[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 9, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11736-11746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-5783]
[[Page 11735]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Department of the Interior
_______________________________________________________________________
National Park Service
_______________________________________________________________________
36 CFR Part 61
Procedures for State, Tribal, and Local Government Historic
Preservation Programs; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 9, 1999 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 11736]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 61
RIN 1024-AC44
Procedures for State, Tribal, and Local Government Historic
Preservation Programs
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Through this rule, the National Park Service (NPS) revises
requirements (and the description of its own administrative procedures)
for State, tribal, and local historic preservation programs carrying
out actions under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended. Many revisions derive from the 1992 amendments to the National
Historic Preservation Act. Other changes reduce the regulatory burden
on, and provide more flexibility to, State, tribal, and local historic
preservation programs in response to the President's Regulatory
Reinvention Initiative and Executive Order 12866. Still others are made
in recognition of the changing and maturing professional practice of
historic preservation nationwide.
DATES: This rule is effective on June 7, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John W. Renaud, 202-343-1059, FAX 202-
343-6004, John__R[email protected] (E-mail).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
36 CFR part 61 is promulgated pursuant to the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) which
creates the national historic preservation program, which is a
partnership among Federal, State, tribal, and local governments,
nonprofit and for profit organizations, and individual citizens. The
Act also provides funding for this partnership through the Historic
Preservation Fund. This partnership is dedicated to the preservation of
historic properties (as defined by the Act) nationwide which provide
the foundation of our Nation's rich and irreplaceable heritage. Through
this partnership, the vital legacy of cultural, educational, aesthetic,
inspirational, and economic benefits of our patrimony is maintained and
enriched for future generations of Americans. 36 CFR part 61 provides
the regulatory framework for voluntary participation by State, local,
and tribal governments in this national program administered by the
Secretary of the Interior through the Director of the National Park
Service (NPS). As of the date of publication of this rulemaking, all 59
States (as defined by the Act) participate as do more than 1,100 local
governments and 17 tribal governments. The tribal sections (currently
reserved) of this rule, which will address more particularly the needs
of tribes participating in this program, may eventually lead to the
participation in the national historic preservation program of the more
than 300 federally recognized Indian tribes. NPS is responsible for
providing national standards, guidance, and technical assistance to the
State, tribal, and local historic preservation programs participating
in the national historic preservation program. NPS also provides
quality control for the activities funded by the Historic Preservation
Fund grants-in-aid and matching monies. The responsibility for most
decision making in the State, tribal, and local government programs and
the selection of specific projects and activities lies largely with
each State, tribal, and local government based on its particular needs.
Public participation is a crucial part in guiding the course of this
national historic preservation program.
This revision to 36 CFR part 61 is needed as the former regulation
(promulgated in 1984) became outmoded due to changes in statute and the
natural evolution of the national historic preservation program. The
National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1992 (Title XL of Pub.
L. 102-575) made a number of substantive as well as technical changes
to the subject matter covered by these rules. Through day-to-day
administration of the program, as well as through communication with
partners in the national historic preservation program, NPS has become
aware of the need for other changes to these rules.
One of the significant policy changes made to the Act in the 1992
amendments directed a substantive and meaningful role for Indian tribes
within the national historic preservation program. The United States
has a unique legal relationship with Indian tribes set out in the
Constitution of the United States as well as in treaties, statutes, and
Federal court decisions. The full participation of tribes within the
national historic preservation program is a national policy goal and is
recognized within this rule.
Pursuant to the 1992 amendments to the Act, Indian tribes can be
approved by the Secretary of the Interior to assume formal
responsibility for carrying out on tribal lands any or all of those
functions previously assigned to State Historic Preservation Officers.
Indian tribes can use (and to date 17 tribes have used) the statutory
language of that amendment and the existing regulatory framework set
out in this rule and in related regulations to assume those formal
responsibilities. Sections 61.8 and 61.9 of this rule (currently
reserved) will address in more detail the process for tribal assumption
of program responsibilities. These two sections will also be used to
implement the statutory mandate for providing greater flexibility in
the application of statutory and regulatory requirements to tribal
programs, in order to accommodate tribal values to the greatest extent
feasible.
Sections 61.8 and 61.9 which are currently under development by NPS
will be issued for general review and comment in the Federal Register
and eventually issued for effect. In addition to those sections, other
changes to this rule may be proposed in further recognition of the role
of tribes in this program and will be issued for review and comment
within the Federal Register at an appropriate time for public
consideration and comment. In developing Sec. 61.8, Sec. 61.9, and
other changes to the rule, NPS will consult with the tribes already
participating in the program and with other interested parties.
The 1992 amendments to the Act also included a more formal
recognition (within the breadth of programs authorized by the Act) of
properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to Indian
tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. It is the intent of this rule
to ensure that, to the extent feasible, State and local governments
operating under this rule identify, evaluate and protect these unique
classes of properties in consultation with Indian tribes and Native
Hawaiian organizations in activities listed in section 101(b)(3) of the
Act for States and section 101(c) of the Act for local governments.
Revision of 36 CFR part 61 is the appropriate means to resolve many
of these issues. The national historic preservation program has grown
in competency, responsibility, and accountability over the years. There
also has been a maturation in the professional practice of historic
preservation nationwide. By placing more reliance on State, tribal, and
local governments, by eliminating unnecessary detail and procedures,
and by expressing a more flexible oversight philosophy, these revisions
to 36 CFR
[[Page 11737]]
part 61 can reduce the need for a future rulemaking.
The penalties for noncompliance as specified in this rulemaking
include revoking the approved program status of any noncompliant party
as mandated by statute. The regulation also recognizes government-wide
requirements for Federal grants that include penalties (for
noncompliance with the terms of such grants) ranging from increased
oversight and reporting, to recovery of Federal funds, to suspension
from the grant program until requirements are met. Monitoring these
regulatory requirements is accomplished through a periodic review of
programs; with quality control of documents such as nominations to the
National Register of Historic Places and Federal Historic Preservation
Tax Incentive applications that are forwarded by the State to NPS; and,
by evaluation of standard reports on measures and accomplishments made
using Federal grant money.
36 CFR part 61 provides the general procedural framework for State,
local, and tribal historic preservation programs. Procedures can be
found elsewhere for specific activities carried out by those programs
and referred to in this document; e.g., 36 CFR part 60 for the National
Register of Historic Places and 36 CFR part 67 for Federal Historic
Preservation Tax Incentives. National standards and guidance on general
topics of applicability such as survey, planning, treatment of historic
properties, and professional qualifications can be found in ``the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and
Historic Preservation'' that can be obtained from NPS.
Comments on and Revisions to the Proposed Rule
This section summarizes and responds to comments received by NPS in
response to the proposed revisions to 36 CFR part 61 published in the
Federal Register on October 2, 1996 (61 FR 51536). This section
summarizes those comments and is organized by general subject matter.
Citations to the applicable part of the proposed rule are provided.
Changes made as a result of the comments are minor and clarify rather
than substantively change the proposed rule. This eliminates the normal
need to repeat in this document the section-by-section rationale for
the changes made to the 1984 rule. The Section-by-Section Analysis in
the preamble to the proposed rule remains an accurate description of
the rationale for the detailed changes except where modified in this
document. For example, the Department of the Interior Solicitor's
Office pointed out that the definition of ``State program'' in
Sec. 61.2(e) of the proposed rule leaves out statutory elements of a
State program as described in section 101(b) of the Act. We have
revised the definition accordingly.
