This afternoon the DHS Infrastructure Security Compliance Division
(ISCD) published another new frequently asked question (FAQ) on their CFATS Knowledge Center web page. As with a
number of recent additions to the FAQ list, this one deals with the CFATS
personnel surety program (PSP) that the Department is in the process of rolling
out.
FAQ #1769 asks:
“My facility must perform
background checks in accordance with the Risk-Based Performance Standard (RBPS)
12 “Personnel Surety” on affected individuals. Who is an affected individual?”
Typically, these FAQ responses quote from the appropriate
portion of the CFATS regulation as the major part of the response. The appropriate
part of the CFATS regulation in this case would be 6 CFR 27.230(a)(12):
“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….”
In this case the response is in two parts:
• Facility personnel who have or
are seeking access, either unescorted or otherwise, to restricted areas or
critical assets; and
• Unescorted visitors who have or
are seeking access to restricted areas or critical assets.
They go on to explain the difference in the first part from
the actual wording of the regulation by noting:
“The regulatory text makes no
distinction between facility personnel who are escorted and facility personnel
who are unescorted, and uses the term ‘unescorted’ to modify only the noun ‘visitors.’
As such, if facility personnel have access, either unescorted or escorted, to
restricted areas or critical assets, they are deemed to be affected individuals
who must be screened for the purposes of the Personnel Surety protocol.”
Commentary
The ISCD folks are being very careful with this distinction
because there were a number of comments that they had received during the
various information collection request comments periods that made it clear that
very many people were under the misapprehension that only facility personnel
that had unescorted access to critical areas would require personnel surety
checks.
I am more than a little surprised that ISCD did not also
take this opportunity to reinforce the other question that is closely related
to this one; are contractor personnel ‘facility personnel’ or ‘visitors’? They
made it clear in their Federal Register notice
that they intend to give facilities the widest possible latitude in determining
how contractors, even various groups of contractors will be handled for the
PSP. The facility will be required to provide an explanation of how contractors
are being handled in the revision to the Site Security Plan that will be made
to implement the new terrorist screening portion of the RBPS #12 requirements.
No comments:
Post a Comment