Source: https://chemical-facility-security-news.blogspot.com/2019/06/hr-3256-introduced-cfats.html
Timestamp: 2019-07-17 15:26:36
Document Index: 116773708

Matched Legal Cases: ['§16', '§4', '§5', '§6', '§7', '§12', '§13', '§8', '§9', '§10', '§11', '§4', '§623', '§623', '§623', '§624', '§625', '§625']

Chemical Facility Security News: HR 3256 Introduced – CFATS Reauthorization - Part I
Earlier this week Rep. Richmond (D,LA) introduced HR 3256, the Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2019. Normally, I wait for the official print of the bill before I review it, but the House Homeland Security Committee has a committee print available and have scheduled a mark-up hearing of the bill on Wednesday, so I will be reviewing the committee print today.
HR 3256 would reauthorize the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program for an additional five plus years (until May 1st, 2025; §16). The bill also provide a number of amendments to the current authorization language (6 USC Subchapter XVI).
The following sections of the bill show the areas where significant changes would be made to the existing program:
§4. Protection and sharing of information.
§5. Civil enforcement.
§6. Whistleblower protection.
§7. Chemical Security Advisory Committee.
§12. Voluntary mechanism for reporting drones and other emerging threats.
§13. Regulations regarding specific products and mixtures containing chemicals of interest.
The following sections provide information on the studies and reports required by the bill:
§8. Implementation plan and report to Congress.
§9. Study on risks posed by excluded facilities.
§10. Study on feasibility of waiver program.
§11. Comptroller General reports.
Section 4 of the bill would make a number of changes to 6 USC 623, Protection and Sharing of Information. The first change would be to rewrite paragraph (a) to read:
(a) In general - Notwithstanding any other provision of law, with respect to information in the possession of the Department, the Secretary shall protect information developed under this subchapter, including vulnerability assessments, site security plans, and other security related information, records, and documents shall be given protections from public disclosure consistent with the protection of similar information under section 70103(d) of title 46 [link added].
Additionally, a complete rewrite of paragraph (b) includes:
(2) NONDEPARTMENTAL INFORMATION. — Information is not protected pursuant to subsection (a) if it is—
(A) not in the possession of the Department;
(B) developed under this title but has been previously produced or developed for other purposes; and
(C) is already publicly available, readily discoverable, or otherwise lawfully disclosed.
Comment: It looks like this is intended to change the Chemical-Terrorism Vulnerability Information (CVI) program to make it more like other sensitive but unclassified (SBU) information protection programs. Currently the CVI program has strict information protection rules for information held at each covered facility. Other SBU only protect information in the hands of the Federal government, its contractors, and such information shared with State, Tribal, and local governments. If that was the intent, it looks to me like the terminal ‘and’ in (2)(B) nullifies that attempt as it does not remove protections already provided in the program. DHS would not be required to change the CVI rules under these changes. If the terminal ‘and’ were changed to ‘or’ then (2)(A) would be the controlling factor for removing CVI protections for information held at facilities.
As noted above §4 also rewrites (b), changing the information sharing requirements of §623(b) to require DHS to provide information (upon request) to {new §623(b)(1)}:
State, local, and regional fusion centers (as that term is defined in section 210A(j)(i) of this Act) and State and local government officials, including law enforcement and emergency response providers;
Members of the Chemical Security Advisory Committee under [new] section 2010 of this Act; and
The addition of fusion centers and members of Congress in this paragraph allows the bill to delete the current paragraphs (c) and (f) from §623.
Comment: This is a proforma change to appease supporters who want ‘better’ information sharing about the hazards associated with covered facilities. This really provides no new requirements for the CFATS program beyond the addition of the new Advisory Committee which will be covered in more detail later in the bill.
Section 5 of the bill would amend §624, Civil Enforcement. The first set of amendments deals with changes to paragraph (a), Notice of noncompliance. The first change the time limits for DHS to provide a written notice of non-compliance from 14-days to 3-days. And the second changes the time limit a facility would have to comply with a DHS order to comply, from 180 days to 30 days.
The next set of changes address paragraph (b)(2) civil penalties for non-reporting chemical facilities of interest. The change clarifies that the subparagraph applies to Top Screen submission requirements or supplemental information thereto.
The third set of changes paragraph (c)(1), expanding the DHS authority for issuing emergency orders due to violations of CFATS program requirements or the risk of terrorist incidents. It now adds a vague “or other malicious act” that may affect a chemical facility of interest to the list of potential causes of “an imminent threat of death, serious illness or severe personal injury that the Secretary could attempt to prevent by requiring facility action.
Comment: This is ‘other malicious act’ is vague enough to provide authority to order cybersecurity measures or even the development of active shooter programs. The current management would be unlikely to use this authority; their emphasis is on cooperative enforcement. Who knows what could happen in the future?
Section 6 of the bill modifies the existing whistleblower protections found in §625. The bill expands on the existing requirements for:
• Response to reports; and
• Opportunity for review
The bill also adds a new paragraph (c) to the section; Procedure and Remedy. It provides requirements for DHS to “establish a procedure for the review and investigation of complaints of reprisals” {new §625(c)(i)} as well as establishing remedies for violations of the same.
NOTE: I am about half-way through the major CFATS changes proposed by this new bill and we are already at about 1000 words. It is getting a bit long for a blog post; even by me. I will try to finish up by tomorrow.
Labels: CFATS Reauthorization, Civil Penalties, CVI, HR 3256, Information Sharing, Whistleblower