HR 6042 Introduced – LANDED Act
Last month Rep Smith (R,NJ) introduced HR 6042, the Law Against Nefarious Drones, Enforcement, Deconfliction (LANDED) Act. The bill would provide authorization for state and local law enforcement personnel to conduct counter unmanned aircraft systems (cUAS) operations to mitigate a credible threats posed by an unmanned aircraft system. While the bill includes a new grant program, no new funding is authorized by the legislation.
HR 6042 is similar to HR 10555, the Law Against Nefarious Drones, Enforcement, Deconfliction (LANDED) Act, that was introduced by Smith in December 2024. No action was taken on that bill in the 118th Congress.
Definitions
Section 2 of this bill provides definitions for three specific terms used in the legislation. Additionally, it incorporates definitions provided in 49 USC 44801. Interestingly, the term ‘unmanned aircraft system’ is defined in both §44801 and §2(3), as well as defined by reference {in §3(d)} to §331(8) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112–95, 126 STAT. 72). Fortunately, all three definitions are the same, but the redundant definitions are indicative some editorial problems with this bill.
Similarly, there is no definition of the term ‘Commissioner’ provided before it is used in §3(b). From the context, I suspect that the crafters of this bill mean the Chair of the FCC. If that is the case then the term ‘Commissioner’ is misused as that could refer to any of the up to five authorized commissioner of that agency.
State and Local cUAS Authority
Section 3 required DHS to “establish appropriate policies, procedures, and protocols necessary to allow the State law enforcement agency in each State (in coordination with the Secretary, Attorney General, and Administrator) to acquire, deploy, operate, and train with approved counter-UAS mitigation systems and mitigate unauthorized UAS operations.” Those State agencies would be allowed to delegate the authority to local law enforcement agencies.
Each State law enforcement agency would be required to apply to DHS to obtain that authorization. Once approved by DHS, each State agency and DHS would enter into an authorization agreement that would specify:
The approved counter-UAS mitigation system, equipment, or technology to be operated,
The authority to respond to threats posed by an unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft system,
The time periods, dates, and circumstances during which the counter-UAS mitigation system, equipment, or technology may be operated,
Any terms and conditions on the deployment and operation of an approved counter-UAS mitigation system, equipment, or technology the Secretary determines necessary to ensure public safety,
The frequency with which the appropriate Federal agency representatives shall conduct periodic site visits to ensure compliance with the approved terms and conditions of deployment and operations of the approved counter-UAS mitigation system, equipment, or technology, and
The post-event reporting requirements.
Subsection 3(d) provides the important ‘not withstanding’ clause that permits authorized State and local law enforcement personnel to violate provisions of §46502 of 49 USC, or sections 32, 1030, and 1367 and chapters 119 and 206 of 18 USC necessary to detect, identify, and interfere with UAS in that national airspace.
Subsection 3(g) lists the following actions that would be specifically authorized by the DHS issued authority agreements:
During the operation of the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft, detecting, identifying, monitoring, and tracking the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft, without prior consent, including by means of intercept or other access of a wire communication, an oral communication, or an electronic communication used to control the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft.
Warn the operator of the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft, including by passive or active, and direct or indirect, physical, electronic, radio, and electromagnetic means.
Disrupt control of the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft, without prior consent of the operator of the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft, including by disabling the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft by intercepting, interfering, or causing interference with wire, oral, electronic, or radio communications used to control the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft.
Seize or exercise control of the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft.
Seize or otherwise confiscate the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft.
Use reasonable force, if necessary, to disable, damage, or destroy the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft.
According to §3(h), for the first 180-days that authorized cUAS systems are deployed, DHS would be required to approve each use by a State law enforcement agency. What is not clear from the wording of the subsection is whether that 180-day limit applies to the first deployment date by any State law enforcement agency or separately for each authorized State agency. Nothing in the wording specifically applies that approval requirement to sub-authorized local law enforcement agencies. Apparently, no authorization would be required after the poorly defined 180-day limit.
Subsection 3(k) provides that the FAA will “make a location-specific determination for each applicable State law enforcement agency selected under the approval process established under this section to ensure that any potential use of counter-UAS mitigation systems, equipment, or technology will not interfere with or adversely impact the safe operation of the national airspace system, including any airport that is located within the State.” Deployments of authorized cUAS systems are not authorized within an FAA specified range of the “the site of interference”.
Similarly subsection 3(e) provides that the FCC is responsible for determining “the extent to which counter-UAS detection and mitigation systems, equipment, or technology can be safely operated without disrupting or interfering with the operation of civilian communications and information technology networks and systems, including such networks and systems that rely on radio frequency or cellular network communications links.”
cUAS Grant Program
Section 6 establishes within ‘the Department’ (DHS or DOT?) the “Counter-UAS Security Grant Program” to be administered by ‘the Administrator’ (FEMA or FAA? Note: FEMA administers most of the DHS grant programs). The entities eligible to receive the grant would be “law enforcement agencies of States.” The grantees would be allowed to use grant funds for:
Acquisition of approved counter-UAS systems,
Fees for training approved personnel, and
Any other appropriate activity, including administrative activities, as determined by the Administrator.
Report on UAS Activity
Section 7 would require the DOD Inspector General to “conduct a review of potential foreign adversary connected UAS activity over critical military installations, vessels, aircraft, and the homeland (emphasis added), and other matters.” As a result of that review the IG will prepare a report to Congress on:
UAS activity over military installations in the United States and abroad,
UAS activity in close proximity to sensitive national security installations,
Instances of UAS activity in the vicinity of United States military and law enforcement vessels and aircraft,
Instances of the executive branch not sharing UAS information with Congress when requested,
The process for deploying counter-UAS systems to assist State and local law enforcement,
Instances where the Department of Defense deployed counter-UAS systems to assist State and local law enforcement, and
An analysis of near-peer actors who possess the capabilities to conduct such activities.
Moving Forward
Smith is not a member of the House Judiciary Committee to which this bill was assigned for primary consideration. This means that there is little chance that there will be sufficient influence to see the bill considered in Committee. I do not expect that Judiciary Committee would favorably consider this bill in any case because it glosses over too many of the issues related to countering UAS in the national airspace.
Commentary
The §7 DOD report on UAS activity seems out of place in this bill. It would appear to be directed at understanding the 2024 reports about news reports of unknown UAS sightings over the mid-Atlantic States, New Jersy in particular. The DHS/FBI December 12th, 2024 ‘report’ on those sightings seems to have attracted Smith’s ire (see press releases from Smith’s office here, here, here, and here).