................................. Group B ................................................................................................................................................. Group C ................................................................................................................................................. Theft ...................................................................................................................................................... 30 Facilities that are partially regulated under both MTSA and CFATS have the opportunity to identify themselves in the CSAT Top-Screen. The text of the VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:03 Mar 21, 2013 Jkt 229001 question is available on page 22 of the CSAT TopScreen Survey Application User Guide v1.99. See PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 0 0 0 0 http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ chemsec_csattopscreenusersmanual.pdf. E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM 22MRN1 0 0 0 0 17699 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices TABLE 20—ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF HIGH-RISK CHEMICAL FACILITIES THAT MAY CHOOSE TO USE TWIC READERS— Continued 2012 CFATS personnel surety program analysis A Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 2012 CFATS personnel surety program analysis (normalized) A × 1.22 Group A ................................................................................................................................................. Group B ................................................................................................................................................. Group C ................................................................................................................................................. Theft ...................................................................................................................................................... Group A ................................................................................................................................................. Group B ................................................................................................................................................. Group C ................................................................................................................................................. Theft ...................................................................................................................................................... Group A ................................................................................................................................................. Group B ................................................................................................................................................. Group C ................................................................................................................................................. Theft ...................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 1 3 3 0 2 13 1 2 0 7 0 0 1 3 3 0 2 15 1 2 0 8 Total .......................................................................................................................................................... 32 35 Estimating Capital Costs for Option 3— TWIC Readers Costs For the purpose of this notice, the Department has based the potential per facility capital costs related to Option 3 on the TWIC Reader Requirements notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.31 In the TWIC Reader Requirements NPRM, the Department estimated the initial phase-in costs annual recurring costs, and annual recurring costs that considers equipment replacement for container reoccurring cost without equipment replacement to align with the TWIC Reader Requirements NPRM assumption that equipment replacement cost occurs every five years. This notice estimates average annual costs for a three year period. Thus, for the purposes of this notice the estimated capital costs per facility is $99,953.33, [($256,267 + ($14,531 × 3))/3]. The Department then calculated the capital costs for the 35 high-risk chemical facilities, as shown in Table 21. terminals, large passenger vessels/ terminals, petroleum facilities, breakbulk terminals and small passenger vessels/towboats. For the purpose of this notice, the Department has based the capital costs related to Option 3 on the costs incurred by the petroleum facilities (i.e., bulk liquid facilities) in the TWIC Reader Requirements NPRM. Specifically, the Department estimated the capital costs in this notice to be the average of the initial phase-in cost plus three years of the annual reoccurring cost without equipment replacement. NPPD opted to use the annual TABLE 21—CAPITAL COST BURDEN ESTIMATE FOR HIGH-RISK CHEMICAL FACILITIES THAT MAY CHOOSE TO USE TWIC READERS Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 Average TWIC reader implementation cost per facility Capital cost of TWIC reader implementation A srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Number of facilities B (A × B) Group A ................................................................................................................. Group B ................................................................................................................. Group C ................................................................................................................. Theft ...................................................................................................................... Group A ................................................................................................................. Group B ................................................................................................................. Group C ................................................................................................................. Theft ...................................................................................................................... Group A ................................................................................................................. Group B ................................................................................................................. Group C ................................................................................................................. Theft ...................................................................................................................... Group A ................................................................................................................. Group B ................................................................................................................. Group C ................................................................................................................. Theft ...................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 0 2 15 1 2 0 8 $99,953 99,953 99,953 99,953 99,953 99,953 99,953 99,953 99,953 99,953 99,953 99,953 99,953 99,953 99,953 99,953 $0 0 0 0 0 0 99,953 299,860 299,860 0 199,907 1,499,300 99,953 199,907 0 799,627 Total .......................................................................................................................... 35 n/a 3,498,367 31 See TWIC Reader Requirements NPRM Table 4. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:27 Mar 21, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM 22MRN1 17700 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices The capital cost for the 35 high-risk chemical facilities totals $3,498,367.67; however, the Department intends to limit this information collection to only Tier 1 and Tier 2 facilities. Therefore, for the purpose of this notice, the Department estimates the capital cost for the implementation of TWIC readers is $399,813, as shown in Table 22. The Department’s rounded estimate is $399,800. TABLE 22—CAPITAL COST BURDEN ESTIMATE FOR TIER 1 & 2 HIGH-RISK CHEMICAL FACILITIES THAT MAY CHOOSE TO USE TWIC READERS Number of facilities 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Capital cost of TWIC reader implementation A Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Average TWIC reader implementation cost per facility B (A × B) Group A ................................................................................................................. Group B ................................................................................................................. Group C ................................................................................................................. Theft ...................................................................................................................... Group A ................................................................................................................. Group B ................................................................................................................. Group C ................................................................................................................. Theft ...................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 $99,953 99,953 99,953 99,953 99,953 99,953 99,953 99,953 $0 0 0 0 0 0 99,953 299,860 Total .......................................................................................................................... 4 n/a 399,813 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Consideration of Other Capital Costs The burden estimates outlined in this notice are limited in scope to those activities listed in 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(1). Specifically, 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(1) and 5 CFR 1320.8 require the Department to estimate the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. Therefore, many costs (e.g., physical modification of the facility layout) a facility may choose to incur to develop or implement its SSP or ASP should not be accounted for when estimating the capital costs associated with this information collection. The Department did consider estimating certain facility capital costs such as: (1) Capital costs for computer, telecommunications equipment, software, and storage to manage the data collection, submissions, and tracking; (2) capital and ongoing costs for designing, deploying and operating information technology (IT) systems necessary to maintain the data collection, submissions, and tracking; (3) cost of training facility personnel to maintain the data collection, submissions, and tracking; and (4) site security officer time to manage the data collection, submissions, and tracking. However, the Department has concluded that these costs should be excluded in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2), which directs federal agencies to not count the costs associated with the time, effort, and financial resources incurred in the normal course of their activities (e.g., in compiling and maintaining business records) if the reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure activities are usual and customary. The Department believes that the time, effort, and financial resources are usual and customary costs because these are costs that high-risk chemical facilities would incur to conduct background checks for identity, criminal history, and legal authorization to work under 6 CFR 27.230(a)(12)(i–iii), and also under various other Federal, state, or local laws or regulations. Recordkeeping Costs High-risk chemical facilities are not required to create, keep, or retain records under RBPS 12(iv). If a high-risk chemical facility elects, for its own business purposes, to create, keep, or retain records that identify and manage the submission of information about affected individuals, those records are not government records. The recordkeeping costs, if any, to create, keep, or retain records pertaining to background checks as part of a highrisk chemical facility’s SSP or ASP, are properly estimated in the recordkeeping estimates associated with the SSP Instrument under Information Collection 1670–0007.32 The Department considered estimating the potential recordkeeping burden associated with RBPS 12(iv), but subsequently concluded that no potential recordkeeping should be estimated in this notice in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2), which directs federal agencies to not count the costs associated with the time, effort, and financial resources incurred in the normal course of their activities (e.g., in compiling and maintaining business records) if the reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure activities are usual and customary. The Department believes that the types of recordkeeping associated with RBPS 12(iv) are usual and customary costs that high-risk chemical facilities would incur to conduct background checks for identity, criminal history, and legal authorization to work as required by RBPS (12)(i)–(iii) and also by various other Federal, state, or local laws or regulations. Total Burden Cost (Operating/ Maintaining) The annual burden cost is equal to the sum of the: (1) Annual burden hours multiplied by the hourly wage rate for appropriate facility personnel; (2) the capital costs ($399,800); and (3) recordkeeping costs ($0). Comments associated with the previous ICR suggested an appropriate wage rate between $20 and $40 per hour; the Department picked the midpoint of $30 to estimate the hourly direct wage rate, which corresponds to a fully loaded wage rate of $42. Therefore, the annual burden not including capital costs and recordkeeping costs is $4,371,181 as shown in Table 23. The rounded estimate is $4,371,000. 32 Information Collection 1670–0007 may be viewed at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201001-1670-007#. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:27 Mar 21, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM 22MRN1 17701 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices TABLE 23—ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL BURDEN COST FOR TIER 1 & TIER 2 FACILITIES Burden (hours) Wage rate Cost A B (A × B) Initial Submission ......................................................................................................................... Updates/Corrections .................................................................................................................... Removal—Turnover ..................................................................................................................... 95,922 1,631 6,523 42 42 42 $4,028,738 68,489 273,954 Total Burden Cost (operating/maintaining) .......................................................................... 104,076 42 4,371,181 Therefore, the total annual burden cost is $4,770,994, after the inclusion of the $399,813 capital cost burden. The Department’s rounded estimate is $4,771,000. Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $399,800. Total Recordkeeping Burden: $0. Total Burden Cost (operating/ maintaining): $4,771,000. VI. Solicitation of Comments Dated: March 13, 2013. Scott Libby, Deputy Chief Information Officer, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Department of Homeland Security. OMB is particularly interested in comments which: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses. srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES VII. Analysis Agency: Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Office of Infrastructure Protection, Infrastructure Security Compliance Division. Title: Chemical Facility AntiTerrorism Standards (CFATS) Personnel Surety Program. OMB Number: 1670—NEW. Frequency: Other: In accordance with the compliance schedule or the facility Site Security Plan or Alternative Security Plan. Affected Public: Business or other forprofit. Number of Respondents: 192,000 affected individuals. Estimated Time per Respondent: 0.54 hours (32.4 minutes). Total Burden Hours: 104,100 annual burden hours. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:27 Mar 21, 2013 Jkt 229001 [FR Doc. 2013–06184 Filed 3–21–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–9P–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615–0095] Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Appeal or Motion, Form I–290B; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection ACTION: 60-Day Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e. the time, effort, and resources used by the respondents to respond), the estimated cost to the respondent, and the actual information collection instruments. DATES: Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until May 21, 2013. ADDRESSES: All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0095 in the subject box, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS– 2008–0027. To avoid duplicate PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments: (1) Online. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at www.Regulations.gov under e-Docket ID number USCIS–2008–0027; (2) Email. Submit comments to USCISFRComment@uscis.dhs.gov; (3) Mail. Submit written comments to DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529–2140. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments: Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov. Note: The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check ‘‘My Case Status’’ online at: https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/ Dashboard.do, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 1–800–375–5283. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the E:\FR\FM\22MRN1.SGM 22MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 56 (Friday, March 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17680-17701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06184]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Docket No. DHS-2012-0061]


Information Collection Request; Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism 
Standards Personnel Surety Program

AGENCY: National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.

ACTION: 60-Day notice and request for comments; New Information 
Collection Request: 1670--NEW.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Protection 
and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Office of Infrastructure Protection 
(IP), Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (ISCD) will submit 
the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35). This is a new information collection and follows the 
withdrawal of a previous ICR on the same topic.\1\ The purpose of this 
notice is to solicit comments during a 60-day public comment period 
prior to the submission of this ICR to OMB. The submission describes 
the nature of the information collection, the categories of 
respondents, the estimated burden (in hours), and the estimated burden 
cost necessary to implement the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism 
Standards (CFATS) Personnel Surety Program pursuant to 6 CFR 
27.230(a)(12)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A 60-day public notice for comments was published in the 
Federal Register on June 10, 2009. See 74 FR 27555. Comments 
submitted by the public may be found on http://www.regulations.gov 
under Docket ID DHS-2009-0026. The Department's responses were 
included in a Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 30-day Federal Register 
notice. The 30-day public notice for comments was published in the 
Federal Register on April 13, 2010. See 75 FR 18850. Comments 
submitted by the public may be found on http://www.regulations.gov 
under Docket ID DHS-2009-0026. The Department's responses were 
published in a separate Federal Register notice on June 14, 2011. 
See 76 FR 34720. Concurrently with publication of the June 14, 2011 
Federal Register notice, the Department submitted an Information 
Collection Request about the CFATS Personnel Surety Program to OMB. 
See http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201105-1670-002. In July 2012, the Department withdrew that ICR.