Requirements for Certified Local Government Historic Preservation
Review Commissions, State Historic Preservation Program Staff, and
State Historic Preservation Review Boards
Comment: The largest number of comments received (15 in total)
supported making a specific discipline (or disciplines) a requirement
for each State's historic preservation program staff (State staff) in
Sec. 61.4(e)(1) and/or for each State's Historic Preservation Review
Board (Review Board) in Sec. 61.4(f)(1). Some commenters objected to
the proposed elimination of specific mandatory disciplines while other
commenters proposed that new disciplines be added as requirements. The
proposal to eliminate Architecture and Prehistoric and Historic
Archeology as requirements were most commonly mentioned. Additionally,
the suggestion for State staff and Review Boards to have professional
expertise in traditional cultural resources was promoted by a number of
commenters especially for States in which there are extensive
concentrations of such resources.
Response: It is the position of NPS that full-time State staff and
Review Board member professional proficiency in History, Architectural
History, and either Prehistoric or Historic Archeology is needed to
provide a common national baseline given the frequency with which all
State programs deal with certain repetitive classes of historic
properties (as defined by the Act). Experience has shown that other
disciplines may well be needed by some State programs but not by all
State programs, and not necessarily full time. For example, traditional
cultural properties expertise would be appropriate in a State with
large concentrations of such properties. In States where this is not
the case, this expertise may be less of a concern. These determinations
are best made by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and not
by NPS through this rule. However, NPS expects each SHPO to maintain a
State staff and Review Board appropriate to the historic properties (as
defined by the Act) in that State.
Comment: Two commenters stated that all disciplines listed in the
Act should be required on every State staff and Review Board.
Response: NPS disagrees. To require all disciplines cited in the
Act would be an unnecessary burden for State programs in many instances
given State resources, historic preservation needs, and program
emphases. NPS expects each SHPO to fill professional positions as
necessary to balance historic property, customer or constituent, and
historic preservation needs of the State and to obtain expertise in
disciplines as appropriate.
Comment: Three people expressed the view that there should be no
specific required disciplines for either State staff or Review Board
mandated in Secs. 61.4(e)(1) and (f)(1).
Response: NPS disagrees. As stated above, it is the position of NPS
that a common national baseline of historic preservation professionals
on each State staff and Review Board is needed. This position was
reached after detailed consultations with State Historic Preservation
Officers over a period of several years.
Comment: Two commenters thought that only the disciplines of
History, Architectural History, and Prehistoric or Historic Archeology
could be represented on a State program's staff or Review Board, and
that no other discipline could be allowed. They concluded that this
would mean a State program would be without expertise in many essential
areas. They also objected to the apparent position held by NPS that
other disciplines are not as valuable as the required disciplines.
Response: Sections 61.4(e) and 61.4(f) have been revised to make
clear that the required disciplines are not the only disciplines that
can or should be represented in the ``professional positions.'' This
rule, however, does not designate which additional disciplines to
select. It is the position of NPS that each SHPO knows best what
additional disciplines are needed to meet its particular needs and
resources. Furthermore, the fact that certain disciplines are minimum
regulatory requirements for State staffs and Review Boards does not
mean that those disciplines are necessarily more critical than the
other disciplines in a specific State.
Comment: One commenter thought that for a Certified Local
Government's (CLG's) historic preservation review commission
(Commission) to meet the requirements of Sec. 61.6(e)(2)(i), every
discipline listed in ``the Secretary's (Historic Preservation)
Professional Qualifications Standards'' would have to be represented on
the Commission.
Response: This is not the case. The Act requires that professional
membership on a Commission be drawn
[[Page 11738]]
from among (but not from all of) such disciplines to the extent
available in the community. It is at the discretion of each SHPO as
expressed in the Statewide local government certification procedures,
how many and which disciplines should be represented on each
Commission.
Comment: One person asked, concerning Sec. 61.4(f)(1), who within
each State has the authority to select the professional disciplines
(beyond the requirements set by this rule) for the Review Board.
Response: The SHPO, pursuant to Section 301(12)(A) of the Act, has
the authority to select the professional disciplines unless State law
specifies to the contrary.
Comment: Three individuals stated that the alternative composition
provisions of Secs. 61.4(e)(2) and (f)(2) are unnecessary given how
easy it is to meet the basic requirements for State staff and Review
Board professional membership.
Response: NPS disagrees. The alternative composition provisions
remain necessary and appropriate in allowing flexibility for State
programs. In addition, Indian tribes are currently using this
regulatory framework for assuming historic preservation
responsibilities parallel to some or all State Historic Preservation
Officer duties. The alternative composition provisions offer very
important flexibility for accommodating these new tribal programs that
vary greatly in their scope, size, and focus. Section 61.8, currently
under development, will expand on these provisions for tribal programs.
Comment: One person asked what constitutes ``demonstrated
competence, interest, or knowledge in historic preservation'' as
specified in Sec. 61.4(f)(1), how this is documented, and expressed
concern that this requirement is in conflict with a State law that
requires that only a majority of members have such ``demonstrated
competence, interest, or knowledge in historic preservation.''
Response: Any ``professional'' meeting ``the Secretary's (Historic
Preservation) Professional Qualifications Standards'' automatically
meets the ``demonstrated competence, interest, or knowledge'' test. For
other Review Board members, NPS expects each SHPO to use a rule of
reasonableness to determine whether a person has competence, interest,
or knowledge in historic preservation. For the programs and activities
subject to this rule, the provisions of 36 CFR part 61 take precedence
over conflicting State law.
Comment: Another person thought that requiring in Sec. 61.4(f)(1)
that every Review Board member have a demonstrated ``interest,
competence, or knowledge in historic preservation'' meant that all
Review Board members must be ``historic preservation practitioners''
who meet ``the Secretary's (Historic Preservation) Professional
Qualifications Standards'' for the discipline of ``Historic
Preservation.''
Response: There is no such requirement.
Comment: One commenter suggested that ``as appropriate'' be added
to Sec. 61.6(e)(2)(i) to ensure that a ``professional'' would not be
appointed to a Commission just because he or she is the only
professional available in the community.
Response: This rule does not require a CLG to limit its Commission
membership selection criteria to the Federal minimum requirements,
provided that its additional selection criteria are not inconsistent
with the purposes of the Act and Statewide procedures.
Comment: One person thought that the provision in
Sec. 61.6(e)(2)(ii) matching Commission membership requirements to
those for the Review Board was too restrictive because in many States,
Commissions and Review Boards have very different (although
overlapping) responsibilities.
Response: NPS agrees and has modified the language of the rule
accordingly to place an emphasis on local needs and functions for State
procedure requirements relating to Commission membership.
Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that requiring only three
disciplines on each Review Board means that only those three
disciplines could be professional members of the Commission pursuant to
Sec. 61.6(e)(2).
Response: State programs and local offices can, and often do, set
additional membership requirements that are responsive to particular
State and local needs and issues. Nothing in this rule prohibits a CLG
from appointing to its Commission more than the minimally required
number or types of professional members.
Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that reducing the minimum
number of Review Board meetings from three to one a year
(Sec. 61.4(f)(4)), would make it more difficult for a State historic
preservation office to justify State budgetary authority for additional
meetings necessary to carry out Review Board responsibilities. Of
particular concern was timely review of nominations to the National
Register of Historic Places.
Response: NPS agrees and language has been added to make clear that
each Review Board should meet as often as necessary to meet national
historic preservation statutory and regulatory requirements.
Comment: Another individual expressed concern about the proposed
change in Sec. 61.4(f)(3) to extend from six months to one year the
time period in which a vacancy on a Review Board could exist prior to
NPS intervention.
Response: The rule change parallels the move in Sec. 61.4(f)(4) to
a one Review Board meeting per year minimum. If a Review Board meets
only once a year, a ten-month-long vacancy between meetings would not
necessarily be problematic. Note, however, that the rule retains the
requirement that a vacancy be filled in a ``timely'' fashion. NPS would
expect a more rapid response to a vacancy from a State that holds
quarterly Review Board meetings.
Other State and Local Program Issues
Comment: One commenter raised the question as to whether
municipalities were meant to be included in Sec. 61.4(b)(4) as part of
``any qualified nonprofit organization, educational institution, or
otherwise pursuant to State law'' regarding a SHPO's ability to carry
out activities via contract or cooperative agreement. If so, the
commenter suggests that this is in conflict with Sec. 61.6(f)(1) which
prohibits SHPOs from delegating the authority to nominate properties
directly to the National Register.
Response: A SHPO may use third parties, including municipalities,
to carry out aspects of the National Register process, but may not
delegate the authority to nominate properties directly to the National
Register. This section provides flexibility to each SHPO, but does not
allow the SHPO to divest himself or herself of statutory authorities
and responsibilities. NPS has added language to clarify this point.
Comment: One person found it problematic that Federal and State
requirements for Commissions might not be stringent enough to justify
conducting certain SHPO responsibilities through a CLG pursuant to
Sec. 61.6(d) if that CLG only meets the minimum requirements specified
in Sec. 61.6(e).
Response: It is each SHPO's responsibility to ensure that a CLG has
adequate capacity to carry out any additional responsibilities.
Comment: Two commenters opposed the option in Sec. 61.4(b)(3) to
waive the face-to-face meeting requirement for the
[[Page 11739]]
Review Board (or a Commission acting for the Review Board) in
considering a National Register nomination because they believe face-
to-face meetings are an important part of the National Register and
public participation process.
Response: NPS recognizes the value inherent in a face-to-face
discussion of any nomination to the National Register. Therefore this
provision is optional and can be used only when all parties (including
the chief elected local official as the representative of the general
public) consent to waive the face-to-face meeting.
Comment: Six commenters opposed the options provided in
Sec. 61.4(b)(3) to allow broader CLG participation in the National
Register process because they believe that many CLGs may not be
interested in, qualified for, or sufficiently objective to take the
place of the Review Board in reviewing nominations. They expressed
concern that the National Register process could be compromised.
Response: Even if a SHPO chooses to offer this option, if a CLG is
not interested in participating more broadly in the National Register
process, nothing in this rule would compel it to do so. However, in
those situations in which a CLG has so requested, it must meet all
applicable program criteria thus ensuring minimum levels of
professional credibility and accountability. The integrity of the
National Register process is protected also by the appeals process
specified in 36 CFR part 60. Note that section 101(c)(2) of the Act
sets parameters for CLG participation in the National Register process.
Comment: One person suggested that the provision in Sec. 61.4(b)(3)
requiring owner consent to waive a public meeting for the Review Board
(or Commission) review of a National Register nomination conflicts with
the owner objection provisions in section 101(a) of the Act regarding
district nominations.
Response: NPS disagrees. NPS believes that there is no
inconsistency because the subject matter is different; i.e., whether to
waive a public hearing for considering National Register eligibility
(in this case) versus whether historic properties should be listed in
the case of district nominations.
Comment: Four people asserted that requiring consent from the chief
elected local official for the waiver of the requirement for a public
meeting as stated in Sec. 61.4(b)(3) is unnecessary and could be
eliminated or, alternatively, replaced by a notification.
Response: NPS disagrees. NPS believes that the consent of the chief
elected local official (as the community's representative) is important
in waiving a community's right to an open and public consideration of a
property's nomination to the National Register.
Comment: One person requested that the rule provide detailed
technical guidance about how the National Register-related public
participation provisions of Sec. 61.4(b)(3) should be carried out by
interested SHPOs, Review Boards, and Commissions.
Response: NPS agrees with the need for technical guidance. However,
the technical guidance does not need to be presented as part of this
rule. NPS intends to prepare this technical guidance in consultation
with affected parties and to issue it as soon as possible.
Comment: Four comments stated that State survey and inventory data
(Sec. 61.4(b)(2)) which includes information on the absence of National
Register eligible properties or on properties for potential future
nomination to the National Register are wasteful and could lead to
restriction of private property rights.
Response: NPS disagrees. Typically, though not a focus of all
surveys, gathering and keeping data on ``no properties found'' (i.e.,
areas which include properties that are not National Register eligible)
is ultimately highly cost effective. This information reduces the need
for costly re-surveys to plan for both public and private projects.
There is no evident reduction of property rights due to this provision
because neither the Act nor this rule gives the SHPO the authority to
carry out surveys on private land without owner permission.
Furthermore, a property cannot be listed on the National Register if
the private property owner (or majority of owners for districts)
objects.
Comment: One person suggested changing the phrase ``absence of
historic properties'' in Sec. 61.4(b)(2) to ``absence of particular
kinds of properties'' because a finding of no historic properties in an
area may have been based only upon a particular class or type or
survey, but be misconstrued to mean that there are no historic
properties of any kind. For example, in a survey for a particular class
or type of resources (e.g., archaeology only or bridges only), other
kinds of historic properties resources would not necessarily be
identified.
Response: While NPS agrees, changing the rule would weaken the
point of this provision which is to highlight the cost-effectiveness
and usefulness for planning purposes of knowing that there is no
historic property in the area. Reminders (such as this comment) on the
use and limitations of such ``negative'' surveys are more appropriately
addressed, NPS believes, in a different venue; e.g., ``the Secretary's
Standards and Guidelines for Identification'' or similar technical
publications.
Comment: One person stated that the SHPO may not have authority to
ensure that CLG survey and inventory data ``can be readily integrated
into . . . local planning processes'' as stated in Sec. 61.6(e)(3).
Response: The chief elected local official's signature on the CLG
certification agreement carries with it a commitment to follow the
Federal and State requirements for the CLG program. Also, this rule
does not require the actual integration into local systems--clearly a
local decision--but rather that the data are in a format compatible
with the local planning process(es).
Comment: One person expressed concern that Sec. 61.6(e)(1) seemed
to be highlighting regulatory tools for local historic preservation
programs rather than encouraging non-regulatory approaches to historic
preservation.
Response: These provisions for CLG requirements follow the Act
which specifically sets forth the use of regulatory tools by mandating
that CLGs must enforce appropriate State and local legislation for the
``designation'' and ``protection'' of historic properties (see section
101(c)(4) of the Act). However, nothing in this rule should be
interpreted to advocate only regulatory approaches to historic
preservation at any level of government.
