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:
This last week of the comment period saw 17 submissions,
almost exclusively from corporate sources or industry groups.
Third-Party
Submissions
There is continued expressions of support for the provisions
for allowing third-party submissions of personally identifiable information
(PII). Air
Liquide asks for additional details about how the third-party submitters would
be identified to CSAT. GIS,
a background-check provider, requests that ISCD provide a method for bulk-data
submissions for third-party information providers.
48-Hour Advance
Submissions
Air Liquide joins the chorus of complainers about the
requirement to submit PII data on individuals 48 hour prior to their being
granted unaccompanied access to critical or restricted areas of the CFATS
facility. The National
Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD) makes the point that there is
no justification for the 48 hour submission rule if ISCD continues to refuse to
notify facilities of the identification of personnel with terrorist ties. This
point is clearly echoed by Rep.
Thompson (D,MS) and the American
Petroleum Institute (API). Allied
Universal Corp. states it more bluntly: “As such, the PSP provides
facilities no security value.”
The Society
of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) maintains that the
possible requirement to shut down a facility because of the inability to comply
with the 48-hour rule should have been addressed in the burden estimates.
PII Protection Rules
The American
Coatings Association (ACA) questions whether the PSP ICR adequately
addresses the various federal, state and local requirements to protect PII that
will impact how facilities will collect and submit that data to DHS. The American
Fuels and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) notes that this is an added
burden because they are not currently required to maintain PII on contractors
and visitors.
Other DHS Vetted
Credentials
The ACA complains that the requirement for providing ISCD
data on individuals with other TSA vetted individuals (holders of TWIC or HME
for instance) defeats the purpose of using these credentials as alternatives to
ISCD data submission for vetting. The Agricultural
Retailers Association (ARA) maintains that “DHS should not require any
further submission of information for those individuals holding federally
issued credentials”.
SOCMA notes that it does not believe that DHS has the authority
to compel facilities to provide information on personnel with other TSDB vetted
identifications. AFPM agrees that “DHS is not authorized to impose prescriptive
measures in order to comply with the performance-based rulemaking”.
Limited Implementation
The ARA supports the initial limited application of the PSP
submission requirements to Tier 1 and Tier 2 facilities, noting that any future
expansion to lower tiered facilities would benefit from the experiences
obtained from this initial implementation.
PSP Coverage
The Edison
Electric Institute complains that the ICR notice does not make it clear
what employees would be covered by the PSP data submission requirement.
Inaccurate Burden
Data
The API notes that the Burden Data estimates in the ICR
notice are flawed because they do not rely on information already provided to
ISCD via the submitted site security plans provided by all of the currently
covered facilities. The American
Chemistry Council estimates that the actual annualized burden costs of the
PSP would be $5.22 million.
Moving Forward
This should be the last comments on the 60-day notice.
DHS-ISCD will massage these comments, make changes as they deem appropriate and
then issue a 30-day notice (if they ignore the suggestions to go to a rule
making instead of an ICR) sometime in the next couple of months.
I’ll be looking at a couple of the issues raised in these
comments in some detail in future blog posts.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment