Proposed Revisions to HR 3283 and HR 4263

As I noted in an earlier blog post the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response and Communications will be holding a markup hearing on Thursday that will look at two bills that I have already covered (HR 3283and HR 4263). They will be considering substitute language in the hearing, so it seems logical to look at the changes that are already being considered.

HR 3283

 The substitute language for the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System Modernization Act of 2013 contains the most modifications of the two bills. It starts out by changing the title slightly to reflect the change in the year and it eliminates the short hand name for the new alert system, preferring to use the full descriptive name; the ‘national integrated public alert and warning system’. Note the use of lower case in the name throughout the bill, a more formal name is yet to come.

Some relatively minor changes in wording are made in the findings section of the bill (§2). For example the words “integration, flexibility, comprehensiveness” are added to the description of the expected benefits in §2(2)(A). More significantly there is more emphasis on ‘individuals with disabilities’ in this section; adding §2(2)(D), “an improved ability to notify individuals with disabilities” to the description of benefits. Additionally, the coverage of ‘individuals with disabilities’ is expanded in many places in the bill to specifically address individuals with “sensory disabilities” {see, for example §2(6)}.

Section 526 that is added to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 has seen extensive revisions. In the paragraph describing the program implementation requirements {§526(b)} the first subparagraph was rewritten to explain that the system would be used for alerts related to “an act of terrorism, a natural disaster, war, other man-made disasters, or other hazards to public safety” {§526(b)(1)}. Three other sub-paragraphs were added:

(2) establish or adapt, as appropriate, common alerting and warning protocols, standards, terminology, and operating procedures for the integrated public alert and warning system;

(3) include in the integrated public alert and warning system the capability to adapt the dissemination of homeland security information and other information, and the content of communications, on the basis of geographic location, risks, and multiple communications systems and technologies, as appropriate; and

(7) conduct periodic nationwide tests of the integrated public alert and warning system.

More interestingly, §526(b)(6) from the original bill was removed. That was the only place in the bill that referenced the current National Terrorism Advisory System. It would seem that the never used NTAS would be phased out if this bill becomes law.

Section 526(d), dealing with the establishment of the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System Advisory Committee (IPAWSAC), has some changes made to it as well. The subparagraph dealing with the Federal government representatives on the IPAWSAC adds the Director of the United States Geological Survey (or the Director’s designee) {§526(d)(2)(D)}. Changes are also made to the non-Federal representative in the next subparagraph:

• Adding a ‘consumer or privacy advocates’ category;

• Separating out as a separate category ‘national organizations representing the elderly’; and

• Changing ‘the cellular industry’ to the ‘commercial mobile radio service industry’.

HR 4263

The changes to the Social Media Working Group Act of 2014 are much less extensive, which is appropriate considering how recently it was introduced. Section 318 being added to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 is being changed in three places {§318(g)(1), (2) and (6)}  to add the phrase ‘other emergencies’ in describing when the use of social media is being considered in the bill.

It also amend the reporting requirement for the Social Media Group to require the recommended improvements to social media use be specifically targeted at the use of social media for emergency management purposes [emphasis added].

The Third Bill

The other piece of legislation has now been given the bill number HR 4289, the Department of Homeland Security Interoperable Communications Act. I have not yet had a chance to completely review the committee draft of that bill. It will be done before the Thursday hearing.

Bills Introduced – 3-25-14

There were 24 bills introduced in the House and Senate yesterday. Only one will probably be of specific interest to readers of this blog:

HR 4293 Latest Title: To authorize the approval of natural gas pipelines and establish deadlines and expedite permits for certain natural gas gathering lines on Federal land and Indian land. Sponsor: Rep Cramer, Kevin (R,ND)

This is probably related to natural gas recovery efforts in the Bakken formation. It could have additional impacts in other areas where advanced oil recovery techniques are also producing significant amounts of natural gas which currently have to be flared.

PHMSA Class Location Methodology Workshop Announced

THE DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) published a meeting notice in today’s Federal Register (79 FR 16421-16422) announcing a public workshop looking at whether applying the gas pipeline integrity management (IM) requirements beyond high consequence area would mitigate the need for class location requirements. The workshop will be held on April 16^th, 2014 in Washington, DC.

Background

This workshop is a follow up to a notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on the subject published on August 25^th, 2011 and a subsequent notice of inquiry published on August 1^st 2013. Public comments from both of those actions will be addressed during this workshop.

This workshop is being conducted as part of the PHMSA response to the integrity management directives found in §5(a)(2) of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (PL 112-90).

Agenda

The Draft Agenda for the workshop indicates that there will be five panel presentations. Those presentations include:

• PHMSA – Class locations vs HCA requirements;

• NAPSR perspective on class locations vs HCA requirements;

• Public perspective

• Pipeline operator presentations – Gas transmission; and

• Pipeline operator presentations – Gas distribution and gathering

There will be question and answer sessions after both the morning and afternoon presentations.

Public Participation

PHMSA is soliciting public participation in this workshop. You can attend in person, view the webcast (live or delayed) or you can just submit written comments. You can register for the workshop on-line. Public comments may be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal (www.Regulations.gov; Docket # PHMSA-2013-0161). Those comments must be submitted by May 27^th, 2014.