Tribal Issues
Comment: One person wondered why the tribal sections of the rule
were reserved and suggested that information be provided explaining the
status of this material.
Response: NPS believes that it is premature to provide language
(either inclusive or exclusive) in this rulemaking that provides
regulatory interpretation of the statutory mandate to establish tribal
programs under section 101(d) of the Act. Preliminary consultation with
the tribes and other interested parties is now underway but has not yet
been completed, and the Federal Register review and comment process
must still be undertaken.
Comment: One person asked what impact this rulemaking will have on
the development of procedures for tribal historic preservation programs
under section 101(d) of the Act. Concern was expressed that the State
and local requirements contained in this rule would either limit or
predetermine the direction of tribal program procedures.
[[Page 11740]]
Response: This rulemaking will not constrain or predetermine the
development of tribal procedures because section 101(d) of the Act
calls for flexibility and modifications to accommodate tribal settings.
Any requirement for State programs is subject to modification for
tribal programs in accordance with rules under NPS development.
Comment: One person recommended exempting tribes from State
Historic Preservation Officer responsibilities specified in this rule.
Response: The position of NPS is that such a blanket exemption for
the tribes is neither appropriate nor consistent with the intent and
meaning of the Act. By law, State historic preservation program
requirements provide a point of reference in the establishment of
tribal historic programs under section 101(d) of the Act. In
furtherance of the requirements of section 101(d) of the Act, Sec. 61.8
of this rule (currently reserved and under development in consultation
with the tribes) will propose significant flexibility for tribal
programs by allowing for the case-by-case waiver or modification of
requirements in the Act and its attendant regulations in order to
accommodate tribal values to the greatest extent feasible. In the
meantime, tribes already choosing to participate in the national
program can avail themselves of the provisions of Sec. 61.4 that allow
for case-by-case approval of various program alternatives, as well as
the provisions of Sec. 61.10 that allow for case-by-case waiver of
those requirements of this rule not otherwise required by statute or
other regulation and as long as the purposes, conditions, or
requirements of the Act would not be compromised.
Comment: Another concern expressed was that no definition of
``tribal historic preservation program'' or ``tribal program'' is
included in this rulemaking.
Response: Again, these definitions will be developed as part of the
consultation process for drafting the regulations for the tribal
preservation programs and as such will be added to this rule at a later
date.
Comment: One person suggested adding section 101(d) to the other
referenced sections of the Act in Sec. 61.2(a) of this rule.
Response: NPS agrees with the importance of section 101(d), but not
with referencing it in Sec. 61.2 of this rule. Section 61.2 is the
``definitions'' section of this rule and, unlike the other referenced
sections of the Act, section 101(d) contains no definitions.
Comment: One person suggested changing the term ``Native Alaskan
corporations'' to ``Native Alaskan groups.''
Response: NPS cannot adopt this suggestion. The term
``corporation'' comes directly from the definition of Indian tribe in
section 301(4) of the Act which in turn is based on the definitions in
section 3 of the Alaska Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602).
National Park Service (NPS) Roles
Comment: Five commenters expressed concern about the
appropriateness of, and/or the lack of, a precise explanation in
Sec. 61.3(a) of ``management by exception'' for the administration of
historic preservation programs under the Act.
Response: ``Management by exception'' is the preferred policy
approach of NPS in administering the national historic preservation
program. It presumes that State, tribal, and local programs are being
administered in an accountable fashion in meeting all applicable
government-wide requirements unless proved to the contrary. A
management-by-exception approach uses oversight and analysis of systems
and quality control processes rather than an in-depth, project-by-
project approach. NPS has adopted this management policy wherever
warranted in recognition of both the growing maturation of the national
program, as well as changing Administration and Congressional
directives concerning the relationship between the Federal Government
and State, tribal, or local governments. However, whenever situations
warrant, NPS can, and will, apply more rigorous oversight to ensure
that requirements are met.
Comment: One person expressed the view that NPS is sometimes too
responsive to SHPO views and does not hear the concerns of the State's
clients.
Response: NPS makes every effort to serve equally each member of
the national partnership in administering the national historic
preservation program and considers all constituent comments. Oversight
and accountability are not affected by our long-standing relationship
with the State historic preservation programs.
Comment: Two people asked for clarification of ``independent peer
review'' in Sec. 61.3(a) as applied to a State, tribal, or local
government substituting its own fiscal audit and management systems for
comparable requirements set by the Secretary.
Response: ``Independent peer review'' is defined as a review
carried out by entities (public or private) who are not a part of NPS
but who can provide comparable independent, objective, and
knowledgeable oversight, analysis, and review that inspires confidence
that government-wide and Act-specific audit and management requirements
are being met.
Comment: One person opposed eliminating the requirement that each
SHPO make an annual certification that it has a fully qualified staff
and Review Board because, in the commenter's opinion, SHPOs may not
always inform NPS when there is a vacancy.
Response: The former regulatory requirement is redundant. The
annual grant agreement (executed between NPS and each State
participating in the national program) includes as a condition for
receiving the grant award the mandate that the State program meets and
will continue to meet all of the applicable requirements of the Act and
this rule.
Comment: One person suggested amending ``appropriate action'' to
``suspension of approved status'' in Secs. 61.4 (e) and (f) regarding
the result of NPS intervention when a vacancy has not been filled in a
timely fashion.
Response: NPS disagrees. NPS needs the flexibility to take a range
of administrative steps (which might include suspension of approved
status) to fit each situation.
Comment: One person thought that it is inconsistent to say in
Sec. 61.4 that State program reviews would take place at least once
every four years but more often if the Secretary deems necessary.
Response: This confuses the minimum frequency of review of each
State that must take place with the possible number of reviews that can
take place. The Act requires an evaluation at least once every four
years. Government-wide grant procedures authorize, and good management
demands, an evaluation whenever the situation merits it.
Comment: One person stated that the current State program reviews
were not frequent enough to address adequately serious problems.
Response: NPS disagrees. Nothing in the current system prevents NPS
from undertaking a State program review whenever it believes one is
warranted.
Comment: One person suggested that explicit time frames be added
for the various stages of the State program review process.
Response: NPS disagrees. NPS needs the regulatory flexibility to
tailor schedules to specific situations.
Comment: One person wondered what would constitute ``a major
program inconsistency with the Act'' that would be sufficient to
suspend a State
[[Page 11741]]
program's approved status after a State program review (see
Sec. 61.4(d)).
Response: NPS recognizes that loss of approved program status is
not the appropriate administrative response to minor compliance
problems. Refusal to carry out statutory requirements, a pattern of
gross negligence, and illegal use of grant funds are among the factors
that could contribute to a program's suspension or termination.
However, the determination of ``a major program inconsistency'' must be
done on a case-by-case basis.
Comment: Three people stated that Sec. 61.6(c) should be changed to
allow SHPOs with approved programs and NPS-certified CLG criteria and
procedures to certify CLGs without NPS concurrence.
Response: NPS does not have the statutory authority to do this. The
dual certification by the SHPO and NPS (acting for the Secretary) is
specifically required by section 101(c)(1) of the Act.
Comment: One person further suggested changing Sec. 61.6(e)(5) to
vest SHPOs with the sole authority for an involuntary decertification
of a CLG.
Response: NPS disagrees. Decertification procedures must generally
parallel those for the certification of qualified local governments.