DATES: Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until May 21, 2013. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the 
proposed information collection through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
at http://www.regulations.gov. All submissions received must include 
the words ``Department of Homeland Security'' and the docket number 
DHS-2012-0061. Except as provided below, comments received will be 
posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any 
personal information provided.
    Comments that include trade secrets, confidential commercial or 
financial information, Chemical-terrorism Vulnerability Information 
(CVI),\2\ Sensitive Security Information (SSI),\3\ or Protected 
Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII) \4\ should not be submitted 
to the public regulatory docket. Please submit such comments separately 
from other comments in response to this notice. Comments containing 
trade secrets, confidential commercial or financial information, CVI, 
SSI, or PCII should be appropriately marked and packaged in accordance 
with applicable requirements and submitted by mail to the DHS/NPPD/IP/
ISCD CFATS Program Manager at the Department of Homeland Security, 245 
Murray Lane, SW., Mail Stop 0610, Arlington, VA 20528-0610. Comments 
must be identified by docket number DHS-2012-0061.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For more information about CVI see 6 CFR 27.400 and the CVI 
Procedural Manual at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/chemsec_cvi_proceduresmanual.pdf.
    \3\ For more information about SSI see 49 CFR part 1520 and the 
SSI Program Web page at http://www.tsa.gov/ssi.
    \4\ For more information about PCII see 6 CFR part 29 and the 
PCII Program Web page at http://ww.dhs.gov/pcii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table of Contents

I. Supplementary Information
     Summary of Options Available to High-Risk Chemical 
Facilities To Comply With RBPS 12(iv)
     Scope of This Notice and Commitment To Explore 
Additional Options in the Future
     Who Is Impacted by The CFATS Personnel Surety Program?
     What/Who Is the Source of the Information Under Option 
1 and Option 2
     CSAT User Roles and Responsibilities
     Burden Resulting From the Submission of Duplicate 
Records About an Affected Individual
     Compliance With RBPS 12(iv) and the Potential for 
Increased Burden To Enter the Restricted Areas or Critical Assets at 
a High-Risk Chemical Facility
     Compliance With RBPS 12(iv) and Infrequent ``Unescorted 
Visitors''
     Additional Data Privacy Considerations
II. Information Collected About Affected Individuals
     Option 1: Collecting Information To Conduct Direct 
Vetting

[[Page 17681]]

     Option 2: Collecting Information To Use of Vetting 
Conducted Under Other DHS Programs
     Option 3: Electronic Verification of TWIC
     Other Information Collected
III. Request for Exception to the Requirement Under 5 CFR 
1320.8(b)(3)
IV. Responses to Previous Comments
V. The Department's Methodology in Estimating the Burden
     Frequency
     Affected Public
     Number of Respondents
    [cir] Number and Type of High-Risk Chemical Facilities
    [cir] Estimated Number of Affected Individuals at Each Type of 
High-Risk Chemical Facility--Unescorted Visitors With Access to 
Restricted Areas or Critical Assets
    [cir] Estimated Number of Affected Individuals at Each Type of 
High-Risk Chemical Facilities--Facility Personnel With Access to 
Restricted Areas or Critical Assets
    [cir] Summary of Alternatives To Estimate the Number of 
Respondents
    [cir] Limitation of Respondents to Tier 1 and Tier 2 Facilities
     Estimated Time per Respondent
     Total Burden Hours
     Total Burden Cost (Capital/Startup)
    [cir] Estimating Capital Costs for Option 3--Number and Type of 
High-Risk Chemical Facilities That May Choose To Use Option 3
    [cir] Estimating Capital Costs for Option 3--TWIC Readers Costs
    [cir] Consideration of Other Capital Costs
     Recordkeeping Costs
     Total Burden Cost (Operating/Maintaining)
VI. Solicitation of Comments
VII. Analysis

I. Supplementary Information

    Section 550 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations 
Act of 2007, Public Law 109-295 (2006) (``Section 550''), provides the 
Department with the authority to identify and regulate the security of 
high-risk chemical facilities using a risk-based approach. On April 9, 
2007, the Department issued the CFATS Interim Final Rule (IFR) 
implementing this statutory mandate. See 72 FR 17688.
    Section 550 requires that the Department establish risk-based 
performance standards (RBPS) for high-risk chemical facilities and 
under CFATS the Department promulgated 18 RBPS. Each chemical facility 
that has been finally determined by the Department to be high-risk must 
submit a Site Security Plan (SSP), or an Alternative Security Program 
(ASP) if the facility so chooses, for Department approval that 
satisfies each applicable RBPS. RBPS 12--Personnel Surety--requires 
high-risk chemical facilities to:
    Perform appropriate background checks on and ensure appropriate 
credentials for facility personnel, and as appropriate, for 
unescorted visitors with access to restricted areas or critical 
assets, including, (i) Measures designed to verify and validate 
identity; (ii) Measures designed to check criminal history; (iii) 
Measures designed to verify and validate legal authorization to 
work; and (iv) Measures designed to identify people with terrorist 
ties[.]

See 6 CFR 27.230(a)(12).
    As explained by the Department in the preamble to the CFATS IFR, 
the ability to identify affected individuals (i.e., facility personnel 
or unescorted visitors with access to restricted areas or critical 
assets at high-risk chemical facilities) who have terrorist ties is an 
inherently governmental function and necessarily requires the use of 
information held in government-maintained databases that are 
unavailable to high-risk chemical facilities. See 72 FR 17709 (April 9, 
2007). Thus, under RBPS 12(iv), the Department and high-risk chemical 
facilities must work together to satisfy the ``terrorist ties'' aspect 
of the Personnel Surety performance standard. As a result, the CFATS 
Personnel Surety Program will identify individuals with terrorist ties 
that have or are seeking access to the restricted areas and/or critical 
assets at the nation's high-risk chemical facilities. Accordingly, in 
the preamble to the CFATS IFR, the Department outlined two potential 
approaches to help high-risk chemical facilities satisfy that 
particular standard, both of which would involve high-risk chemical 
facilities submitting certain information to the Department. See id.
    The first approach would involve facilities submitting certain 
information about affected individuals to the Department, which the 
Department would use to vet those individuals for terrorist ties. 
Specifically, identifying information about affected individuals would 
be compared against identifying information of known or suspected 
terrorists contained in the Federal Government's consolidated and 
integrated terrorist watchlist, the Terrorist Screening Database 
(TSDB), which is maintained on behalf of the federal government by the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 
the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of terrorist screening, 
the Department also described an additional approach under which high-
risk chemical facilities would submit information about affected 
individuals possessing certain credentials that rely on Security Threat 
Assessments conducted by the Department. See 72 FR 17709 (April 9, 
2007).
    The Department has now developed a CFATS Personnel Surety Program 
that will provide high-risk chemical facilities additional options to 
comply with RBPS 12(iv) while continuing to make available the two 
alternatives outlined in the preamble to the CFATS IFR. In addition to 
the alternatives expressly described in this document, the Department 
also intends to permit high-risk chemical facilities to propose other 
alternative measures for terrorist ties identification in their SSPs or 
ASPs, which the Department will consider on a case-by-case basis in 
evaluating high-risk chemical facilities' SSPs or ASPs.
    As a result of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program, regardless of 
the option, the Department will identify individuals with terrorist 
ties that have or are seeking access to the restricted areas and/or 
critical assets at the nation's high-risk chemical facilities.
    The first option is consistent with the primary approach described 
in the CFATS IFR preamble, as discussed above. Under Option 1--Direct 
Vetting, high-risk chemical facilities (or others acting on their 
behalf) would submit certain information about affected individuals to 
the Department through a Personnel Surety application in an online 
technology system developed under CFATS called the Chemical Security 
Assessment Tool (CSAT). Access to and the use of CSAT is provided free 
of charge to high-risk chemical facilities (or others acting on their 
behalf).
    Under this option, information about affected individuals submitted 
by, or on behalf of, high-risk chemical facilities would be vetted 
against information contained in the Federal Government's consolidated 
and integrated terrorist watchlist.
    The second option is also consistent with the second approach 
described in the CFATS IFR preamble. Under Option 2--Use Of Vetting 
Conducted Under Other DHS Programs, high-risk chemical facilities (or 
others acting on their behalf) would also submit certain information 
about affected individuals to the Department through the CSAT Personnel 
Surety application.
    Option 2 would, however, allow high-risk chemical facilities and 
the Department to take advantage of the vetting for terrorist ties 
already being conducted on affected individuals enrolled in the 
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Program, 
Hazardous Materials Endorsement (HME) Program, as well as the NEXUS, 
Secure Electronic Network

[[Page 17682]]

for Travelers Rapid Inspection (SENTRI), Free and Secure Trade (FAST), 
and Global Entry Trusted Traveler Programs.\6\ All of these programs 
conduct terrorist ties vetting equivalent to the terrorist ties vetting 
that would be conducted under Option 1.\7\ Under Option 2, high-risk 
chemical facilities, or their designees (e.g., third parties), could 
submit information to the Department about affected individuals 
possessing the appropriate credentials to enable the Department to 
electronically verify the affected individuals' enrollments in these 
other programs. The Department would subsequently notify the designee 
of the high-risk chemical facility (e.g., the Submitter) whether or not 
an affected individual's enrollment in one of these other DHS programs 
was electronically verified. The Department would also periodically re-
verify each affected individual's continued enrollment in one of these 
other programs, and notify the appropriate designee of the high-risk 
chemical facility of significant changes in the status of an affected 
individual's enrollment (e.g., if an affected individual who has been 
enrolled in the HME Program ceases to be enrolled, the Department would 
change the status of the affected individual in the CSAT Personnel 
Surety application and notify the Submitter). Electronic verification 
and re-verification would enable the Department and the high-risk 
chemical facility to ensure that an affected individual's credential or 
endorsement is appropriate to rely on (i.e., an indicator that the 
affected individual is being recurrently vetted for terrorist ties) in 
compliance with RBPS 12(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has introduced 
SENTRI and Global Entry as Trusted Traveler Programs since the 
publication of CFATS in April 2007. The Department, therefore, 
intends to enable high-risk chemical facilities (or their designees) 
to submit information about affected individuals' SENTRI and Global 
Entry enrollments to DHS under Option 2, even though SENTRI and 
Global Entry were not listed along with the other Trusted Traveler 
Programs in the CFATS IFR preamble. See 72 FR 17709 (April 9, 2007).
    \7\ Each of the DHS programs conducts recurrent vetting, which 
is a Department best practice. Recurrent vetting compares an 
affected individual's information against new and/or updated TSDB 
records as those new and/or updated records become available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to Option 1 and Option 2, the Department has considered 
other potential options to help high-risk chemical facilities satisfy 
RBPS 12(iv). In particular, the Department has investigated the 
feasibility of options that would not involve the submission of 
information about an affected individual if the affected individual 
participated in one of the programs identified under Option 2. The 
Department believes that, for the purpose of compliance with RBPS 
12(iv), simply relying on a visual inspection of a credential or 
endorsement is inadequate because the credential or endorsement could 
be expired, revoked, or fraudulent. However, the Department has 
concluded that information about an affected individual, enrolled in a 
DHS program that conducts vetting for terrorist ties equivalent to the 
vetting that would be conducted under Option 1, would not need to be 
submitted to the Department if the credential in the possession of the 
affected individual is electronically verified and validated.
    Accordingly, the Department plans to offer high-risk chemical 
facilities a third option. Under Option 3--Electronic Verification of 
TWIC, a high-risk chemical facility (or others acting on their behalf) 
would not submit information about affected individuals in possession 
of TWICs to the Department if the high-risk chemical facility (or 
others acting on their behalf) electronically verify and validate the 
affected individuals' TWICs through the use of TWIC readers (or other 
technology that is periodically updated using the Canceled Card 
List).\8\ Any high-risk chemical facilities that choose this option 
would need to describe in their SSPs or ASPs the procedures they will 
follow if they choose to use TWIC readers for compliance with RBPS 
12(iv).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For more information about the Canceled Card List, please 
visit http://www.tsa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/twic/canceled_card_list_ccl_faq.pdf.
    \9\ Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, the U.S. 
Coast Guard has published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
titled ``TWIC Reader Requirements.'' The procedures for using TWIC 
readers that are discussed in that NPRM would not apply to high-risk 
chemical facilities regulated under CFATS. Likewise, the ways in 
which high-risk chemical facilities could leverage TWICs as part of 
the CFATS Personnel Surety Program do not apply to maritime 
facilities or vessels regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    High-risk chemical facilities would have discretion as to which 
option(s) to use for an affected individual. For example, even though a 
high-risk chemical facility could comply with RBPS 12(iv) for certain 
affected individuals by using Option 2, the high-risk chemical facility 
could choose to use Option 1 for those affected individuals. Similarly, 
a high-risk chemical facility, at its discretion, may choose to use 
either Option 1 or Option 2 rather than Option 3 for affected 
individuals who have TWICs. High-risk chemical facilities also may 
choose to combine Option 1 with Option 2 and/or Option 3, as 
appropriate, to ensure that adequate terrorist ties checks are 
performed on different types of affected individuals (e.g., employees, 
contractors, unescorted visitors). Each high-risk chemical facility 
will need to describe how it will comply with RBPS 12(iv) in its SSP or 
ASP.
    In addition to the options described above for satisfying RBPS 
12(iv), high-risk chemical facilities are welcome to propose 
alternative or supplemental options not described in this PRA notice in 
their SSPs or ASPs. The Department will assess the adequacy of such 
alternative or supplemental options on a facility-by-facility basis, in 
the course of evaluating each facility's SSP or ASP.
    Although outside the scope of this PRA notice and the underlying 
ICR, the Department would like to highlight that high-risk chemical 
facilities also have other methods to address, or minimize the impacts 
of, compliance with RBPS 12(iv). For example, facilities may restrict 
the numbers and types of persons whom they allow to access their 
restricted areas and critical assets, thus limiting the number of 
persons who will need to be checked for terrorist ties. Facilities also 
have wide latitude in how they define their restricted areas and 
critical assets in their SSPs or ASPs, thus potentially limiting the 
number of persons who will need to be checked for terrorist ties. High-
risk chemical facilities also may choose to escort visitors to 
restricted areas and critical assets in lieu of performing the 
background checks required by RBPS 12. For example, high-risk chemical 
facilities could propose in their SSPs or ASPs traditional escorting 
solutions and/or innovative escorting alternatives such as video 
monitoring (which may reduce facility security costs), as appropriate, 
to address the unique security risks present at each facility.

