At press time, a bill governing filming on federally owned lands-including those under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System-was awaiting the signature of President Clinton to become law. Its generally expected that Clinton will sign the measure, H.R. 154, which was originally authored by Congressman Joel Hefley (R-Colo.). H.R. 154 passed both houses of Congress last month. The Senate initiated some changes in the bill, most notably expanding its scope to also encompass the U.S. Forest Service and other public land agencies, according to Hefleys legislative director Larry Hojo.
The Senate revisions, however, did not affect the key provisions that helped win an earlier endorsement from the Association of Independent Commercial Producers (AICP). For example, H.R. 154 continues to base "reasonable" filming fees for federal public lands-such as national parks-on crew size and length of stay on location. Both of those barometers are favorable to commercials, which are usually smaller-scale productions and have shorter lensing periods as compared to their TV program and theatrical feature counterparts. In testimony before U.S. House and Senate subcommittees dating back to 98, representatives of the theatrical feature and TV commercial industries have advocated crew size as a reliable, equitable measurement of a productions impact on a location (SHOOT, 5/1/98 and 5/29/98).
H.R. 154 also calls for timely processing of film permits. The timetable for processing would be tied to the length of projected filming. For filming permits of shorter duration-as is typical in commercials-the turnaround for processing would be shorter than would a request to shoot for an extended period of time, which is often the case for theatrical movies and telefilms.
The legislation currently on Clinton’s desk additionally establishes an 80-20 split of film fee revenue, with the 80 percent going to the local park facility in which lensing takes place. Hojo explained that the remaining 20 percent will be set aside for system-wide federal land needs.
Keeping the lion’s share of revenue within the local jurisdiction could benefit the film community. Some segments of the industry reason that this revenue distribution policy may serve as additional incentive for local public land managers to facilitate production.
Leigh von der Esch, director of the Utah Film Commission and a past president of the Association of Film Commissioners International, related that retention of this revenue locally might justify the hiring of liaisons to handle and expedite reasonable filming requests. Currently, many public land managers have a full plate of responsibilities, making it difficult for them to divert time to facilitating quick turnaround for the issuance of film permits. "Options include federal land managers bringing in qualified retirees, and having a standby list of people available to service filming," said von der Esch, a long-time proponent of the Hefley bill, which was introduced some three years ago. "Rather than be faced with a decision to pull people away from serving traditional park clients such as tourists, local facilities can pick up the slack by hiring additional help for location filming."
"It’s important that most of the revenue stay local," affirmed AICP president Matt Miller who described the pending law as being "a positive development for American production. It addresses the runaway production issue in a meaningful way." Miller additionally cited the crew size and length of filming criteria for fees as being of benefit to the spot community. "This bill is very much what we have been seeking," he assessed.
H.R. 154 also balances film industry needs with other considerations. The bill prohibits filming where it could have a negative effect on the environment, significantly disrupt public use of the land or cause health and safety concerns.
If and when President Clinton signs H.R. 154 into law, agencies under the U.S. Department of the Interior, like the National Park Service, would then have to write regulations reflecting their interpretation of how the legislation should best be implemented. Hojo said that the original Hefley bill called for this process to take no longer than six months. While that timetable is not part of H.R. 154’s current language, Hojo said that the 180- day limit could still be enforced. He expressed hope that with the mandatory public comment period of 30 days, it’s possible that the law could be in effect as soon as two months after receiving Clinton’s signature.
"There’s still work to be done in terms of writing the actual regulations that reflect the spirit of the bill," said Miller who expects the AICP to have input into that process.
In the big picture, assessed Hojo, H.R. 154 is a significant step towards providing a unified national process and procedure for gaining access to federal land for filming. "In essence, this ensures that all land management agencies have to have a commercial filming policy and a fee schedule in place," related Hojo.
Von der Esch observed that the law will serve "to make things more consistent among federal lands in terms of what producers can expect. This should help the filming community by simplifying policies and requirements."
Key in gaining passage of H.R. 154 in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives was the coming together of Hefley’s bill in late ’99 with that of a similar proposal from Sen. Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.). This merger of proposed legislation (SHOOT, 12/10/99) helped to build considerable backing in both houses of Congress for filming reform as it relates to public lands.