Terminology, Definitions, and References
Comment: Two commenters asked for clarification, in Sec. 61.3(b),
of the regulatory force of the ``Secretary of the Interior's Standards
and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation.''
Response: NPS has added language to the rule to clarify two aspects
of this issue. NPS will use the Standards set forth in the ``Secretary
of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic
Preservation'' as technical performance standards for matters covered
by 36 CFR part 61. NPS may also use as technical performance standards
(for matters covered by this part) additional guidance provided from
time to time by NPS after appropriate consultation and notice. This
additional guidance may include, but is not limited to, selected
Guidelines set forth in the ``Secretary of the Interior's Standards and
Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation.''
Comment: Another person asked what is the relationship between the
current initiative of NPS to revise ``the Secretary's (Historic
Preservation) Professional Qualifications Standards'' and the changes
to Secs. 61.4(e) and (f) of this rule.
Response: Revising ``the Secretary's (Historic Preservation)
Professional Qualifications Standards'' will not affect their
regulatory relationship with this rule; i.e., in order for a person to
satisfy a regulatory requirement for a historic preservation
professional, that person must meet ``the Secretary's (Historic
Preservation) Professional Qualifications Standards.'' Note that the
grandfather provision in Sec. 61.3(c) has been modified to account for
changes to these Standards. Note also that the name of the Standards
will officially change to ``the Secretary of the Interior's Historic
Preservation Professional Qualifications Standards'' when they are
issued in the Federal Register. To signal this forthcoming change,
``Historic Preservation'' is placed in parentheses as part of the
current title of the Standards in this rulemaking.
Comment: One person suggested restoring to this rule all statutory
definitions, Standards, and regulatory material that in the former rule
were quoted verbatim.
Response: Repetition of standards or statutory and regulatory
material would make this rule unwieldy to use and is unnecessary at
this point in the program's history. These materials are widely
available and known to customers. Nevertheless, NPS has included in
Sec. 61.6(e)(1) the CLG program definitions for ``designation'' and
``protection'' because they are relatively new and represent a
significant statutory addition to CLG requirements.
Comment: One person suggested that in light of the elimination of
the former Appendix B (the list of SHPO addresses), the regulation
identify a central source to locate information.
Response: NPS agrees and have added appropriate language.
Comment: Two people found the references in this rule to the
National Register Programs Guideline (NPS-49) confusing without further
explanation.
Response: NPS agrees and has replaced them with more general
references to NPS administrative guidance.
Comment: One person suggested replacing ``cultural resource'' with
``historic resource'' or ``historic property'' to be consistent with
the Act.
Response: NPS has adopted this suggestion and used the term
``historic property'' as defined in section 301 of the Act except where
quoting the Act.
Comment: One person suggested adding to Sec. 61.2 a definition of
``partnership.''
Response: NPS has not defined the term ``partnership'' as suggested
because, aside from a common commitment to the purposes of the Act,
``partnership'' is not amenable to a single definition. In general,
however, the word ``partnership,'' in the context of the national
historic preservation program, recognizes that this is a nation-wide
initiative including full participation of not only the Federal but
also State, tribal, and local governments; the not-for-profit as well
as the for-profit sector; and, individual citizens.
Comment: One person suggested that the role of CLGs in the section
106 process be described in Sec. 61.6(e)(1).
Response: This suggestion was not considered because that
responsibility is more appropriately addressed by the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation through 36 CFR part 800.
Comment: One person suggested quoting in Sec. 61.6(f) the text of
section 101(c)(2) of the Act concerning National Register nominations
within the jurisdiction of a CLG.
Response: NPS believes that the cross reference is sufficient.
Public Participation
It is the policy of the Department of the Interior, whenever
practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the
rulemaking process. Accordingly, the National Park Service (NPS)
consulted extensively with State and local historic preservation
programs prior to publishing the proposed revisions to the rule for
general review and comment in the Federal Register (61 FR 51536)
concerning which NPS received 38 comments. All governmental members of
the national historic preservation partnership rely upon the public to
help guide and otherwise assist in the functions of their historic
preservation programs. Consequently, NPS encourages public
participation in all of the programs under the purview of this rule.
NPS welcomes comments at any time from any interested person concerning
the direction, administration, oversight, or any other aspect of these
programs. Interested parties should send written comments regarding
these programs to Heritage Preservation Services, National Center for
Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnership Programs, National Park
Service, 1849 C Street, NW (NC Suite 200), Washington, D.C. 20240 or
via the National Park Service Home Page for cultural programs at http:/
/www.cr.nps.gov.
Drafting Information: The primary author of this rule is John W.
Renaud, Heritage Preservation Services, National Center for Cultural
Resource Stewardship and Partnership Programs, National Park Service,
1849 C Street NW (NC Suite 200), Washington, D.C. 20240.
[[Page 11742]]
Paperwork Reduction Act
The collection of information contained in this rule has been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3507 et
seq. and has been assigned clearance number 1024-0038. No comments were
received on notice of submission to the OMB and the request for
comments published in the Federal Register (62 FR 34484). The
information is being collected as part of the process for reviewing the
procedures and programs of State and local governments participating in
the national historic preservation program and the Historic
Preservation Fund grant program. The information will be used to
evaluate those programs and procedures for consistency with the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and compliance
with government-wide grant requirements. The obligation to respond is
required to obtain a benefit under these programs. Note that a Federal
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. No assurance of confidentiality is provided
to respondents with the exception of locational information concerning
some properties included in government historic preservation property
inventories. Pursuant to section 304 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, release of information is tightly
controlled when such release could have the potential of damaging those
qualities which make a property historic or of vital cultural or
religious significance.
The public reporting burden for the collection of this information
is estimated to average 14.06 hours per response, including the time
for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to Ms. Diane M. Cooke, Information
Collection Officer, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW,
Washington, D.C. 20240 and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer
for the Department of the Interior (1024-0038), Washington, D.C. 20503.
Compliance With Other Laws
This rule was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866. The Department of the Interior determined that
this document will not have a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.). The overall economic effects of this
rulemaking should be negligible. There are no expected increases in
costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State or
local governments, agencies or geographic regions.
The Service has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rule will not
impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local,
State, or tribal governments or private entities.
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the NPS has determined
that this rule does not have significant takings implications. The rule
revises administrative procedures for the organization of State,
tribal, and local historic preservation offices. This rule does not
impact private property owners.
In accordance with Executive Order 12612, the NPS has determined
that the rule does not have significant Federalism implications. State,
tribal, and local government participation in these programs is
voluntary. In the development of this rule, the NPS consulted State and
local governments currently participating in these programs. The NPS
has achieved the consensus of its State and local government partners
that this rule should be published. No State or local government has
opposed the promulgation of this rule.
The Department has determined that this rule meets the applicable
standards provided in Section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order
12988.
This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional review
provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5
U.S.C. 804(2)).
The National Park Service has determined that this rulemaking will
not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment,
health, and safety because it is not expected to:
(a) increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature
and character of the area or causing physical damage to it;
(b) introduce incompatible uses which compromise the nature and
characteristics of the area or cause physical damage to it;
(c) conflict with adjacent ownership or land uses; or,
(d) cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants.
