S 1398 Introduced – Smart Technologies

Last month Sen. Cantwell (D,WA) introduced S 1398, the Smart Cities and Communities Act of 2019. The bill is designed to “promote smart technologies and systems to improve community livability, services, communication, safety, mobility, energy productivity, and resilience” {§2}. It is very similar to HR 2636 that was introduced the same day.

Differences

There are two differences between these two bills. One is inconsequential; substituting ‘market place’ for ‘marketplace’ in §401(a)(3). The other is much more substantial; S 1398 removes §205, Technical assistance, voucher pilot program, and technologist in residence pilot program. Sharp eyed readers will recall that this was added to this session’s version of the House bill.

All of the other changes that were made to HR 2636 were carried over into this bill.

Moving Forward

Cantwell is the Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Technology Committee, the Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration. This means that it is very likely that this bill will be considered by the Committee.

As I noted with the House bill, there is nothing in this bill that should drive any serious ideological opposition to the bill. As with most bills that include new program authorization language, money will be the biggest problem for this program moving forward and Cantwell removed one of the two funding authorizations when she deleted §205.

HR 2636 Introduced – Smart Technology

Earlier this month Rep. DelBene (D,WA) introduced HR 2636, the Smart Cities and Communities Act of 2019. The bill is designed to “promote smart technologies and systems to improve community livability, services, communication, safety, mobility, energy productivity, and resilience” {§2}. The bill is very similar to HR 3895 from the 115^th Congress.

Differences

Most of the differences between the two bills are inconsequential, though a grammatical change in §401(c)(2) from ‘may be not used’ to ‘may not be used’ is kind of interesting.

The one significant change is the addition of a new §205 that would require DOE to establish a Smart City Voucher Pilot Program. This program would be designed to “to improve the access of cities to the expertise, competencies, and infrastructure of National Laboratories for the purposes of promoting smart city technologies” {§205(b)(1)}. It would also expand the DOE’s current Technologist in Residence Program to include ‘smart cities’ efforts. Section 205 includes an annual authorization of $20 million to support the program through 2024.

Moving Forward

As with the earlier bill DelBene is not a member of any of the four committees to which this bill was assigned for consideration. Again, Rep. Lujan (D,NM), her sole cosponsor, is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, but his influence on that Committee is much increased with the change in House leadership. I suspect that the bill has a much higher chance of committee consideration than did the earlier bill.

There is nothing in this bill that would drive any ideological opposition, but the spending authorizations (including the new §205 authorization), while federal chump change, still will have to come from somewhere. That will call for some additional backroom negotiations for this bill to move forward.

Commentary

The general problems that I had with the cybersecurity language in the earlier bill remains in the new language; nothing in the new section alleviates any of those concerns. In a bill like this that attempts to comprehensively address the issues of enhancing the employment of undefined ‘smart technology’, the failure to specifically address the control system cybersecurity issues associated with this new technology is more than shortsighted, it borders on the legislative incompetence.

Then again, it may be deliberate. Adding significant cybersecurity language might have called for the addition of the House Homeland Security Committee to the list of committees from which the bill would require consideration. That added intra-committee conflict might be enough to kill any real consideration of this bill.

Bills Introduced – 05-09-19

Yesterday with both the House and Senate in session there were 101 bills introduced. Four of those bills will likely see future coverage on this blog:

HR 2636 To promote the use of smart technologies and systems in communities, and for other purposes. Rep. DelBene, Suzan K. [D-WA-1]

HR 2644 To direct the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study and submit to Congress a report on the state of the internet-connected devices industry in the United States. Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH-5]

S 1388 A bill to manage supply chain risk through counterintelligence training, and for other purposes. Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]

S 1398 A bill to promote the use of smart technologies and systems in communities, and for other purposes. Sen. Cantwell, Maria [D-WA]

I will be watching all four bills for cybersecurity language, particularly language pertinent to control system security.

I suspect that HR 2636 and S 1398 are companion bills.

Bills Introduced – 07-14-15

There were 32 bills introduced in the House and Senate yesterday. Only two of those may be of specific interest to readers of this blog:

HR 3049 Making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes. Rep. Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL-4]

S 1763 A bill to require a study on the public health and environmental impacts of the production, transportation, storage, and use of petroleum coke, and for other purposes. Sen. Durbin, Richard [D-IL]

With the recent work of Billy Rios on cybersecurity in medical devices, I thought I would watch this spending bill (and more importantly the Committee Report) for indications that Congress has been paying attention. Don’t hold your breath.

S 1763 will probably be a companion bill to HR 2636, in any case it is almost certainly part of the limited congressional interest in this topic.

HR 2636 Introduced – Petroleum Coke

Last week Rep. Kelly (D,IL) introduced HR 2636, the Petroleum Coke Transparency and Public Health Protection Act. This bill would require a health and safety study of petroleum coke, a solid byproduct of the refining of heavy crude oil, and the subsequent development of regulations. This bill is related to HR 2298 and S 1388 introduced (and died) in the 113^th Congress.

In my earlier post on HR 2298 I had a fairly lengthy discussion about the issues surrounding petroleum coke. At that time this was mainly a Detroit, MI related issue, but the rise of petroleum coke piles on the Southside of Chicago have expanded the areas (and number of people) concerned about this issue. The EPA has taken some actions with regard to the dust issue in Chicago.

This version of the bill would require much the same type of study mentioned in the earlier bills and would require the results of the study to be posted on the HHS web site. Where this bill is different, however, it that it requires in §4 that the EPA would develop “rules concerning the storage and transportation of petroleum coke that ensure the protection of public and ecological health based upon the findings of the study”.

Moving Forward

Rep. Kelly is not on the Energy and Commerce Committee so it is unlikely that she has the pull to get that Committee to consider this bill. Since petroleum coke is a byproduct of heavy crude (read Canadian Tar Sands) refining there is likely to be serious Republican opposition to this bill based upon the appearance that it is an attack on the Keystone Pipeline.

Normally we might have seen this offered as an amendment to the LHHSE spending bill, but the inclusion of §4 would preclude that due to the House rules against legislating in a spending bill. Without that provision it might be successfully offered and passed.

Bills Introduced – 06-03-15

Yesterday there were 47 bills introduced in the House and Senate. Four of those bills may be of specific interest to readers of this blog:

HR 2631 To require notice and comment for certain interpretive rules. Rep. Russell, Steve [R-OK-5]

HR 2636 To require a study on the public health and environmental impacts of the production, transportation, storage, and use of petroleum coke, and for other purposes. Rep. Kelly, Robin L. [D-IL-2]

S 1487 A bill to require notice and comment for certain interpretative rules. Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]

S 1499 A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to provide eligibility under certain highway programs for projects for the installation of vehicle-to-infrastructure communication equipment, and for... Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]

I don’t normally cover bills dealing with administrative matters, but since there has been a bit  of a controversy over the NPMR for the Wassenaar cybersecurity rule that was not required to undergo a ‘notice and comment’ process I thought that it might be appropriate to watch HR 2631 and S 1487 to see if they would have an impact on future rules like this.

HR 2636 addresses an issue that is apparently important in Michigan. Bills on this topic were introduced last session {S 1388, introduced by Sen. Levin, Retired – and – HR 2298, introduced by Rep. Peters, now Senator, (D,MI)}. Those bills did not go anywhere last session and HR 2636 probably will not advance in this session either. We are likely to see a companion bill from Peters.

I will be watching S 1499 for potential (or more probably lack of) cybersecurity provisions.