HR 3318 Introduced – TSA Threat Analysis

Last month Rep. Joyce (R,PA) introduced HR 3318, the Emerging Transportation Security Threats Act of 2019. The bill would require the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to “establish a task force to conduct an analysis of emerging and potential future threats to transportation security” {§2(a)}. No specific funding for the task force is authorized in the bill.

Emerging and Future Threats

The Task Force analysis would include emerging and potential future threats posed by the following {§2(b)}:

• Evolving tactics by terrorist organizations that may pose a catastrophic risk to an aviation or surface transportation entity.

• Explosive and explosive devices or attacks involving the use of explosives that may cause catastrophic damage to an aviation or surface transportation system.

• Chemical or biological agents being released in either aviation or surface transportation systems.

• Cyberthreat actors seeking to undermine confidence in transportation systems or cause service disruptions that jeopardize transportation security.

• Unmanned aerial systems with the capability of inflicting harm on transportation targets.

• Individuals or groups seeking to attack soft targets, public areas, or crowded spaces of transportation systems.

• Inconsistent or inadequate security screening protocols at last point of departure airports with direct flights to the United States.

• Information sharing challenges within the Federal Government and among partner governments.

• Information sharing challenges between the Administration or other relevant Federal agencies and transportation stakeholders, including air carriers, airport operators, surface transportation operators, and State and local law enforcement.

• Growth in passenger volume in both the aviation and surface transportation sectors.

Threat Mitigation

The bill would subsequently require the TSA to develop “a threat mitigation strategy for each of the threats examined in such analysis” {§2(c)}. This would include:

• Assigning appropriate resources of the Administration to address such threats, based on calculated risk; or

• Provide recommendations through the Department of Homeland Security to the appropriate Federal department or agency responsible for addressing such threats.

TSA would also be required to improve stakeholder engagement and provide a briefing to Congress.

Moving Forward

Joyce and his cosponsor, Rep. Rogers (R,AL) are both members of the House Homeland Security Committee (and Rogers is the Ranking Member of that Committee), so there is a reasonable chance that this bill could be considered by the Committee.

There is nothing in the bill that would engender any specific political or business opposition to the bill; study and report bills seldom do. I suspect that the bill would receive substantial bipartisan support in Committee. With such support the bill would be considered by the full House (if there were enough political influence to move the bill forward) under the suspension of the rules process.

Commentary

Joyce’s staff did a good job of ensuring that the language of the bill provided nearly equal coverage to threats against both airline and surface transportation assets. Unfortunately, the language is clearly focused on passenger transportation, and calls for scant scrutiny of freight transportation (either air or ground) or pipeline security. This is especially true when it comes to the one reference to chemical threats.

With that in mind, I would like to offer the following changes to some of the ‘elements’ of the threat that are be considered by the threat analysis in §2(b) (Highlighted words are added):

(1) Evolving tactics by terrorist organizations that may pose a catastrophic risk to an aviation or surface transportation entity including freight transportation in both modes.

(2) Explosive and explosive devices or attacks involving the use of explosives that may cause catastrophic damage to an aviation or surface transportation system or cause a release of hazardous industrial chemicals in surface freight transportation.

(4) Cyberthreat actors seeking to undermine confidence in transportation systems or cause service disruptions that jeopardize transportation security or cause catastrophic damage to a hazardous material or fuel pipeline.

The other problem that this bill ignores is the lack of specific authority provided to TSA to issue security regulations for surface transportation or the failure of TSA to implement the few regulations that it has been authorized to issue. With that in mind I would re-do paragraph (e) to read:

(e) BRIEFING TO CONGRESS.—The Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration shall brief the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate on: the results of the analysis required under subsection (a) and relevant mitigation strategies developed in accordance with subsection (c).

(1) The results of the analysis required under subsection (a);

(2) The relevant mitigation strategies developed in accordance with subsection (c);

(3) The status of current rulemakings authorized by Congress that might address the threats identified in subsection (a); and

(4) What rulemaking authorities that TSA or other Federal agencies might need from Congress to appropriately apply the mitigation strategies developed in accordance with subsection (c).