Anti Afk Program

[Eberardo Topher]

Pleasefollow us on Facebook and Twitter and subscribe to the CP Dispatch, the COPS Office e-newsletter, to learn

about current news on community policing awards, publications and projects. To receive notifications on funding

opportunities, subscribe to GovDelivery email updates.

The Fiscal Year 2024 COPS Anti-Methamphetamine Program (CAMP) is a competitive award program designed to advance public safety by providing funds directly to state law enforcement agencies in states with high seizures of precursor chemicals, finished methamphetamine, laboratories, and laboratory dump seizures for the purpose of locating or investigating illicit activities such as precursor diversion, laboratories, or methamphetamine traffickers.

Close Topics Topics Cybersecurity Best Practices Cyber Threats and Advisories Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience Election Security Emergency Communications Industrial Control Systems Information and Communications Technology Supply Chain Security Partnerships and Collaboration Physical Security Risk Management How can we help? GovernmentEducational InstitutionsIndustryState, Local, Tribal, and TerritorialIndividuals and FamiliesSmall and Medium BusinessesFind Help LocallyFaith-Based CommunityExecutivesHigh-Risk Communities Spotlight Resources & Tools Resources & Tools All Resources & Tools Services Programs Resources Training Groups News & Events News & Events News Events Cybersecurity Alerts & Advisories Directives Request a CISA Speaker Congressional Testimony CISA Conferences CISA Live! Careers Careers Benefits & Perks HireVue Applicant Reasonable Accommodations Process Hiring Resume & Application Tips Students & Recent Graduates Veteran and Military Spouses Work @ CISA About About Culture Divisions & Offices Regions Leadership Doing Business with CISA Site Links Reporting Employee and Contractor Misconduct CISA GitHub CISA Central 2023 Year In Review Contact Us Free Cyber Services#protect2024Secure Our WorldShields UpReport A Cyber Issue

As of July 28, 2023, Congress allowed the statutory authority for the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program (6 CFR Part 27) to expire. Therefore, CISA cannot enforce compliance with the CFATS regulations at this time.

The lapse of CFATS authorization means that CISA cannot require facilities to report their chemicals of interest or submit any information in CSAT, perform inspections, or provide CFATS compliance assistance, amongst other activities. CISA can no longer require facilities to implement their CFATS Site Security Plan or CFATS Alternative Security Program.

Bottom line: CISA cannot ensure that chemical facilities are mitigating the terrorist exploitation of chemical holdings. Without CFATS, our tools to lessen the risk of such an attack are now limited. With the expiration of CFATS authorities, we have lost vital safeguards that were created to protect Americans from incidents of chemical terrorism.

CFATS is the nation's first regulatory program focused specifically on security at high-risk chemical facilities. Managed by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the CFATS program identifies and regulates high-risk facilities to ensure security measures are in place to reduce the risk that certain dangerous chemicals are weaponized by terrorists.

Under CFATS, a chemical facility is any establishment or individual that possesses or plans to possess any of the more than 300 chemicals of interest (COI) in Appendix A at or above the listed screening threshold quantity (STQ) and concentration. These facilities must report their chemicals to CISA via an online survey, known as a Top-Screen. CISA uses the Top-Screen information a facility submits to determine if the facility is considered high-risk and must develop a security plan. Learn more on the CFATS process webpage.

The CFATS regulation applies to facilities across many industries - chemical manufacturing, storage and distribution, energy and utilities, agriculture and food, explosives, mining, electronics, plastics, colleges and universities, laboratories, paint and coatings, and healthcare and pharmaceuticals, among others.

Learn more about CVI, the information protection regime administered under the CFATS regulation to ensure that information chemical facilities provide to CISA is protected from public disclosure or misuse.

Learn more about how CISA is working with other federal agencies and state and local officials to improve the security and safety of chemical facilities and reduce the risks of hazardous chemicals to workers and communities.

