17680 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices 

1A 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. 

2For 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. 

3For more information about SSI see 49 CFR part 

1520 and the SSI Program Web page at http:// 

www.tsa.gov/ssi. 

4For more information about PCII see 6 CFR part 

29 and the PCII Program Web page at http:// 

ww.dhs.gov/pcii. 

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 

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 

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). 

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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices 17681 

5For more information about the TSDB, see DOJ/ 

FBI—019 Terrorist Screening Records System, 72 

FR 47073 (August 22, 2007). 

• 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 

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 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17682 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices 

6U.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). 

7Each 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. 

8For 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. 

9Elsewhere 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. 

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 

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 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices 17683 

10See footnote 1, supra. 

11CSAT 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#. 

• 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. 

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 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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. 

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. 

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 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices 17685 

12Examples 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). 

13The 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. 

14For more information about Redress Numbers, 

please go to http://www.dhs.gov/one-stop-travelersredress-process#1. 

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 

• 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 For a nonU.S. person 

Full Name .................................................................................... Required 

Date of Birth ................................................................................ Required 

Gender ......................................................................................... Must provide Citizenship or Gender ........................................... Optional. 

Citizenship ................................................................................... Required. 

Passport Information and/or Alien Registration Number ............. N/A .............................................................................................. Required. 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17686 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices 

15See 6 CFR 27.300–345. 

16More 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/privacydocuments-national-protection-and-programsdirectorate-nppd. 

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 

For affected individual enrolled in 

a Trusted Traveler Program 

(NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST, or 

Global Entry) 

Full Name ...................................... Required 

Date of Birth ................................... Required 

Expiration Date .............................. Required 

Unique Identifying Number ............ TWIC Serial Number: Required ... CDL Number: Required ................ PASS ID Number: 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

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices 17687 

17For 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. 

18The docket for the CFATS Personnel Surety 

Program System of Records Notice may be found at 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DHS2011-0032. 

19The 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. 

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 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 

Initial Submission Of Affected Individuals’ Information.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.

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.

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.

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.(2) DHS provides notification that it has implemented the CFATS Personnel Surety Program.(2) DHS provides notification that it has implemented the CFATS Personnel Surety Program.(2) DHS provides notification that it has implemented the CFATS Personnel Surety Program. 

Submission Of A New Affected Individual’s Information.48 hours prior to access to 

restricted areas or critical assets.

48 hours prior to access to 

restricted areas or critical assets.

48 hours prior to access to 

restricted areas or critical assets.

48 hours prior to access to 

restricted areas or critical assets. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17688 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices 

21A blank copy of Standard Form 83(i) may be 

found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/ 

files/omb/inforeg/83i-fill.pdf. 

22See CFATS Regulatory Assessment Section 5.1 

(April 1, 2007), http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!documentDetail;D=DHS-2006-0073-0116. 

TABLE 3—COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE FOR OPTION 1 AND OPTION 2 UNDER THE CFATS PERSONNEL SURETY PROGRAM— 

Continued 

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 

Submission Of Updates 

And Corrections To An 

Affected Individual’s Information.

Within 90 days of becoming aware of the need 

for an update or correction.

Within 90 days of becoming aware of the need 

for an update or correction.

Within 90 days of becoming aware of the need 

for an update or correction.

Within 90 days of becoming aware of the need 

for an update or correction. 

Submission Of Notification 

That An Affected Individual No Longer Has 

Access.

Within 90 days of access 

being removed.

Within 90 days of access 

being removed.

Within 90 days of access 

being removed.

Within 90 days of access 

being 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. 

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 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 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices 17689 

23The factor of 1.22 was used because (4,000 

facilities/3566 facilities) = 1.22. 

TABLE 4—NUMBER OF FACILITIES IN EACH MODEL FACILITY CATEGORY

2007 CFATS 

regulatory 

assessment 

2012 CFATS 

personnel 

surety 

program 

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. 

TABLE 5—NUMBER OF HIGH-RISK CHEMICAL FACILITIES IN EACH MODEL FACILITY CATEGORY

[Normalized to 4,000 facilities] 

2007 CFATS 

regulatory 

assessment 

2012 CFATS 

personnel 

surety 

program 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17690 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices 

24This cost estimate has been posted to Docket 

DHS–2012–0061, which may be accessed through 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. 

25See CFATS Regulatory Assessment Section 

6.3.7, Table 15 (April 1, 2007), http://www.

regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DHS-2006- 

0073-0116. 

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 

Frequent 

visitors 

Infrequent 

visitor 

annual 

turnover 

(20%) 

Frequent 

visitor 

annual 

turnover 

(71%) 

Unescorted 

visitor annual 

turnover 

Unescorted 

visitor 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 × 0.20, ** D = B × 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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices 17691 

26The 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. 

27See Response To Comments Received During 

30 Day Comment Period: New Information 

Collection Request 1670–NEW, 76 FR 34720, 34725 

(June 14, 2011). 