Based on this determination, the regulation is categorically
excluded from the procedural requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) by Departmental guidelines in 516 DM 6, Appendix 7.4D
(49 FR 21438). As such, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an
Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 61
Grant programs-natural resources, Historic preservation, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 36 CFR Chapter I is amended as
follows:
1. 36 CFR Part 61 is revised to read as follows:
PART 61--PROCEDURES FOR STATE, TRIBAL, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAMS
Sec.
61.1 Authorization.
61.2 Definitions.
61.3 Implementation of this part.
61.4 State programs.
61.5 Grants to State programs.
61.6 Certified local government programs.
61.7 Subgrants to certified local governments.
61.8 Tribal programs. [Reserved]
61.9 Grants to tribal programs. [Reserved]
61.10 Waiver.
61.11 Information collection.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.
Sec. 61.1 Authorization.
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16
U.S.C. 470 et seq.):
(a) Requires the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to
promulgate regulations for:
(1) Approving and overseeing State historic preservation programs;
(2) Certifying local governments to carry out the purposes of the
Act;
(3) Ensuring that applicable State Historic Preservation Officers
(SHPOs) allocate to certified local governments (CLGs) a share of
grants that the SHPOs receive under the Act; and
(4) Assisting Indian tribes in preserving their particular
``historic properties'' (as defined by the Act);
(b) Directs the Secretary to administer a program of grants-in-aid
to States and Indian tribes for historic preservation projects and
programs that the Secretary has approved; and
(c) Requires the Secretary to make available information concerning
professional standards, methods, and techniques for the preservation of
[[Page 11743]]
``historic properties'' (as defined by the Act) and the administration
of historic preservation programs.
Sec. 61.2 Definitions.
As used in this part:
(a) All terms that the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
as amended, defines have the same meaning in the regulations in this
part that the statute provides; see especially sections 101(a)(1)(A),
101(b), 101(c)(4), 108, and 301.
(b) Act means the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended, (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
(c) Chief elected local official means the elected head of a local
government.
(d) The Secretary's Standards means only the ``Standards'' portions
and not the ``Guidelines'' portions of ``the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic
Preservation.'' The Secretary's Standards provide broad national
principles of archeological and historic preservation practices and
methods. ``The Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for
Archeology and Historic Preservation'' also contains ``the Secretary's
Guidelines'' which provide broad national guidance on how to apply
``the Secretary's Standards.''
(e) State historic preservation program or State program means a
State government organization or program meeting the requirements that
section 101(b) of the Act specifies.
Sec. 61.3 Implementation of this part.
(a) National Park Service policy of management by exception. The
National Park Service (NPS) will administer the regulations in this
part in such a way (and where feasible) as to:
(1) Limit the use of direct Federal management review procedures to
high risk situations, to new programs, or to activities that are
appropriate for the Federal Government to oversee;
(2) Presume that State, tribal, and local government historic
preservation officials manage their programs in an accountable way
unless situations indicate the contrary; and
(3) Rely to the maximum extent feasible on State, tribal, and local
government systems of financial and program management that meet
Federal standards. At the discretion of the Secretary, each State,
tribal, and local government may substitute its own fiscal audit and
management systems for the Secretary's comparable fiscal audit and
management requirements, so long as the State, tribal, or local
government system establishes and maintains accounting standards
substantially similar to Federal standards and provides for independent
peer review.
(b) The Secretary's Standards. NPS will use the Secretary's
Standards as technical performance standards for matters covered by
this part. NPS may also use as technical performance standards (for
matters covered by this part) additional guidance that NPS identifies
and provides from time to time after appropriate consultation and
notice.
(c) Each State historic preservation program staff member, State
Historic Preservation Review Board (Review Board) member, and certified
local government (CLG) historic preservation review commission
(Commission) member whom the Secretary has approved as meeting ``the
Secretary's (Historic Preservation) Professional Qualifications
Standards'' will retain that status, regardless of subsequent revisions
to those Standards, until such time as that individual no longer works
in that program, or serves on that Review Board, or serves on that
Commission with which that individual was affiliated as of the date of
that individual's approval.
(d) You may obtain publications and other information mentioned in
this part by contacting: Heritage Preservation Services, National
Center for Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnership Programs,
National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW (NC Suite 200), Washington,
D.C. 20240 or via the National Park Service Home Page for cultural
programs at http://www.cr.nps.gov.
Sec. 61.4 State programs.
(a) For a State to participate in the program that this part
describes, the Governor must appoint and designate a State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) to administer the State historic
preservation program.
(b) It is the responsibility of the SHPO to carry out the duties
and activities that section 101 (b)(3) of the Act describes. In
performing those duties and activities:
(1) The SHPO must carry out a historic preservation planning
process that includes the development and implementation of a
comprehensive statewide historic preservation plan that provides
guidance for effective decision making about historic property
preservation throughout the State.
(2) The SHPO, in addition to surveying and maintaining inventories
of historic properties, may also obtain:
(i) Comparative data valuable in determining the National Register
eligibility of properties;
(ii) Information on properties that may become eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places with the passage of time; and/or
(iii) Information on the absence of historic properties for use in
planning for public and private development projects.
(3) The SHPO must provide for adequate public participation in the
State historic preservation program as a whole.
(i) As part of the process of recommending a property to the
National Register, the SHPO must comply with the consultation and
notification procedures contained in 36 CFR part 60.
(ii) The SHPO may authorize other persons or entities to fulfill
the notice requirements in 36 CFR part 60 pursuant to the Secretary's
written guidance.
(iii) The SHPO also may authorize the historic preservation review
commission (Commission) of a certified local government (CLG) to act in
place of the State Historic Preservation Review Board (Review Board)
for the purpose of considering National Register nominations within its
jurisdiction, provided that the Commission both meets the professional
qualifications required for the Review Board when considering such
nominations and otherwise follows the Secretary's written guidance.
(iv) In accordance with the Secretary's written guidance and with
the consent of both the property owners in a nomination and the chief
elected local official, the Review Board (or the Commission acting in
its place) may consider the nomination without a face-to-face meeting.
(4) The SHPO may carry out all or any part of his or her
responsibilities by contract or cooperative agreement with any
qualified nonprofit organization, educational institution, or otherwise
pursuant to State law. However, the SHPO may not delegate the
responsibility for compliance with the Act or with grant assistance
terms and conditions.
(c) The Secretary will consider individual SHPO proposals for
programs that, for a specified period, include fewer duties than those
section 101(b)(3) of the Act specifies, if a different approach would
better serve an appropriate balance of historic property, customer or
constituent, and historic preservation needs.
(d) Procedures for review and approval of State historic
preservation programs. (1) In accordance with the Act, the Secretary
will evaluate each State program for consistency with the Act
periodically, but not less often than every four years. If the
Secretary
[[Page 11744]]
determines that it meets the program requirements of paragraphs (a),
(b), (e) and (f) of this section, he or she will approve the State
program as set forth in this section.
(2) The Secretary may use on-site and/or off-site inquiries to
perform such evaluation. The Secretary will provide the SHPO with a
timely report containing written findings and analyses that highlight
the strengths and weaknesses of the State program.
(3) Approval method. (i) If the Secretary determines that a State
program is consistent with the Act, the report will include notice that
the State program's approved status continues.