Summary of Options Available to High-Risk Chemical Facilities To Comply 
With RBPS 12(iv)

    The purpose of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program is to identify 
individuals with terrorist ties that have or are seeking access to the 
restricted areas and/or critical assets at the nation's high-risk 
chemical facilities. As described above, under the CFATS Personnel 
Surety Program, for each affected individual a high-risk chemical 
facility would have at least three options under RBPS 12(iv):
     Option 1--Direct Vetting: High-risk chemical facilities 
(or their designees) may submit information to the Department about an 
affected individual to be compared against information about known or 
suspected terrorists, and/or

[[Page 17683]]

     Option 2--Use of Vetting Conducted Under Other DHS 
Programs: High-risk chemical facilities (or their designees) may submit 
information to the Department about an affected individual's enrollment 
in another DHS program so that the Department may electronically verify 
and validate that the affected individual is enrolled in the other 
program, and/or
     Option 3--Electronic Verification of TWIC: High-risk 
chemical facilities may electronically verify and validate an affected 
individual's TWIC, through the use of TWIC readers (or other technology 
which is periodically updated using the Canceled Card List), rather 
than submitting information about the affected individual to the 
Department.
    Regardless of the option, in the event that there is a potential 
match, the Department has procedures in place that it will follow to 
resolve the match and coordinate with appropriate law enforcement 
entities as necessary. High-risk chemical facilities may be contacted 
as part of law enforcement investigation activity, depending on the 
nature of the investigation.

Scope of This Notice and Commitment To Explore Additional Options in 
the Future

    Since withdrawing the previous CFATS Personnel Surety Program ICR 
in July 2012,\10\ the Department has had substantial dialogue with key 
CFATS stakeholders. The discussion included program design issues, the 
CSAT Personnel Surety application, options the Department has been 
considering to date, and additional options stakeholders have 
recommended for the Department's consideration, both in the short and 
long term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See footnote 1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The options described in this notice and, if approved, the 
subsequent ICR that the Department intends to submit to OMB would allow 
high-risk chemical facilities and the Department to implement the CFATS 
Personnel Surety Program within the Department's existing statutory and 
regulatory authority, and U.S. Government watchlisting policies.
    The Department is committed, however, to continuing to work with 
interested stakeholders to identify additional potential options that 
could further reduce the burdens related to the CFATS Personnel Surety 
Program, while still meeting the national security mandate to reduce 
the risk of an individual with terrorist ties obtaining access to the 
restricted areas or critical assets at a high-risk chemical facility. 
The Department will consider and review any alternatives suggested as 
part of public comments on this notice and on any subsequent notices 
related to the CFATS Personnel Surety Program. Through both the PRA 
process and other ongoing dialogues, the Department will, as 
appropriate, also continue to work with stakeholders to identify 
potential additional alternatives as new technologies emerge, and as 
other terrorist ties vetting programs are modified or become available 
over time, so as to reduce the burden of this new information 
collection.

Who is impacted by the CFATS personnel surety program?

    The CFATS Personnel Surety Program will provide high-risk chemical 
facilities the ability to submit certain biographic information about 
affected individuals to the Department. As explained above, affected 
individuals are (1) facility personnel who have access, either 
unescorted or otherwise, to restricted areas or critical assets, and 
(2) unescorted visitors who have access to restricted areas or critical 
assets.
    There are also certain groups of persons that the Department does 
not consider to be affected individuals, such as (1) Federal officials 
that gain unescorted access to restricted areas or critical assets as 
part of their official duties; (2) state and local law enforcement 
officials that gain unescorted access to restricted areas or critical 
assets as part of their official duties; and (3) emergency responders 
at the state or local level that gain unescorted access to restricted 
areas or critical assets during emergency situations.
    In some emergency or exigent situations, access to restricted areas 
or critical assets by other individuals who have not had appropriate 
background checks under RBPS 12 may be necessary. For example, 
emergency responders not described above may require such access as 
part of their official duties under appropriate circumstances. If high-
risk chemical facilities anticipate that any individuals will require 
access to restricted areas or critical assets without visitor escorts 
or without the background checks listed in RBPS 12 under exceptional 
circumstances, facilities may describe such situations and the types of 
individuals who might require access in those situations in their SSPs 
or ASPs. The Department will assess the appropriateness of such 
situations, and any security measures to mitigate the inherent 
vulnerability in such situations, on a case-by-case basis as it reviews 
each high-risk chemical facility's SSP or ASP.

What/Who Is the Source of the Information Under Option 1 and Option 2

    High-risk chemical facilities are responsible for complying with 
RBPS 12(iv). However, companies operating multiple high-risk chemical 
facilities, as well as companies operating only one high-risk chemical 
facility, may comply with RBPS 12(iv) in a variety of ways. High-risk 
chemical facilities, or their parent companies, may choose to comply 
with RBPS 12(iv) by identifying and submitting the information about 
affected individuals to the Department directly. Alternatively, high-
risk chemical facilities, or their parent companies, may choose to 
comply with RBPS 12(iv) by outsourcing the information submission 
process to third parties.
    The Department anticipates that many high-risk chemical facilities 
will rely on businesses that provide contract services (e.g., complex 
turn-arounds, freight delivery services, lawn mowing) to the high-risk 
chemical facilities to identify and submit the appropriate information 
about affected individuals they employ to the Department for vetting 
pursuant to RBPS 12(iv). Businesses that provide services to high-risk 
chemical facilities may in turn choose to manage compliance with RBPS 
12(iv) themselves or to acquire the services of other third party 
companies to submit appropriate information about affected individuals 
to the Department.

CSAT User Roles and Responsibilities

    To minimize the burden of submitting information about affected 
individuals, under Options 1 and 2 (as described above), high-risk 
chemical facilities would have wide latitude in assigning CSAT user 
roles to align with their business operations and/or the business 
operations of third parties that provide contracted services to 
them.\11\ In response to previous comments submitted to the Department 
about the CFATS Personnel Surety Program, the Department intends to 
structure the CSAT Personnel Surety application to allow designees of 
high-risk chemical facilities to submit information about affected 
individuals to the Department on behalf of high-risk chemical 
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ CSAT user registration and the assignment of user roles 
within CSAT are covered under a different Information Collection 
(i.e., 1670-0007), which can be found at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201001-1670-007#.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 17684]]

to submit information about affected individuals to the Department in 
three ways:
    (1) A high-risk chemical facility could directly submit information 
about affected individuals, and designate one or more officers or 
employees of the facility as a Personnel Surety Submitter; and/or
    (2) A high-risk chemical facility could submit information about 
affected individuals by designating one or more individuals affiliated 
with a third party (or with multiple third parties) to a user role(s) 
designated for third parties; and/or
    (3) A company owning several high-risk chemical facilities could 
consolidate its submission process for affected individuals. 
Specifically, the company could designate one or more persons as CSAT 
users, and those users could submit information about affected 
individuals on behalf of all of the high-risk chemical facilities on a 
company-wide basis.

Burden Resulting From the Submission of Duplicate Records About an 
Affected Individual

    The Department is aware that an affected individual may be 
associated with multiple high-risk chemical facilities, and thus 
information about an affected individual may be submitted to the 
Department multiple times by different high-risk chemical facilities 
and/or their designated third parties. However, the Department has 
learned in its dialogue with stakeholders (including third-party 
companies that conduct background checks for high-risk chemical 
facilities) that the duplicate submission of records about affected 
individuals is a common industry practice for companies when managing 
information about individuals. Specifically, when a person who has 
already had a background check (e.g., verification of legal 
authorization to work or criminal history) needs a new background check 
for different companies or for a new or different purpose (e.g., change 
in jobs or contract), third parties that routinely conduct background 
checks routinely will submit information about a person again to 
agencies responsible for maintaining relevant information (e.g., state 
motor vehicle databases, e-verify). Therefore, for the purpose of this 
notice, the Department's estimation of burden accounts for potential 
multiple submissions of information about affected individuals by high-
risk chemical facilities and their designated third parties.

Compliance With RBPS 12(iv) and the Potential for Increased Burden To 
Enter the Restricted Areas or Critical Assets at a High-Risk Chemical 
Facility

    Since the Department first began seeking to implement the CFATS 
Personnel Surety Program, stakeholders have expressed concern that the 
submission of information about affected individuals under Option 1 and 
Option 2 to the Department would impede the ability of affected 
individuals to enter the restricted areas or critical assets at high-
risk chemical facilities. The Department does not believe that if a 
facility complies with RBPS 12(iv) the high-risk chemical facility 
will, on a routine basis, experience an unreasonable impact in allowing 
affected individuals access to restricted areas or critical assets.
    In general, the Department expects that high-risk chemical 
facilities or their designees (e.g., third parties or companies 
employing affected individuals that provide services to high-risk 
chemical facilities) will already possess much, if not all, of the 
necessary information about affected individuals as a result of 
standard business practices related to employment or managing of 
service contracts. In the event that high-risk chemical facilities, or 
their designees, need to collect any additional information for the 
purpose of complying with RBPS 12(iv), they have significant 
flexibility in how to collect this information since CFATS does not 
prescribe how to do so.
    The Department also expects that high-risk chemical facilities will 
likely consolidate RBPS 12(iv) processing with related routine hiring 
and access control procedures involving background checks that are 
already occurring prior to access by facility personnel or unescorted 
visitors to restricted areas or critical assets. Consolidating RBPS 
12(iv) processing with these other routine procedures would allow 
submission of personal information already collected and maintained by 
facilities or their designees (e.g., a third party, contracted service 
company, or third party acting on behalf of a contracted service 
company) to the Department under RBPS 12(iv) before affected 
individuals require access to restricted areas or critical assets.
    As mentioned above, third parties could submit screening 
information to the Department on behalf of high-risk chemical 
facilities as part of facilities' routine hiring and access control 
procedures. Some stakeholders have expressed concerns to the Department 
about submission of screening information by third parties, suggesting 
that in such cases facilities would not be able to adequately oversee 
third parties' work to ensure appropriate information submission to the 
Department. The Department expects, however, that high-risk chemical 
facilities could audit and/or review their third party designees' 
information collection and submission processes, to ensure that their 
designees submit appropriate information.

Compliance With RBPS 12(iv) and Infrequent ``Unescorted Visitors''

    Since the Department first began developing the CFATS Personnel 
Surety Program, some stakeholders have expressed concern that the 
submission of information to DHS about unescorted visitors who have 
only rare or infrequent access to high-risk chemical facilities would 
be overly burdensome and would make access by such infrequent 
unescorted visitors too difficult. As a general matter, however, the 
Department does not believe it likely that many high-risk chemical 
facilities will propose in their SSPs or ASPs to allow large numbers of 
visitors who visit the high-risk chemical facility infrequently to have 
unescorted access to restricted areas and critical assets, because then 
all four types of background checks listed in RBPS 12 would be required 
to be conducted for them. High-risk chemical facilities could choose to 
escort infrequent visitors in lieu of performing the four types of RBPS 
12 background checks on them.
    However, even for infrequent unescorted visitors that the high-risk 
chemical facility chooses to conduct all four types of background 
checks on, the Department does not expect data submission to the 
Department in compliance with RBPS 12(iv) to impede routine access 
procedures because the data submission is likely to be accomplished in 
concert with the other routine hiring and access control involving 
background check described above.

Additional Data Privacy Considerations

    There are various privacy requirements for high-risk chemical 
facilities, their designees, and the Department related to the exchange 
of personally identifiable information (PII) for the CFATS Personnel 
Surety Program. Upon receipt of PII, the Department complies with all 
applicable federal privacy requirements including the Privacy Act, the 
E-Government Act, the Homeland Security Act, and Departmental policy. 
The United States also follows international instruments on privacy, 
all

[[Page 17685]]

of which are consistent with the Fair Information Practice Principles 
(FIPPs).\12\ High-risk chemical facilities, or their designees, are 
responsible for complying with the federal, state, and national privacy 
laws applicable to the jurisdictions in which they do business. The 
Department believes that high-risk chemical facilities, or their 
designees, have multiple, established legal avenues that enable them to 
submit PII to the Department, which may include the Safe Harbor 
Framework,\13\ and meet their privacy obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Examples of the international privacy instruments which the 
United States has endorsed are: (1) Organization for Economic 
Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines on the Protection of 
Privacy and Trans-border Flows of Personal Data (1980), and (2) Asia 
Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Privacy Framework (2004).
    \13\ The Safe Harbor Framework, which applies to commercial 
information, was developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce in 
consultation with the European Commission in order to provide a 
streamlined means for U.S. organizations to comply with the European 
Union Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC. More information on the 
Safe Harbor Framework can be found at http://export.gov/safeharbor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Information Collected About Affected Individuals

Option 1: Collecting Information To Conduct Direct Vetting

    If high-risk chemical facilities select Option 1 to satisfy RBPS 
12(iv) for any affected individuals, the following information about 
these affected individuals would be submitted to the Department:

 For U.S. Persons (U.S. citizens and nationals as well as U.S. 
lawful permanent residents):
     Full Name
     Date of Birth
     Citizenship or Gender
 For Non-U.S. Persons:
     Full Name
     Date of Birth
     Citizenship
     Passport information and/or alien registration number

    To reduce the likelihood of false positives in matching against 
records in the Federal Government's consolidated and integrated 
terrorist watchlist, high-risk chemical facilities would also be able 
to submit the following optional information about affected individuals 
to the Department:

     Aliases
     Gender (for Non-U.S. Persons)
     Place of Birth
     Redress Number \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For more information about Redress Numbers, please go to 
http://www.dhs.gov/one-stop-travelers-redress-process#1.

