Office of Infrastructure Protection

National Protection and Programs Directorate

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528

CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI-TERRORISM STANDARDS

ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

LISTENING SESSION HELD IN NCR ON

SEPTEMBER 4, 2014

CONTENTS:

Agenda

Transcript
Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (CFATS ANPRM)

September 4, 2014 Listening Session 

Hosted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – National Capital Region, 2451 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22206

Agenda

8:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. Registration

9:00 a.m. – 9:20 a.m. Welcome, Introductions, and Overview

Kate Finnerty, Facilitator

Caitlin Durkovich, Assistant Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Office of 

Infrastructure Protection

Dave Wulf, Department of Homeland Security, Office of Infrastructure Protection

Scott Breor, Department of Homeland Security, Office of Infrastructure Protection

9:20 a.m. – 9:30 a.m. Listening Session Format

Kate Finnerty, Facilitator

9:30 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. Session 1

Comments from Listening Session Participants

11:00 a.m. – 11:15 a.m. BREAK

11:15 a.m. – 11:45 a.m. Open Session 1, as time permits

11:45 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. LUNCH

1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. Session 2 

Introduction of Panelists

Scott Breor, Department of Homeland Security, Office of Infrastructure Protection

Todd Klessman, Department of Homeland Security, Office of Infrastructure Protection

Comments from Listening Session Participants

3:00 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. BREAK

3:15 p.m. – 3:45 p.m. Open Session 2, as time permits

3:45 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. Closing Comments

4:00 p.m. Adjournment

Persons may also submit written comments to U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate, 

Office of Infrastructure Protection, Infrastructure Security Compliance Division, 245 Murray Lane, Mail Stop 0610, Arlington, VA 20528-0610 

or through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

For more information on the CFATS ANPRM, please visit https://www.dhs.gov/CFATS-Rulemaking.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF: )

 )

CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI- )

TERRORISM STANDARDS )

 )

ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED )

RULEMAKING )

 )

LISTENING SESSION )

 )

REVISED AND CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

Pages: 1 through 50

Place: Arlington, Virginia

Date: September 4, 2014 

HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION

Official Reporters

1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 600

Washington, D.C. 20005-4018

(202) 628-4888

contracts@hrccourtreporters.com
1

BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

IN THE MATTER OF: )

 )

CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI- )

TERRORISM STANDARDS )

 )

ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED )

RULEMAKING )

 )

LISTENING SESSION )

 )

U.S. Department of Homeland

 Security

National Capital Region

2451 Crystal Drive

Arlington, Virginia

Thursday,

September 4, 2014

The parties met, pursuant to the notice, at

9:05 a.m.

PARTICIPANTS: (Via Telephone)

KATE FINNERTY, Facilitator

For the Department of Homeland Security:

SCOTT BREOR

CAITLIN DURKOVICH

TODD KLESSMAN

DAVE WULF

Office of Infrastructure Protection

Speakers:

BILL ERNY, Senior Director

American Chemistry Council

JENNIFER GIBSON, Vice President, Regulatory

 Affairs, National Association of Chemical

 Distributors

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
2

SPEAKERS: (Cont'd)

JEFF GUNNULFSEN, Director of Security and Risk

 Management Issues, American Fuel and

 Petrochemical Manufacturers

EVAN D. WOLFF

Crowell & Moring, LLP

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
3

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 (9:05 a.m.)

3 MS. FINNERTY: Good morning, everyone. 

4 Welcome to the listening session for the Chemical 

5 Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Advance Notice of 

6 Proposed Rulemaking, or CFATS ANPRM, that was issued 

7 by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on

8 August 18, 2014. We're glad that you are able to join 

9 us today.

10 This is the first listening session in a 

11 series that will be held across the country, including 

12 six in person and two by webinar. My name is Kate 

13 Finnerty with Energetics, Incorporated. DHS, who is 

14 leading this effort, has arranged for me to moderate 

15 today's listening session.

16 I would also like to welcome those that are 

17 able to join us on the phone. As a reminder, you are 

18 in listen-only mode.

19 Before we get started, I would like to make 

20 a couple of announcements. All stakeholders are 

21 welcome to submit comments on the CFATS ANPRM. 

22 Besides commenting in person at a listening session, 

23 there are two other ways to submit written comments. 

24 Both are listed on the agenda and in the Federal 

25 Register notice. In brief, they are the federal eHeritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
4

1 rulemaking portal at www.regulations.gov and a 

2 physical mailing address should you not have internet 

3 access.

4 The deadline to submit comments is

5 October 17, 2014, which is 60 calendar days after the 

6 publication of the ANPRM in the Federal Register. The 

7 comments provided during the listening session are 

8 being transcribed for note-taking purposes. A 

9 transcript of each listening session will be posted to 

10 a docket in the Federal Register.

11 For those in the room, please always use the 

12 available microphone. For those joining us via phone, 

13 please excuse any technical difficulties. The 

14 transcript will include all comments made today.

15 In case of emergency, you'll exit out of 

16 these double doors to my left and exit the building to 

17 the left. For restrooms, again, you'll exit out these 

18 double doors and head to the right. We have staff

19 located in the lobby should you need assistance.

20 As a courtesy to all of those participating, 

21 please put your phones on silent, and please be 

22 careful with food and beverages in the auditorium.

23 The purpose of today's listening session is 

24 to gather public comments, data, or views on how the 

25 current CFATS regulation, 6 CFR Part 27, which was 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
5

1 issued in 2007, might be modified. Issuing the ANPRM 

2 enables the Department of Homeland Security to provide 

3 stakeholders with an opportunity to provide comments 

4 and suggestions for identifying ways to make the 

5 program more effective in achieving its regulatory 

6 activities and objectives.

7 We are going to begin today with some 

8 opening remarks, which will include a brief overview 

9 of the status of the CFATS program. The remainder of 

10 the session will be dedicated to hearing from 

11 stakeholders.

12 At this time, I would like to introduce the 

13 Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection at 

14 the Department of Homeland Security, Ms. Caitlin 

15 Durkovich, Assistant Secretary.

16 MS. DURKOVICH: Okay. Thank you, Kate. 

17 Good morning, everybody. Very nice to see you here 

18 for the first listening session for the advance notice 

19 of proposed rulemaking. Because this is the beginning 

20 of a rulemaking effort and because this is one of 

21 several listening sessions that we will be doing 

22 around the country, I have been asked to stick to the 

23 script. So, if I read a bit here, apologies, but 

24 again we're trying to ensure consistency as we go out 

25 across the country.

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
6

1 I think many of you in this room, looking at 

2 some familiar faces, could probably get these on your 

3 own, but bear with me as I go through these.

4 Again, it is a pleasure to see all of you 

5 this morning. This is a very important effort as we 

6 engage in the rulemaking process and think about the 

7 next generation of CFATS. As many of our stakeholders 

8 know, CFATS is helping make this country more secure. 

