HR 3207 Introduced – UAS Counter Measures for Public Gatherings
Back in May Rep Steube (R,FL) introduced HR 6207, the Disabling Enemy Flight Entry and Neutralizing Suspect Equipment (DEFENSE) Act. The bill would amend 6 USC 124n, adding a new subsection (m), Stadium Security. It would authorize DHS and DOJ to deputize a State or local law enforcement officer to exercise the authority granted by §124n(a) with respect to large public gatherings. No new funding is authorized by this bill.
Definitions
No new definitions are provided in this bill.
Deputizing Authority
The new subsection (m) would specifically allow DHS and DOJ to deputize local law enforcement personnel to exercise the authority granted to those departments under §124n(a) with respect to large public gatherings where:
A flight restriction is maintained pursuant 49 USC 40103 Note (Maintaining Restrictions Under Certain NOTAMS),
The location is an eligible large public gathering described in 49 USC 44812, Temporary flight restrictions for unmanned aircraft, or
The public gathering is otherwise protected by a temporary flight restriction, established at the discretion of the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration under the authority of section 40103(b) of title 49, United States Code.
The bill provides restrictions on that authority related to:
The training required for deputized law enforcement personnel,
Oversight requirements for DHS and DOJ, and
The authorized equipment that may be used to execute the deputized authority.
Moving Forward
While Steube is not a member of the House Judiciary Committee to which this bill was assigned primary consideration, one of his cosponsors, Rep Correa (R,CA), is a member. This means that there may be sufficient influence to see the bill considered in that committee. Additionally, one cosponsor, Rep Titus (D,NV), is a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to which this bill was assigned for secondary consideration. This means that there is similar possibility for consideration in that committee.
I suspect that there will be a tendency in the leadership of the Judiciary Committee to decide that the current authority under §124n for DHS should be sufficient to protect such venues with dedicated DHS oversight, absent any specific information about actionable intelligence about any widespread terrorist threat against such gatherings. This is due to the broad exemptions provided in the opening sentence of subsection (a) to a variety of federal statutes that would have to be violated to identify, track or take any action against unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). Until a workable way to modify those statutes to allow actions against unauthorized or unsafe UAS is developed, there is going to be continued reluctance to expand counter UAS (cUAS) authorities.
Having said that, if there is an incident where a non-terrorist drone incident occurs at a relatively minor public gathering (high school football game, for instance) where there are significant injuries or a major public outcry (just imagine an important football game where a potentially game winning pass/kick were interfered with by a drone), there may be a reexamination of just how far down the importance scale DHS has the resources to protect. Even so, there would still have to be substantial expansions to the restriction provided in this bill for it to move forward.
Commentary
It is unusual that the House Homeland Security Committee was not listed as a committee of secondary consideration since they would be directly affected by the provisions of the new subsection. I think, however, that this is directly related to the problem with the legal considerations that I discussed above. Still, I think that should this bill move forward out of Judiciary, that there may be some consideration made to adding the HHSC to the list of committee’s involved.