Overview
Title
To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to codify the Transportation Security Administration’s responsibility relating to securing pipeline transportation and pipeline facilities against cybersecurity threats, acts of terrorism, and other nefarious acts that jeopardize the physical security or cybersecurity of pipelines, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to make sure that the people who keep the pipelines safe from bad guys and hackers do a really good job by setting new rules and making sure they talk to others who help keep things secure. However, it doesn’t say how much money they need for this or how often they should check if everything’s working fine.
Summary AI
H. R. 9469, known as the "Pipeline Security Act," seeks to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to formalize the role of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in protecting pipeline transportation and facilities from cybersecurity threats, terrorism, and other security risks. The bill outlines responsibilities for the TSA, emphasizing collaboration with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, development of security guidelines, and conducting security assessments. It mandates the creation of a strategy to bolster cybersecurity expertise and resources within the TSA and requires regular reporting to Congress on these initiatives. Additionally, it calls for engagement with industry stakeholders to enhance the security of pipelines.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The bill introduced as H.R. 9469, known as the "Pipeline Security Act," aims to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Its primary objective is to officially recognize and outline the role of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in securing pipeline transportation and pipeline facilities. This includes protecting them from cybersecurity threats, acts of terrorism, and other dangers. The bill details several responsibilities for the TSA, in partnership with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), to develop guidelines, conduct security assessments, and ensure coordination among various stakeholders.
Summary of Significant Issues
One major issue with the bill is the lack of specified funding or budget for TSA to effectively carry out its newly assigned responsibilities. Without clear financial backing, there is a risk that the TSA could be under-resourced for these critical tasks, thereby affecting the security of pipeline infrastructure.
Additionally, the bill's oversight provisions appear insufficient, as they call for only a single review by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) within two years of enactment. Continuous oversight is crucial to address evolving security threats.
The language concerning the timelines for carrying out various strategies is somewhat vague. While the bill requires that a personnel strategy be developed within 180 days, it does not specify deadlines for implementing these strategies or recommendations, potentially delaying action.
Furthermore, the bill relies heavily on existing documents and strategies without mandating updates or revisions, which could mean that current challenges may not be sufficiently addressed if those documents become outdated.
Another concern is the bill's provision for stakeholder engagement. It mandates convening at least one industry day, but it lacks clarity on how frequently these engagements should occur, possibly limiting ongoing communication and feedback.
Impact on the Public
The bill's successful implementation could potentially strengthen the security of essential pipeline infrastructures, which transport vital resources such as natural gas and oil. Enhanced security protocols and better coordination among federal agencies, private stakeholders, and state officials could protect these infrastructures from attacks that might disrupt services or cause environmental harm.
However, without clear funding and oversight mechanisms, there is a risk of inadequate security measures, which could leave pipelines vulnerable to threats. This vulnerability could directly impact public safety and lead to economic consequences, especially in regions heavily dependent on pipeline transport for energy needs.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For the TSA and CISA, this bill increases their responsibilities by entrusting them with more direct oversight of pipeline security — a task that demands specialized expertise and robust resources.
Pipeline operators and related industries stand to gain from clearer security guidelines and potentially enhanced safety procedures. However, they might also face challenges or costs associated with complying with new regulations and participating in mandatory assessments or stakeholder engagements.
Finally, by incorporating federal, state, tribal, and local entities in the consultation process, the bill encourages a collaborative approach to security. This inclusion could benefit local communities by ensuring that security practices are tailored to address specific regional vulnerabilities and needs. Conversely, lack of regulation and clear communication could lead to inefficiencies and potential security oversights detrimental to all parties involved.
Issues
The bill delegates significant responsibilities to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for securing pipeline transportation and facilities but fails to specify the budget or funding required, which could lead to insufficient resources being allocated for these critical security tasks. This is addressed in Section 2.
The oversight mechanisms outlined in the bill are potentially inadequate, as it mandates only a one-time review by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) not later than two years after enactment. Ongoing oversight might be necessary to ensure continuous security improvements and accountability, as mentioned in Section 2(c).
The language surrounding the timelines for the implementation of various strategies and assessments by the TSA is vague. For example, while the personnel strategy must be developed within 180 days after enactment, there is no clear deadline for when the recommendations of such strategies should be implemented, as seen in Section 2(b) and 2.
The bill defers to existing documents and strategies without requiring updates or revisions to align with current cybersecurity and physical security challenges posed to pipeline infrastructure. This could lead to reliance on potentially outdated information, as highlighted in Section 2(b).
The requirement to convene at least one industry day for stakeholder engagement does not specify how often such engagements should occur, potentially limiting regular dialogue and feedback, as noted in Section 2(d).
The broad language of the bill lacks specific accountability or oversight mechanisms for the consultation process with various entities, which could impact compliance and effectiveness, especially in critical areas such as cybersecurity and disaster preparedness, as highlighted throughout Section 2.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section specifies that the short title of the legislation is the “Pipeline Security Act”.
2. Pipeline transportation and pipeline facilities security responsibilities Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text describes responsibilities for ensuring the security of pipeline transportation and facilities from cybersecurity threats, terrorism, and other dangers. It outlines amendments to existing laws, tasks for the Transportation Security Administration and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to develop guidelines, conduct assessments, and share information, as well as strategies for enhancing personnel expertise and engagement with stakeholders.