9 We do face a persistent and evolving threat from 

10 terrorist groups and cells, and chemical facilities 

11 potentially are attractive targets both as a 

12 successful attack on some chemical facilities could 

13 potentially cause a significant number of deaths and 

14 injuries and also given the fact that certain chemical 

15 facilities possess materials that could be stolen or 

16 diverted or converted into weapons for use offsite.

17 And let me tell you that this threat is as 

18 real today as it was seven years ago. Violent 

19 extremists have recently released several digital 

20 magazines to inspire and justify attacks by westerners 

21 in their homelands, and they talk about the ease of 

22 use and the availability of filler material. And very 

23 shortly we will be releasing a product on precursor 

24 materials, and many of the chemicals that are 

25 contained in or that are used by the facilities 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
7

1 regulated under CFATS are a target here.

2 Section 550 of the DHS Appropriations Act of 

3 2007 authorizes the department to regulate security at 

4 high-risk chemical facilities. Again, as many of you 

5 know in this room, under section 550, covered 

6 facilities must perform security vulnerability 

7 assessments and implement site security plans or SSPs 

8 containing security measures that meet the DHS-defined 

9 risk-based performance standards, and there are 18 of 

10 them.

11 The department developed the Chemical 

12 Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards -- that's 6 CFR Part 

13 27 -- to implement this authority. As many of you 

14 know, to determine if a facility is subject to CFATS, 

15 DHS looks at the unique circumstances faced by the 

16 facility, starting with the quantities of chemicals of 

17 interest the facility possesses.

18 Potential regulation is not based on the 

19 facility type, meaning that many different types of 

20 facilities may be subject to CFATS -- and this list is 

21 always very interesting to me -- including chemical 

22 manufacturers, warehouses and distributors, chemical 

23 repackaging operations, oil and gas operations, 

24 hospitals, semiconductor manufacturers, paint 

25 manufacturers, colleges and universities, and mining 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
8

1 facilities.

2 Congress, however, did exempt several types 

3 of facilities from regulations. Those are facilities 

4 that are regulated under the Maritime Transportation 

5 Security Act or MTSA, facilities that are subject to 

6 regulation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

7 facilities that are owned or operated by either the 

8 Department of Defense or the Department of Energy, and 

9 public water systems and water treatment works 

10 regulated under certain federal water quality laws 

11 administrated by the Environmental Protection Agency.

12 Since the inception of CFATS, more than 

13 3,000 facilities have voluntarily removed or reduced 

14 the onsite quantities of the chemicals of interest or 

15 modified processes to the point that they are no 

16 longer considered high-risk. These actions have 

17 helped reduce the number of high-risk chemical 

18 facilities throughout the nation and have 

19 correspondingly made the nation more secure.

20 As of September 2, 2014, CFATS covers 3,882 

21 facilities. We have 3,157 final-tiered facilities and 

22 725 preliminary-tiered facilities across all 50 

23 states. DHS has received and is in the process of 

24 reviewing an estimated 4,600 SSPs and alternative 

25 security programs. Of these, 2,039 SSPs have been 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
9

1 authorized and 1,060 have been approved.

2 The first authorization inspection was 

3 conducted during the summer of 2010, and as of 

4 September 2, this Tuesday, 1,455 authorization 

5 inspections have been conducted.

6 We continue to strengthen the CFATS program. 

7 Dave and his team at ISCD are working to continuously 

8 strengthen the program and improve the implementation 

9 of CFATS. Although work remains to be done, in the 

10 past two years we have made significant progress. 

11 This includes improving the SSP review process and 

12 increasing the pace of SSP reviews and approvals.

13 We continue robust engagement with industry 

14 on the development of the ASP templates. We are 

15 working with experts to evaluate and validate and 

16 recommend ways to improve our tiering methodology, and 

17 we are in the process of implementing some of those 

18 recommendations. And we continue to look for and 

19 introduce game-changing initiatives, such as one-day 

20 inspections with small inspection teams, identifying a 

21 corporate approach for companies with multiple 

22 facilities, and increasing pre-inspection coordination 

23 and outreach.

24 We also, as I mentioned earlier, continue to 

25 work on the alternative security program, which we 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
10

1 believe is one path to compliance, but we are also 

2 exploring with industry the possibility of creating 

3 segment-specific ASPs that include options for best 

4 practices that may apply to certain types of 

5 facilities. We have met with various industry 

6 associations, such as the National Association of 

7 Chemical Distributors, on this topic and continue to 

8 look for new opportunities for engagement.

9 Did we lose the mic?

10 MALE VOICE: I think we did.

11 MS. DURKOVICH: Does that mean I should stop 

12 talking?

13 MS. FINNERTY: We have one more.

14 MS. DURKOVICH: Is that what that signal --

15 what that signals? All right. Am I back on? No.

16 MS. FINNERTY: We do have --

17 MALE VOICE: Do we have to stop?

18 MS. FINNERTY: Okay.

19 MS. DURKOVICH: Do we have to stop, or 

20 should I just talk even louder?

21 THE COURT REPORTER: I can hear you.

22 MS. DURKOVICH: You can hear me? I think 

23 it's the phone. Is the phone fine?

24 MS. FINNERTY: The phone will be fine. 

25 Just project.

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
11

1 MS. DURKOVICH: Project, okay. The work 

2 industry has done with the department to develop ASP 

3 templates is a prime example of how an agency 

4 implementing a regulatory program like CFATS can work 

5 with industry to develop the tools that answer 

6 regulatory needs while also accounting for industry 

7 realities and how industry associations can support 

8 the DHS mission.

9 As we look to the next generation of CFATS, 

10 we are also working on permanent authorization for the 

11 CFATS program, and we remain committed to working with 

12 Congress and other security partners to establish 

13 permanent authority for the CFATS program. As many of 

14 you know in this room, we believe that permanent 

15 authorization will provide you, industry, with the 

16 necessary stability to move forward in effectively 

17 implementing CFATS and will send a clear message to 

18 facilities that may be seeking to avoid their 

19 obligation to report dangerous chemicals that CFATS is 

20 here to stay.

21 HR 4007, the CFATS Authorization and 

22 Accountability Act of 2014, was passed in the U.S. 

23 House of Representatives on July 8, 2014. The bill 

24 would permanently authorize the CFATS program and 

25 authorize appropriations for three fiscal years. The 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
12

1 Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government 

2 Affairs passed the Senate version of the bill, 

3 Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from 

4 Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014, on July 30 of this 

5 year. We are very grateful to Congress for 

6 recognizing the progress of the program, and we 

7 encourage them to move towards permanently authorizing 

8 the program when they return.

