69–006

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 106–75

PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION OF FEES FOR THE MAKING OF MOTION

PICTURES, TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS, AND SOUND TRACKS IN NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM AND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM

UNITS

MARCH 23, 1999.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State

of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H.R. 154]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill

(H.R. 154) to provide for the collection of fees for the making of motion pictures, television productions, and sound tracks in National

Park System and National Wildlife Refuge System units, and for

other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended

do pass.

The amendment is as follows:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof

the following:

SECTION 1. FEE AUTHORITY AND REPEAL OF PROHIBITION.

(a) AUTHORITY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior (in this section referred to as

the ‘‘Secretary’’) may permit, under terms and conditions considered necessary

by the Secretary, the use of lands and facilities administered by the Secretary

for the making of any motion picture, television production, soundtrack, or similar project, if the Secretary determines that such use is appropriate and will

neither impair the values and resources of the lands and facilities nor result

in a significant disruption of normal visitor uses.

(2) FEES.—(A) Any permit under this section shall require the payment of fees

to the Secretary in an amount determined to be appropriate by the Secretary

sufficient to provide a fair return to the government in accordance with subparagraph (B), except as provided in subparagraph (C). The amount of the fee

shall be not less than the direct and indirect costs to the Government for processing the application for the permit and the use of lands and facilities under

the permit, including any necessary costs of cleanup and restoration, except as

provided in subparagraph (C).
2

(B) The authority of the Secretary to establish fees under this paragraph shall

include, but not be limited to, authority to issue regulations that establish a

schedule of rates for fees under this paragraph based on such factors as—

(i) the number of people on site under a permit;

(ii) the duration of activities under a permit;

(iii) the conduct of activities under a permit in areas designated by statute or regulations as special use areas, including wilderness and research

natural areas; and

(iv) surface disturbances authorized under a permit.

(C) The Secretary may, under the terms of the regulations promulgated under

paragraph (4), charge a fee below the amount referred to in subparagraph (A)

if the activity for which the fee is charged provides clear educational or interpretive benefits for the Department of the Interior.

(3) BONDING AND INSURANCE.—The Secretary may require a bond, insurance,

or such other means as may be necessary to protect the interests of the United

States in activities arising under such a permit.

(4) REGULATIONS.—(A) The Secretary shall issue regulations implementing

this subsection by not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of

this Act.

(B) Within 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall

review and, as appropriate, revise regulations issued under this paragraph.

After that time, the Secretary shall periodically review the regulations and

make necessary changes.

(b) COLLECTION OF FEES.—Fees shall be collected under subsection (a) whenever

the proposed filming, videotaping, sound recording, or still photography involves

product or service advertisements, or the use of models, actors, sets, or props, or

when such filming, videotaping, sound recording, or still photography could result

in damage to resources or significant disruption of normal visitor uses. Filming,

videotaping, sound recording or still photography, including bona fide newsreel or

news television film gathering, which does not involve the activities or impacts identified herein, shall be permitted without fee.

(c) EXISTING REGULATIONS.—The prohibition on fees set forth in paragraph (1) of

section 5.1(b) of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, shall cease to apply upon the

effective date of regulations under subsection (a). Nothing in this section shall be

construed to affect the regulations set forth in part 5 of such title, other than paragraph (1) thereof.

(d) PROCEEDS.—Amounts collected as fees under this section shall be available for

expenditure without further appropriation and shall be distributed and used, without fiscal year limitation, in accordance with the formula and purposes established

for the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program under section 315 of Public Law

104–134.

(e) PENALTY.—A person convicted of violating any regulation issued under subsection (a) shall be fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than 6 months, or both, and shall be ordered to pay all costs of

the proceedings.

(f) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section and the regulations issued under this section

shall become effective 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, except

that this subsection and the authority of the Secretary to issue regulations under

this section shall be effective on the date of the enactment of this Act.

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 154 is to provide for the collection of fees

for motion pictures, television productions, and sound tracks in National Park System and National Wildlife Refuge System units.

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

America’s public lands have been serving as the backdrop for

many of Hollywood’s most famous and profitable productions for

decades. Popular park units such as Arches National Park, Yosemite National Park, and the National Capital Region have served as

the setting of numerous films which have grossed, in total, hundreds of millions of dollars. At the present time, however, the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are prohibited by regulation from establishing fair and reasonable fees
3

from commercial film companies for the use of the resources they

manage for the enjoyment of the American people. These agencies

can charge a user fee for actual personnel expenses, but not a socalled location or land-use fee.

The U.S. Forest Service already has in place a regulatory policy

to collect commercial filming fees. The Forest Service has a detailed

and accepted policy, consisting of negotiated contracts involving a

set fee schedule based on personnel involved, length of time on location, special effects required, and other factors. Similarly, this

bill would standardize the collection of commercial film fees by

agencies within the Department of Interior.