    If a high-risk chemical facility chooses to submit information 
about an affected individual under Option 1, the following table 
summarizes the biographic data that would be submitted to the 
Department.

 Table 1--Affected Individual Required and Optional Data Under Option 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data elements submitted to the                           For a non-U.S.
          department              For a U.S. person          person
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Name.....................                  Required
                               -----------------------------------------
Date of Birth.................                  Required
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gender........................  Must provide           Optional.
                                 Citizenship or
                                 Gender.
Citizenship...................                         Required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passport Information and/or     N/A..................  Required.
 Alien Registration Number.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aliases.......................                  Optional
                               -----------------------------------------
Place of Birth................                  Optional
                               -----------------------------------------
Redress number................                  Optional
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Option 2: Collecting Information To USE of Vetting Conducted Under 
Other DHS Programs

    In lieu of submitting information to the Department under Option 1 
for terrorist ties vetting, chemical facilities would also have the 
option, where appropriate, to submit information to the Department to 
electronically verify that an affected individual is currently enrolled 
in one of the following DHS programs:

 TWIC Program;
 HME Program;
 Trusted Traveler Programs, including:
     NEXUS;
     FAST;
     SENTRI; and
     Global Entry.
    Information collected by the Department about affected individuals 
under Option 2 would not be used to conduct duplicative vetting against 
the Federal Government's consolidated and integrated terrorist 
watchlist.
    To verify an affected individual's enrollment in one of these 
programs under Option 2, the Department would collect the following 
information about the affected individual:

     Full Name;
     Date of Birth; and
     Program-specific information or credential information, 
such as unique number, or issuing entity (e.g., State for Commercial 
Driver's License (CDL) associated with an HME).

    To further reduce the potential for misidentification, high-risk 
chemical facilities may also submit the following optional information 
about affected individuals to the Department:

     Aliases
     Gender
     Place of Birth
     Citizenship

    If a high-risk chemical facility chooses to submit information 
about an affected individual under Option 2, the following table 
summarizes the biographic data that would be submitted to the 
Department.

[[Page 17686]]



                     Table 2--Affected Individual Required and Optional Data Under Option 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         For affected individual
                                                                                          enrolled in a Trusted
    Data elements submitted to the     For affected individual  For affected individual      Traveler Program
              department                     with a TWIC              with an HME         (NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST,
                                                                                             or Global Entry)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Name............................                                   Required
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Birth........................                                   Required
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expiration Date......................                                   Required
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unique Identifying Number............  TWIC Serial Number:      CDL Number: Required...  PASS ID Number:
                                        Required.                                         Required
Issuing State of CDL.................  N/A....................  Required...............  N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aliases..............................                                   Optional
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gender...............................                                   Optional
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Place of Birth.......................                                   Optional
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citizenship..........................                                   Optional
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the CFATS Personnel Surety Program, a high-risk chemical 
facility would be able to choose to follow the process described for 
Option 1, and would not have to implement Option 2, even if an affected 
individual seeking access to the high-risk chemical facility is already 
enrolled in the TWIC Program, HME Program, or one of the Trusted 
Traveler Programs.

Option 3: Electronic Verification of TWIC

    Under Option 3, a high-risk chemical facility would not need to 
submit information about an affected individual enrolled in the TWIC 
Program to the Department, if the high-risk chemical facility is able 
to electronically verify and validate the affected individual's TWIC 
through the use of a TWIC reader (or other technology that is 
periodically updated using the Canceled Card List).
    As discussed above, under the CFATS Personnel Surety Program, high-
risk chemical facilities would also be able to choose to follow the 
processes described for Option 1 and/or Option 2, for some or all 
affected individuals already enrolled in the TWIC Program, in lieu of 
or in addition to Option 3.

Other Information Collected

    In addition to the information about affected individuals collected 
under Options 1 and 2, the Department plans to collect certain 
information that identifies the high-risk chemical facility, or 
facilities, at which each affected individual has or is seeking access 
to restricted areas or critical assets.
    The Department may also contact a high-risk chemical facility or 
its designees to request additional information (e.g., visa 
information) pertaining to affected individuals in order to clarify 
suspected data errors or resolve potential matches (e.g., in situations 
where an affected individual has a common name). Such requests will not 
imply, and should not be construed to indicate, that an affected 
individual's information has been confirmed as a match to a record of 
an individual with terrorist ties.
    In the event that a confirmed match is identified as part of the 
CFATS Personnel Surety Program, the Department may obtain references to 
and/or information from other government law enforcement and 
intelligence databases, or other relevant databases that may contain 
terrorism information.
    The Department may collect information necessary to assist in the 
submission and transmission of records, including electronic 
verification that the Department has received a particular record.
    The Department may also collect information about points of contact 
who the Department or Federal law enforcement personnel may contact 
with follow-up questions. A request for additional information from the 
Department does not imply, and should not be construed to indicate, 
that an individual is known or suspected to be associated with 
terrorism.
    The Department may also collect information provided by individuals 
or high-risk chemical facilities in support of any adjudications 
requested under Subpart C of the CFATS regulation,\15\ or in support of 
any other redress requests.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 6 CFR 27.300-345.
    \16\ More information about access, correction, and redress 
requests under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act 
can be found in Section 7.0 of the Privacy Impact Assessment for the 
CFATS Personnel Surety Program, dated May 4, 2011, and available at 
http://www.dhs.gov/privacy-documents-national-protection-and-programs-directorate-nppd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department may request information pertaining to affected 
individuals, previously provided to the Department by high-risk 
chemical facilities or their designees, in order to confirm the 
accuracy of that information, or to conduct data accuracy reviews and 
audits as part of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program.
    The Department will also collect administrative or programmatic 
information (e.g., affirmations or certifications of compliance, 
extension requests, brief surveys for process improvement) necessary to 
manage the CFATS Personnel Surety Program.
    Under Options 1 and 2, the Department will also collect information 
that will allow high-risk chemical facilities and their designees to 
manage their data submissions. Specifically, the Department will make 
available to high-risk chemical facilities and their designees blank 
data fields. These blank data fields may be used by a high-risk 
chemical facility or its designees to assign each record of an affected 
individual a unique designation or number that is meaningful to the 
high-risk chemical facility. Collecting this information will enable a 
high-risk chemical facility to manage the electronic records it submits 
into the CSAT Personnel Surety application. Entering this information 
into the CSAT Personnel Surety application will be voluntary, and is 
intended solely to enable high-risk chemical facilities and their 
designees to search through, sort, and manage the electronic records 
they submit.

[[Page 17687]]

III. Request for Exception to the Requirement Under 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3)

    The Department is requesting from OMB an exception for the CFATS 
Personnel Surety Program to the PRA notice requirement in 5 CFR 
1320.8(b)(3), which requires Federal agencies to confirm that their 
information collections provide certain reasonable notices under the 
PRA to affected individuals. If this exception is granted, the 
Department will be relieved of the potential obligation to require 
high-risk chemical facilities to collect signatures or other positive 
affirmations of these notices from affected individuals. Whether or not 
this exception is granted, Submitters must affirm that the required 
privacy notice regarding the collection of personal information has 
been provided to affected individuals before personal information is 
submitted to the Department.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ For more information. please see the CFATS Personnel Surety 
Program Privacy Impact Assessment, dated May 4, 2011 at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy-pia-nppd-cfats-ps.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's request for an exception to the PRA notice 
requirement under 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3) would not exempt high-risk 
chemical facilities from having to adhere to applicable Federal, state, 
local, or tribal laws, or to regulations or policies pertaining to the 
privacy of affected individuals.

IV. Responses to Previous Comments

    In June 2011, the Department submitted an ICR for the CFATS 
Personnel Surety Program to OMB for review. OMB subsequently received 
four comments about that ICR from members of the public and forwarded 
the comments to the Department for response. Each of the comments and 
the Department's responsive letters will be posted on the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket number DHS-2012-
0061.
    In June 2011, the Department solicited comments for 30 days about 
the CFATS Personnel Surety Program System of Records Notice (SORN) 
under Docket DHS-2011-0032.\18\ Under Docket DHS-2011-0032, the 
Department received a comment that addressed the CFATS Personnel Surety 
Program ICR. The comment did not address the SORN or other CFATS 
Personnel Surety Program privacy issues. Therefore, the Department 
reviewed the comment and has responded to the comment under this docket 
in concert with the other comments submitted in June 2011 to OMB and 
the Department related to the CFATS Personnel Surety Program ICR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The docket for the CFATS Personnel Surety Program System of 
Records Notice may be found at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DHS-2011-0032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In June 2011, the Department also solicited comments for 30 days 
about the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to exempt the CFATS Personnel 
Surety Program System of Records from portions of the Privacy Act under 
Docket DHS-2011-0033.\19\ Under Docket DHS-2011-0033, the Department 
received an additional comment that addressed the CFATS Personnel 
Surety Program ICR.\20\ While the comment did support Privacy Act 
exemptions, the comment primarily addressed other aspects of the CFATS 
Personnel Surety Program not related to privacy issues. Therefore, the 
Department reviewed the comment and has responded to the comment under 
this docket as well in concert with the other comments submitted to OMB 
and the Department related to the CFATS Personnel Surety Program ICR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The docket for the notice of proposed rulemaking to exempt 
portions of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program System or Records 
from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act may be found at 
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DHS-2011-0033.
    \20\ Document DHS-2011-0033-0004 is viewable at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DHS-2011-0033-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. The Department's Methodology in Estimating the Burden

Frequency

    The Department will expect, unless otherwise noted in an authorized 
or approved SSP or ASP, that high-risk chemical facilities submit 
information, under Option 1 and/or Option 2, about affected individuals 
in accordance with the schedule outlined below in Table 3. Facilities 
may suggest alternative schedules for Option 1 or Option 2 based on 
their unique circumstances in their SSPs or ASPs. The schedule below 
would not apply to Option 3. Schedules for implementing Option 3, or 
alternative security measures other than Option 1 or Option 2, could 
vary from high-risk chemical facility to high-risk chemical facility, 
as described in individual facilities' SSPs or ASPs, subject to 
approval by the Department.
    The Department will expect a high-risk chemical facility to begin 
submitting information about affected individuals under Option 1 and/or 
Option 2 under the schedule below after: (1) the high-risk chemical 
facility has received a letter of authorization or approval for its SSP 
or ASP that directs the high-risk chemical facility to comply with RBPS 
12(iv); and (2) the high-risk chemical facility has been notified that 
the Department has implemented the CFATS Personnel Surety Program.

         Table 3--Compliance Schedule for Option 1 and Option 2 Under the CFATS Personnel Surety Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Tier 1              Tier 2              Tier 3              Tier 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Submission Of Affected    60 days after the   60 days after the   90 days after the   90 days after the
 Individuals' Information.         day when both       day when both       day when both       day when both
                                   conditions are      conditions are      conditions are      conditions are
                                   true:               true:               true:               true:
                                  (1) DHS issues      (1) DHS issues      (1) DHS issues      (1) DHS issues
                                   your facility a     your facility a     your facility a     your facility a
                                   letter of           letter of           letter of           letter of
                                   authorization or    authorization or    authorization or    authorization or
                                   approval which      approval which      approval which      approval which
                                   directs you to      directs you to      directs you to      directs you to
                                   comply with RBPS    comply with RBPS    comply with RBPS    comply with RBPS
                                   12(iv), AND.        12(iv), AND.        12(iv), AND.        12(iv), AND
                                  (2) DHS provides    (2) DHS provides    (2) DHS provides    (2) DHS provides
                                   notification that   notification that   notification that   notification that
                                   it has              it has              it has              it has
                                   implemented the     implemented the     implemented the     implemented the
                                   CFATS Personnel     CFATS Personnel     CFATS Personnel     CFATS Personnel
                                   Surety Program.     Surety Program.     Surety Program.     Surety Program.
Submission Of A New Affected      48 hours prior to   48 hours prior to   48 hours prior to   48 hours prior to
 Individual's Information.         access to           access to           access to           access to
                                   restricted areas    restricted areas    restricted areas    restricted areas
                                   or critical         or critical         or critical         or critical
                                   assets.             assets.             assets.             assets.