(ii) If the Secretary determines that a State program has major
aspects not consistent with the Act, the report will include notice of
deficiencies along with required actions for correcting them. Unless
circumstances warrant immediate action, the Secretary will provide a
specified period to allow the SHPO either to correct the deficiencies
or to present for Secretarial approval a justifiable plan and timetable
for correcting the deficiencies. During this period, the SHPO has the
opportunity to request that the Secretary reconsider any findings and
required actions.
(iii) The Secretary will provide timely notice of continued
approved State program status to a SHPO successfully resolving
deficiencies. Once the Secretary renews a State program's approved
status, he or she generally will not review the program until the next
regular evaluation period. However, if the Secretary deems it
necessary, he or she may conduct a review more often.
(iv) The Secretary will provide timely notice of the revocation of
a program's approved status to any SHPO whose program has deficiencies
that warrant immediate action or that remain uncorrected after the
expiration of the period specified pursuant to paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of
this section. The Secretary will then initiate financial suspension and
other actions in accordance with the Act, applicable regulatory
requirements, and related guidance that the National Park Service
issues.
(e) The SHPO must appoint or employ a professionally qualified
staff.
(1) Except as approved pursuant to paragraph (e)(2) of this
section, the staff must include at a minimum, one individual meeting
``the Secretary's (Historic Preservation) Professional Qualifications
Standards'' for history, one individual meeting ``the Secretary's
(Historic Preservation) Professional Qualifications Standards'' for
historic or prehistoric archeology, and one individual meeting ``the
Secretary's (Historic Preservation) Professional Qualifications
Standards'' for architectural history. ``The Secretary's (Historic
Preservation) Professional Qualifications Standards'' and related
guidance are part of the larger ``Secretary of the Interior's Standards
and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation.'' The SHPO may
determine that additional professional staff members representing the
required or other disciplines are necessary to administer the State
program in accordance with the Act.
(2) The Secretary will consider proposals from a SHPO for a minimum
required staff composition that differs from the requirement that
paragraph (e)(1) of this section specifies, if the proposal addresses
better an appropriate balance of historic property, customer or
constituent, and historic preservation needs in that State.
(3) When a staff position that paragraph (e)(1) of this section
requires becomes vacant, the SHPO must fill the vacancy in a timely
manner. In the interim, the SHPO must ensure that appropriately
qualified individuals address technical matters. A vacancy in a
required position that persists for more than six months is cause for
review, comment, and appropriate action by the Secretary.
(f) Unless State law provides for a different method of
appointment, the SHPO must appoint an adequate and qualified State
historic preservation Review Board (Review Board).
(1) All Review Board members must have demonstrated competence,
interest, or knowledge in historic preservation. A majority of Review
Board members must meet ``the Secretary of the Interior's (Historic
Preservation) Professional Qualifications Standards'' which are part of
the larger ``Secretary's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and
Historic Preservation.'' The members meeting ``the Secretary's
(Historic Preservation) Professional Qualifications Standards'' must
include at a minimum, one individual meeting ``the Secretary's
(Historic Preservation) Professional Qualifications Standards'' for
history, one individual meeting ``the Secretary's (Historic
Preservation) Professional Qualifications Standards'' for prehistoric
archeology or historic archeology, and one individual meeting ``the
Secretary's (Historic Preservation) Professional Qualifications
Standards'' for architectural history. One person may meet the
Standards for more than one required discipline. The other Review Board
members, if any, who comprise the majority that meets ``the Secretary's
(Historic Preservation) Professional Qualifications Standards'' may
represent, subject to the SHPO's selection, any of the disciplines that
those ``Standards'' describe.
(2) The Secretary will consider proposals from a SHPO for a minimum
required Review Board composition that differs from the requirement
that paragraph (f)(1) of this section specifies, if the proposal
addresses better an appropriate balance of historic property, customer
or constituent, and historic preservation needs in that State.
(3) When a required Review Board position becomes vacant, the SHPO
must fill the vacancy in a timely manner. In the interim, the SHPO must
ensure that the Review Board has access to advice from appropriately
qualified individuals. A lapse of more than one year in filling the
vacancy is cause for review, comment, and appropriate action by the
Secretary.
(4) The Review Board must meet as often as is necessary to complete
its work in a timely fashion but no less often than once a year.
(5) The Review Board must adopt written procedures governing its
operations consistent with the provisions of this section and related
guidance that the National Park Service issues.
(6) Review Board responsibilities include, but are not limited to,
the following:
(i) Providing advice to the SHPO on the full range of Historic
Preservation Fund-supported activities, that section 101 (b)(3) of the
Act describes;
(ii) Reviewing and making recommendations on National Register
nomination proposals;
(iii) Participating in the review of appeals to National Register
nominations; and
(iv) Performing such other duties as may be appropriate.
Sec. 61.5 Grants to State programs.
(a) Each State with an approved State program is eligible for
grants-in-aid from the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF).
(b) The National Park Service (NPS) will administer HPF matching
grants-in-aid in accordance with the Act, OMB Circular A-133 and 43 CFR
part 12, and related guidance that NPS issues. Failure by a State
program to meet these requirements is cause for comment and appropriate
action by the Secretary.
Sec. 61.6 Certified local government programs.
(a) Each approved State program must provide a mechanism for
certification (by the State Historic Preservation Officer and the
Secretary) of local governments to carry out the purposes of the Act.
[[Page 11745]]
(b) Each State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) must follow
procedures that the Secretary approves for the certification of local
governments. Each SHPO also must follow procedures for removal of
certified local government (CLG) status for cause. A SHPO must submit
any proposed amendment to its procedures to the Secretary for approval.
The Secretary will act on each proposal in a timely fashion generally
within 45 days of receipt.
(c) When a SHPO approves a local government certification request
in accordance with the State program's National Park Service (NPS)-
approved certification process, the SHPO must prepare a written
certification agreement between the SHPO and the local government. The
certification agreement must list the specific responsibilities of the
local government when certified. The SHPO must submit to the Secretary
the written certification agreement and any additional information as
is necessary for the Secretary to certify the local government pursuant
to the Act and this part. If the Secretary does not disapprove the
proposed certification within 15 working days of receipt, the Secretary
has certified the local government.
(d) Beyond the minimum responsibilities set out in the Act for all
CLGs, the SHPO may make additional delegations of responsibility to
individual CLGs. However, these delegations may not include the SHPO's
overall responsibility derived from the Act or where law or regulation
specifies.
(e) The SHPO must ensure that each local government satisfies the
following minimum requirements as conditions for certification. Each
CLG must:
(1) Enforce appropriate State or local legislation for the
designation and protection of historic properties. The State procedures
must define what constitutes appropriate legislation, as long as:
(i) Designation provisions in such legislation include the
identification and registration of properties for protection that meet
criteria established by the State or the locality for significant
historic and prehistoric resources within the jurisdiction of the local
government;
(ii) Protection provisions in such legislation include a local
review process under State or local law for proposed demolitions of,
changes to, or other action that may affect historic properties as
paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section describes; and
(iii) The legislation otherwise is consistent with the Act.
(2) Establish by State or local law and maintain an adequate and
qualified historic preservation review commission (Commission). All
Commission members must have a demonstrated interest, competence, or
knowledge in historic preservation. Unless State or local legislation
provides for a different method of appointment, the chief elected local
official must appoint all Commission members.
