BILL ANALYSIS |
C.S.H.B. 1643 |
By: Springer |
Homeland Security & Public Safety |
Committee Report (Substituted) |
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Interested parties contend that the offense of operating an unmanned aircraft over a critical infrastructure facility insufficiently protects farmers raising livestock as flying such aircraft near animals can have adverse effects on the livestock, thus reducing their value. The parties further contend a need to update the telecommunications facilities to which this offense applies. C.S.H.B. 1643 seeks to protect the economic interests of Texas' farmers by classifying certain concentrated animal feeding operations as critical infrastructure facilities for purposes of that offense and to update the offense with respect to telecommunications facilities.
|
||||||||
CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or change the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.
|
||||||||
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.
|
||||||||
ANALYSIS
C.S.H.B. 1643 amends the Government Code to include the following facilities that meet certain enclosure and signage requirements in the definition of "critical infrastructure facility" for purposes of the offense of operation of an unmanned aircraft over a critical infrastructure facility: any structure used as part of a system to provide wired or wireless telecommunications services and a concentrated animal feeding operation that is operated for meat, milk, or egg production or for growing, stabling, or housing livestock or poultry in pens or houses, in which livestock or poultry are fed at the place of confinement and crop or forage growth or feed is not produced in the confinement area.
|
||||||||
EFFECTIVE DATE
September 1, 2017.
|
||||||||
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE
While C.S.H.B. 1643 may differ from the original in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following comparison is organized and formatted in a manner that indicates the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.
|
||||||||
|