U.S. Code » Title 16 » Chapter CHAPTER 1B— ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES PROTECTION

16 U.S.C. § 470hh

Confidentiality of information concerning nature and location of archaeological resources

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Disclosure of informationInformation concerning the nature and location of any archaeological resource for which the excavation or removal requires a permit or other permission under this chapter or under any other provision of Federal law may not be made available to the public under subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5 or under any other provision of law unless the Federal land manager concerned determines that such disclosure would—(1) further the purposes of this chapter or chapter 3125 of title 54, and(2) not create a risk of harm to such resources or to the site at which such resources are located.(b) Request for disclosure by GovernorsNotwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), upon the written request of the Governor of any State, which request shall state—(1) the specific site or area for which information is sought,(2) the purpose for which such information is sought,(3) a commitment by the Governor to adequately protect the confidentiality of such information to protect the resource from commercial exploitation,the Federal land manager concerned shall provide to the Governor information concerning the nature and location of archaeological resources within the State of the requesting Governor.(Pub. L. 96–95, § 9, Oct. 31, 1979, 93 Stat. 727; Pub. L. 113–287, § 5(d)(8), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3265.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2014—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 113–287, which directed substitution of “chapter 3125 of title 54” for “the Act of June 27, 1960 (16 U.S.C. 469–469c)” in subsec. (a)(2), was executed by making the substitution in subsec. (a)(1), to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2021 · leading case: United States v. Quarrell, 310 F.3d 664 (10th Cir. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Quarrell, 310 F.3d 664 (10th Cir. 2002). “” 16 U.S.C. § 470hh(a)(2). Neither the legislative history nor the purpose behind the statute directly answers the issue of whether the government must prove that the defendant knew he or she was on public land in order to establish a § 470ee(a) violation.”
United States v. Grace, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1140 (D. Mont. 2006). · cites it 5× “§ 1905 , and 16 U.S.C. § 470hh. Finally, Defendants object to specific assertions of the attorney-client privilege.”
Jicarilla Apache Nation v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 413 (Fed. Cl. 2004). “§ 470w-3, the Archeological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. § 470hh(a), the Indian Mineral Development Act, 25 U.”
Starkey v. United States Dep't of Interior, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (S.D. Cal. 2002). · cites it 2× “16 U.S.C. § 470hh. Plaintiffs challenge the applicability of ARPA for several reasons.”
Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians v. Oregon, 143 F.3d 481 (9th Cir. 1998). “Congress has limited the information a state may release to the public regarding certain Indian affairs, see 16 U.S.C. § 470hh(b) (protecting confidentiality of information regarding Indian artifacts), as well as other areas of the law.”
La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Reservation v. Trump (S.D. Cal. 2020). “16 U.S.C. § 470hh. Thus, 1 the sealing of the records is appropriate to protect the integrity of La Posta’s cultural and 2 sacred sites.”
La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Reservation v. Trump (S.D. Cal. 2021). “16 U.S.C. § 470hh. Thus, 10 the sealing of the records is appropriate to protect the integrity of La Posta’s cultural and 11 sacred sites.”
Rocky Mountain Wild v. United States Bureau of Land Mgmt. (D. Colo. 2020). “See 16 U.S.C. § 470hh(a). 1. Exemption 5 Exemption 5 applies to “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.”
Rocky Mountain Wild, Inc. v. United States Bureau of Land Mgmt. (D. Colo. 2020). “The BLM justified its withholding of records under Exemptions 3 and 5 of the FOIA and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. § 470hh(a). On April 17, 2017, plaintiff filed an administrative appeal of the BLM’s decision.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 470hh(a) — 4 cases
Jicarilla Apache Nation v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 413 (Fed. Cl. 2004). “§ 470w-3, the Archeological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. § 470hh(a), the Indian Mineral Development Act, 25 U.”
Starkey v. United States Dep't of Interior, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (S.D. Cal. 2002). “16 U.S.C. § 470hh. Plaintiffs challenge the applicability of ARPA for several reasons.”
Rocky Mountain Wild v. United States Bureau of Land Mgmt. (D. Colo. 2020). “See 16 U.S.C. § 470hh(a). 1. Exemption 5 Exemption 5 applies to “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.”
Rocky Mountain Wild, Inc. v. United States Bureau of Land Mgmt. (D. Colo. 2020). “The BLM justified its withholding of records under Exemptions 3 and 5 of the FOIA and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. § 470hh(a). On April 17, 2017, plaintiff filed an administrative appeal of the BLM’s decision.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 470hh(a)(2) — 1 case
United States v. Quarrell, 310 F.3d 664 (10th Cir. 2002). “” 16 U.S.C. § 470hh(a)(2). Neither the legislative history nor the purpose behind the statute directly answers the issue of whether the government must prove that the defendant knew he or she was on public land in order to establish a § 470ee(a) violation.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 470hh(b) — 1 case
Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians v. Oregon, 143 F.3d 481 (9th Cir. 1998). “Congress has limited the information a state may release to the public regarding certain Indian affairs, see 16 U.S.C. § 470hh(b) (protecting confidentiality of information regarding Indian artifacts), as well as other areas of the law.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.