DHS Seeks Comment on Guidance for Risk-Based Performance Standards
2 Pages
English

DHS Seeks Comment on Guidance for Risk-Based Performance Standards

Downloading requires you to have access to the YouScribe library
Learn all about the services we offer

Description

C AOctober 2008Contacts DHS Seeks Comment on Guidance for Risk-Based Performance StandardsEvan D. Wolff1900 K Street, NWWashington, DC 20006-1109 Extensive and potentially expensive secu- have to employ security forces to meet (202) 955-1908 rity obligations may be imposed on the these standards. The security measures ewolff@hunton.comprivate sector as a result of new risk-based needed for compliance will vary from Maida O. LernerGuidance that has been released for facility to facility, however, and will require 1900 K Street, NWcomment by the Department of Homeland individualized analysis.Washington, DC 20006-1109(202) 955-1590 Security (DHS). The deadline for filing mlerner@hunton.com At this stage in the CFATS regulatory pro-comments is November 26, 2008.gram, regulated facilities should check to Steven P. Solow1900 K Street, NW The DHS issued the draft Guidance to ensure that they have submitted the nec-Washington, DC 20006-1109articulate some of the security measures essary Security Vulnerability Assessment (202) 419-2065ssolow@hunton.com and processes that facilities may have (SVA) by the DHS-established deadline. to implement to be in compliance with In addition, even if businesses choose Joseph C. Stanko, Jr.1900 K Street, NW the appropriate Risk-Based Performance not to comment on the proposed RBPS Washington, DC 20006-1109 Standards (RBPS). The RBPS are 18 risk- Guidance, they will need to consider (202) 955-1529based standards that were ...

Subjects

Informations

Published by
Reads 14
Language English

Exrait

Once DHS makes the final CFATS tiering designation for a regulated facility, the facility will need to analyze whether it satisfies the RBPS, given the facility’s risk profile. If it does not satisfy the RBPS, the facility will then have to determine what additional security measures must be adopted to comply with the standards. Failure to comply may lead to a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per day of the violation, or an order to cease operations, or both.
Security (DHS). Th
to their specific circumstances and risk
Hunton & Williams LLP
Contacts
provided in the Guidance could result in
profile, many of the examples and metrics
e deadline for filing
comment by the Department of Homeland
Extensive and potentially expensive secu-
rity obligations may be imposed on the
private sector as a result of new risk-based
Guidance that has been released for
Steven P. Solow 1900 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1109 (202) 419-2065 ssolow@hunton.com
Maida O. Lerner 1900 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1109 (202) 955-1590 mlerner@hunton.com
The DHS issued the draft Guidance to
comments is November 26, 2008.
and processes that facilities may have
articulate some of the security measures
Evan D. Wolff 1900 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1109 (202) 955-1908 ewolff@hunton.com
to implement to be in compliance with
October 2008
provide video surveillance around some or
all of the perimeter. Certain facilities may
have to implement crash-related anti-
vehicle barriers, and some may have to
significant costs for covered facilities. For
example, many high-risk facilities may
Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS).
individualized analysis.
based standards that were established by
the DHS in connection with the Chemical
At this stage in the CFATS regulatory pro-gram, regulated facilities should check to ensure that they have submitted the nec-essary Security Vulnerability Assessment (SVA) by the DHS-established deadline. In addition, even if businesses choose not to comment on the proposed RBPS Guidance, they will need to consider whether their current planning satisfies the RBPS and should begin consideration of the required SSP.
Joseph C. Stanko, Jr. 1900 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1109 (202) 955-1529 jstanko@hunton.com
While the DHS asserts that facilities
Site Security Plans (SSPs) that comply
tions under CFATS will have to develop
All facilities subject to site security obliga-
Standards (RBPS). The RBPS are 18 risk-
the appropriate Risk-Based Performance
with the RBPS.
have some discretion to tailor their SSPs
these standards. T
facility to facility, ho
wever, and will require
needed for compliance will vary from
he security measures
have to employ security forces to meet
DHS Seeks Comment on Guidance for Risk-Based Performance Standards
Brooks M. Smith Riverfront Plaza, East Tower 951 East Byrd Street Richmond, VA 23219-4074 (804) 787-8086 bsmith@hunton.com
Catherine D. Little Bank of America Plaza, Suite 4100 600 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 (404) 888-4047 clittle@hunton.com
Brigham A. McCown 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75202-2799 (214) 979-3086 bmccown@hunton.com
The request for comments, pub-
ClientAlert
lished in theFederal Registeron
October 27, is available at:http://
federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/
OFRData/2008-25596_PI.pdf. Text of
the Guidance document is available at:
http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/
gc_1224871388487.shtm.
About Our Practice
The Hunton & Williams chemical facility security regulation practice has extensive homeland security and federal government regulatory experience. The firm has worked with chemical-sector
clients on the enabling legislation and the DHS’s CFATS regulatory require-ments. We advise corporate clients on CFATS compliance and analysis of the legal issues and risk profiles arising from these new federal regulatory requirements. Our clients seek the most efficient way to implement and evaluate compliance with CFATS, including integration with existing compliance programs and effective internal audits.
We review site sec
urity and vulnerability
assessments to ensure completion and
to identify potential legal issues. We can
also assist in the process of appealing
DHS decisions within the agency.
If you have questions regarding any aspect of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards or their potential impact on your business, please contact us.
For more information, please visit:http://
www.hunton.com/practices/practice_
detail.aspx?gr_H4ID=1183&tab=0001.
© 2008 Hunton & Williams LLP. Attorney advertising materials. These materials have been prepared for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. This information is not intended to create an attorney-client or similar relationship. Please do not send us confidential information. Past successes cannot be an assurance of future success. Whether you need legal services and which lawyer you select are important decisions that should not be based solely upon these materials.
Atlanta • Austin • Bangkok • Beijing • Brussels • Charlotte • Dallas • Houston • London • Los Angeles • McLean • Miami • New York • Norfolk • Raleigh • Richmond • San Francisco • Singapore • Washington