HR 6072 Introduced – FY 2019 THUD Spending

Last week Rep. Diaz-Balart (R,FL) introduced HR 6072, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019. The bill contains no program mentions of specific interest to readers of this blog, but the Committee Report does include mentions of cybersecurity, unmanned aircraft system (UAS), and chemical rail-transportation safety measures.

Cybersecurity

I do not generally comment on Department cybersecurity measures in these spending bills; those are typically IT related programs and I tend to concentrate on control system measures. I am making an exception here because the House Appropriations Committee made a very important cybersecurity observation that deserves wide recognition.

In discussing the Department of Transportation’s cybersecurity initiative, the Committee Report makes the comment that (pgs 28-9):

“DOT operates and oversees significant elements of the critical transportation and information technology infrastructure of the United States. Much of the DOT framework relies upon, and is integrated with, computer networks, computer mediated communications, online databases, and a wide variety of other computer and computer network capabilities. With the increasing interconnectivity and use of Internet-based technologies, new dependencies, relationships, and vulnerabilities are created as are new risks and new threats. Further, DOT’s privileged relationships with state and local governments, and private-sector elements within the transportation community, exposes operational elements of the transportation sector itself to the potential of a cyber compromise.”

This is the first time that I recall a government entity acknowledging that government networks and systems are potential routes of attack against privately owned/operated critical infrastructure. It is both refreshing to hear and breathtaking to consider the scope of that potential threat.

In the discussion of funding for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the Committee report notes (pg 43) that $18 million of the NHTSA vehicle safety research funding is to be targeted “for vehicle electronics and emerging technologies, which includes research of cybersecurity and automated vehicle technologies”.

UAS Concerns

As can be expected the Committee has a number of concerns about the development and regulation of commercial UAS. Generally, the Committee (and much of Congress) is supportive of the increased operations of commercial and recreational drones. There are, however, two separate mentions of directives to develop counter-UAS technologies.

The first revolves around the on-going congressional concern about UAS operations near commercial airports. In the first instance the commends the FAA to (pgs 28-9) “promote research and demonstration activities for counter unmanned aircraft systems (CUAS) to protect airports and the national airspace (NAS)”. The Committee notes that these activities should be ‘nonkinetic’ and focus on the “capabilities to identify, monitor and track the UAS and UAS handset operator”.

The second focuses on another long standing congressional concern about the operation of UAS in and around fire-fighting scenes. The Committee directs the FAA (pg 29) “to develop

systems to detect and mitigate unauthorized UAS that interfere with firefighting efforts in our nation”. The Committee goes on to outline the requirements of such a system; the system should be able to:

• Detect, identify and track both the air vehicle and ground controller;

• Must be controlled by an entity that is independent from and would not be dependent on compliance by the UAS manufacturer or the UAS user/operator;

• Would have the capability to adapt to fluid borders;

• Differentiate between legitimate firefighting UAS and unauthorized UAS; and

• Not interfere with essential first responder communications systems

No specific funding for such system development was mentioned. This is in the preliminary stages and just requires an initial report to Congress within 120 days.

Chemical Rail Transportation Safety

The Committee Report addresses two long standing congressional concerns about topics under the proviso of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); safe transportation of energy products and positive train control (PTC).

In its discussions about the FRA’s Safety and Operations budget the report notes that the Committee is specifically allocating $2 million (pg 49) “for FRA’s safe transport of energy products programs, which include crude oil safety inspectors, safety route managers and tank car quality assurance specialists, tank car research, and increased mileage of ATIP [automated track inspection program] on routes that carry energy produces.”

The Committee is also targeting $10 million for the FRA’s PTC support program; noting that the FRA (pg 29) “expects to review up to 15 additional PTC plans from railroad companies in fiscal year 2019”.

Moving Forward

This bill will move the floor of the House in the coming weeks. The votes (see pages 170-5 in the Committee Report for the specific votes) in Committee indicate that there is significant opposition from the Democrats to some specific provisions of the bill, but there is some limited bipartisan support for the bill as a whole. Regardless, the bill will be brought to the floor under a structured rule with a large, but controlled number of floor amendments to be considered. The bill will almost certainly pass in the House.

The Democratic opposition would prevent this bill from being considered in the Senate were it not for the fact that the Senate will take up this bill and immediately amend it with substitute language from S 3023 which had strong bipartisan support in Committee. That version of the bill, after additional floor amendments will pass with bipartisan support. A conference committee will work out the discrepancies between the two bills.

Commentary

Interestingly there is no mention in either HR 6072 or Committee Report on the bill of the congressional concern with the slow pace of rulemaking on revisions to the Comprehensive Oil Spill Response Plan requirements for railroads. Readers will remember that the Senate Appropriations Committee included a ‘$1000,000 per day’ fine on PHMSA for not completing that rulemaking within 45 days of the passage of the THUD spending bill.

While there is not specific support for such a fine in the House bill, I do not suspect that there would be any strong opposition to including that fine in conference.