H.R. 154 repeals the existing regulatory prohibition on collecting

fees for commercial film productions on lands administered by the

Department of the Interior, including units of the National Park

System and National Wildlife Refuge Areas. In addition, H.R. 154

authorizes the Secretary to establish a fee schedule using a number

of relevant factors, such as the number of people on site, the use

of lands with special designations, and the duration of the filming

activities. The bill would not affect newsreel or television news activities. Proceeds from these location fees would remain in the unit

where the filming occurs as per Public Law 104–134.

An amendment was offered by Congressman Joel Hefley at Full

Committee markup which clarifies language in section 1(a)(1) of

H.R. 154. The amendment further clarified the intent as to when

it is appropriate to use lands for activities authorized by H.R. 154.

In essence, the amendment gives the Secretary of the Interior the

added discretion to consider whether the activity results in a significant disruption of normal visitor uses when issuing a permit.

However, it is the clear intent of the Committee that ‘‘significant

disruption’’ means that the activity must be a major interference

or excessive disturbance of regular visitor uses. This standard is

meant to have a high threshold. It is the intention of the Committee that minor and temporary inconveniences for park visitors

caused by activities authorized by H.R. 154 shall not be considered

a ‘‘significant disruption’’ insofar as obtaining a permit for such activities.

Furthermore, the Committee is aware that the term ‘‘appropriate’’ as used in section 1(a)(1) has caused some concern. The

Committee wants to make it perfectly clear and emphasizes without ambiguity that the term ‘‘appropriate’’ is not to be construed

or used in any manner as an authorization by the Secretary for

script approval. Rather, the Committee’s intent of the term ‘‘appropriate’’ should be viewed by the Secretary in the context of the impairment of the values and resources which are to be protected on

federal lands where these activities occur.

Because commercial advertising photographers and film production companies frequently need permits to be approved quickly, it

is the intent of the Committee that the Secretary take into consideration the particular timeliness of a production in processing the

applications and should approve permits authorized in H.R. 154 in

the shortest time period possible and appropriate.
4

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 154 was introduced on January 6, 1999, by Congressman

Joel Hefley (R–CO). The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands and the Subcommittee on Fisheries

Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. On February 4, 1999, the National Parks Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 154 where Stephen Saunders, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and

Parks for the Department of the Interior, testified in favor the bill.

On February 25, 1999, the Subcommittee met to consider the bill.

No amendments were offered and the bill was ordered favorably reported to the Full Resource Committee by voice vote. On March 3,

1999, the Full Resource Committee met to consider H.R. 154. An

amendment was offered by Congressman Hefley as described earlier which was adopted by voice vote. The bill, as amended, was

then ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by

voice vote.

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in

the body of this report.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8 and Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution

of the United States grant Congress the authority to enact this bill.

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that Rule provides

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) of rule

XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section

308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this bill does not

contain any new budget authority, credit authority, or an increase

or decrease in tax expenditures. Enactment of H.R. 154 could affect

the federal budget by changing collections of offsetting receipts and

the use of these receipts. According to the Congressional Budget

Office, any change in offsetting receipts would be matched by an

equal change in spending, resulting in no net change in direct

spending.

3. Government Reform Oversight Findings. Under clause 3(c)(4)

of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee has received no report of oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform on this

bill.
5

4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the

Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, March 19, 1999.

Hon. DON YOUNG, Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 154, a bill to provide for

the collection of fees for the making of motion pictures, television

productions, and sound tracks in National Park System and National Wildlife Refuge System units.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.

Sincerely,

BARRY B. ANDERSON

(For Dan L. Grippen, Director).

Enclosure.

H.R. 154—A bill to provide for the collection of fees for the making

of motion pictures, television productions, and sound tracks in

National Park System and National Wildlife Refuge System

units

Summary: H.R. 154 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to

establish fees for commercial filming and similar activities conducted on public lands, and would authorize agencies within the

Department of the Interior (DOI) to retain and spend without further appropriation any resulting receipts. The Secretary would develop regulations to establish a schedule of rates, which would be

based on factors such as the number of persons on site and the duration of filming. The bill would authorize the Secretary to reduce

fees if the activity provides clear educational benefits for the department and would exempt from any fees newsreels, television

news productions, and some commercial photography.

CBO expects that enacting H.R. 154 could affect the federal

budget by changing collections of offsetting receipts and the use of

such receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. Any

change in offsetting receipts would be matched by an equal change

in spending, though not necessarily in the same fiscal year, resulting in no net impact on direct spending in the long term. CBO estimates that any increases or decreases in offsetting receipts would

probably be at most a few million dollars a year. The bill contains

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would not affect the

budget of state, local, or tribal governments.

Commercial Filming on Public Lands Under Current Law: Under

current law, the Forest Service (which is in the Department of Agriculture) and most land management agencies within DOI already

allow commercial filming and similar activities on lands they ad-
6

minister. The vast majority of films made on these lands are commercials or other short-duration projects, such as still photography;

only a handful made each year are full-length feature films. All of

the federal land management agencies are allowed to charge some

fees for filming on public lands, but the rates they are allowed to

charge, the basis of those charges, and the rules governing spending of the resulting proceeds vary widely.