Bills Introduced – 3-24-14

With both houses back in Washington yesterday there were 10 new bills introduced. One of those may be of specific interest to readers of this blog:

HR 4289 Latest Title: To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require the Under Secretary for Management of the Department of Homeland Security to take administrative action to achieve and maintain interoperable communications capabilities among the components of the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Payne, Donald M., Jr. (D,NJ)

This is obviously the ‘new’ bill that I described last night in the post about the markup hearing on Thursday. This is a bipartisan bill, introduced by the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response and Communications of the House Homeland Security Committee and co-sponsored by the Chair, Rep Brooks (R,IN).

Since the Committee print of the bill is available, I will be able to do a review of this bill before that hearing.

EPW Committee Announces MAP-21 Witness List

Yesterday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee published the witness list for their Thursday hearing on MAP-21 Reauthorization. Since this hearing was advertised as being a look at MAP-21 from the State and local perspective, it is hardly surprising that all of the witnesses are members of various State and local governments.

The witnesses include:

• Michael Lewis, Rhode Island;

• Sue Minter, Vermont;

• Greg Ballard, City of Indianapolis, Indiana;

• Mick Cornett, Oklahoma City;

• Mr. Bill Fontenot, St. Landry's Parish, Louisiana

• Jim Willox, Converse County, Wyoming; and

• Mr. Dave Gula, Wilmington, Delaware

None of these witnesses has an obvious connection to crude trains, but I suspect that the topic will come up, at least in passing, during this hearing.

Homeland Security Committee Announces Markup Hearing

Today the House Homeland Security Committee announced that its Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response and Communications would hold a markup hearing on Thursday that would look at three separate bills. Those bills are:

• HR 3283, the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System Modernization Act of 2013;

• HR 4263, the Social Media Working Group Act of 2014; and

• A new bill, the Department of Homeland Security Interoperable Communications Act

Links to substitute language for both HR 3283 and HR 4263 have been provided. The hearing page also includes a link to the Committee Draft of the new bill. I’ll have appropriate comments on all three posted before the hearing.

I suspect that these three closely related bills will continue to work their way through the legislative process linked in close proximity to each other.

HR 4263 Introduced – Social Media Working Group

As I noted earlier Rep Brooks (R,IN) introduced HR 4263, theSocial Media Working Group Act of 2014. The bill would amend Title III, Science and Technology in the Support of Homeland Security, of the 2002 Homeland Security Act (6 USC 181 et seq) by adding §318 establishing a social media working group (Group) within DHS.

The Under Secretary for Science and Technology would head the Group which would be responsible for preparing “guidance and best practices to the emergency preparedness and response community on the use of social media technologies before, during, and after a terrorist attack” {§318(b)}. The Group would be “composed of a cross section of subject matter experts from Federal, State, local, tribal, and nongovernmental organization practitioners” {§318(c)(1)}.

The Group would meet at least twice a year and prepare an annual report to Congress {§318(g)}. That report would include reviews of:

• Current and emerging social media technologies being used to support preparedness and response activities related to terrorist attacks;

• Best practices and lessons learned on the use of social media during the response to terrorist attacks that occurred during the period covered by the report at issue; and

• Available training for Federal, State, local, and tribal officials on the use of social media in response to a terrorist attack.

The annual reports would also include recommendations to:

• The Department’s use of social media;

• Improve information sharing among the Department and its components; and

• Available training for Federal, State, local, and tribal officials on the use of social media in response to a terrorist attack.

Commentary

This is an odd little bill. The base concept of planning for the use of social media during a terrorist event does make a certain amount of sense, but limiting it to ‘in the event of a terrorist attack’ in so many places in the bill does sound odd and more than somewhat limiting.

The limiting of analysis of best practices and lessons learned to just during the period “during the response to terrorist attacks” {§318(g)(2)}, for example, seems to be somewhat self-defeating. Terrorist attacks happen so seldom (hopefully) that there would seem to be little to report in this area. It would probably be more helpful if this were expanded to any large scale emergency operation (for example during any presidentially declared emergency). That way those lessons learned would be available and applicable during the actual response to a terrorist event.

There are also puzzling references to ‘information sharing between the Department and appropriate stakeholders” {§318(b)}. I would like to think that this information sharing would be a tad bit more complex and detailed than one typically sees in social media.

On the other hand, I suppose that this could be taken to mean that DHS would use analysis of social media during a terrorist event to track what is going on. If that were the case, however, I would expect to see the mention of various critical infrastructure information and analysis centers (ISACs) and perhaps the Department’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis in the organizations that would be represented in the Working Group. They are conspicuously absent.

Moving Forward

Ms Brooks is the Chair of the Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications Subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee. One of the three cosponsors is Rep. Payne (D,NJ) the ranking member of the same Subcommittee. You can’t get much more bipartisan than that.

I expect that we will see a Subcommittee hearing on this in the next couple of weeks. How it moves from there will depend on how it fits in Chairman McCaul’s priorities for the full Committee. I don’t expect that there will be much, if any, opposition to this bill if it makes it to the floor of the House.

I don’t really expect that the Senate would take up this bill unless it attracts the positive attention of Sen. Reid, in which case it would get considered and passed under unanimous consent procedures. It is more likely to get passed if it gets added to the FY 2015 Homeland Security spending bill.