9 A few words about Executive Order 13650, 

10 Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security. In 

11 August of last year, as many of you know, the 

12 President issued this executive order to improve the 

13 safety and security of chemical facilities and to 

14 reduce risk to workers, communities, and first 

15 responders. The effort, the implementation effort, 

16 was chaired by three departments, myself and DHS being 

17 one, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 

18 Department of Labor's OSHA.

19 I think many of you know that we spent a 

20 bulk of the earlier part of this year working to 

21 implement and provide a final status report to the 

22 President, which we delivered on June 6 of this year. 

23 The status report recognizes that information, 

24 actions, and experiences of our stakeholders are 

25 essential to understanding, managing, and mitigating 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
13

1 the risks of potential chemical facility hazards. The 

2 status report highlights the activities that are 

3 already underway to improve chemical facility safety 

4 and security and provides a plan for moving forward to 

5 continue the initial progress.

6 There are 25 priority action areas in five 

7 thematic areas that include how we strengthen 

8 community planning and preparedness, how we enhance 

9 federal operational coordination, how we improve data 

10 management, and how we modernize policy and 

11 regulations and ensure that we continue to incorporate 

12 stakeholder feedback and develop best practices.

13 The status report was not a milestone or an 

14 endpoint, and in fact, the tri-chairs continue to meet 

15 and we have implemented regional efforts as well. The 

16 most important lesson learned from this effort is that 

17 every stakeholder group in the chemical facility 

18 community has a role to play in ensuring safe and 

19 secure operations. It is a shared commitment. It is 

20 not just something that government on its own can do, 

21 and we need the commitment of all of those involved.

22 Let me close with a few notes about the 

23 advance notice of proposed rulemaking. As we work to 

24 continue to mature the CFATS regulatory program, we 

25 have initiated this rulemaking process to help 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
14

1 identify how to make the CFATS program more effective 

2 in achieving the regulatory objectives. We believe 

3 that after seven years of experience in implementing 

4 the CFATS program, both the department, but the 

5 regulated community as well, has gained firsthand 

6 insight into how a nonprescriptive security regulation 

7 can be most effective. The ANPRM will provide an 

8 opportunity for the department to hear and consider 

9 the views of the regulated industry and other 

10 interested members of the public on their 

11 recommendations for program modifications.

12 As Kate mentioned, we invite interested 

13 persons to submit written comments, data, or views on 

14 how the current regulation, 6 CFR Part 27, might be 

15 improved. The public is encouraged to comment on all 

16 aspects of the program, and the rulemaking covers all 

17 regulatory and guidance documents, including Appendix 

18 A and the list of COI covered by the program.

19 We have highlighted several topics on which 

20 public comments could be particularly helpful, 

21 including the general regulatory approach, the 

22 treatment of nontraditional chemical facilities, the 

23 clarification of terminology, risk-based performance 

24 standards, Appendix A, consideration for small 

25 businesses, and alignment with other regulatory 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
15

1 programs.

2 As Kate mentioned, and I will just footstomp 

3 this, written comments can be submitted online through 

4 the federal e-rulemaking portal at 

5 http://www.regulations.gov or by mail to the U.S. 

6 Department of Homeland Security, and there is an 

7 address which I'm sure we will provide you. Please 

8 note that any personal information included in 

9 submissions will be publicly available.

10 So let me end by again thanking you for 

11 taking time to be here today. As we have continued to 

12 implement this program, the input that we have 

13 gathered from stakeholders has been critical to 

14 continuing to advance it, and this is the next chapter 

15 in that process. We thank you for your time, for your 

16 consideration, and we look forward to your comments 

17 and suggestions on how we can continue to mature the 

18 CFATS program. Back over to you.

19 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you, Assistant 

20 Secretary. I have one piece of paper, but --

21 MS. DURKOVICH: You need it.

22 MS. FINNERTY: I need it.

23 MS. DURKOVICH: Okay.

24 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you very much.

25 MS. DURKOVICH: You're welcome.

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
16

1 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you, Assistant 

2 Secretary Durkovich, for your remarks today. Also 

3 serving on our panel are two representatives of the 

4 DHS Infrastructure Security and Compliance Division. 

5 Mr. Dave Wulf serves as the ISCD director, and Mr. --

6 FEMALE VOICE: Hello, stranger.

7 MS. FINNERTY: And Mr. Scott Breor serves as 

8 the deputy director. Thank you for joining us today.

9 The remainder of the session today is set 

10 aside to hear from the stakeholders, as the Assistant 

11 Secretary mentioned, and before we open the floor to 

12 hear from the stakeholders, I would like to outline 

13 the format and the ground rules for today's session. 

14 This is a listening session with the purpose to hear a 

15 diverse set of opinions from across the broad spectrum 

16 of stakeholders who have an interest in improving and 

17 streamlining the CFATS rule.

18 We hope to hear a range of suggestions 

19 today, and all viewpoints are welcome. As such, we 

20 are not seeking consensus on any of the topics that 

21 the Assistant Secretary outlined.

22 There are a variety of stakeholders 

23 participating today with a variety of viewpoints, and 

24 in order for today to be constructive, we ask that 

25 everyone respect each other's opinions. All 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
17

1 presenters are asked to comment directly on the topics 

2 related to the rule. I will also note that specific 

3 suggestions and supporting data are the most helpful 

4 comments today.

5 We hope to have time to hear from everyone 

6 who would like to speak today, but if we cannot get to 

7 you, please, you are encouraged to provide comments 

8 via the two mechanisms that the Assistant Secretary 

9 and I have mentioned. They are noted on the agenda.

10 The rest of the day will include morning and 

11 afternoon sessions. At the beginning of each session, 

12 I will ask those who signed up to speak to come 

13 forward and sit at the front row of seats. 

14 Individuals will have a maximum of five minutes to 

15 present to the panel, which does include any 

16 introduction to your comments. Members of the panel 

17 may then ask clarifying questions.

18 I will then open the floor to anyone who 

19 would like to speak on the topics, and again, 

20 individuals will be asked to join us at the front row, 

21 and you will have five minutes to present. To help us 

22 stay on track today and make sure that everyone does 

23 have an opportunity to speak, we have a dedicated 

24 staff to watch the time carefully, and our timekeeper 

25 is sitting over to my left, hopefully in the good 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
18

1 sight line of the speakers. She will raise a yellow 

2 card when you have one minute remaining and a red card 

3 when your time is up. We also have a clock here next 

4 to me so that you can monitor your time as you wish. 

5 We again ask that you respect everyone's time and stay 

6 within the designated timeframe.

7 So, if there are no questions about the 

8 process, we'll go ahead and get started. I would like 

9 to ask the following individuals who registered to 

10 present to please come forward and join us in any 

11 order in the front row. We have Mr. Erny, Ms. Gibson, 

12 Mr. Gunnulfsen, Ms. Hilton, and Mr. Wolff. If any of 

13 you are joining us today, please join us here at the 

14 front row. We do have our microphones working.