(i) The State procedures must encourage certified local governments
to include individuals who meet ``the Secretary's (Historic
Preservation) Professional Qualifications Standards'' among the
membership of the Commission, to the extent that such individuals are
available in the community.
(ii) The State procedures may specify the minimum number of
Commission members who must meet ``the Secretary's (Historic
Preservation) Professional Qualifications Standards.'' The State
procedures may also specify which, if any, disciplines the Commission's
membership must include from among those disciplines that the Standards
describe. Membership requirements set by the State procedures for
Commissions must be cognizant of the needs and functions of Commissions
in the State and subject to the availability of such professionals in
the community concerned.
(iii) Provided that the Commission is otherwise adequate and
qualified to carry out the responsibilities delegated to it, the SHPO
may certify a local government without the minimum number or types of
disciplines established in State procedures, if the local government
can demonstrate that it has made a reasonable effort to fill those
positions, or that an alternative composition of the Commission best
meets the needs of the Commission and of the local government.
(iv) The SHPO must make available to each Commission orientation
materials and training designed to provide a working knowledge of the
roles and operations of Federal, State, and local historic preservation
programs, and historic preservation in general.
(3) Maintain a system for the survey and inventory of historic
properties. The SHPO must ensure that such systems and the data that
they produce are capable of integration into and are compatible with
statewide inventories and (when and as appropriate) with State and
local planning processes.
(4) Provide for adequate public participation in the local historic
preservation program as a whole. The SHPO must provide each CLG with
appropriate guidance on mechanisms to ensure adequate public
participation in the local historic preservation program including the
process for evaluating properties for nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places.
(5) Satisfactorily perform the responsibilities delegated to it
under the Act. The SHPO must monitor and evaluate the performance of
each CLG according to written standards and procedures that the SHPO
establishes. If a SHPO's evaluation of a CLG's performance indicates
that such performance is inadequate, the SHPO must suggest in writing
ways to improve performance. If, after a period of time that the SHPO
stipulates, the SHPO determines that the CLG has not improved its
performance sufficiently, the SHPO may recommend that the Secretary
decertify the local government. If the Secretary does not object within
30 working days of receipt, the Secretary has approved the
decertification.
(f) Effects of certification include:
(1) Inclusion in the process of nominating properties to the
National Register of Historic Places in accordance with sections 101
(c)(2)(A) and (c)(2)(B) of the Act. The SHPO may delegate to a CLG any
of the responsibilities of the SHPO and the Review Board in processing
National Register nominations as specified in 36 CFR part 60 (see also
Sec. 61.4(b)(3)), except for the authority to nominate properties
directly to the National Register. A CLG may make nominations directly
to NPS only when the State does not have an approved program pursuant
to Sec. 61.4.
(2) Eligibility to apply for a portion of the State's annual
Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) grant award. Each State must transfer
at least 10 percent of its annual HPF grant award to CLGs for historic
preservation projects and programs in accordance with the Act and as
Sec. 61.7 specifies.
(g) The District of Columbia is exempt from the requirements of
this section because there are no subordinated local governments in the
District. If any other jurisdiction that section 301(2) of the Act
defines as a State believes that its political subdivisions lack
authorities similar to those of local governments in other States, and
hence cannot satisfy the requirements for local government
certification, it may apply to the Secretary for exemption from the
requirements of this section.
(h) Procedures for direct certification by the Secretary where
there is no approved State program pursuant to Sec. 61.4. To the extent
feasible, the Secretary will ensure that there is consistency and
continuity in the CLG program of a State that does not have an approved
State program.
[[Page 11746]]
(1) Where there is no approved State program, a local government
wishing to become certified must apply directly to the Secretary.
(2) The application must demonstrate that the local government
meets the specifications for certification set forth in paragraph (e)
of this section.
(3) The Secretary will review certification applications under this
paragraph (h) and take action in a timely fashion generally within 90
days of receipt.
Sec. 61.7 Subgrants to certified local governments.
(a) Each SHPO must transfer at least 10 percent of its annual
Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) grant award to CLGs as subgrants for
historic preservation projects and programs in accordance with the Act.
In any year that the annual HPF State grant appropriation exceeds
$65,000,000, SHPOs must transfer one half of the amount over
$65,000,000 to CLGs according to procedures that the Secretary will
establish.
(b) Each CLG is eligible to receive funds from the 10 percent (or
greater) CLG share of the State's total annual HPF grant award.
However, the SHPO need not award funds to all CLGs.
(c) Each SHPO must maintain and follow a procedure that the
Secretary approves for the use and distribution of funds from the
State's annual HPF grant award to CLGs to ensure that no CLG receives a
disproportionate share of the allocation. The procedure will provide a
clear basis for the funding decisions. The SHPO must submit any
proposed amendment to its procedure to the Secretary for approval. The
Secretary will respond to such a proposal in a timely fashion generally
within 45 days of receipt.
(d) Each SHPO must notify annually each CLG of its opportunity to
apply for HPF funding as well as what is entailed in the application
and project selection process.
(e) Each CLG receiving an HPF grant award from the CLG share is a
subgrantee of the State. The SHPO must ensure that each CLG adheres to
all applicable grant conditions and government-wide and program
specific requirements that the National Park Service issues. The SHPO
may require specific uses of funds subgranted to CLGs. CLGs may not
apply subgranted HPF monies as matching share for any other Federal
grant.
(f) Where there is no approved State program pursuant to Sec. 61.4,
the Secretary will determine the method for allocating funds to CLGs in
that State in accordance with the procedures set forth for the State in
this section. To the extent feasible, the Secretary will ensure
consistency and continuity in the funding allocation policy of the CLG
program for a State that does not have an approved historic
preservation program.
Sec. 61.8 Tribal programs. [Reserved]
Sec. 61.9 Grants to tribal programs. [Reserved]
Sec. 61.10 Waiver.
The Secretary may waive any of the requirements of the rules in
this part that are not mandated by statute or by other applicable
regulations if the Secretary finds, in writing, that the historic
preservation program would benefit from such waiver and the waiver
would not compromise the purposes, conditions, and requirements of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
Sec. 61.11 Information collection.
(a) The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 3507
et seq., has approved the collection of information contained in this
part. OMB has assigned clearance number 1024-0038 to this collection of
information. The National Park Service (NPS) collects this information
as part of the process for reviewing the procedures and programs of
State and local governments participating in the national historic
preservation program and the Historic Preservation Fund grant program.
NPS will use the information to evaluate those programs and procedures
for consistency with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended, and compliance with government-wide grant requirements. The
obligation to respond is required to obtain a benefit under these
programs. Note that a Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. NPS provides
no assurance of confidentiality to respondents with the exception of
locational information concerning some properties that government
historic preservation property inventories include. Pursuant to section
304 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, NPS
tightly controls release of information when such release could have
the potential of damaging those qualities which make a property
historic.
(b) We estimate the public reporting burden for the collection of
this information to average 14.06 hours per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Ms. Diane M. Cooke,
Information Collection Officer, National Park Service, 1849 C Street
NW, Washington, D.C. 20240 and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer
for the Department of the Interior (1024-0038), Washington, D.C. 20503.
Dated: July 9, 1998.
Donald J. Barry,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal
Register on March 4, 1999.
[FR Doc. 99-5783 Filed 3-8-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P