The Forest Service (which is authorized to set market-value rates

for filming in national forests) charges up to $600 per day for the

1,500 to 2,000 permits it issues annually. The Forest Service collected an average of about $400,000 annually over the last three

years from such fees, which it returned to the general fund of the

Treasury. The agency also may charge a $200 application fee and

may recover other direct costs, if any. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has authority similar to that of the Forest Service and

charges between$100 and $750 per day as a land rental fee. Receipts from rentals are returned to the Treasury, but the agency is

allowed to retain and spend additional fees collected for processing

applications and for cost reimbursement. In the few instances

where the agency imposes such additional fees, they range from

$200 to $1,000 per application. BLM issues between 300 and 400

applications annually, which CBO estimates earn the federal government less than $100,000 a year in total.

The National Park Service (NPS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS) are more limited in their authority to charge fees

because they may not impose fees that are greater than the

amounts necessary to cover the cost of processing of applications

and the direct costs of activities attributable to the filming, such

as on-site monitoring. After the Forest Service, the NPS issues the

most filming permits—over 900 for each of the last three years. On

average over this period, the NPS earned $1 million or less per

year, or about $1,000 per film, which includes application fees and

cost reimbursements as well as small donations (about $50 per

film). All of these amounts were retained and spent by the agency.

The USFWS, which currently issues fewer than 100 permits per

year, imposes no charge for processing applications or cost recovery.

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: CBO cannot estimate

the amount of offsetting receipts that would be earned under the

new authorities contained in H.R. 154. Nevertheless, because the

bill also would allow the agencies to spend whatever new receipts

are earned, we estimate that enacting the bill would have no significant net impact on the federal budget over the next several

years.

The major potential budgetary impact of the bill would be on the

NPS. But the bill’s effect would depend on many behavioral factors

that cannot be predicted with confidence, and it is therefore difficult to estimate how much the NPS would earn and spend under

H.R. 154.

Based on information provided by that agency, we expect that it

would most likely follow the fee structure used by the Forest Service. It is not clear whether adopting this structure would result in

any additional receipts. In fact, based on the limited information

available, it appears that the NPS already earns more on commer-
7

cial filming than the Forest Service—on fewer permits. The most

likely reason for this is the relatively high amounts collected by the

NPS as cost recovery, probably because filming on NPS sites generally requires more monitoring and agency resources. (In contrast,

the Forest Service seldom provides much on-site assistance.) It is

also possible that longer, more personnel-intensive films are shot at

NPS sites or that the agency waives fees less often than Forest

Service does for educational films.

The NPS might earn additional fee receipts under H.R. 154 because the new authority to charge rates that exceed actual costs,

and the incentive provided by allowing more money to be spent

without appropriation, may induce the agency to promote filming

on its lands. In addition, adopting the Forest Service fee schedule

would probably result in higher fees on some films because the

NPS could add up to $600 per day to the amounts it already

charges for processing applications and recovering other direct

costs. It is also possible, however, that the agency would lose some

collections if it raises its fees because the number of films made in

part units could drop in response. In either case, CBO does not expect the impact on receipts to be great. The most the agency could

lose is the $1 million that it now collects each year. Potential gains

could be more, but we estimate that they would total no more than

a few million dollars a year.

It is possible that the bill would have little or no impact on NPS

filming activities, particularly if other, nonmonetary factors do not

change. For example, the film industry has indicated that an important factor in its choice of filming sites is agency cooperation.

As a result, many film makers use Forest Service or nonfederal

lands rather than NPS sites because applications are processed

more quickly and their presence is more readily accepted. Thus, the

industry may continue to use lands administered by the Forest

Service (whose rates could be considerably lower than those of the

NPS under the bill) or owned by private parties or other governmental entities (some of whom presently charge more than any federal agency).

CBO expects that the bill would have little effect on the budget

of the USFWS because that agency, which would be very likely to

charge fees once it has the authority to do so, would probably not

promote more filming on its lands for environmental reasons. We

also expect that the bill would have little impact on BLM, which

would be allowed to retain receipts from land rentals that currently

are returned to the Treasury. BLM already charges fees that are

close to those that the Forest Service now charges or that the NPS

would charge under the bill. BLM would be unlikely to increase its

rates under the bill because higher fees would be uncompetitive.

Spending the portion of the $100,000 a year it now returns to the

Treasury would not have any significant impact. Finally, H.R. 154

would have no effect on the Forest Service, which is excluded from

the bill’s provisions.

This estimate is based on information obtained from the Association of Independent Commercial Producers, the Motion Picture Association, and federal agencies, including DOI, the Forest Service,

the NPS, BLM, and USFWS.
8

Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balances Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. H.R. 154 would probably affect direct spending but CBO cannot estimate the amount of

new offsetting receipts and spending that would result from enacting this bill. CBO estimates that the net impact on direct spending

would be neglible over the next several years.

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 154 contains

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in

UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal

governments.

Estimate prepared by: Deborah Reis.

Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing law.

Æ