15 Okay. Our first speaker may join us. If 

16 you would like to stand up, if that's most comfortable 

17 for you. I think it will be easier for everyone to 

18 hear. And you have five minutes.

19 MR. ERNY: Five minutes. When does the 

20 clock start? Give me a raise --

21 MS. FINNERTY: Right now.

22 MR. ERNY: Go.

23 MS. FINNERTY: Go.

24 MR. ERNY: So I'm going to immediately start 

25 breaking all the rules, right? Unfortunately, I don't 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
19

1 think ACC has had enough time to really put together a 

2 lot of detail, the level of detail that you guys are 

3 looking for, but we are going to be spending a lot of 

4 time to do that over the course of the next several 

5 weeks, and our written comments will have a lot of 

6 good stuff I think for you guys to consider.

7 With that said, I do want to cover some 

8 basic sort of fundamental things, issues that I think 

9 would have the most impact in the near term to improve 

10 the program. Unfortunately or fortunately depending 

11 on your viewpoint, the regulatory process is a long 

12 process. It can take two or three years perhaps by 

13 beginning, starting the process until folks actually 

14 have to implement anything.

15 I think that many of the issues addressed in 

16 the advance notice will likely have limited impact 

17 from where we are today, all right? And we'll 

18 elaborate on that in the proposed rule. It doesn't 

19 mean they're not important, but if you look two or 

20 three years down the road, I think hopefully you guys 

21 are going to be through the vast majority of initial 

22 approvals of site security plans. So now we're 

23 talking about new programs, new facilities coming into 

24 the program, that sort of thing.

25 So anyway, from that perspective, I do want 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
20

1 to cover some high-level issues. Before I do that, I 

2 just want to commend you guys for all the work that 

3 you've done. You've made considerable progress. You 

4 really have stepped up to the plate to provide 

5 leadership, which was sorely needed 18 months ago, and 

6 you've done that.

7 You've listened to industry. You've 

8 partnered with us. I think we've provided you a lot 

9 of great insights of our lessons learned with the 

10 process. Some of the most significant advances I 

11 think has to do with your embracing the ASP process, 

12 the corporate review process, the pre-inspection 

13 planning initiatives. All of that has really helped I 

14 think tremendously to move the program forward.

15 However, more needs to be done, and I think 

16 we all recognize that. I think the prospect of taking 

17 another three, four, or five years to get through the 

18 rest of these approvals in the tier-three and tier19 four category just is going to be unacceptable. We've 

20 got to figure out a way to streamline these lower-tier 

21 risk facilities and get them through the process and 

22 get them started.

23 Some of the issues I think that you can 

24 focus on in the near term to do that is certainly the 

25 risk hearing methodology. These companies and 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
21

1 security managers need to understand what risks 

2 they're trying to protect against and what are the 

3 threats. So, from that perspective, having sort of an 

4 undefined risk hearing process is problematic. And 

5 you guys all know that, and I know you're moving 

6 forward with the expert panel. I would just encourage 

7 you to expedite that to the extent possible and get 

8 through that.

9 But there are some other issues that I think 

10 you can probably address through technical amendments 

11 to the rule, things like clarifying the retermination 

12 process, material modifications, clarifying things 

13 like what's a commercial-grade item, you know, what is 

14 a mixture. How do you determine a mixture and whether 

15 it applies to CFATS rule? These are the kinds of 

16 issues that I hear from my members frequently.

17 What does the yellow mean?

18 MS. FINNERTY: One minute.

19 MR. ERNY: Okay. So I'm going to jump down 

20 to the most important aspect. I had to skip through 

21 some of this. Maybe I can come back.

22 Personal surety. We've been going through 

23 this far too long. This has got to be resolved. And 

24 I realize it's caught in the political process right 

25 now. I can tell you that my members in ACC are 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
22

1 concerned about this. We've got increased threats, 

2 ISIS. We've got potentially hundreds of Americans 

3 that perhaps have no criminal backgrounds, anything, 

4 can apply for jobs within the chemical industry.

5 We've got to be able to get by the political 

6 process. And I can tell you that my membership is 

7 willing to voluntarily submit employee information to 

8 the department to have them vet it against the TSDB 

9 data. We can talk about how to do that in a way that 

10 doesn't violate the Paperwork Reduction Act, et 

11 cetera. So I look forward to working with you in the 

12 future to be able to do that. Thank you.

13 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you, sir. And we will 

14 have some time after all of the registered speakers in 

15 order to gather additional comments.

16 Does the panel have questions?

17 MR. WULF: I don't know if I -- oh, I don't 

18 know if I have questions, but I do want to thank you, 

19 Bill, for the very thoughtful comments and all of the 

20 input we've received from ACC, from yourself and your 

21 membership over the last couple years. It's been 

22 absolutely key to helping us move the program forward, 

23 as has input from across the stakeholder community, 

24 the community certainly.

25 You know, we recognize the need to continue 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
23

1 to work though the backlog. You know, we have very 

2 much stepped up the pace. You know, it will take two 

3 to three years to get through the backlog, but we're 

4 going to continue to look at game-changing initiatives 

5 to further implement things like the corporate 

6 approach to look at ASPs, and hopefully that will get 

7 us through the backlog even more quickly.

8 You know, with respect to the technical 

9 amendments you mentioned, I'd be interested in any 

10 further thoughts about how we go about that. One of 

11 the things we have been looking at as we continue to 

12 try to mature the program is getting into a regular 

13 cycle of pushing out guidance publicly, whether 

14 through interpretive opinions, rulings, whatever we 

15 call them, and getting those published.

16 So I would be very, very interested in 

17 thoughts on how we best approach that. OMB sometimes 

18 has something to say about what is and is not 

19 significant guidance, and, you know, any input on that 

20 and how we could develop a streamlined process for 

21 getting that sort of guidance out to stakeholders 

22 would be appreciated. I know I'm not really supposed 

23 to be making speeches but to listen today.

24 (Laughter.)

25 MR. WULF: I apologize.

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
24

1 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you. Our next speaker, 

2 please? I would note our IT system, as we're already 

3 noting, is a little bit finicky this morning, so to 

4 make sure everybody can hear, including everybody 

5 behind you, make sure that you -- I just want to 

6 remind all speakers to use the microphones. Thank 

7 you.

8 MS. GIBSON: No problem. Good morning. I'm 

9 Jennifer Gibson. I'm Vice President of Regulatory 

10 Affairs for the National Association of Chemical 

11 Distributors. We have been very involved with the 

12 CFATS program from the beginning. We have several 

13 member facilities who are regulated by the program, 

14 ranging from large companies that have 40 or so 

15 facilities to small individual owners. Most of our 

16 members are small businesses, and a good portion of 

17 them are family-owned.

