PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 374.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 28, 2012
Preserving Access to Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area Act - Requires the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area in North Carolina to be managed in accordance with the Interim Protected Species Management Strategy/Environmental Assessment issued by the National Park Service (NPS) on June 13, 2007, for the Recreational Area until the Secretary of the Interior issues a new final rule that meets the additional restrictions specified below. Bars the imposition of any additional restrictions on pedestrian or motorized vehicular access to any part of the Recreation Area for species protection beyond those in the Interim Management Strategy, other than as specifically authorized pursuant to this Act.
Allows the Secretary if, based on peer-reviewed science and after public comment, it is determined that additional restrictions on access to a part of the Recreation Area are necessary to protect endangered species, to only restrict pedestrian and vehicular access for recreational activities for the shortest possible time and on the smallest possible portions of such area.
Prohibits the final rule titled "Special Regulations, Areas of the National Park System, Cape Hatteras National Seashore--Off-Road Vehicle Management" from having any force or effect.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Invalidates the April 30, 2008, consent decree filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina regarding off-road vehicle use at the Seashore.
People & committees
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC-3] · R–NC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 374.
Committee on Judiciary discharged.
Committee on Judiciary discharged.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 112-526, Part I.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 112-526, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 24 - 18.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4094 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4094 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4094 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4094 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.