[[Page 17688]]

 
Submission Of Updates And         Within 90 days of   Within 90 days of   Within 90 days of   Within 90 days of
 Corrections To An Affected        becoming aware of   becoming aware of   becoming aware of   becoming aware of
 Individual's Information.         the need for an     the need for an     the need for an     the need for an
                                   update or           update or           update or           update or
                                   correction.         correction.         correction.         correction.
Submission Of Notification That   Within 90 days of   Within 90 days of   Within 90 days of   Within 90 days of
 An Affected Individual No         access being        access being        access being        access being
 Longer Has Access.                removed.            removed.            removed.            removed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, after evaluating the choices available to the Department 
under Question 16 on the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission form 
(Standard Form-83(i)),\21\ the Department believes that the description 
of ``Other: In accordance with the compliance schedule or the facility 
SSP or ASP'' is the most appropriate choice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ A blank copy of Standard Form 83(i) may be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/83i-fill.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affected Public

    Most high-risk chemical facilities regulated under CFATS are 
private businesses, or parts of private businesses. Most people that 
access the restricted areas and critical assets of high-risk chemical 
facilities do so for business purposes. Therefore, after evaluating the 
choices available to the Department on Standard Form 83(i), the 
Department selected the description of ``Business or other for-profit'' 
as the most appropriate selection for this proposed Information 
Collection.

Number of Respondents

    The number of respondents under this collection is the number of 
affected individuals that high-risk chemical facilities or their 
designees submit information about in compliance with RBPS 12(iv). As 
described more fully below, for the purpose of this notice the number 
of respondents is estimated by multiplying:
     The estimated number and types of high-risk chemical 
facilities, and
     The estimated number of affected individuals at each type 
of high-risk chemical facility.
    For the purpose of this notice, the Department estimates the number 
of affected individuals at each type of high-risk chemical facility as 
the sum of:
     The number of unescorted visitors at each type of high-
risk chemical facility, and
     The number of facility personnel and resident contractors 
at each type of high-risk chemical facility.
Number and Type of High-Risk Chemical Facilities
    In previous PRA Federal Register notices about the CFATS Personnel 
Surety Program, the Department estimated the number and type of high-
risk chemical facilities by using the 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment, 
which established a best estimate of 5,000 high-risk facilities for 
calculating cost estimates.\22\ In the 2007 CFATS Regulatory 
Assessment, the Department recognized that each chemical facility is 
unique; however, since it was impractical to estimate costs for each 
high-risk chemical facility, the Department created four categories of 
facilities for each tier; three categories of facilities where loss of 
containment of the chemicals of interest is the primary concern and one 
category of facilities where theft and diversion of chemicals is the 
primary concern. Specifically,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     Group A includes open facilities with 100 or more 
employees where loss of containment is the primary concern. These 
facilities are assumed to have five security entrances for the purpose 
of the cost analysis.
     Group B includes open facilities with 99 or fewer 
employees where loss of containment is the primary concern. In 
addition, facilities that store anhydrous ammonia for commercial 
refrigeration in outdoor vessels are also considered ``open'' for the 
purpose of this analysis because it is the outdoor storage that 
requires protection. These facilities are assumed to have two security 
entrances for the purpose of the cost analysis.
     Group C facilities are enclosed facilities where loss of 
containment is the primary concern (i.e., warehouses, enclosed 
manufacturing sites) that manufacture, process, use, store and/or 
distribute chemicals. The Department did not segment enclosed 
facilities by size because the same degree of variation between a large 
open facility (i.e., a 2,000-acre petrochemical complex) and a small 
open 3-5-acre facility does not exist. These facilities are assumed to 
have one security entrance for the purpose of the cost analysis.
     Theft/Diversion facilities are typically merchant 
wholesalers (often called chemical distributors), chemical 
manufacturers, or other manufacturers that manufacture, process, use, 
store or distribute chemicals that could be the target of theft and 
diversion. The theft of chemicals could include theft of portable 
containers by employees, visitors or adversaries. The diversion of 
chemicals involves what often looks like a legitimate transaction where 
an adversary, impersonating a legitimate customer, purchases chemicals 
that could later be turned into weapons. These facilities are assumed 
to have one security entrance for the purposes of cost analysis.
    For the purpose of this notice, the Department updated the number 
and type of high-risk chemical facilities estimated in the 2007 CFATS 
Regulatory Assessment. The updated analysis, hereafter referred to as 
the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis, determined the high-
risk chemical facility count for each of the 16 model facility 
categories identified in the 2007 Regulatory Assessment by analyzing 
high-risk chemical facilities designated with a final tier under CFATS 
as of August 2012. A comparison of the number of high-risk chemical 
facilities, estimated by the 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment, to the 
number of high-risk chemical facilities identified within the 2012 
CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis is presented in Table 4.

[[Page 17689]]



      Table 4--Number of Facilities in Each Model Facility Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2012 CFATS
                                            2007 CFATS       personnel
                                            regulatory    surety program
                                            assessment    analysis  (raw
                                                               data)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A..........................              81               4
Tier 1 Group B..........................              89               6
Tier 1 Group C..........................              24              10
Tier 1 Theft............................               6              93
Tier 2 Group A..........................             166               8
Tier 2 Group B..........................              64              16
Tier 2 Group C..........................              80              15
Tier 2 Theft............................             189             400
Tier 3 Group A..........................             315              22
Tier 3 Group B..........................             438              33
Tier 3 Group C..........................             329              66
Tier 3 Theft............................             718             935
Tier 4 Group A..........................             242              72
Tier 4 Group B..........................             690             190
Tier 4 Group C..........................             599              13
Tier 4 Theft............................             970           1,683
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................           5,000           3,566
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As of August 2012, 3,566 high-risk chemical facilities received a 
final tier determination. For the purpose of this notice, the 
Department estimates that CFATS will regulate approximately 4,000 high-
risk chemical facilities. Therefore, the Department normalized the 
number of facilities in each model facility category to 4,000 
facilities by multiplying the number of high-risk chemical facilities 
in each category by a factor of 1.22.\23\ The 2012 CFATS Personnel 
Surety Program Analysis revised (i.e., normalized) high-risk chemical 
facility count is compared to the 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment 
high-risk chemical facility count, by model facility category, in Table 
5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

 Table 5--Number of High-Risk Chemical Facilities in Each Model Facility
                                Category
                    [Normalized to 4,000 facilities]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2012 CFATS
                                            2007 CFATS       personnel
                                            regulatory    surety program
                                            assessment       analysis
                                                           (normalized)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A..........................              81               4
Tier 1 Group B..........................              89               7
Tier 1 Group C..........................              24              11
Tier 1 Theft............................               6             104
Tier 2 Group A..........................             166               9
Tier 2 Group B..........................              64              18
Tier 2 Group C..........................              80              17
Tier 2 Theft............................             189             449
Tier 3 Group A..........................             315              25
Tier 3 Group B..........................             438              37
Tier 3 Group C..........................             329              74
Tier 3 Theft............................             718           1,049
Tier 4 Group A..........................             242              81
Tier 4 Group B..........................             690             213
Tier 4 Group C..........................             599              15
Tier 4 Theft............................             970           1,888
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................           5,000           4,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the reduction in the total number of regulated 
facilities, a comparison of the 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment and 
the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis identifies one other 
key difference. In the original 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment, 
conducted prior to implementation of the CFATS Program, the Department 
assumed that 38 percent of all high-risk chemical facilities would be 
regulated due to the risk that one or more chemicals could be subject 
to theft or diversion for purposes of creating an explosion or 
producing an

[[Page 17690]]

improvised explosive device. However, the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety 
Program Analysis found that 87 percent of all currently regulated CFATS 
high-risk chemical facilities are regulated due to the risk that a 
chemical could be subject to theft or diversion for purposes of 
creating an explosion or producing an improvised explosive device. For 
the purpose of this notice, the Department used the number and type of 
high-risk chemical facilities in each facility category estimated 
through the normalized 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis 
because the distribution of facility type (i.e., facility count) is 
based upon actual historical data.
Estimated Number of Affected Individuals at Each Type of High-Risk 
Chemical Facility--Unescorted Visitors With Access to Restricted Areas 
or Critical Assets
    During the 30-day comment period after the Department submitted the 
previous CFATS Personnel Surety Program ICR to OMB in June 2011, the 
American Chemistry Council (ACC) provided a detailed burden cost 
assessment to the Department that included assumptions on visitors.\24\ 
Specifically, the ACC provided the Department with an estimate on the 
number and turnover of frequent and infrequent visitors at high-risk 
chemical facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ This cost estimate has been posted to Docket DHS-2012-0061, 
which may be accessed through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ACC's analysis suggests that 1,200 total visitors per year should 
be expected at large open manufacturing facilities that align with 
Group A (Tier 1 through 4) model facility categories; 300 visitors each 
at small open manufacturing facilities (Group B model facility 
categories, Tier 1 through 4) and enclosed manufacturing facilities 
(Group C model facility categories, Tier 1 through 4); and 50 visitors 
expected at theft/diversion model facilities (Tier 1 through 4). ACC 
estimated an annual turnover rate of 71 percent for frequent visitors 
(e.g., delivery personnel) and an annual turnover rate of 20 percent 
for infrequent visitors that only visit the facility once or twice a 
year (e.g., corporate auditors). Frequent and infrequent visitors were 
expected to compose equal volume of traffic at high-risk chemical 
facilities. ACC also assumed that all visitors count towards the number 
of affected individuals. However, high-risk chemical facilities will 
only be responsible for submitting information for unescorted visitors 
with access to restricted areas or critical assets. The Department does 
not expect high-risk chemical facilities to allow large numbers of 
visitors to have unescorted access to restricted areas or critical 
assets. As a general matter, the Department does not believe it to be 
likely that many high-risk chemical facilities will propose in their 
SSPs under CFATS to allow large numbers of visitors to have unescorted 
access to the restricted areas and critical assets of high-risk 
chemical facilities because then these visitors would be subject to all 
four types of background checks listed in RBPS 12. However, for the 
purpose of estimating the potential burden this information collection 
could impose, the Department has determined that it is appropriate to 
include ACC's conservative assumptions about frequent and infrequent 
visitors and treat them all as unescorted visitors. Table 6 provides 
the Department's estimated number of visitors.

                               Table 6--Estimate of Unescorted Visitors With Access to Restricted Areas or Critical Assets
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Infrequent       Frequent
                                                            Infrequent       Frequent     visitor annual  visitor annual    Unescorted      Unescorted
                                                             visitors        visitors        turnover        turnover     visitor annual      visitor
                                                                                               (20%)           (71%)         turnover        estimate
                                                                       A               B             C *            D **       E = C + D       A + B + E
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A..........................................             600             600             120             426             546           1,746
Tier 1 Group B..........................................             150             150              30             107             137             437
Tier 1 Group C..........................................             150             150              30             107             137             437
Tier 1 Theft............................................              25              25               5              18              23              73
Tier 2 Group A..........................................             600             600             120             426             546           1,746
Tier 2 Group B..........................................             150             150              30             107             137             437
Tier 2 Group C..........................................             150             150              30             107             137             437
Tier 2 Theft............................................              25              25               5              18              23              73
Tier 3 Group A..........................................             600             600             120             426             546           1,746
Tier 3 Group B..........................................             150             150              30             107             137             437
Tier 3 Group C..........................................             150             150              30             107             137             437
Tier 3 Theft............................................              25              25               5              18              23              73
Tier 4 Group A..........................................             600             600             120             426             546           1,746
Tier 4 Group B..........................................             150             150              30             107             137             437
Tier 4 Group C..........................................             150             150              30             107             137             437
Tier 4 Theft............................................              25              25               5              18              23              73
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* C = A x 0.20, ** D = B x 0.71.

Estimated Number of Affected Individuals at Each Type of High-Risk 
Chemical Facilities--Facility Personnel With Access to Restricted Areas 
or Critical Assets
    The 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment also provided an estimate of 
full time employees and resident contractors for the 16 model facility 
categories, as shown in Table 7.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See CFATS Regulatory Assessment Section 6.3.7, Table 15 
(April 1, 2007), http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DHS-
2006-0073-0116.