18 So like you all, we haven't had a whole lot 

19 of time to digest all the questions asked in the 

20 announced notice, and we will be submitting written 

21 comments and look forward to doing that as we collect 

22 input from our members, and we are also encouraging 

23 our members out there to participate in the listening 

24 sessions and give you the real-world perspective since 

25 they are the ones actually on the ground dealing with 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
25

1 the regulation.

2 I'm just going to make a few general 

3 comments. You'll hear more from us later. But first 

4 of all, like Bill, I commend you on the progress 

5 you've made with this program. It got off to a rocky 

6 start six, seven years ago but in the past two years 

7 have made lots and lots of progress. The fact that 

8 you all have approved over 1,000 site security plans 

9 is great evidence of that. And I think the steps 

10 you've taken to really try to better coordinate 

11 inspectors and inspections among companies that have 

12 multiple facilities, that's been a good development.

13 Also the continued use and encouragement of 

14 the ASPs, alternate security programs. I know there 

15 was a lot of confusion at first about that because of 

16 the way the SVAs were structured that only tier-fours 

17 could submit that. I think there was an impression 

18 for quite some time that only tier-fours could submit 

19 actual plans. So that, I think companies now realize 

20 that's open to everyone. We look forward to 

21 continuing to work on that.

22 But one thing you could do there is as more 

23 and more ASPs are developed, to the extent that you 

24 could share examples with the regulated community to 

25 make it easier, that would be helpful and further 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
26

1 encourage companies to adopt those.

2 Regarding your outreach, we commend you for 

3 really working with industry to work through some of 

4 the problems with CFATS. You've always made 

5 yourselves available at industry meetings, through the 

6 Chemical Security Summit, with encouraging the use of 

7 compliance assistance visits. That's been very 

8 helpful, and we encourage you to continue that as the 

9 program moves forward.

10 Just a couple of challenges with CFATS. You 

11 all are well aware of this. The tiering methodology 

12 is troubling. You know, that's been an issue for 

13 quite some time. A couple of years ago, several 

14 facilities have even had retiering notices after they 

15 had made the investment for a certain tier. And I 

16 know we're about to convene -- you're about to convene 

17 an expert panel to look at this once and for all, and 

18 hopefully that will be resolved and that can be 

19 transparent as possible while balancing the security 

20 issues involved in that.

21 And also, just the whole uncertainty, the 

22 regulatory uncertainty, with that. The facilities are 

23 out there wondering, okay, am I tier four, am I tier 

24 one. What's going to happen? But I know you all are 

25 well aware of that and will work with the industry to 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
27

1 make sure there is a smooth transition for anyone who 

2 is affected there.

3 And finally, the other issue that I heard 

4 from my members that I think could be improved is just 

5 the whole resubmittal and resubmission process. It's 

6 a very, very cumbersome process, and I think switching 

7 to the ASP will resolve a lot of that. The SSP, it's 

8 been discovered it can result in 900 pages that 

9 neither agrees with the plan, nor something that the 

10 inspectors can really inspect against.

11 But as companies do switch to ASPs, which do 

12 produce real plans and makes it more clear for the 

13 inspectors to look at all these issues, there needs to 

14 be a way to better get them in the system in a more 

15 efficient way. I know you all are aware of that, but 

16 that's kind of the level of confusion now. Should I 

17 switch to an ASP? Well, the timing of all this, how 

18 does it work, so anything you can do to make that more 

19 smooth would be much appreciated.

20 And that's really all I have today. As I 

21 said, you'll hear from us some more, and we do look 

22 forward to submitting written comments.

23 MR. BREOR: Thank you so much, Jennifer.

24 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you. Does the panel 

25 have followup questions or statements?

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
28

1 MR. WULF: I'm going to try not to make a 

2 statement because --

3 (Laughter.)

4 MS. FINNERTY: Every time?

5 MR. WULF: No, I won't, I won't. Thank you, 

6 Jennifer. That's very, very much appreciated.

7 I could try to ask a question. I'm supposed 

8 to ask questions. You know, with respect to the 

9 tiering methodology -- and, you know, we are about to 

10 launch the -- I'm going to get the term -- the tier 

11 advisory board, and as we continue to move through the 

12 process of implementing the recommendations of the 

13 peer review panel, what do you all think -- and I 

14 don't know if I'm allowed to jump ahead and include 

15 the soon-to-be-speakers -- are the biggest challenges 

16 for us in the tiering process? We're certainly 

17 committed to trying to enhance transparency.

18 MS. GIBSON: From our perspective, the 

19 biggest concern -- and you're aware of this -- is that 

20 what's going to change.

21 MR. WULF: Yeah.

22 MS. GIBSON: And what about these companies 

23 who have made investments and then they turn out not 

24 to be regulated?

25 MR. WULF: Yeah.

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
29

1 MS. GIBSON: And those who didn't think they 

2 would be regulated all of a sudden are.

3 MR. WULF: Sure.

4 MS. GIBSON: I guess having a smooth 

5 transition would be --

6 MR. WULF: Yeah.

7 MS. GIBSON: -- would be the most important 

8 part.

9 MR. WULF: Yeah.

10 MS. GIBSON: I know you all know that.

11 MS. FINNERTY: Great. Thank you.

12 Did you want to hear from the rest of the 

13 panel or wait until they speak?

14 MR. WULF: That works for me.

15 MR. GUNNULFSEN: Just real quick. From our 

16 perspective, the same thing as Jennifer's members. 

17 The process kind of going forward once you decide what 

18 things need to be done and how that will be 

19 implemented, whether that's kind of a piecemeal or 

20 bowling approach or how that will be done and how that 

21 will be communicated is --

22 MR. WULF: Yeah.

23 MR. GUNNULFSEN: -- the main concern right 

24 now.

25 MR. WULF: Yeah.

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
30

1 MR. WOLFF: Just a different point is as you 

2 go with a transparent system and you end up with 

3 facilities that are going to be regulated, you're also 

4 going to end up with facilities, especially the 

5 nonchemical facilities, that are going to be now 

6 interfacing with state and local and other elements of 

7 the national security assemblage and they're probably 

8 not prepared to do that.

9 And so I think I guess the point is when we 

10 go through and both take away the transparency of just 

11 facilities ending up on the list but ending up 

12 actually understanding why, states are going to start 

13 to follow that process.

14 So I think you really need to think through 

15 what are the unintended consequences of the 

16 transparency, which I, along with everyone else, think 

17 is a really good thing. But there needs to be a 

18 dialogue with some of the other organizations, 

19 including EPA, as a part of this process, but also the 

20 state and local organizations because that's going to 

21 be I think a challenge for some of the state 

22 regulators to not say, oh, this is a great idea, we're 

23 going to pick up on this. And I don't think that's 

24 your intent, and I don't think that's sort of a use of 

25 the program, but there could be sort of a pitfall that 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
31

1 is involved.

