[House Report 106-75]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 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
R E P O R T
[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).
(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 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 so-called 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.
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 ofoffsetting 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.
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 administer. The vast majority of films made on these
lands are commercials or other short-duration projects, such as
still photography; only a handful madeeach 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 commercial 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 wouldbe 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.
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.