WeVote
Log In

Bill

MV

Bill

HR 9232

To grant authority to use counter-unmanned aircraft system technologies to private owners of critical infrastructure facilities, and for other purposes.

119th Congress Introduced by Matt Van Epps

The bill allows private owners of critical infrastructure to deploy counter-UAS technologies to detect, disrupt, and deter drone threats targeting their facilities, improving secur

Introduced in House
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HR 9232

Summary of HR 9232 (119th Congress)

Purpose and intent

  • The bill authorizes private owners of critical infrastructure facilities to use counter-unmanned aircraft system (counter-UAS) technologies. In other words, it clarifies and expands the ability of private sector facilities designated as critical infrastructure to defend against unauthorized or hostile drone activity by employing UAS countermeasures.
  • The overarching goal is to enhance the security and resilience of critical infrastructure by giving facility owners more tools to detect and disrupt potential drone threats targeting their operations.

Key provisions and changes

  • Empowerment of private entities: Grants private owners of critical infrastructure the authority to use counter-UAS technologies. These technologies typically include detection, identification, interdiction, or neutralization measures aimed at drones that pose a risk to the facility.
  • Scope of technologies: While not exhaustively listed in the summary, “counter-UAS technologies” generally cover a range of measures such as radar or RF-based detection, camera and sensor systems for identification, and mitigation options (which could include jamming, spoofing, or other disruption methods) subject to applicable laws.
  • Target facilities: The bill applies to facilities designated as critical infrastructure. This designation typically includes sectors like energy, water, transportation, communications, and other systems essential to national security, public safety, or economic stability. The bill would specify criteria or process for determining which facilities qualify, if provided in the text.
  • Compliance and risk management: The measure would presumably require adherence to existing laws and regulations regarding privacy, civil liberties, and coordination with law enforcement or federal agencies as appropriate. It may also set standards or guidance for implementing counter-UAS measures to minimize unintended consequences or collateral disruption.
  • Relationship to federal enforcement: By permitting private action, the bill might delineate roles and boundaries between private security actions and federal government oversight, ensuring that private use aligns with national security and aviation regulations.

Who would be affected

  • Private owners and operators of critical infrastructure facilities: They would gain explicit authority to deploy counter-UAS technologies to protect their sites.
  • Critical infrastructure sectors: Sectors commonly recognized as critical infrastructure (e.g., energy, water, transportation, telecommunications) could see enhanced protective capabilities against drone incursions.
  • Potentially impacted third parties: Drone operators and the general public may see changes in drone operations around sensitive sites, including increased restrictions or enforcement of anti-drone measures near facilities employing counter-UAS technologies.
  • Government and regulatory bodies: Agencies overseeing aviation safety, national security, and privacy/compliance would likely be involved for guidance, oversight, and ensuring alignment with existing laws.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Introduction and referral: The bill was introduced in the House and referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and additionally to the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees for consideration of provisions within their jurisdiction.
  • Next steps: Committees would review, potentially amend, and report the bill. Floor consideration by the House would follow, with potential passage and return to the Senate (and ultimately to the President) per the normal legislative process.
  • Notable sponsor information: The bill lists a co-sponsor (Matt Van Epps), indicating bipartisan or cross-caucus engagement, depending on the broader political context.

Practical considerations and potential impacts

  • Security benefits: If enacted, the bill could strengthen the ability of private infrastructure operators to deter, detect, and mitigate drone threats, potentially reducing risk of disruption, sabotage, or espionage.
  • Legal and regulatory considerations: Implementation would require clear compliance with aviation laws, privacy protections, and coordination with federal authorities to avoid conflicts with airspace regulations and drone safety standards.
  • Operational implications: Facilities would need policies, training, and possibly contractual arrangements with technology providers to deploy counter-UAS systems effectively and responsibly.

If you’d like, I can tailor this summary to a specific facility sector (e.g., energy vs. transportation) or highlight potential costs and implementation timelines based on additional text from the bill.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.