2 MS. FINNERTY: Great. Thank you. Did you 

3 have a comment as well?

4 MR. ERNY: Yeah. Maybe something real 

5 quick.

6 MS. FINNERTY: Please, if you would, answer 

7 the question directly. Thank you.

8 MR. ERNY: Sure. Bill Erny with ACC. And 

9 kind of along the same lines as on the transparency 

10 issue. You know, I think that, you know, to the 

11 extent that you can get the facility security 

12 organization manager or the director or somebody at 

13 the site that has a responsibility for security at 

14 that site directly involved when you're talking 

15 through the tiering, the risk, you know, they're the 

16 guys who are going to be, you know, implementing 

17 measures, putting capital investments in place, 

18 getting approvals from management, so they're the guys 

19 on the front line. They need to understand what the 

20 risks and threats are.

21 So I would highly encourage you to engage 

22 them in a lot more detail around why they're tiered, 

23 what are the threats, and how they can best implement 

24 some of the security practices. All right. Thank 

25 you.

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
32

1 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you.

2 Our next speaker.

3 MR. GUNNULFSEN: Hi. My name is Jeff 

4 Gunnulfsen. I'm with American Fuel and Petrochemical 

5 Manufacturers, so we represent both refineries and 

6 special chemical sites, so we are on both sides of the 

7 aisle affected by CFATS and other regulatory security 

8 programs. We've been involved with the CFATS program 

9 since the very beginning. We've had members that were 

10 involved with the RAMCAP program a long time ago and 

11 generally support the program and this general 

12 regulatory approach and review that's happening, which 

13 I think is long overdue, and it's the right time to do 

14 it anyway. We've had a lot of inside the building 

15 discussions, but it's time to put something really on 

16 paper and start going forward.

17 A couple -- these are general thoughts. 

18 We're still getting our arms around all of this, 

19 putting it more succinct, but some general regulatory 

20 approach-type issues. In the ANPRM is some questions 

21 of us eliminating the authorization inspection staff. 

22 In general, we would support that, but what we have 

23 found is even our members, which are big multinational 

24 guys, like the conversation during those steps.

25 So whether there is some type of compliance 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
33

1 assistance visit that takes that place or some type of 

2 dialogue where folks come to the site and they can run 

3 some questions and understand some issues. They still 

4 want that to be part of the process.

5 Also, maybe a way to quicken the general 

6 overall process is to add some timelines or deadlines 

7 for ASP and SSP reviews going forward. That may 

8 quicken the process all around. Obviously we support 

9 dealing with the internal modification issue as the 

10 program matures. That will become more and more of a 

11 technical legal issue. We had a proposal we submitted 

12 in 2010 to DHS -- I will submit it again with these 

13 comments -- that talks about ranges and what you can 

14 do there, similar to some other recording type 

15 programs within other agencies, like EPA.

16 Clarification of terminology is huge. We 

17 have this fuel terminal issue that's staying out there 

18 that some of these terms really affect them, like 

19 commercial grade of a particular amount, but also it 

20 affects the chemical mixtures as well. So that really 

21 needs to be clarified, along with some other terms, 

22 like what is a high-risk facility, security breach. 

23 All of these need to be looked at and discussed a 

24 little bit further and really told to the stakeholders 

25 what is meant by that and what is meant by that when 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
34

1 you're looking at the risk of that site.

2 In terms of all the streamlining, the risk3 based performance standard, we have found that some of 

4 them -- and you probably have seen this too -- are 

5 identical and overlap, particularly your RBPS 1, 2, 

6 and 4. All of those could probably be combined. 

7 You've probably seen that in some of the ASPs anyways.

8 So, if you could maybe the next go-around of 

9 the RBPS guide, which I would recommend probably with 

10 some lessons learned and some input from industry 

11 could probably be done, eliminate some of those, and 

12 also, if you can, put in some examples for all those 

13 RBPS areas. I know you can't say because of risk14 based, performance-based, but folks like to see 

15 examples. The original draft guides did have 

16 examples, and folks thought that was helpful 

17 originally.

18 Alignment with other regulatory programs, 

19 that's in the ANPRM as well. Two areas or maybe three 

20 areas that come to mind, looking at the EPA RMP 

21 program, with other -- with our Appendix A list of 

22 chemicals, particularly with fuels. I have to bring 

23 that up, the PSP issue as well.

24 There are other programs that vet against 

25 the TSDB that need to be recognized as well, which 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
35

1 you've heard us say that many times. But also we're 

2 seeing a big push on transparency, which is good and 

3 bad as well because a lot of security or perhaps 

4 security-sensitive information now wants to be shared 

5 with the public, like pipeline mapping and railroads 

6 and all of that. So I think we need to look at what

7 is CVI, what is SSI, and FOUO, the President's 

8 executive order, can help with all of that, and we're 

9 looking for you to kind of lead that charge.

10 Let's see. And also, we would support one 

11 another, as I said too, such as getting the most out 

12 of the time that we have to work on this. The 

13 regulatory program does take a long time. Some of 

14 these do need to be done to the regulatory program, 

15 some of these do not. And ASPs, corporate reviews, 

16 eliminating RV gases, eliminating some timelines or 

17 setting some timelines probably could all be done, and 

18 more compliance assistance without FR notice and 

19 comment review. That's all I got for now.

20 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you, sir.

21 Does the panel have comments or questions?

22 MR. BREOR: I have just a clarifying. 

23 Thanks, Jeff. I really appreciate the input. Just a 

24 question and a comment with the EPA RMP program. Are 

25 you speaking to the fact that -- just recognizing that 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
36

1 we do both have the same chemicals or more to the fact 

2 that maybe some of the things that they identify on 

3 the safety side is overlapping what we look at on the 

4 security side?

5 MR. GUNNULFSEN: A little bit of both, not 

6 just the chemical risk but more specifically their 

7 view of fuels and mixtures too and why that was not 

8 included in the RMP. But I would look at both of 

9 those issues.

10 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you.

11 Any other comments?

12 (No response.)

13 MS. FINNERTY: The next presenter, please.

14 MR. WOLFF: Hi. My name is Evan D. Wolff 

15 with the incorrect and organized nongovernment 

16 spelling -- have no relationship with Director Wulf 

17 for the record. I am a partner at Crowell & Moring 

18 and managing director of The Chertoff Group, although 

19 -- today on behalf of the clients or at least none 

20 that I know of.

21 So I'd like to just -- I agree with much of 

22 what both my colleagues to the left have said, so I 

23 just want to add in a couple points and clarify a 

24 couple points. The first is, you know, it's my 

25 personal belief that the exemptions as spelled out in 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
37

1 section 5A are clear, and also they represent the law 

2 of what Congress wanted to make exempt for the program 

3 and where they expected you to regulate it in terms of 

4 high-risk facilities.