[[Page 17691]]



  Table 7--2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment Estimate of Number of Full Time Employees and Resident Contractors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Number of full
                                                     Resident                       20% Annual    time employees
                                                    contractors                      turnover      and resident
                                  Number of full   per facility      Resident       (full time    contractrs per
                                  time employees  (as percent of    contractors    employees and     facility
                                   per facility      full time     per facility      resident     (including 20%
                                                    employees)                      contractors       annual
                                                                                   per facility)     turnover)
                                               A               B             C *            D **       A + C + D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A..................             391              30             117             102             610
Tier 1 Group B..................              35              20               7               8              50
Tier 1 Group C..................             152              10              15              33             200
Tier 1 Theft....................              35              10               4               8              47
Tier 2 Group A..................             279              30              84              73             436
Tier 2 Group B..................              34              20               7               8              49
Tier 2 Group C..................             317              10              32              70             419
Tier 2 Theft....................              35              10               4               8              47
Tier 3 Group A..................             487              30             146             127             760
Tier 3 Group B..................              47              20               9              11              67
Tier 3 Group C..................             310              10              31              68             409
Tier 3 Theft....................              35              10               4               8              47
Tier 4 Group A..................             283              30              85              74             442
Tier 4 Group B..................             139              20              28              33             200
Tier 4 Group C..................             201              10              20              44             265
Tier 4 Theft....................              35              10               4               8              47
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................             n/a             n/a             n/a             n/a             n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* C = A x B, ** D = (A + C) x 0.20.

    In the June 2011 ICR, the Department updated the estimate of 
employees and resident contractors in the 2007 CFATS Regulatory 
Assessment in response to a survey submitted by the American Fuel and 
Petrochemical Manufacturers \26\ during the 30 day comment period 
associated with the previous CFATS Personnel Surety Program ICR.\27\ 
Specifically, the Department increased the estimated number of full 
time employees/contractors in Group A facilities by 5, as shown in 
Table 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers is the 
name of the former National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, 
whose comment may be found at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DHS-2009-0026-0029.
    \27\ See Response To Comments Received During 30 Day Comment 
Period: New Information Collection Request 1670-NEW, 76 FR 34720, 
34725 (June 14, 2011).

    Table 8--Revised 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment Estimate of Number of Full Time Employees and Resident
                                                   Contractors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Number of full
                                                     Resident                       20% Annual    time employees
                                                    contractors                      turnover      and resident
                                  Number of full   per facility      Resident       (full time      contractors
                                  time employees  (as percent of    contractors    employees and   per facility
                                   per facility      full time     per facility      resident     (including 20%
                                                    employees)                      contractors       annual
                                                                                   per facility)     turnover)
                                               A               B             C *            D **       A + C + D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A..................           1,955              30             587             508           3,050
Tier 1 Group B..................              35              20               7               8              50
Tier 1 Group C..................             152              10              15              33             201
Tier 1 Theft....................              35              10               4               8              46
Tier 2 Group A..................           1,395              30             419             363           2,176
Tier 2 Group B..................              34              20               7               8              49
Tier 2 Group C..................             317              10              32              70             418
Tier 2 Theft....................              35              10               4               8              46
Tier 3 Group A..................           2,435              30             731             633           3,799
Tier 3 Group B..................              47              20               9              11              68
Tier 3 Group C..................             310              10              31              68             409
Tier 3 Theft....................              35              10               4               8              46
Tier 4 Group A..................           1,415              30             425             368           2,207
Tier 4 Group B..................             139              20              28              33             200

[[Page 17692]]

 
Tier 4 Group C..................             201              10              20              44             265
Tier 4 Theft....................              35              10               4               8              46
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................             n/a             n/a             n/a             n/a             n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* C = A x B, ** D = (A + C) x 0.20.

    In addition to submitting comments on the Department's June 2011 
estimated burden about unescorted visitors, ACC also suggested that 80 
percent of employees/resident contractors have access to restricted 
areas and/or critical assets at Group A, B and C facilities and only 15 
percent of employees/resident contractors have access to theft/
diversion facilities. To provide an additional estimate of the number 
of respondents the Department applied this ACC assumption to the 
revised 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis. The resulting 
estimate, referred to as the ``Adjusted June 2011 ICR Estimate of the 
Number of Full Time Employees and Resident Contractors'' is shown in 
Table 9.

                         Table 9--Adjusted June 2011 ICR Estimate of the Number of Full Time Employees and Resident Contractors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                         Number of full
                                                                                                                        ACC's estimate   time employees
                                                                                          20% annual    Number of full   of full time     and resident
                                                           Resident                        turnover     time employees   employees and   contractors per
                                        Number of full    contractors      Resident       (full time     and resident     contractors     facility with
                                             time        per facility     contractors    employees and    contractors   with access to      access to
                                         employees per  (as percent of   per facility      resident      per facility     restricted    restricted areas
                                           facility        full time                      contractors   (including 20%     areas or        or critical
                                                          employees)                     per facility)      annual         critical          assets
                                                                                                           turnover)        assets       (including 20%
                                                                                                                           (percent)    annual turnover)
                                                     A               B              C*             D**       A + C + D               E   (A + C + D) x E
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A........................           1,955              30             587             508           3,050              80             2,440
Tier 1 Group B........................              35              20               7               8              50              80                40
Tier 1 Group C........................             152              10              15              33             201              80               161
Tier 1 Theft..........................              35              10               4               8              46              15                 7
Tier 2 Group A........................           1,395              30             419             363           2,176              80             1,741
Tier 2 Group B........................              34              20               7               8              49              80                39
Tier 2 Group C........................             317              10              32              70             418              80               335
Tier 2 Theft..........................              35              10               4               8              46              15                 7
Tier 3 Group A........................           2,435              30             731             633           3,799              80             3,039
Tier 3 Group B........................              47              20               9              11              68              80                54
Tier 3 Group C........................             310              10              31              68             409              80               327
Tier 3 Theft..........................              35              10               4               8              46              15                 7
Tier 4 Group A........................           1,415              30             425             368           2,207              80             1,766
Tier 4 Group B........................             139              20              28              33             200              80               160
Tier 4 Group C........................             201              10              20              44             265              80               212
Tier 4 Theft..........................              35              10               4               8              46              15                 7
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.............................             n/a             n/a             n/a             n/a             n/a             n/a               n/a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*C = A x B, **D = (A + C) x 0.20.

    For the purpose of this notice, the Department also evaluated 
whether or not the 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment should continue to 
be the basis for the estimate of full time employees and resident 
contractors. To provide an additional estimate of the number of 
respondents, the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis analyzed 
actual information submitted by high-risk chemical facilities in 
response to Top-Screen \28\ Question Q:1.45-400.\29\ Based upon the

[[Page 17693]]

submitted information, the Department was able to estimate full time 
employees and resident contractors by each model facility category, as 
shown in Table 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Top-Screen is defined at 6 CFR 27.105.
    \29\ Q:1.45-400 refers to the specific question reference number 
in the online Top-Screen application which is not available to the 
general public. However, the exact text of the question is available 
on page 20 of the CSAT Top-Screen Survey Application User Guide 
v1.99 in the row entitled, ``Number of Full Time Employees.'' See 
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/chemsec_csattopscreenusersmanual.pdf.

    Table 10--2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis' Estimate of the Number of Full Time Employees and
                                              Resident Contractors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Number of full
                                                     Resident                       20% Annual    time employees
                                    Response to     contractors                      turnover      and resident
                                    top screen     per facility      Resident       (full time      contractors
                                     question     (as percent of    contractors    employees and   per facility
                                    Q:1.45-400       full time     per facility      resident     (including 20%
                                                    employees)                      contractors       annual
                                                                                   per facility)     turnover)
                                               A  ..............  ..............               B           A + B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A..................             599                                             120             719
Tier 1 Group B..................              36                                               7              43
Tier 1 Group C..................             300                                              60             360
Tier 1 Theft....................             653                                             131             783
Tier 2 Group A..................             222                                              44             267
Tier 2 Group B..................              30                                               6              36
Tier 2 Group C..................             489                                              98             587
Tier 2 Theft....................             416                N/A                           83             499
Tier 3 Group A..................             594   Top Screen Question Q1:1.45*              119             713
Tier 3 Group B..................              33   400 incorporates estimate of                7              39
Tier 3 Group C..................             188       resident contractors                   38             225
Tier 3 Theft....................             233                                              47             279
Tier 4 Group A..................             737                                             147             884
Tier 4 Group B..................              17                                               3              20
Tier 4 Group C..................             175                                              85             211
Tier 4 Theft....................             195                                              39             234
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................             n/a                                             n/a             n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In question Top Screen Question Q:1.45-400, facilities provide both full time employees and resident
  contractors.

    Table 11 compares the estimates of full time employees and resident 
contractors in the: (1) 2007 CFATS Regulatory Assessment; (2) ICR 
submitted in June of 2011; (3) adjusted June 2011 ICR Estimate of the 
Number of Full Time Employees and Resident Contractors; and (4) 2012 
CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis.

     Table 11--Average Number of Full Time Employees and Contractors per Facility by Model Facility Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   June 2011 ICR
                                                                                  (adjusted with
                                                                                       ACC's
                                                                                   assumption on
                                                    2007 CFATS     Estimate used     facility       2012 CFATS
                                                    regulatory     in June 2011   personnel with     personnel
                                                    assessment          ICR          access to    surety program
                                                                                    restricted       analysis
                                                                                     areas or
                                                                                     critical
                                                                                      assets)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A..................................             610           3,050           2,440             719
Tier 1 Group B..................................              50              50              40              43
Tier 1 Group C..................................             200             201             161             360
Tier 1 Theft....................................              47              46               7             783
Tier 2 Group A..................................             436           2,176           1,741             267
Tier 2 Group B..................................              49              49              39              36
Tier 2 Group C..................................             419             418             335             587
Tier 2 Theft....................................              47              46               7             499
Tier 3 Group A..................................             760           3,799           3,039             713
Tier 3 Group B..................................              67              68              54              39
Tier 3 Group C..................................             409             409             327             225
Tier 3 Theft....................................              47              46               7             279
Tier 4 Group A..................................             442           2,207           1,766             884
Tier 4 Group B..................................             200             200             160              20
Tier 4 Group C..................................             265             265             212             211

[[Page 17694]]

 
Tier 4 Theft....................................              47              46               7             234
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When evaluating the reasonable alternatives (see next section) to 
estimate the total number of respondents, the Department did not 
consider alternatives that used an assumption about the full time 
employees and resident contractors estimates from the 2007 CFATS 
Regulatory Assessment or the estimate in the June 2011 ICR.
    Rather, when evaluating the reasonable alternatives to estimate the 
total number of respondents (see the next section of this document for 
this evaluation), the Department opted to use the best available 
industry estimates, as well as actual historical data collected 
directly from high-risk chemical facilities, to estimate the full time 
employees and resident contractors. Namely:
    (1) The adjusted June 2011 ICR estimate of full time employees and 
resident contractors, and
    (2) The estimate of full time employees and resident contractors in 
the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis.
Summary of Alternatives To Estimate the Number of Respondents
    As mentioned above, for the purpose of this notice the number of 
respondents is estimated by multiplying:
     The number and type of high-risk chemical facilities, and
     The number of affected individuals at each type of high-
risk chemical facility.
    For the purpose of this notice, the Department estimates the number 
of affected individuals at each type of high-risk chemical facility as 
the sum of:
     The number of unescorted visitors at each type of high-
risk chemical facility, and
     The number of facility personnel and resident contractors 
at each type of high-risk chemical facility.
    In light of the data submitted by commenters and the Department's 
own analysis, three alternatives for the total number of respondents 
were considered by the Department.
    First, the total number of respondents is based on:
    a. the number and type of high-risk chemical facilities assumed in 
the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis;
    b. the ACC's estimates about unescorted visitors; and
    c. the adjusted June 2011 ICR estimate of the number of full time 
employees and resident contractors.
    This alternative results in an estimate of an initial 972,584 
respondents with an annual turnover of 290,459 respondents. See Table 
12.

                                               Table 12--Estimate of Number of Respondents--Alternative 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Full time
                                                                employees
                                                                   and
                                                                 resident
                                                               contractors
                                      Number of                   CFATS         ACC
                                      full time                 personnel    Unescorted
                                      employees   Estimate of     surety      Visitor
                                         and       full time   program ICR    Estimate                                CFATS
                                       resident    employees    withdrawn    (including                             personnel
                                     contractors      and       in July of      71%                    Number of      surety        ACC
                                        CFATS     contractors   2012 with     turnover                  initial    program ICR   unescorted
                                      personnel   with access   estimates       for       Number of   respondents   withdrawn     visitors      Annual
                                        surety         to           of        frequent    facilities    (include    in July of     annual     respondent
                                     program ICR   restricted   percentage   visitors,    (Table 5)    20% annual    2011 20%     turnover     turnover
                                       withdrawn    areas or        of          20%                    turnover)      annual     (Table 6)
                                      in July of    critical    employees/    turnover                               turnover
                                         2012        assets      resident       for                                 (Table 9)
                                      (including   (percent)   contractors   infrequent
                                      20% annual                   with       vistors)
                                      turnover)                 restricted   (Table 6)
                                      (Table 8)                area and/or
                                                                 critical
                                                                  asset
                                                                  access
                                                                (Table 9)
                                               A            B            A            B            C  (A + B) x C            D            E  (D + E) x C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A.....................        3,050           80        2,440        1,746            4       18,781          508          546        4,730
Tier 1 Group B.....................           50           80           40          437            7        3,209            8          137          975
Tier 1 Group C.....................          201           80          161          437           11        6,697           33          137        1,906
Tier 1 Theft.......................           46           15            7           73          104        8,312            8           23        3,177
Tier 2 Group A.....................        2,176           80        1,741        1,746            9       31,291          363          546        8,154
Tier 2 Group B.....................           49           80           39          437           18        8,537            8          137        2,596
Tier 2 Group C.....................          418           80          335          437           17       12,977           70          137        3,470
Tier 2 Theft.......................           46           15            7           73          449       35,751            8           23       13,662
Tier 3 Group A.....................        3,799           80        3,039        1,746           25      118,079          633          546       29,097
Tier 3 Group B.....................           68           80           54          437           37       18,162           11          137        5,470

[[Page 17695]]

 
Tier 3 Group C.....................          409           80          327          437           74       56,550           68          137       15,154
Tier 3 Theft.......................           46           15            7           73        1,049       83,568            8           23       31,936
Tier 4 Group A.....................        2,207           80        1,766        1,746           81      283,632          368          546       73,809
Tier 4 Group B.....................          200           80          160          437          213      127,156           33          137       36,201
Tier 4 Group C.....................          265           80          212          437           15        9,460           44          137        2,635
Tier 4 Theft.......................           46           15            7           73        1,888      150,422            8           23       57,484
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..........................          n/a          n/a          n/a          n/a        4,000      972,584          n/a          n/a      290,459
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the total number of respondents is based on:
    a. The number and type of high-risk chemical facilities assumed in 
the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis;
    b. The ACC's estimates about unescorted visitors;
    c. The number of full time employees and resident contractors 
estimated by the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis; and
    d. ACC's estimate of the percentage of resident employees and 
contractors with access to restricted areas or critical assets.
    This alternative results in an estimate of an initial 896,286 
respondents with an annual turnover of 393,519 respondents. See Table 
13.

