ISCD Publishes New PSP FAQ

Today the DHS Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (ISCD) posted a note on the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) Knowledge Center that they had published a new frequently asked question (FAQ) to assist facilities in understanding the requirements to verify if an affected individual is legally authorized to work. Actually, two new FAQs were published today and two existing FAQ responses updated.

The two new FAQs are:

FAQ #1787 How have covered chemical facilities generally complied with 6 CFR 27.230(a)(12(ii), which requires facilities to verify an affected individual is legally authorized to work?

FAQ #1788
How may a facility request an extension for a survey that is coming due?

#1787 addresses the advertised personnel surety issue. It notes that a facilities compliance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (PL 99-603 more specifically the new §274a or 8 USC 1324a) requirement to submit to E-Verify or have an I-9 form completed prior to allowing access to restricted area(s) and critical asset(s) will meet the requirements of §27.230(a)(12)(ii). It also lists an exception to that requirement for employees that have been continuously employed at the facility since November 7, 1986. NOTE: The link at the end of the FAQ response to the Immigration Reform and Control Act does not work.

#1788 addresses the issue of how to request an extension of a due date for a Top Screen or Security Vulnerability Assessment / Site Security Plan. The Submitter can submit the request via the Chemical Security Assessment Tool through the “Request Extension” button on the facility details page.

The two revised FAQ responses are for:

FAQ #1658 What is an Alternate Security Program (ASP)?

FAQ #1666 Does a covered chemical facility have an obligation to notify DHS if the facility is closing?

#1658 actually changed the FAQ question wording from the original: “What is required of an Alternative Security Program (ASP)?” The new response provides a generic description of the ASP and omits the link to the risk-based performance standards requirements of 6 CFR 27.230. A more complete answer should have included a link to the ASP requirements of §27.235.

#1666 is simply an editorial revision of the wording of the FAQ response to make it somewhat easier to read.