HR 3478 Introduced – UAS Destruction
Back in June Rep McGuire (R,VA) introduced HR 3478, the Manned Aircraft Clarification Act. The bill would amend 18 USC 32, clarifying that this statute prohibiting the destruction of aircraft is limited to manned aircraft. It also amends 49 USC 46502, clarifying that the ‘aircraft piracy’ provisions specifically apply to manned aircraft. No new funding is authorized.
Definitions
There are no new definitions or changes to definitions provided in this legislation.
18 USC 32 Amendments
Section 2(a) provides three amendments to §32. First it revises the title to “Destruction of Manned Aircraft or Aircraft Facilities”. Next it revises §32(a)(1) to read:
“(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any manned aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any manned civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce;”
Finally, it revises subsection (b), inserting the word ‘manned’ before the words ‘civil aircraft’.
Interestingly, this bill does not amend §32(a)(5) which reads:
“(5) interferes with or disables, with intent to endanger the safety of any person or with a reckless disregard for the safety of human life, anyone engaged in the authorized operation of such aircraft or any air navigation facility aiding in the navigation of any such aircraft;”
The ‘reckless disregard’ language could come back to bite any counter UAS (cUAS) action that resulted in unintended injuries due to loss of control of the UAS because of actions taken against the operator or the operator’s controls. The key concern in such instances would be how broadly the courts dealt with the phrase ‘authorized operation of such aircraft’.
49 USC 46502 Amendment
Section 2(b) makes a single change to §46502(a)(1)(A), revising it to read:
“(A) ‘‘aircraft piracy’’ means seizing or exercising control of a manned aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States by force, violence, threat of force or violence, or any form of intimidation, and with wrongful intent.”
The phrase ‘wrongful intent’ should protect most legitimate cUAS activities from prosecution under this section, but I can see how this would be added to be ‘on the safe side’. Unfortunately, this change is broadly enough written that it would remove ‘protections’ against air piracy of legitimate uses of UAS, such as package delivery. The unamended §46502 would allow for federal prosecution of the unlawful diversion of packages delivered by drones; this change would prevent that. I would expect potential drone delivery organizations to oppose this language change.
Moving Forward
McGuire is not a member of the House Judiciary Committee to which this bill was assigned for primary consideration. This means that there is probably not sufficient influence to see the bill considered in Committee. I am not sure that there would be adequate support for these proposed changes for it to advance in Committee if it were considered. There would most likely not be sufficient support for the bill to be considered before the full House under the suspension of the rules process.
Commentary
This bill is an attempt to address the need to use the ‘not withstanding’ language found in most cUAS legislative actions because of the disparate statutes that would have to be ‘violated’ to conduct counter drone operations. Unfortunately, this bill only addresses two of the six US Code sections that need to be dealt with to allow for effective cUAS operations. The other sections of concern are:
18 USC 1030 (computer fraud),
18 USC 1367 (interference with satellites),
18 USC Chapter 119 (wire intercept), and
18 USC Chapter 206 (pen registers).
To be fair, the two sections dealt with in this legislation are the easiest (from a legislative language point of view) to deal with. The other sections are probably going to have to be dealt with by inserting language that would provide an exception for cUAS operations ‘authorized by 6 USC XXX’. This would leave the current intended effects of those sections unchanged while allowing for specifically authorized cUAS activities.
The problem with this approach is that it requires buy-in from multiple committees in both the House and Senate. In this bill, there are just two committees involved, Judiciary and Transportation. This will require the both committee chairs to get behind the effort so that the two staffs can coordinate potential changes to the bill. In this case, there is no incentive for either committee to take the lead in the effort, with a comprehensive bill addressing the cUAS authorities along with the exception language for all six sections, the Homeland Security Chair would have the incentive to lead that effort.