Federal agencies have issued policies that require immediate response to claims of sexual harassment in the workplace; however, claims of non-sexual harassment have not received similar attention.1 In FY 2003, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued EEO Management Directive (MD)-715, which establishes that model EEO programs must issue policies and procedures for addressing all forms of harassment. In this regard, federal agencies must create a work environment that is free from sexual and non-sexual harassment.

Since fiscal year 1994, allegations of non-sexual harassment have ranked as the number one issue alleged in complaints that were filed in the federal sector equal employment opportunity (EEO) process. See Appendix (App.) 1 (Table 1). While the total number of complaints filed has declined since FY 2000, the percentage of complaints alleging non-sexual harassment has increased. Id.

Consistent with its responsibility to evaluate federal agencies' EEO programs, operations, and activities, the EEOC's Office of Federal Operations conducted a limited review to determine (1) the extent to which federal agencies' anti-harassment policies and procedures comply with the case law and EEOC guidance, particularly focusing on coverage of non-sexual harassment,2 and (2) the reason(s) for the high rate of non-sexual harassment allegations.

Initially, we reviewed appellate decisions and evaluation reports issued by EEOC's Office of Federal Operations that addressed non-sexual harassment to identify systemic reasons for the high number of non- sexual harassment claims.3 We also requested copies of anti-harassment policies and procedures from 51 federal sector agencies and sub-components. In response to our request, 43 agencies and sub-components provided their anti-harassment documents, including one agency which submitted policies and procedures for 64 out of its 98 sub-components.4 We subsequently met with EEO officials and staff from six cabinet level agencies to identify reasons for the consistently high rate of claims alleging non-sexual harassment.5

Based on the program evaluations that EEOC has issued during the last several years, we recognized that some agencies' anti-harassment programs are deficient in their ability to prevent and respond to non-sexual harassment in the federal workplace. To ascertain the scope of the problem, the EEOC surveyed the anti- harassment policies of federal agencies to determine their compliance with the legal requirements.

To understand the deficiencies in the anti-harassment policies and procedures, it is important to understand the broader context. EEOC's EEO Management Directive 715 (MD 715) sets forth what is required in order for executive branch agencies to establish Model EEO Programs under both Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act. In this regard, MD 715 mandates that agencies must have in place an effective anti-harassment program.

MD 715 reminds agencies of the requirement to issue a written policy statement by the agency head which expresses commitment to EEO and a workplace free of discriminatory harassment, and the development of a comprehensive anti-harassment policy to prevent harassment on all protected bases, including race, color, religion, sex (sexual or non-sexual), national origin, age, disability, and reprisal.

It is also critical to understand the legal requirements with which the agencies must comply. The EEOC issued sections II (A) and (C) of MD-715, requiring model EEO programs to issue establish written polices and procedures for addressing harassment in the workplace. The legal authority for this requirement was established by the Supreme Court in two decisions concerning harassment liability, Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).

In Faragher, the Court found a city government liable for discrimination because such an employer, with many departments in multiple locations, could not protect against harassment without communicating "some formal [anti-harassment] policy with a sensible complaint procedure."6 These policies are necessary to show that agencies have taken "reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly ... such harassment."7 In both cases, the Court stressed that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is designed to encourage the creation of anti-harassment policies and effective grievance mechanisms.

Accordingly, the EEOC established minimum standards and guidelines for agencies' use in developing anti- harassment policies.8 See App. 2. Pursuant to EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors, Notice 915.002, June 18, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as Enforcement Guidance), an anti-harassment policy and complaint procedure should contain, at a minimum, the following elements:

The Enforcement Guidance also provides that agencies should ensure that their supervisors and managers receive periodic training so that they understand their responsibilities under the agencies' anti-harassment policy and complaint procedure. Such training should explain: the types of conduct that violate the agency's anti-harassment policy; the seriousness of the policy; the responsibilities of supervisors and managers when they learn of alleged harassment; and the prohibition against retaliation.

3a8082e126