                                               Table 13--Estimate of Number of Respondents--Alternative 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                ACC
                                      2012 CFATS                             unescorted
                                      personnel   Estimate of                 visitor
                                        surety     full time                  estimate
                                       program     employees     Average     (including                             2012 CFATS
                                       analysis       and       number of       71%                    Number of    personnel       ACC
                                       average    contractors   full time     turnover                  Initial       surety     unescorted
                                      number of   with access   employees       for       Number of   respondents    program      visitors      Annual
                                      full time        to          and        frequent    facilities   (includes     analysis      annual     respondent
                                      employees    restricted  contractors   visitors,    (Table 5)    20% annual   20% anual     turnover     turnover
                                         and        areas or    (including      20%                    turnover)     turnover    (Table 6)
                                     contractors    critical       20%        turnover                              (Table 10)
                                      (including     assets     turnover)       for
                                         20%       (percent)                 infrequent
                                      turnover)                              visitors)
                                      (Table 10)                             (Table 6)
                                               A            B  (A x B) = C            D            E  (C + D) x E            F            G  (F + G) x E
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A.....................          719           80          575        1,746            4       10,413          120          546        2,987
Tier 1 Group B.....................           43           80           34          437            7        3,169            7          137          967
Tier 1 Group C.....................          360           80          288          437           11        8,124           60          137        2,203
Tier 1 Theft.......................          783           15          118           73          104       19,847          131           23       15,993
Tier 2 Group A.....................          267           80          213        1,746            9       17,583           44          546        5,298
Tier 2 Group B.....................           36           80           29          437           18        8,355            6          137        2,558
Tier 2 Group C.....................          587           80          469          437           17       15,243           98          137        3,942
Tier 2 Theft.......................          499           15           75           73          449       66,200           83           23       47,494
Tier 3 Group A.....................          713           80          571        1,746           25       57,169          119          546       16,408
Tier 3 Group B.....................           39           80           31          437           37       17,321            7          137        5,295
Tier 3 Group C.....................          225           80          180          437           74       45,660           38          137       12,886
Tier 3 Theft.......................          279           15           42           73        1,049      120,269           47           23       72,714
Tier 4 Group A.....................          884           80          707        1,746           81      198,148          147          546       56,000
Tier 4 Group B.....................           20           80           16          437          213       96,461            3          137       29,806
Tier 4 Group C.....................          211           80          168          437           15        8,821           35          137        2,502
Tier 4 Theft.......................          234           15           35           73        1,888      203,505           39           23      116,465
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..........................          n/a          n/a          n/a          n/a        4,000      896,286          n/a          n/a      393,519
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 17696]]

    Third, the total number of respondents is based on:
    a. The number and type of high-risk chemical facilities assumed in 
the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis;
    b. The ACC's estimates about unescorted visitors;
    c. The number of full time employees and resident contractors 
estimated by the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program Analysis; and
    d. Does not include ACC's estimate of the percentage of resident 
employees and contractors with access to restricted areas or critical 
assets.
    This alternative results in an estimate of an initial 1,806,996 
respondents with an annual turnover of 393,519 respondents. See Table 
14.

                                               Table 14--Estimate of Number of Respondents--Alternative 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                ACC
                                      2012 CFATS                             unescorted
                                      personnel   Estimate of                 visitors
                                        surety     full time                  estimate
                                       program     employees     Average     (including                             2012 CFATS
                                       analysis       and       number of       71%                    Number of    personnel       ACC
                                       average    contractors   full time     turnover                  initial       surety     unescorted
                                      number of   with access   employees       for       Number of   respondents    program      visitors      Annual
                                      full time        to          and        frequent    facilities   (includes     analysis      annual     respondent
                                      employees    restricted  contractors   visitors,    (Table 5)    20% annual   20% annual    turnover     turnover
                                         and        areas or    (including      20%                    turnover)     turnover    (Table 6)
                                     contractors    critical       20%        turnover                              (Table 10)
                                      (including     assets     turnover)       for
                                         20%       (percent)                 infrequent
                                      turnover)                              visitors)
                                      (Table 10)                             (Table 6)
                                               A            B  (A x B) = C            D            E  (C + D) x E            F            G  (F + G) x E
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A.....................          719          100          719        1,746            4       11,058          120          546        2,987
Tier 1 Group B.....................           43          100           43          437            7        3,227            7          137          967
Tier 1 Group C.....................          360          100          360          437           11        8,930           60          137        2,203
Tier 1 Theft.......................          783          100          783           73          104       89,306          131           23       15,993
Tier 2 Group A.....................          267          100          267        1,746            9       18,061           44          546        5,298
Tier 2 Group B.....................           36          100           36          437           18        8,485            6          137        2,558
Tier 2 Group C.....................          587          100          587          437           17       17,218           98          137        3,942
Tier 2 Theft.......................          499          100          499           73          449      256,361           83           23       47,494
Tier 3 Group A.....................          713          100          713        1,746           25       60,689          119          546       16,408
Tier 3 Group B.....................           39          100           39          437           37       17,611            7          137        5,295
Tier 3 Group C.....................          225          100          225          437           74       48,997           38          137       12,886
Tier 3 Theft.......................          279          100          279           73        1,049      369,426           47           23       72,714
Tier 4 Group A.....................          884          100          884        1,746           81      212,432          147          546       56,000
Tier 4 Group B.....................           20          100           20          437          213       97,319            3          137       29,806
Tier 4 Group C.....................          211          100          211          437           15        9,435           35          137        2,502
Tier 4 Theft.......................          234          100          234           73        1,888      578,440           39           23      116,465
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..........................          n/a          n/a          n/a          n/a        4,000    1,806,996          n/a          n/a      393,519
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These three alternatives are summarized in Table 15.

                    Table 15--Comparison of Number of Respondents for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Number of
                                                                                                    respondents
                                                   Initial/year       Year 2          Year 3          (annual
                                                                                                     average)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 1...................................         972,584         290,459         290,459         517,834
Alternative 2...................................         896,286         393,519         393,519         561,108
Alternative 3...................................       1,806,996         393,519         393,519         864,678
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purpose of this notice the Department selected alternative 
3. Alternative 3 reasonably reflects the type and number of facilities 
regulated by CFATS, is based upon the actual number of full time 
employees and contractors as reported by high-risk chemical facilities, 
and explicitly estimates unescorted visitors as a separate population 
from facility employees and resident contractors.
Limitation of Respondents to Tier 1 and Tier 2 Facilities
    The Department is proposing to limit this information collection, 
and to limit initial CFATS Personnel Surety Program implementation, to 
only Tier 1 and Tier 2 high-risk chemical facilities. A limited 
implementation would enable the Department to implement the CFATS 
Personnel Surety Program for those facilities presenting the highest 
risk, while not imposing the burden on all CFATS regulated facilities. 
Assuming this information collection request is approved, a subsequent 
ICR would be published and submitted to OMB for approval to incorporate 
any lessons learned and potential improvements to the CFATS Personnel 
Surety Program prior to collecting information from Tier 3 and Tier 4 
high-risk chemical facilities. Table 16 provides the estimate of the 
number of respondents using alternative 3 for Tier 1 and 2 high-risk 
chemical facilities.

[[Page 17697]]



                                                Table 16--Estimate of Number of Tier 1 and 2 Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                ACC
                                      2012 CFATS                             unescorted
                                      personnel   Estimate of                 visitors
                                        surety     full time                  estimate
                                       program     employees     Average     (including                             2012 CFATS
                                       analysis       and       number of       71%                    Number of    personnel       ACC
                                       average    contractors   full time     turnover                  initial       surety     unescorted
                                      number of   with access   employees       for       Number of   respondents    program      visitors      Annual
                                      full time        to          and        frequent    facilities   (includes     analysis      annual     respondent
                                      employees    restricted  contractors   visitors,    (table 5)    20% annual   20% annual    turnover     turnover
                                         and        areas or    (including      20%                    turnover)     turnover    (table 6)
                                     contractors    critical       20%        turnover                              (table 10)
                                      (including     assets     turnover)       for
                                         20%       (percent)                 infrequent
                                      turnover)                              visttors)
                                      (table 10)                             (table 6)
                                               A            B  (A x B) = C            D            E  (C + D) x E            F            G  (F + G) x E
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A.....................          719          100          719        1,746            4       11,058          120          546        2,987
Tier 1 Group B.....................           43          100           43          437            7        3,227            7          137          967
Tier 1 Group C.....................          360          100          360          437           11        8,930           60          137        2,203
Tier 1 Theft.......................          783          100          783           73          104       89,306          131           23       15,993
Tier 2 Group A.....................          267          100          267        1,746            9       18,061           44          546        5,298
Tier 2 Group B.....................           36          100           36          437           18        8,485            6          137        2,558
Tier 2 Group C.....................          587          100          587          437           17       17,218           98          137        3,942
Tier 2 Theft.......................          499          100          499           73          449      256,361           83           23       47,494
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..........................          n/a          n/a          n/a          n/a          n/a      412,647          n/a          n/a       81,443
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the annual average number of respondents is equal to 
191,845, as shown in Table 17. The Department's rounded estimate is 
192,000 respondents.

                 Table 17--Estimate of Annual Number of Respondents for Tier 1 and 2 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Number of
                                                       Total           Total           Total        respondents
                                                    respondents     respondents     respondents       (annual
                                                      year 1          year 2          year 3         average)
                                                               A               B               C   (A + B + C)/3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A..................................          11,058           2,987           2,987           5,677
Tier 1 Group B..................................           3,227             967             967           1,720
Tier 1 Group C..................................           8,930           2,203           2,203           4,446
Tier 1 Theft....................................          89,306          15,993          15,993          40,431
Tier 2 Group A..................................          18,061           5,298           5,298           9,553
Tier 2 Group B..................................           8,485           2,558           2,558           4,534
Tier 2 Group C..................................          17,218           3,942           3,942           8,367
Tier 2 Theft....................................         256,361          47,494          47,494         117,116
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................         412,647          81,443          81,443         191,845
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimated Time per Respondent

    For the purpose of estimating the time per respondent, the 
Department considered making an assumption about the percentage of 
affected individuals under the three options outlined in the summary 
section of this notice (e.g., information about one-third of affected 
individuals would be submitted for direct vetting against the Federal 
Government's consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist, 
information about one-third of affected individuals would be submitted 
to verify enrollment in other DHS programs, and information about one-
third of affected individuals would not be submitted because they 
possess TWICs that high-risk chemical facilities would electronically 
verify through the use of TWIC readers). However, the Department 
concluded that such an assumption was unwarranted because: (1) The 
assumption would be without any factual basis; (2) the burden to submit 
information about an affected individual for direct vetting is 
approximately the same as the burden to submit information in order to 
verify enrollment (i.e., similar number of required data elements); and 
(3) the most conservative burden estimate would assume that information 
is submitted for all affected individuals (i.e., no facilities will 
choose to electronically verify the TWIC in the possession of an 
affected individual).
    To avoid making unjustified assumptions, and to avoid 
underestimating the time per respondent, the Department decided to 
estimate the average burden per respondent by assuming each and every 
respondent's information will be manually submitted, rather than 
uploaded via a bulk file, to the Department for vetting for terrorist 
ties.
    Accordingly, the Department's ``estimated time per respondent'' is 
the average burden for each respondent/submission, as shown in Table 
18. The estimate includes (1) 30 minutes to type and submit each and 
every affected individual's required information during initial 
submission, (2) 10 minutes to type and submit each update/correction 
for five percent of the affected individuals, (3) 10 minutes to update 
information on 20 percent of the affected individuals expected to no

[[Page 17698]]

longer have access to a high-risk chemical facility restricted area(s) 
or critical asset(s) each year. Therefore, for the purpose of this 
notice, the estimated time per respondent is 0.54 hours.

             Table 18--Estimate of Burden Time per Response
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Percent of
                                                population    Duration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Submission (100%)....................         1.00        0.50
Updates/Corrections (5%).....................         0.05        0.17
Removal--Turnover (20%)......................         0.20        0.17
Estimated Time per respondent................  ...........        0.5425
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Burden Hours

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

                    Table 19--Estimate of Annual Burden Hours for Tier 1 & Tier 2 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Annual
                                                                    respondents      Duration     Burden (hours)
                                                                               A               B         (A x B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Submission (100%).......................................         191,845            0.50          95,922
Updates/Corrections (5%)........................................           9,592            0.17           1,631
Removal--Turnover (20%).........................................          38,369            0.17           6,523
                                                                                                 ---------------
    Total Burden Hours..........................................  ..............  ..............         104,076
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Burden Cost (Capital/Startup)

    The Department expects no capital/startup cost for facilities that 
choose to implement Option 1 or Option 2.
    Although there are no costs associated with facilities providing 
information to the Department under Option 3, the Department has 
nonetheless estimated the potential capital costs incurred by 
facilities that choose to implement Option 3 under the CFATS Personnel 
Surety Program to ensure an appropriate accounting of the costs 
potentially incurred by this Information Collection. The capital cost 
of Option 3 can be estimated by multiplying (1) the number of 
facilities that are likely to implement Option 3 by (2) the cost to 
acquire, install, and maintain TWIC readers at the facilities.
Estimating Capital Costs for Option 3--Number and Type of High-Risk 
Chemical Facilities That May Choose To Use Option 3
    High-risk chemical facilities and their designees have wide 
latitude in how they may implement Option 3, if they choose to do so. 
High-risk chemical facilities could propose, in their SSPs or ASPs, to 
share the costs of TWIC readers and any associated infrastructure at 
central locations, or high-risk chemical facilities could propose to 
purchase and install TWIC readers for their own use. The Department 
will assess the adequacy of such proposals on a facility-by-facility 
basis, in the course of evaluating each facility's SSP or ASP.
    For the purpose of this notice, the Department estimates that the 
number of high-risk chemical facilities that are likely to implement 
Option 3 is the number of high-risk chemical facilities likely to have 
affected individuals who possess TWICs accessing their restricted areas 
or critical assets. Through the 2012 CFATS Personnel Surety Program 
Analysis, the Department determined that there are currently 32 high-
risk chemical facilities that have claimed a partial Maritime 
Transportation Security Act (MTSA) exemption \30\ and have received a 
final tier determination under CFATS. The Department then normalized 
the facility count by multiplying the number of facilities that claimed 
a partial exemption in each category by a factor of 1.22 (as it did in 
estimating the total number of facilities in Table 5 above), as shown 
in Table 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Facilities that are partially regulated under both MTSA and 
CFATS have the opportunity to identify themselves in the CSAT Top-
Screen. The text of the question is available on page 22 of the CSAT 
Top-Screen Survey Application User Guide v1.99. See http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/chemsec_csattopscreenusersmanual.pdf.

 Table 20--Estimate of Number of High-Risk Chemical Facilities That May
                       Choose To Use TWIC Readers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           2012 CFATS
                                         2012 CFATS     personnel surety
                                      personnel surety  program analysis
                                      program analysis    (normalized)
                                                     A          A x 1.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A......................                 0                 0
Tier 1 Group B......................                 0                 0
Tier 1 Group C......................                 0                 0
Tier 1 Theft........................                 0                 0

[[Page 17699]]

 
Tier 2 Group A......................                 0                 0
Tier 2 Group B......................                 0                 0
Tier 2 Group C......................                 1                 1
Tier 2 Theft........................                 3                 3
Tier 3 Group A......................                 3                 3
Tier 3 Group B......................                 0                 0
Tier 3 Group C......................                 2                 2
Tier 3 Theft........................                13                15
Tier 4 Group A......................                 1                 1
Tier 4 Group B......................                 2                 2
Tier 4 Group C......................                 0                 0
Tier 4 Theft........................                 7                 8
                                     -----------------------------------
    Total...........................                32                35
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimating Capital Costs for Option 3--TWIC Readers Costs
    For the purpose of this notice, the Department has based the 
potential per facility capital costs related to Option 3 on the TWIC 
Reader Requirements notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), published 
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.\31\ In the TWIC Reader 
Requirements NPRM, the Department estimated the initial phase-in costs 
annual recurring costs, and annual recurring costs that considers 
equipment replacement for container terminals, large passenger vessels/
terminals, petroleum facilities, break-bulk terminals and small 
passenger vessels/towboats. For the purpose of this notice, the 
Department has based the capital costs related to Option 3 on the costs 
incurred by the petroleum facilities (i.e., bulk liquid facilities) in 
the TWIC Reader Requirements NPRM. Specifically, the Department 
estimated the capital costs in this notice to be the average of the 
initial phase-in cost plus three years of the annual reoccurring cost 
without equipment replacement. NPPD opted to use the annual reoccurring 
cost without equipment replacement to align with the TWIC Reader 
Requirements NPRM assumption that equipment replacement cost occurs 
every five years. This notice estimates average annual costs for a 
three year period. Thus, for the purposes of this notice the estimated 
capital costs per facility is $99,953.33, [($256,267 + ($14,531 x 3))/
3].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See TWIC Reader Requirements NPRM Table 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

  Table 21--Capital Cost Burden Estimate for High-Risk Chemical Facilities That May Choose To Use TWIC Readers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average TWIC
                                                                                   reader        Capital cost of
                                                                Number of      implementation      TWIC reader
                                                               facilities         cost per       implementation
                                                                                  facility
                                                                           A                 B           (A x B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A............................................                 0           $99,953                $0
Tier 1 Group B............................................                 0            99,953                 0
Tier 1 Group C............................................                 0            99,953                 0
Tier 1 Theft..............................................                 0            99,953                 0
Tier 2 Group A............................................                 0            99,953                 0
Tier 2 Group B............................................                 0            99,953                 0
Tier 2 Group C............................................                 1            99,953            99,953
Tier 2 Theft..............................................                 3            99,953           299,860
Tier 3 Group A............................................                 3            99,953           299,860
Tier 3 Group B............................................                 0            99,953                 0
Tier 3 Group C............................................                 2            99,953           199,907
Tier 3 Theft..............................................                15            99,953         1,499,300
Tier 4 Group A............................................                 1            99,953            99,953
Tier 4 Group B............................................                 2            99,953           199,907
Tier 4 Group C............................................                 0            99,953                 0
Tier 4 Theft..............................................                 8            99,953           799,627
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................................                35               n/a         3,498,367
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 17700]]

    The capital cost for the 35 high-risk chemical facilities totals 
$3,498,367.67; however, the Department intends to limit this 
information collection to only Tier 1 and Tier 2 facilities. Therefore, 
for the purpose of this notice, the Department estimates the capital 
cost for the implementation of TWIC readers is $399,813, as shown in 
Table 22. The Department's rounded estimate is $399,800.

 Table 22--Capital Cost Burden Estimate for Tier 1 & 2 High-Risk Chemical Facilities That May Choose To Use TWIC
                                                     Readers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average TWIC
                                                                                   reader        Capital cost of
                                                                Number of      implementation      TWIC reader
                                                               facilities         cost per       implementation
                                                                                  facility
                                                                           A                 B           (A x B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Group A............................................                 0           $99,953                $0
Tier 1 Group B............................................                 0            99,953                 0
Tier 1 Group C............................................                 0            99,953                 0
Tier 1 Theft..............................................                 0            99,953                 0
Tier 2 Group A............................................                 0            99,953                 0
Tier 2 Group B............................................                 0            99,953                 0
Tier 2 Group C............................................                 1            99,953            99,953
Tier 2 Theft..............................................                 3            99,953           299,860
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................................                 4               n/a           399,813
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration of Other Capital Costs
    The burden estimates outlined in this notice are limited in scope 
to those activities listed in 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(1). Specifically, 5 CFR 
1320.3(b)(1) and 5 CFR 1320.8 require the Department to estimate the 
total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to 
generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a 
Federal agency. Therefore, many costs (e.g., physical modification of 
the facility layout) a facility may choose to incur to develop or 
implement its SSP or ASP should not be accounted for when estimating 
the capital costs associated with this information collection.
    The Department did consider estimating certain facility capital 
costs such as: (1) Capital costs for computer, telecommunications 
equipment, software, and storage to manage the data collection, 
submissions, and tracking; (2) capital and ongoing costs for designing, 
deploying and operating information technology (IT) systems necessary 
to maintain the data collection, submissions, and tracking; (3) cost of 
training facility personnel to maintain the data collection, 
submissions, and tracking; and (4) site security officer time to manage 
the data collection, submissions, and tracking. However, the Department 
has concluded that these costs should be excluded in accordance with 5 
CFR 1320.3(b)(2), which directs federal agencies to not count the costs 
associated with the time, effort, and financial resources incurred in 
the normal course of their activities (e.g., in compiling and 
maintaining business records) if the reporting, recordkeeping, or 
disclosure activities are usual and customary.
    The Department believes that the time, effort, and financial 
resources are usual and customary costs because these are costs that 
high-risk chemical facilities would incur to conduct background checks 
for identity, criminal history, and legal authorization to work under 6 
CFR 27.230(a)(12)(i-iii), and also under various other Federal, state, 
or local laws or regulations.

Recordkeeping Costs

    High-risk chemical facilities are not required to create, keep, or 
retain records under RBPS 12(iv). If a high-risk chemical facility 
elects, for its own business purposes, to create, keep, or retain 
records that identify and manage the submission of information about 
affected individuals, those records are not government records.
    The recordkeeping costs, if any, to create, keep, or retain records 
pertaining to background checks as part of a high-risk chemical 
facility's SSP or ASP, are properly estimated in the recordkeeping 
estimates associated with the SSP Instrument under Information 
Collection 1670-0007.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Department considered estimating the potential recordkeeping 
burden associated with RBPS 12(iv), but subsequently concluded that no 
potential recordkeeping should be estimated in this notice in 
accordance with 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2), which directs federal agencies to 
not count the costs associated with the time, effort, and financial 
resources incurred in the normal course of their activities (e.g., in 
compiling and maintaining business records) if the reporting, 
recordkeeping, or disclosure activities are usual and customary. The 
Department believes that the types of recordkeeping associated with 
RBPS 12(iv) are usual and customary costs that high-risk chemical 
facilities would incur to conduct background checks for identity, 
criminal history, and legal authorization to work as required by RBPS 
(12)(i)-(iii) and also by various other Federal, state, or local laws 
or regulations.

Total Burden Cost (Operating/Maintaining)

    The annual burden cost is equal to the sum of the: (1) Annual 
burden hours multiplied by the hourly wage rate for appropriate 
facility personnel; (2) the capital costs ($399,800); and (3) 
recordkeeping costs ($0).
    Comments associated with the previous ICR suggested an appropriate 
wage rate between $20 and $40 per hour; the Department picked the 
midpoint of $30 to estimate the hourly direct wage rate, which 
corresponds to a fully loaded wage rate of $42.
    Therefore, the annual burden not including capital costs and 
recordkeeping costs is $4,371,181 as shown in Table 23. The rounded 
estimate is $4,371,000.

[[Page 17701]]



                     Table 23--Estimate of Annual Burden Cost for Tier 1 & Tier 2 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Burden
                                                                      (hours)        Wage rate         Cost
                                                                               A               B         (A x B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Submission..............................................          95,922              42      $4,028,738
Updates/Corrections.............................................           1,631              42          68,489
Removal--Turnover...............................................           6,523              42         273,954
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintaining)...................         104,076              42       4,371,181
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the total annual burden cost is $4,770,994, after the 
inclusion of the $399,813 capital cost burden. The Department's rounded 
estimate is $4,771,000.

VI. Solicitation of Comments

    OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submissions of responses.

VII. Analysis

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and 
Programs Directorate, Office of Infrastructure Protection, 
Infrastructure Security Compliance Division.
    Title: Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) Personnel 
Surety Program.
    OMB Number: 1670--NEW.
    Frequency: Other: In accordance with the compliance schedule or the 
facility Site Security Plan or Alternative Security Plan.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents: 192,000 affected individuals.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 0.54 hours (32.4 minutes).
    Total Burden Hours: 104,100 annual burden hours.
    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $399,800.
    Total Recordkeeping Burden: $0.
    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintaining): $4,771,000.

    Dated: March 13, 2013.
Scott Libby,
Deputy Chief Information Officer, National Protection and Programs 
Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2013-06184 Filed 3-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-9P-P