5 I think there really could be some greater 

6 clarification on what those exemptions represent, how 

7 those boundaries are being managed. I think, you 

8 know, when we get into some of the facilities that 

9 there has been some discussion around whether their 

10 parts are managed properly, that there could be some 

11 further clarification and also better coordination 

12 within the department so we don't have multiple 

13 components of DHS interacting with a single facility 

14 because they fall under, for example, CFATS 

15 jurisdiction. And that's something that once again 

16 doesn't really need to be clarified in legislation. I 

17 think the legislation is very clear. I think the 

18 regulation in-house is where the clarification can 

19 come.

20 Regarding the one thing that wasn't 

21 discussed so far is the chemicals-of-interest list. I 

22 think we're at an inflection point where we've 

23 learned, where we've all learned what represents high24 risk facilities and the chemical footprint did they 

25 have and what doesn't. I think we can take that 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
38

1 information and simplify the list, reduce the list, 

2 and also clarify some of the STQs where they really 

3 aren't -- where there's not a direct relationship 

4 between your authority of a high-risk facility and the 

5 STQ list doesn't state it.

6 I agree with Jeff's comments on risk-based 

7 performance standards. I think 10 is a good number, 

8 and I think we should try to simplify it, simplify the 

9 list not only where we have just a bunch focusing on 

10 physical security but also with the example that went 

11 before that Jeff used but also ones that we can 

12 actually think about how they can be implemented in 

13 using a risk-based methodology and not require an 

14 enterprise or an exorbitant command structure that I 

15 think sometimes that leads to.

16 Regarding the personal surety and the 

17 information protection program, I think the 

18 duplicative programs that the Department of Homeland 

19 Security operates via CVI and SSI and TWIC and others 

20 is inefficient for industry and inefficient for DHS. 

21 And I think this is a great inflection point to 

22 consider to make those programs a lot more efficient. 

23 I think many companies have release to the SSI 

24 protections, and therefore we can perhaps think about 

25 how we can consolidate these programs so we don't have 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
39

1 so many markings, especially as now we see other 

2 elements of the department starting to mark documents 

3 and other government agencies, for example, FERC using 

4 their own marketing system.

5 And then my last point is on the use of 

6 approaches for nonchemical facilities. I think, you 

7 know, EPA over the last 40 years, and you can take any 

8 media with any of the media laws, but I'll pick on the 

9 Clean Air Act. What firms have learned in their 

10 implementation is in addition to the rulemaking and 

11 the regulations that they release, it's also the 

12 guidelines and their industry developed guidelines. 

13 They've become so helpful for some of the sectors 

14 that, for example, are targeted by pulp and paper 

15 mills as the latest example are covered by the Clean 

16 Air Act but oftentimes have industry sector-wide 

17 approaches of how they can implement it that really 

18 can be helpful. And a much more efficient way for 

19 industry and for government to approach this is in 

20 government a single step sort of approaches to look at 

21 as you start inspecting, and there's an investment on 

22 some of the front end.

23 And I realize industry would also have to 

24 come together on standards or standardize their 

25 approaches towards compliance. But if we look at, for 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
40

1 example, the pipeline sectors, the history of working 

2 with TSA on pipeline security guidelines, there are 

3 examples of sectors that would want to do this. And 

4 so I humbly ask that you consider doing something like 

5 that. I think there could be some back-end rewards 

6 with that. Thank you very much.

7 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you.

8 Does the panel have questions or comments?

9 MR. WULF: I don't know that I have any 

10 questions, although clearly I want to thank you for 

11 the very thoughtful comments, as always, as always, 

12 Evan. Well, maybe one quick one.

13 You mentioned an approach to nonchemical 

14 companies. Can you maybe clarify that a little bit?

15 MR. WOLFF: Well, you know --

16 MR. WULF: About the scope of nonchemical.

17 MR. WOLFF: So --

18 MS. FINNERTY: You turned the mic off.

19 MR. WULF: Am I blocking? I'm sorry.

20 MR. WOLFF: Well, you know, the list of 

21 nonchemical companies includes any facility that wants 

22 to -- that's required to complete a top-screen that 

23 doesn't produce managed -- and I'm not going to -- I 

24 guess I'll try to describe whether or not -- citing a 

25 formal definition of what a chemical facility is, I 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
41

1 didn't prepare much for that. But a company that 

2 isn't involved in the manufacturing, production, or 

3 storage of chemicals, but rather those that use or 

4 transport chemicals --

5 MR. WULF: Got you.

6 MR. WOLFF: -- those that use chemicals for 

7 other sectors. Universities, hospitals, manufacturing 

8 are some of the examples that I in my experience of 

9 advising companies have come across. And oftentimes 

10 what I found is there are patterns of how they locate, 

11 store and manage these chemicals where they don't 

12 have, you know, any experience with TIH chemicals or 

13 other chemicals, the expertise really that the 

14 chemical manufacturing/chemical production companies 

15 have.

16 And so I think, you know, this is where, you 

17 know, I think there is an opportunity to take a 

18 different approach for those facilities as they 

19 approach this. And this is where I've sort of used my 

20 perhaps poor example where EPA has taken this approach 

21 of working with industry and was clear in the vast 

22 improved -- the last few years with bringing in new 

23 leadership of the program that you want to work with 

24 industry. And I think this is a specific area you can 

25 do that.

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
42

1 MR. WULF: Yeah. Thank you, Evan.

2 MS. FINNERTY: Okay. Thank you.

3 Mr. Breor?

4 MR. BREOR: Nothing.

5 MS. FINNERTY: Thank you. Has Ms. Hilton 

6 been able to join us yet, our final pre-registered 

7 speaker?

8 MALE VOICE: She won't be here today.

9 MS. FINNERTY: No? Thank you very much, 

10 sir.

11 We're at the end of our pre-registered 

12 speaker portion. What I'd like to do is provide an 

13 opportunity for any of our speakers that have already 

14 spoken to have another five minutes at the microphone. 

15 Is there anybody else that would like to address us 

16 for another five minutes?

17 MR. WOLFF: I have a copy of the 

18 Constitution in my background.

19 (Laughter.)

20 MR. ERNY: I'm good. I think we've probably 

21 addressed all the major issues as far as I can see.

22 MS. FINNERTY: The comment was that the 

23 speakers have collectively addressed the issues this 

24 morning already. Thank you very much.

25 So what I'd like to do since we have 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
43

1 concluded the pre-registered speaker portion is to 

2 take a brief break. We'll take a 15-minute break. I 

3 have 9:55 on my clock. We will resume at 10:10, if I 

4 do my math correctly, Eastern Time. Please feel free 

5 to move about the room, and we will resume again at 

6 10:10 with open session.

