Bill Overview
Title: Safeguarding the Homeland from the Threats Posed by Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act of 2022
Description: This bill provides statutory authority for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to authorize their personnel to act to detect, identify, monitor, track, and mitigate a credible threat that an unmanned aircraft system (i.e., drone) poses to the safety or security of certain facilities or assets. For example, DHS and DOJ may carry out a pilot program to evaluate the potential benefits of state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies taking actions to mitigate credible unmanned aircraft system threats. Additionally, DHS and DOJ must coordinate with the Federal Aviation Administration before carrying out any action authorized by the bill to ensure the action does not adversely impact or interfere with safe airport operations, navigation, air traffic services, or the safe and efficient operation of the national airspace system.
Sponsors: Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]
Target Audience
Population: People living near critical infrastructure and users of airspace potentially affected by drone regulations
Estimated Size: 40000000
- The bill addresses threats posed by unmanned aircraft systems (drones), which can affect individuals in various settings, particularly ones in proximity to sensitive facilities.
- It involves the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, which operate nationwide, thus potentially affecting a large sector of the population living near critical infrastructure.
- Potential customers or users of commercial drones could also be impacted by this bill due to changes in drone monitoring and regulation.
- The legislation focuses on enabling state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement, suggesting potential engagement with a wide range of local communities, impacting their surveillance and security practices.
- While not every individual in the global population owns or operates drones, the legislation can have indirect effects on large populations, particularly in urban areas, affecting privacy, commerce, and safety regulations.
- Air traffic and airport operations stakeholders will experience direct implications due to coordination requirements with the FAA.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts people living near critical infrastructure, like airports and government buildings, because of their proximity to places that these new drone regulations are aiming to protect.
- The policy also impacts drone hobbyists, commercial drone operators, and possibly even people who are inadvertently monitored as part of drone threat detection efforts.
- The budget suggests a significant government investment in drone regulation, affecting national security measures and possibly local community policing practices.
- The policy could improve people's sense of safety if they feel secure from drone threats, but it might negatively impact those who use drones for legitimate personal or commercial purposes.
Simulated Interviews
Drone Videographer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 43 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the need for security, but I'm concerned about over-regulation affecting my drone business.
- If the policy is implemented sensibly, balancing security and hobby/commercial uses, it could be beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired (Arlington, VA)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm all for anything that enhances security in our neighborhood, especially given our proximity to important facilities.
- I don't want unauthorized drones buzzing around here.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Software Developer (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While increased regulations could hurt some innovation in drone technology, ensuring security could also create new challenges and opportunities for innovation.
- It's crucial that regulations stay clear and don't stifle progress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Security Consultant (Miami, FL)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could be beneficial for my consultancy business as companies might need new systems to comply with regulations.
- I caution that the implementations ought not to trample on individuals' privacy unnecessarily.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Drone Hobbyist (Boise, ID)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see why more regulation is necessary since drones are mostly a hobby and not a threat in areas like mine.
- I'm worried about potential restrictions that could limit where I fly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Air Traffic Controller (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased cooperation between FAA and security agencies should ultimately make my job safer and less stressful.
- I hope this policy improves safety over time without unnecessary bureaucracy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Journalist (Denver, CO)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation could stir up significant changes in how we view and use drones as part of our everyday lives.
- From a reporting perspective, this creates a rich ground for analysis and stories.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Local Government Official (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy should streamline collaborations between local authorities and federal agencies, hopefully making our airspace safer.
- It's essential to engage community stakeholders in discussions about implementing the measures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
University Student (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- To me, this policy reflects the growing importance of regulation in managing technology's impacts on society.
- I'm excited about the potential for new research and development areas it could open up.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
IT Specialist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our company's products could become more valuable if strict regulations require detailed drone data logging and analysis.
- However, there's a concern about over-regulation stifling innovation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $550000000)
Year 2: $550000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $600000000)
Year 3: $600000000 (Low: $550000000, High: $650000000)
Year 5: $700000000 (Low: $650000000, High: $750000000)
Year 10: $850000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $900000000)
Year 100: $1100000000 (Low: $1050000000, High: $1150000000)
Key Considerations
- Technological advancements in drone detection and mitigation capabilities.
- Verifying successful coordination protocols with the FAA to avoid adverse impacts on airspace operations.
- The responsiveness and adaptability of state, local, tribal, and territorial agencies in managing this expanded jurisdiction.
- Potential civil liberties and privacy concerns arising from increased drone surveillance and tracking capabilities.