Removal of Certain Explosive Chemicals from the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards
2021-03-02 2021-02-26
CISA-2020-0014-0024 CISA-2020-0014-0014
05:00:00 05:00:00
https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/CISA-2020-0014-0024 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/CISA-2020-0014-0014
Anonymous Anonymous
Anonymous Anonymous
On behalf of Owen Oil Tool, I am writing to support this Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) and urge you to move forward with the solutions outlined without delay.  As Corporate Sales of Owen Oil Tool I am acutely aware of the burden the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program places on the commercial explosives industry and the absence of any data indicating the program has made the 49 chemicals identified in this ANPRM more secure. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has overseen the manufacture, sale, possession and use of all commercial explosives since 1970.  The CFATS programs additional oversight of these 49 chemicals represents clear-cut regulatory duplication.  Based on data from the U.S. Bomb Data Centers (USBDC) annual Explosive Incident Report, thefts of explosives have seen a steady decrease over the last 30 years due to ATF regulation and industry best practices.  Since the beginning of the CFATS program in 2007, that historical rate of decline has not seen a significant change.  The CFATS program plays a pivotal role in securing previously unregulated chemicals.  However, according to all available government data, no benefit is seen when stacked on top of preexisting ATF regulations. On January 21, 2021, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a study reviewing the CFATS program and its overlap with other chemical security programs .  The study found that most CFATS Risk-Based Performance Standards directly overlap with ATF regulatory requirements for commercial explosives.  COMPANY NAME strongly supports all government efforts to bolster explosive security; however, directly overlapping regulation without commensurate benefit does not fulfill that goal.The removal of these chemicals from CFATS Appendix A is both an exercise in regulatory rightsizing and good government.  This ANPRM should move forward with haste to free up government and industry resources towards efforts that show tangible impacts on national security.  Respectfully Submitted,Richard CarterCorporate Sales Dear Acting Director Wales:I commend you for considering removing all 49 Division 1.1 explosive chemicals of interest from Appendix A of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) regulations. Removing these chemicals of interest from coverage under CFATS would reduce regulatory requirements for facilities currently covered by both CFATS and ATFs regulatory frameworks and relieve compliance burdens for affected facilities.The commercial explosives industry has been subject to duplication in security oversight since the introduction of the Chemical Security Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program. This rulemaking will remedy a long overdue and unnecessary burden on our industry that shows no commensurate benefit to national security. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) oversight of commercial explosives has resulted in a steady decrease in thefts of explosives over the last 30 years, according to statistics from the U.S. Bomb Data Center. The added layer of CFATS oversight on these chemicals has not shown a statistical improvement in their security.On January 21, 2021, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released their study reviewing the CFATS program and overlap with other chemical security programs . The study found that most CFATS Risk-Based Performance Standards (RBPS) directly overlap with ATF regulatory requirements for commercial explosives. In 1998, while developing the Risk Management Plan (RMP) regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule removing Division 1.1 explosives from its list of regulated substances for accidental release prevention, coming to the conclusion that the explosives industry practices promote safety and accident prevention in storage, handling, transportation and use of explosives.Thank you for this opportunity to submit my comments. I support this Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and urge you to move forward with prudent and financially responsible regulations.