7 For those on the phone, we will place you on 

8 mute to reduce any background noise, and I will return 

9 the phones to live.

10 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

11 MS. FINNERTY: Welcome back, everybody, from 

12 the break. We're now going to open the floor for any 

13 additional comments related to the CFATS Advance 

14 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. For those that are 

15 interested in speaking during our open session, I'd 

16 like to invite you to join us in the first row seats.

17 (Pause.)

18 MS. FINNERTY: It appears that we do not 

19 have any speakers at this time for open session. I 

20 will keep the floor open and the mic open for any 

21 additional comments, and we will be in open session 

22 until our break for lunch at 11:45 Eastern.

23 Wonderful. Thank you. Everyone in the room 

24 may continue to enjoy discussions on these topics. 

25 Please feel free to move about the room. And when I 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
44

1 return back to the podium, that will indicate that we 

2 have another speaker for the open session. For those 

3 on the phone, I will return you to mute so you can 

4 reduce the background noise. And thank you very much. 

5 Again, we are in open session until 11:45 this 

6 morning. I'll return to the podium when we have 

7 additional speakers. Thank you.

8 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

9 MS. FINNERTY: Good morning. This is the 

10 Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Advance 

11 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. We continue to be in 

12 open session. It is 11 a.m. Eastern. We will be in 

13 open session until 11:45 this morning, when we will 

14 break for lunch. Has anybody joined us this morning 

15 to provide additional public comments?

16 (No response.)

17 MS. FINNERTY: Seeing none, I will continue 

18 to mute the phone and will be here in the room again 

19 until 11:45 a.m. Eastern, when we will break.

20 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

21 MS. FINNERTY: Welcome back to the listening 

22 session for the Chemical Facility Antiterrorism 

23 Standards Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. We 

24 have completed our morning session, and we'll now be 

25 breaking for our lunchtime. We'll resume the 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
45

1 listening session at 1 p.m. Eastern. After a brief 

2 recap of the session purpose and process, we'll resume 

3 with stakeholder presentations. Thank you.

4 (Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the listening 

5 session in the above-entitled matter was recessed, to 

6 reconvene at 1:00 p.m. this same day, Thursday, 

7 September 4, 2014.)

8 //

9 //

10 //

11 //

12 //

13 //

14 //

15 //

16 //

17 //

18 //

19 //

20 //

21 //

22 //

23 //

24 //

25 //

26

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
46

1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N

2 (1:02 p.m.)

3 MS. FINNERTY: Good afternoon, and thank you 

4 for rejoining us at the listening session for the 

5 Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Advance 

6 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or CFATS ANPRM, that 

7 was issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

8 on August 18, 2014.

9 I'm Kate Finnerty with Energetics, 

10 Incorporated. I am the moderator for today. Before 

11 we resume the session, I would like to introduce a new 

12 panelist joining us this afternoon. Mr. Todd Klessman 

13 is a senior policy advisor for the DHS Infrastructure 

14 Security and Compliance Division. Thank you for 

15 joining us today.

16 I'd also like to recap today's purpose and 

17 process. The purpose of today's session is to gather 

18 public comments, data, or views on how the current 

19 CFATS regulation, 6 CFR Part 27, issued 6/20/2007, 

20 might be modified.

21 Issuing an ANPRM enables the department to 

22 invite stakeholders with an opportunity to provide 

23 comments and suggestions for identifying ways to make 

24 the program more effective in achieving its regulatory 

25 objectives. We hope to hear a range of suggestions 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
47

1 today. All viewpoints are welcome. As such, we are 

2 not seeking consensus today on any of the topics. All 

3 presenters are asked to keep their comments directly 

4 related to the topics contained in the rule.

5 Finally, the comments provided during this 

6 session are being transcribed for note-taking 

7 purposes. A transcript of each listening session will 

8 be posted on a docket in the Federal Register. We are 

9 currently in open session for the remainder of the 

10 afternoon, which will run until 4:00 Eastern.

11 If there is anybody that's here in the room 

12 that would like to provide public comments, the floor 

13 is available for five minutes.

14 (No response.)

15 MS. FINNERTY: Seeing none, we will remain 

16 in open session until 4:00 Eastern. I will return to 

17 the microphone if and when we do have public 

18 commenters enter the room today. For those on the 

19 phone, thank you for joining us. I will place you on 

20 mute to reduce background noise. Thank you.

21 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

22 MS. FINNERTY: Good afternoon. This is the 

23 listening session for Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism 

24 Standards Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or 

25 CFATS ANPRM. We are currently in open session for the 

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
48

1 listening session. We will remain so until 4:00 

2 Eastern time. All phones are currently on mute 

3 pending the arrival of any additional public comments. 

4 Thank you.

5 For a break?

6 FEMALE VOICE: Sure.

7 MS. FINNERTY: Okay. We'll do 15 minutes.

8 FEMALE VOICE: Sounds great.

9 MS. FINNERTY: Good afternoon. This is the 

10 listening session for the Chemical Facility Anti11 Terrorism Standards Advance Notice of Proposed 

12 Rulemaking, or CFATS ANPRM. We are currently in a 

13 listening session until 4 p.m. At this point, we will 

14 take a 15-minute break. It is 2:30 Eastern. We will 

15 return to the listening session at 2:45 Eastern.

16 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

17 MS. FINNERTY: Welcome back to the listening 

18 session for the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism 

19 Standards Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the 

20 CFATS ANPRM. We are currently in open session for the 

21 listening session. It is 2:45 p.m., and we will be in 

22 open session until 4 p.m. All phones have been placed 

23 on mute to reduce background noise, until there is a 

24 time when public comment is received today. Thank 

25 you.

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
49

1 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

2 MS. FINNERTY: Okay. Thank you for 

3 participating in today's listening session on the 

4 Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Advance 

5 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. We are now closing the 

6 public portion of today's listening session and moving 

7 to closing comments.

8 Please visit the docket to view listening 

9 session notes and to submit additional comments. 

10 Please visit the Chemical Security website to visit 

11 the remaining schedule of listening sessions. We are 

12 now adjourned.

13 (Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the listening 

14 session in the above-entitled matter was concluded.)

15 //

16 //

17 //

18 //

19 //

20 //

21 //

22 //

23 //

24 //

25 //

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
50

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

DOCKET NO.: N/A

CASE TITLE: CFATS ANPRM Listening Session

HEARING DATE: September 4, 2014

LOCATION: Arlington, Virginia

I hereby certify that the proceedings and 

evidence are contained fully and accurately on the 

tapes and notes reported by me at the hearing in the 

above case before the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security.

Date: September 4, 2014

 

Diane Humke

Official Reporter

Heritage Reporting Corporation

Suite 600

1220 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005-4018

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888