TABLE 7—2007 CFATS REGULATORY ASSESSMENT ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF FULL TIME EMPLOYEES AND RESIDENT

CONTRACTORS

Number of 

full time 

employees per 

facility 

Resident 

contractors 

per facility 

(as percent of 

full time employees) 

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) 

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 × 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

Number of 

full time 

employees 

per facility 

Resident 

contractors 

per facility 

(as percent of 

full time 

employees) 

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) 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17692 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices 

28Top-Screen is defined at 6 CFR 27.105. 

29Q: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 

TABLE 8—REVISED 2007 CFATS REGULATORY ASSESSMENT ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF FULL TIME EMPLOYEES AND

RESIDENT CONTRACTORS—Continued 

Number of 

full time 

employees 

per facility 

Resident 

contractors 

per facility 

(as percent of 

full time 

employees) 

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) 

A B C * D ** A + C + D 

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 × 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

Number of full 

time 

employees per 

facility 

Resident 

contractors per 

facility (as percent of full 

time employees) 

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) 

A B C* D** A + C + D E (A + C + D) × 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 × 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 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices 17693 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ 

chemsec_csattopscreenusersmanual.pdf. 

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

Response to 

top screen 

question 

Q:1.45–400 

Resident 

contractors per 

facility (as percent of full 

time employees) 

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) 

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

2007 CFATS 

regulatory 

assessment 

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) 

2012 CFATS 

personnel 

surety 

program 

analysis 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 

2007 CFATS 

regulatory 

assessment 

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) 

2012 CFATS 

personnel 

surety 

program 

analysis 

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 

Number of 

full time 

employees 

and resident 

contractors 

CFATS 

personnel 

surety 

program 

ICR 

withdrawn in 

July of 2012 

(including 

20% annual 

turnover) 

(Table 8) 

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) 

ACC 

Unescorted 

Visitor 

Estimate 

(including 

71% turnover for frequent visitors, 20% 

turnover for 

infrequent 

vistors) 

(Table 6) 

Number of 

facilities 

(Table 5) 

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 A B C (A + B) × C D E (D + E) × 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices 17695 

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) 

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) 

ACC 

Unescorted 

Visitor 

Estimate 

(including 

71% turnover for frequent visitors, 20% 

turnover for 

infrequent 

vistors) 

(Table 6) 

Number of 

facilities 

(Table 5) 

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 A B C (A + B) × C D E (D + E) × C 

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 

2012 

CFATS personnel surety program 

analysis average number of full 

time employees and 

contractors 

(including 

20% turnover) (Table 

10) 

Estimate of 

full time employees and 

contractors 

with access 

to restricted 

areas or 

critical assets (percent) 

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) 

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 

A B (A × B) = C D E (C + D) × E F G (F + G) × 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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) 

Estimate of 

full time 

employees 

and contractors with access to restricted 

areas or 

critical assets (percent) 

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) 

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 

A B (A × B) = C D E (C + D) × E F G (F + G) × 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 

Initial/year Year 2 Year 3 

Number of 

respondents 

(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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices 17697 

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) 

Estimate of 

full time 

employees 

and 

contractors 

with access 

to restricted 

areas or 

critical 

assets 

(percent) 

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) 

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 

A B (A × B) = C D E (C + D) × E F G (F + G) × 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

Total 

respondents 

year 1 

Total 

respondents 

year 2 

Total 

respondents 

year 3 

Number of 

respondents 

(annual 

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 onethird 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17698 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices 

30Facilities 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 TopScreen Survey Application User Guide v1.99. See http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ 

chemsec_csattopscreenusersmanual.pdf. 

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 

TABLE 18—ESTIMATE OF BURDEN

TIME PER RESPONSE—Continued 

Percent of 

population Duration 

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 × 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. 

TABLE 20—ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF HIGH-RISK CHEMICAL FACILITIES THAT MAY CHOOSE TO USE TWIC READERS

2012 CFATS 

personnel surety 

program analysis 

2012 CFATS 

personnel surety 

program analysis 

(normalized) 

A A × 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices 17699 

31See TWIC Reader Requirements NPRM Table 4. 

TABLE 20—ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF HIGH-RISK CHEMICAL FACILITIES THAT MAY CHOOSE TO USE TWIC READERS— 

Continued 

2012 CFATS 

personnel surety 

program analysis 

2012 CFATS 

personnel surety 

program analysis 

(normalized) 

A A × 1.22 

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, 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 

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. 

TABLE 21—CAPITAL COST BURDEN ESTIMATE FOR HIGH-RISK CHEMICAL FACILITIES THAT MAY CHOOSE TO USE TWIC 

READERS

Number of 

facilities 

Average TWIC 

reader 

implementation 

cost per facility 

Capital cost of 

TWIC reader 

implementation 

A B (A × 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17700 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices 

32 Information Collection 1670–0007 may be 

viewed at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201001-1670-007#. 

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 

Average TWIC 

reader 

implementation 

cost per facility 

Capital cost of 

TWIC reader 

implementation 

A B (A × 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 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Notices 17701 

TABLE 23—ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL BURDEN COST FOR TIER 1 & TIER 2 FACILITIES

Burden 

(hours) Wage rate Cost 

A B (A × 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 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. 

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 

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 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES