This is part of a continuing series of blog posts on the
public comments submitted about the DHS 60-day ICR notice for the CFATS
Personnel Surety Program (PSP). The other post in the series is:
We finally have some comments from the corporate sector, three
from trade associations, one from a large chemical manufacturer and one from a
background check provider.
Personnel Information
The background
check provider calls out ISCD on a couple of paperwork issues, including:
• Maintaining PII files of
information submitted to ISCD;
• PRA Notice signature
requirements; and
• PII collection and storage for
non-employees.
The major
chemical manufacturer raises the same issues in their submission.
CSAT Requirements
The background check provider also wants to know some of the
details about how the CSAT requirements for third-party submitters. They ask an
interesting question, will lists of information (PII) submitted for the PSP
have to be protected as Chemical-Terrorism Vulnerability Information (CVI) like
the rest of the information submitted thru CSAT?
Lack of Authority to
Require PSP Submissions
The chemical manufacturer and a trucking
industry group question the authority of DHS to require data submissions to
ISCD for local PSP. They cite the §550 stipulation that the Secretary may not
require any specific security measure. They miss the loophole that was
published in the 60-ICR Notice stating that facilities could propose
alternative PSP measures in their Site Security Plan.
An explosives
industry group agrees with the above comment and goes on to question the
use of an information collection request as the vehicle for imposing
essentially regulatory requirements on industry.
Alternative Visitor
Process
The manufacturer notes that they had previously proposed an
alternative method for submitting PII for visitors and contractors. They had
proposed to NPPD that DHS could establish a secure web portal for individuals
to submit the PII necessary for a Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) search if
they were going to be desiring to gain access to a covered facility. The
manufacturer expresses concern that DHS has not followed up on the suggestion
as promised.
TWIC, etc Procedures
The chemical manufacturer continues to complain about having
to submit PII information on personnel who have a TSDB-based security
identification. The explosives organization makes the same point, but further
complains that ISCD is not accepting the ATF background check process that uses
the same TSDB vetting.
The trucking group goes even further noting that requiring a
HME holder to undergo additional security checks under federal programs is
prohibited by 49
USC §5103a(g)(1)(B)(i)(I)-(II).
A training
industry group supports the ISCD requirement for submitting PII for vetting
personnel with other TSA supported identification, noting that a brief visual examination
of the credential cannot determine if it is “expired, revoked or fraudulent”. They additionally point to the problems with
the TWIC Reader identified by GAO.
TSDB Positives
The manufacturer and the explosives group re-iterates their
concern about DHS not notifying the facility if an individual is identified as
having terrorist ties during the TSDB vetting.
48-Hour Submission
Requirement
The chemical manufacturer objects to the 48-hour PII submission
requirement for the TSDB vetting. They argue that since DHS will not routinely
be informing facilities of positive TSDB matches, what difference does
submitting the information 48-hours in advance of providing unescorted access
make?
The trucking group notes that the 48-hour notice requirement
could unnecessarily limit the availability of commercial deliveries.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment