Proposed Rule2024-02580
Processing of Department of the Army Permits; Procedures for the Protection of Historic Properties
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 9, 2024
Issuing agencies
Defense DepartmentEngineers Corps
Abstract
To demonstrate the greatest possible consistency between the procedures used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Regulatory Program to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations, "Protection of Historic Properties" when processing permit applications, the Corps is proposing to amend its Regulatory Program's permitting regulations. The Corps will instead follow the NHPA's implementing regulations, developed and interpreted by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), relying on the flexibility in those regulations for Federal agency compliance with the steps of review. The Corps will take into account, among other factors, the degree and scope of the Federal involvement in the undertaking and the relationship of Federal actions to the overall proposed activities. Further, the Corps is also proposing to make conforming changes to its nationwide permit program regulations to eliminate references in the regulations.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 28 (Friday, February 9, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9079-9087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02580]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
33 CFR Parts 325 and 330
[Docket ID: COE-2023-0004]
RIN 0710-AB46
Processing of Department of the Army Permits; Procedures for the
Protection of Historic Properties
AGENCY: Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To demonstrate the greatest possible consistency between the
procedures used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Regulatory
Program to comply with the National
[[Page 9080]]
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations,
``Protection of Historic Properties'' when processing permit
applications, the Corps is proposing to amend its Regulatory Program's
permitting regulations. The Corps will instead follow the NHPA's
implementing regulations, developed and interpreted by the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), relying on the flexibility in
those regulations for Federal agency compliance with the steps of
review. The Corps will take into account, among other factors, the
degree and scope of the Federal involvement in the undertaking and the
relationship of Federal actions to the overall proposed activities.
Further, the Corps is also proposing to make conforming changes to its
nationwide permit program regulations to eliminate references in the
regulations.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 9, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number COE-
2023-0004 and/or RIN 0710-AB46, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a2cacbd1d6cdd0cbc1d2d0cdd2c7d0d6dbd0c7c5e2d7d1c3c1c78cc3d0cfdb8ccfcbce"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="eb8382989f849982889b99849b8e999f92998e8cab9e988a888ec58a998692c5868287">[email protected]</span></a>. Include the docket
number, COE-2023-0004, in the subject line of the message.
Mail: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Attn: CECW-CO-R, 441 G Street
NW, Washington, DC 20314-1000.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Due to security requirements, we cannot
receive comments by hand delivery or courier.
Instructions: If submitting comments through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal, direct your comments to docket number COE-2023-
0004. All comments received will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available on-line at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>, including any personal information provided,
unless the commenter indicates that the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI, or otherwise protected,
through <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a> or email. The <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a> website is an
anonymous access system, which means we will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email directly to the Corps without going through
<a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a> your email address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, we
recommend that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any compact disc you submit. If we
cannot read your comment because of technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification we may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic comments should avoid the use of any special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the docket
are listed. Although listed in the index, some information is not
publicly available, such as CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Joseph McMahan,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1870716b6c776a717b686a77687d6a6c616a7d7f586d6b797b7d36796a756136757174"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="533b3a20273c213a3023213c233621272a2136341326203230367d32213e2a7d3e3a3f">[email protected]</span></a>, or 202-236-7547.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under section 106 (54 U.S.C. 306108) of the NHPA (54 U.S.C. 300101
et seq.), Federal agencies are required to consider the effects on
historic properties from the undertakings they carry out, or non-
Federal projects that rely on Federal licenses, permits, approvals,
funds, or assistance, and to provide the ACHP a reasonable opportunity
to comment on those undertakings. This process is set forth within the
section 106 implementing regulations (36 CFR part 800). As required by
the statute, the ACHP developed and issued the implementing regulations
for this section of the NHPA, and as part of its oversight of the
section 106 process, provides general guidance as well as specific
comments on section 106 reviews for individual undertakings to ensure
consistency with the regulations. The Corps Regulatory Program issues
permits for certain activities in waters and wetlands subject to its
jurisdictional authorities. The procedures which the Corps' Regulatory
Program currently uses for complying with section 106 of the NHPA, as
set forth in appendix C of the Corps' permitting regulations, were
issued as a final rule in 1990 but did not go through separate approval
by the ACHP, as required by the NHPA and the section 106 implementing
regulations. Since that final rule was issued, the NHPA has been
amended several times and the ACHP has also amended the section 106
implementing regulations. The NHPA requires that a Federal agency's
procedures for compliance with section 106 be consistent with the
section 106 implementing regulations issued by the ACHP, which specify
a consultation process for ACHP review and approval of an agency's
proposed alternative procedures (36 CFR 800.14).
The Corps Regulatory Program administers three laws: section 404 of
the Clean Water Act, sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899, and section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended. Under section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, a permit is required to discharge dredged or fill material
into waters of the United States. Under Section 9 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1899, a permit is required to construct dams or dikes
across navigable waters of the United States. The obstruction or
alteration of a navigable water of the United States requires a permit
under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Under Section
103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as
amended, a permit is required to transport dredged material for
disposal into ocean waters.
Section 106 of the NHPA (54 U.S.C. 306108) requires Federal
agencies to consider the effects on historic properties from the
undertakings they carry out or provide a Federal license, permit,
approval, funding, or assistance to, and to provide the ACHP a
reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking. Historic
properties are properties that are included in, or eligible for
inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. The
consideration and issuance of a Department of the Army (DA) permit by
the Corps Regulatory Program is a Federal action that makes a project,
activity, or program, which includes activities that can potentially
affect historic properties, subject to review by the Corps under
section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations, ``Protection
of Historic Properties'' (36 CFR part 800).
Section 211 of the NHPA authorizes the ACHP to promulgate the
regulations to govern the implementation of section 106 in its
entirety. The regulations thus developed by the ACHP at 36 CFR part 800
define how Federal agencies meet their statutory responsibilities under
section 106 the NHPA. Additionally, section 110(a)(2)(E) of the NHPA
[[Page 9081]]
requires Federal agency procedures for section 106 of the NHPA to be
consistent with the section 106 regulations issued by the ACHP pursuant
to section 211 of the Act. Under 36 CFR 800.14, an agency may develop
alternate procedures or other program alternatives to implement section
106 and substitute them for 36 CFR part 800 after following a specified
consultative process and a consistency determination by ACHP (see 36
CFR 800.14(a)). The ACHP oversees the operation of the section 106
process (36 CFR 800.2(b)). The Army Civil Works programs, other than
the Regulatory Program, use the implementing regulations at 36 CFR part
800, for its compliance with section 106 of the NHPA.
Corps Regulatory Program and Appendix C
There are two categories of permits that the Corps Regulatory
Program issues under its permitting authorities: individual permits and
general permits. Individual permits include standard individual permits
and letters of permission. A standard individual permit is an activity-
specific permit that is processed through the public interest review
procedures, including the issuance of a public notice and receipt of
comments, the preparation of activity-specific National Environmental
Policy Act documentation (e.g., an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement), and, if the proposed activity involves
discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United
States, an activity-specific Clean Water Act section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines analysis to ensure that the discharge of dredged or fill
material complies with the environmental criteria in those Guidelines.
A letter of permission is an individual permit issued after an
abbreviated public interest review procedure and usually involves
coordination with Federal and State agencies prior to making a decision
on the permit application. Each year, the Corps issues approximately
3,000 individual permits.
General permits include nationwide permits, regional general
permits, and programmatic general permits. General permits authorize
categories of activities across the country that have no more than
minimal individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects. Some
general permits require the project proponent to submit a notification
to the appropriate Corps district before beginning the authorized
activity. Other activities authorized by general permits do not require
prior notification to the Corps district, and the project proponent can
proceed with the activity as long as they comply with all terms and
conditions of the general permit. Each year, the Corps issues
approximately 35,000 written general permit verifications, and
thousands of other minor activities are authorized by non-reporting
general permits that do not require the project proponent to contact
the applicable Corps district office before proceeding with the general
permit activity. The Corps Nationwide Permits program provides a list
of available nationwide general permits as well as anticipated number
of times they would be used within a five-year timeframe.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ <a href="https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Regulatory-Program-and-Permits/Nationwide-Permits/">https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Regulatory-Program-and-Permits/Nationwide-Permits/</a>, last accessed January 17,
2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a Corps district issues a public notice to solicit comments on
a proposed activity that requires a standard individual permit, or for
a proposal to issue a regional general permit, the public notice
includes a statement of the district engineer's current knowledge on
historic properties (see 33 CFR 325.3(a)(10)). A copy of the public
notice is provided to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO),
appropriate State agencies, appropriate Indian Tribes or Tribal
representatives, or Native Hawaiian Organizations, concerned Federal
agencies, appropriate city and county officials, as well as all parties
who have specifically requested copies of public notices (see 33 CFR
325.3(d)(1)). The Corps Regulatory Program's general policies for
evaluating permit applications are found at 33 CFR 320.4. The decision
whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the
probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed
activity and its intended use on the public interest.
The Corps' procedures for the processing of permit applications are
provided at 33 CFR part 325. Section 325.1 identifies the information
required for permit applications. Section 325.2 describes the standard
procedures for processing permit applications, as well as more specific
procedures that are needed for various types of regulated activities,
such as water quality certification under section 401 of the Clean
Water Act, Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determinations,
National Historic Preservation Act compliance, and Endangered Species
Act compliance. Section 325.2(d) addresses the timing of the processing
of permit applications. Section 325.8 discusses which Corps officials
have the authority to issue permits under various circumstances. There
are also three appendices to 33 CFR part 325, which are the following:
appendix A of 33 CFR to part 325 discusses permit form and special
conditions; appendix B to part 325 discusses NEPA implementation
procedures for the regulatory program; and appendix C to part 325
discusses procedures for the protection of historic properties.
Appendix C to 33 CFR part 325 was intended to provide a set of
definitions and procedures to the Corps and the regulated public for
the Corps Regulatory Program's compliance with the requirements of
section 106 of the NHPA, which requires Federal agencies to consider
the effects of undertakings on historic properties and to provide the
ACHP with a reasonable opportunity to comment on those undertakings.
However, differences between appendix C and the 36 CFR part 800
regulations have in many cases introduced confusion resulting in debate
over the extent and appropriateness of the Corps review. The major
differences relate to the scope of the effort to identify and address
effects to historic properties from undertakings and the nature of
consultation with appropriate stakeholders. The section 106
implementing regulations includes a definition of ``undertaking'' and
``area of potential effects'' which establish the basis for the scope
of a Federal agency's responsibility to identify and address effects to
historic properties. 36 CFR 800.16(y) defines the ``undertaking'' as a
project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the
direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those
carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those carried out with
Federal financial assistance; and those requiring a Federal permit,
license or approval, while the ``area of potential effects'' includes
the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly
or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic
properties, if any such historic properties exist. The area of
potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of an
undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused
by the undertaking (36 CFR 800.16(d)). Paragraph 1(f) of appendix C
defines the ``undertaking'' subject to the requirements of section 106
to be the work, structure or discharge that requires a DA permit.
Rather than using ``area of potential effects,'' appendix C uses
``permit area'' which includes the areas consisting of jurisdictional
waters, including
[[Page 9082]]
wetlands, under the Corps' statutory authorities to regulate that will
be directly affected by the proposed activity requiring DA
authorization plus any uplands that would be directly affected by the
activities requiring DA authorization. The definition of ``permit
area'' includes a three-part test to identify activities outside of
jurisdictional waters, including wetlands, (e.g., activities in
uplands) that would be included with the activities subject to the
Corps' permitting authorities and the section 106 process. The
definition of ``permit area'' in paragraph 1(g) of appendix C provides
three examples to the Corps and the regulated public for applying the
concept of ``permit area'' to a number of potential permitting
scenarios.
Under the Corps Regulatory Program's appendix C procedures, after
the undertaking and permit area are determined, Corps Regulatory
Program staff identify historic properties that could potentially be
affected by the undertaking and the activities in the permit area. If
the Corps district is processing a standard individual permit for the
proposed activity requiring DA authorization, the public notice
includes a statement regarding the district engineer's current
knowledge of the presence or absence of historic properties and the
effects of the proposed activity requiring DA authorization on historic
properties. Appendix C includes certain coordination procedures and
procedures for assessing effects on historic properties, and for
providing the ACHP the opportunity to review and comment on
undertakings that require DA authorization.
Historical Context
Executive Order 11593, ``Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural
Environment,'' which was issued on May 13, 1971 (36 FR 8921), directed
Federal agencies, in consultation with the ACHP, to institute
procedures to ensure that ``Federal plans and programs contributed to
the preservation and enhancement of non-federally owned sites,
structures and objects of historical, architectural or archeological
significance.'' In addition, a Presidential Memorandum on Environmental
Quality and Water Resource Management issued on July 12, 1978, directed
the ACHP to issue regulations for implementing the NHPA by March 1,
1979. That Presidential Memorandum also directed Federal agencies such
as the Corps with consultative responsibilities under the NHPA to
publish separate procedures for implementing the section 106
implementing regulations within three months of ACHP's issuance of
them. Furthermore, the Presidential Memorandum required Federal agency
NHPA procedures to be reviewed by the ACHP, and if those procedures
were consistent with the ACHP's regulations, to also be approved within
60 days by the Chairman of the ACHP.
In a final rule published in the Federal Register on January 30,
1979 (44 FR 6068), the ACHP amended its NHPA section 106 regulations at
36 CFR part 800. In response to the direction received in the
Presidential Memorandum and the ACHP's amended regulations, the Corps
drafted a proposed rule to implement NHPA section 106 for the
processing of applications for DA permits. The rule would establish
appendix C to 33 CFR part 325. The proposed rule for appendix C was
published in the Federal Register on April 3, 1980 (45 FR 22112) for a
60-day public comment period. In that proposed rule, the Corps
Regulatory Program stated that it would be using the proposed appendix
C on an interim basis for the processing of applications for DA
permits. The Corps Regulatory Program did not issue a final rule in
response to the April 3, 1980, proposed rule.
Changes to the proposed appendix C were made in response to
direction provided on May 7, 1982, by the Presidential Task Force on
Regulatory Relief. The Task Force directed the Army to take steps to
reduce or eliminate delays in the processing of DA permit applications,
while fulfilling the Corps Regulatory Program's responsibilities under
section 106 of the NHPA. The revised proposed rule was intended to give
ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment on permit applications for
proposed activities that may affect historic properties, as well as
provide SHPOs and the general public opportunities to provide comments
on permit applications. The revised proposed rule for appendix C was
published in the Federal Register on May 4, 1984 (49 FR 19036) for a
60-day public comment period. The Corps Regulatory Program published
its final rule for appendix C to 33 CFR part 325 (June 29, 1990, 55 FR
27000) following the Administrative Procedure Act process. Separate
ACHP review and approval was not obtained.
The NHPA was amended in 1992, and some of those amendments have
direct relevance to the Corps Regulatory Program's processing of
applications for DA permits. One amendment stated that properties of
traditional and cultural importance to an Indian Tribe or Native
Hawaiian Organization may be determined to be eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places. Another amendment requires
Federal agencies, as part of their section 106 responsibilities, to
consult with any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian Organization that
attaches religious and cultural significance to historic properties.
The 1992 amendments to the NHPA also included a provision that
prohibits Federal agencies from granting a license or assistance to
applicants who intend to avoid section 106 requirements by
significantly adversely affecting historic properties to which the
license or assistance would relate (section 110(k)).
Because the NHPA provides the ACHP the authority to issue
regulations for section 106 in its entirety, and because the NHPA
requires Federal agency section 106 procedures to be consistent with
the section 106 regulations issued by the ACHP, the Corps Regulatory
Program did not immediately propose any changes to Appendix C to
address the 1992 amendments to the NHPA. The Corps Regulatory Program
instead waited for the ACHP to make changes to section 106 implementing
regulations to address those amendments to the NHPA. In the May 18,
1999, issue of the Federal Register (64 FR 27044), the ACHP published a
final rule that amended 36 CFR part 800 to address the 1992 amendments
to the NHPA. The ACHP subsequently published a revised final rule in
the December 12, 2000 issue of the Federal Register (65 FR 77698). That
final rule went into effect on January 11, 2001.
In the March 8, 2002, issue of the Federal Register (67 FR 10822),
the Corps Regulatory Program published a notice to solicit comments on
how its section 106 procedures should be revised to address the 1992
amendments to the NHPA and the ACHP's changes to the section 106
implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800. In this notice, the Corps
Regulatory Program also announced that it would be developing interim
guidance to address the application of appendix C in consideration of
the revised 36 CFR part 800 regulations until the rulemaking process
was completed. The notice indicated that after the comment period
ended, and the comments were fully considered, the Corps Regulatory
Program may develop additional guidance, propose modifications to
appendix C, develop programmatic agreements, or create other products
to update its section 106 procedures.
On June 24, 2002, the Corps issued the interim guidance mentioned
in the
[[Page 9083]]
previous paragraph. The 2002 interim guidance was intended to be a
temporary measure until appendix C could be revised through
Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process, or through other
approaches. The 2002 interim guidance discussed the identification of
consulting parties for the section 106 process, consultation with
Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations, the use of memorandums
of agreement to resolve adverse effects to historic properties, and the
resolution of NHPA section 110(k) violations.
In 2004, the ACHP issued a final rule that made additional changes
to 36 CFR part 800. That final rule was published in the July 6, 2004,
issue of the Federal Register (69 FR 40544) and it went into effect on
August 5, 2004. One change to the section 106 regulation confirmed that
the ACHP could not require a Federal agency to change its
determinations regarding whether its undertaking affected or adversely
affected historic properties. Another modification of the ACHP's
section 106 regulations reflected a court finding that section 106 does
not apply to undertakings that are merely subject to State or local
regulation administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by a
Federal agency. The ACHP's 2004 final rule also clarified the time
period for objections to a Federal agency's ``no adverse effect''
findings.
In the September 27, 2004, issue of the Federal Register (69 FR
57662), the Corps published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) to obtain public comment on issues related to Corps Regulatory
Program's fulfillment of the requirements of NHPA section 106. The
Corps solicited comments on how its permit application processing
procedures should be revised in response to the 1992 amendments to the
NHPA and the ACHP's 2000 and 2004 revisions to the section 106
implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800. The Corps also asked for
suggestions for facilitating government-to-government consultation with
American Indian and Alaska Native governments, as well as consultation
with SHPOs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), Native
Hawaiian Organizations, interested organizations, the regulated public,
and other interested parties during a potential future rulemaking
process.
In the 2004 ANPRM, the Corps Regulatory Program also invited
comments on specific options for updating the Corps' permit application
processing procedures to address the 1992 amendments to the NHPA and
the revised 36 CFR part 800. Those options included: (1) revising
appendix C to incorporate the current requirements and procedures at 36
CFR part 800; (2) revoking appendix C and using 36 CFR part 800 when
reviewing individual permit applications, and utilizing Federal agency
program alternatives at 36 CFR 800.14 for general permits; (3) revoking
appendix C and using 36 CFR part 800 for all individual permits and
general permits; and (4) revoking appendix C and developing non-
regulation alternative procedures in accordance with 36 CFR 800.14. The
Corps also invited suggestions for other options that were not
identified in the ANPRM.
On April 24, 2005, the Corps issued revised interim guidance \2\ to
address the changes to the section 106 implementing regulations that
were finalized in 2000 and 2004. The 2005 revised interim guidance
replaced the Corps Regulatory Program's interim guidance that was
issued on June 24, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ <a href="https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll11/id/2478">https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll11/id/2478</a> (accessed April 3, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Corps Regulatory Program issued additional interim guidance on
January 31, 2007,\3\ to supplement the interim guidance issued on April
25, 2005. The January 31, 2007, guidance clarified that when evaluating
proposed activities that may be eligible for authorization by general
permits, the Corps district is responsible for providing the SHPO/THPO
with the opportunity to comment on ``no effect'' and ``no adverse
effect'' determinations. The January 31, 2007, guidance also provided
that Corps districts must complete the section 106 process before
making a decision on whether to issue an individual permit or general
permit verification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ <a href="https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll11/id/4042">https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll11/id/4042</a> (accessed April 3, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the June 3, 2022, issue of the Federal Register (87 FR 33756),
the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) published a notice to
announce an effort to modernize the Civil Works program of the Corps
through a number of related policy initiatives. In this notice, the
Army stated that rulemaking on the Corps' Regulatory Program's
procedures for complying with section 106 of the NHPA at 33 CFR part
325 appendix C is a priority policy initiative that would help
modernize the Corps Regulatory Program with respect to section 106 of
the NHPA. The Army acknowledged there has been longstanding
disagreement between the Corps and ACHP regarding differences between
the Corps' Regulatory Program appendix C and the regulations
promulgated by ACHP governing the section 106 process. These
differences have resulted in lengthy and challenging consultations
involving, for example, disputes about the scope of the undertaking
subject to review, the Corps' ``permit area,'' and the area of
potential effects as defined in the section 106 implementing
regulations. Further, under the regulations promulgated by ACHP, if an
adverse effect cannot be avoided by modifying the undertaking, the
resolution of adverse effects can be accomplished via the development
of a Memorandum of Agreement or, for certain complex projects or
programs, a Programmatic Agreement, while the Corps' regulations allow
for resolution through a Memorandum of Agreement or permit
conditioning, which is the equivalent of modifying the undertaking to
avoid adverse effects. There are also timeline differences between the
section 106 regulations and Appendix C, and the latter does not include
Tribal or Native Hawaiian Organization consultation requirements. The
June 3, 2022, notice also stated that the Corps Regulatory Program's
reliance on appendix C and multiple guidance documents can result in
inconsistency and confusion among the Federal agencies, the regulated
public, SHPOs and THPOs, Tribes, Native Hawaiian Organizations, and
others. In addition, Tribal Nations have also stated that the lack of
updated and consistent implementing regulations reflecting the current
NHPA language for the Corps' Regulatory Program indicates that the
Corps is not meeting their statutory and Tribal trust responsibilities.
The Army asked for input in the June 2022 Federal Register notice
on the best approach to modernizing the Corps Regulatory Program's
procedures for the protection of historic properties. More
specifically, the Army sought input on whether the Corps Regulatory
Program should rely on the section 106 implementing regulations at 36
CFR part 800 promulgated by ACHP and remove appendix C from 33 CFR part
325, and whether any clarifying guidance is needed on the scope of the
area of potential effects for the Corps Regulatory Program. The Army
also asked whether development of a Program Alternative under 36 CFR
800.14 would provide clear and consistent NHPA section 106
implementation procedures for the Corps Regulatory Program, as well as
improved Tribal and Native Hawaiian Organization consultation. Four
virtual engagements were held with approximately 300 attendees in
total, and the written docket received 127
[[Page 9084]]
written letters on the appendix C topic, including from 29 Tribal
Nations. A summary of the comments received from this effort can be
found on the Army Civil Works web page.\4\ Over 95% of commenters
recommended the removal of appendix C from 33 CFR part 325 and the
requirement that the Corps follow the section 106 implementing
regulations (36 CFR part 800) in order to comply with section 106 of
the NHPA. The primary comments received stated: appendix C is not
compliant with section 106 of the NHPA and is not consistent with 36
CFR part 800; appendix C is not legally valid due to lack of ACHP
approval; there is a lack of consistency across Corps districts in
implementing section 106 of the NHPA and between the Regulatory Program
and the rest of Corps Civil Works which complies with section 106 of
the NHPA through 36 CFR part 800; the definition of undertaking used in
appendix C results in an inappropriately narrow scope of review with
inappropriate assessment of direct and indirect effects; and that
appendix C does not adequately address consultation requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ <a href="https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2022/12/08/7e19d5a2/modernize-civil-works-frn-comments-on-appendix-c.pdf">https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2022/12/08/7e19d5a2/modernize-civil-works-frn-comments-on-appendix-c.pdf</a> (accessed April
19, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of Proposed Action for the Corps Regulatory Program's
Adherence to the Section 106 Implementing Regulations at 36 CFR 800
This proposed rule takes the next step in the Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Civil Works)'s efforts to modernize the Corps Regulatory
Program's procedures for the protection of historic properties pursuant
to section 106 of the NHPA. In this proposed rule, the Corps is
soliciting public input on removing appendix C from 33 CFR part 325.
With appendix C removed from part 325, the Corps would utilize and
follow the section 106 implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800,
including its requirements regarding consulting with Tribes and Native
Hawaiian Organizations during the section 106 review process. As a
supplement, the Corps would also work with the ACHP to draft and
disseminate guidance for the Corps' Regulatory Program to include
illustrative examples regarding how to apply the 36 CFR part 800
regulations to potential permitting scenarios. This would ensure
clarity and consistency for the Corps as well as transparency for the
regulated public as to how the Corps Regulatory Program would comply
with section 106 of the NHPA through its implementing regulations at 36
CFR 800. In a separate but parallel effort, the Corps would work with
the ACHP, Tribal Nations, Native Hawaiian Organizations, SHPOs, THPOs,
and other consulting parties to develop an appropriate program
alternative under 36 CFR 800.14 to establish a more efficient and
effective process for Corps compliance with section 106 for
undertakings that rely on authorizations available through the
Nationwide Permits program with a target of completion to align with
the next issuance cycle for the Nationwide Permits (March 2026).
Under this proposed rule, the Corps Regulatory Program would amend
its regulations for the processing of DA permit applications at 33 CFR
part 325 by removing appendix C (``Procedures for the Protection of
Historic Properties'') from those regulations. If Appendix C is removed
from 33 CFR part 325, the Corps Regulatory Program will instead follow
the section 106 implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800 in order to
take into account effects on historic properties from undertakings
requiring DA authorization, including the processing of individual
permit applications and general permit verification requests. To
provide clarity regarding the applicable procedures for compliance with
section 106 of the NHPA during the processing of applications for DA
authorization, the Corps is also proposing to revise paragraph (b)(3)
to 33 CFR 325.2, which references proposed activities involving
historic properties. The Corps is proposing to modify this paragraph by
removing the reference to the ``Corps National Historic Preservation
Act implementing regulations.'' The Corps notes that the information
provided in a public notice is preliminary information and comments
gathered through the public notice process along with other information
would be used to inform the section 106 review conducted by the Corps.
The information in the public notice is only intended for disclosure
and transparency purposes and is not intended to demonstrate or
substitute for compliance with section 106. The Corps is proposing to
revise section 325.2(b)(3) to state that when reviewing applications
for DA permits, the Corps Regulatory Program will follow the section
106 implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800 to comply with the
requirements of section 106 of the NHPA. The Corps is also proposing to
make conforming changes to its nationwide permit program regulations at
33 CFR 330.4(g) to remove references to appendix C and cite the
regulations at 36 CFR part 800 instead.
Proposed Conforming Changes to the Corps' Nationwide Permit Regulations
The Corps Regulatory Program's regulations for implementing its
nationwide general permit program are provided in part 330 of Title 33
of the Code of Federal Regulations. Section 330.4(g) addresses the
Nationwide Permit Program's compliance with section 106 of the NHPA.
Section 330.4(g) contains references to appendix C to 33 CFR part 325,
and the Corps is proposing to amend paragraph (g) by removing the
references to appendix C and replacing them with references to the
applicable provisions of 36 CFR part 800. The Corps is also proposing
to remove the remaining subparagraphs of paragraph (g) in the
regulation because they are superseded by the current Nationwide
Permits regulation and permits with general conditions issued on
January 13, 2021 (86 FR 2744). The Corps would continue to utilize the
January 2021 regulation regarding General Condition 18 for historic
properties while the Corps and ACHP focus on developing a program
alternative regarding the Nationwide Permits compliance with section
106 of the NHPA to align with issuance of the next cycle of Nationwide
Permits in 2026. To be clear, once notification occurs under General
Condition 18 of the Nationwide Permits, the Corps would then proceed in
using 36 CFR part 800 under this proposed rule as Appendix C would be
removed from the CFR.
Expected Impact of This Rule
This proposed rule would primarily impact the Corps, applicants for
Corps authorizations, Tribal Nations, Native Hawaiian Organizations,
Tribal and State Historic Preservation Officers, and the general
public, including groups interested in historic and cultural resource
preservation. The Corps will be impacted through an implementation
change from appendix C to 36 CFR part 800 for implementing section 106
of the NHPA. This will require additional training as the Corps follows
a new process for compliance. The remaining impacted groups, including
Tribal Nations, will have the benefit of improved clarity and
consistency for implementation of section 106 of the NHPA as applied to
the Corps' Regulatory Program. This will include consistency within the
Corps and consistency with the rest of the Federal government,
including the Corps' own Civil Works programs. Note that this proposed
change to the regulations cannot modify the Corps' existing statutory
authorities.
[[Page 9085]]
Army considered both a no action alternative as well as an
alternative that would revise appendix C. The no action alternative
would result in continued use of appendix C, which has not been updated
to align with changes in section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing
regulations at 36 CFR part 800, and therefore is not a viable
alternative. The alternative to revise appendix C would essentially
result in the same language found in 36 CFR part 800, rendering the
revision inefficient and duplicative.
Invitation for Public Comment
The Corps of Engineers is inviting public comment on all aspects of
the proposal to remove appendix C from its regulations for the
processing of applications for DA authorization at 33 CFR part 325 and
its possible effects. If appendix C is removed, the Corps Regulatory
Program would comply with section 106 of the NHPA by following and
using the section 106 implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800 for
the processing of those permit applications (supplemented by a guidance
document to be developed and disseminated jointly by the Corps and ACHP
using existing regulations and ACHP guidance and providing illustrative
examples). When a Corps district determines that a type of undertaking
requiring DA authorization has the potential to cause effects to
historic properties, it would use the section 106 implementing
regulations at 36 CFR part 800 during the processing of the permit
application. The Corps is also soliciting public comment on the
proposal to modify paragraph (b)(3) of CFR 325.2 to identify the
section 106 implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800 as the
regulations the Corps Regulatory Program would follow to comply with
section 106 of the NHPA. Interested parties are also invited to provide
comments on the Corps' proposed conforming changes to its Nationwide
Permit regulations at 33 CFR 330.4(g), which addresses the requirements
of section 106 of the NHPA for the Nationwide Permit program.
Administrative Requirements
Plain Language
In compliance with the principles in the President's Memorandum of
June 1, 1998 (63 FR 31885, June 10, 1998), regarding plain language,
this preamble is written using plain language.
Paperwork Reduction Act
An 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
For the Corps Regulatory Program under section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1899, section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and section
103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, the
current OMB approval number for information collection requirements is
maintained by the Corps of Engineers (OMB approval number 0710-0003,
Application for a Department of Army Permit).
This proposed rule would not impose any additional information
collection requirements or require the Corps Regulatory Program to
propose changes to its current information collection requirements for
activities that require DA authorization.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
This action is a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), Executive Order 13563 (76
FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and Executive Order 14094 (88 FR 21879,
April 11, 2023) that was submitted to the OMB for review. It also
followed the principles of section 2 of Executive Order 14094 through
early engagement during the Modernize Civil Works effort (Notice of
Virtual Public and Tribal Meetings Regarding the Modernization of Army
Civil Works Policy Priorities; Establishment of a Public Docket;
Request for Input; 87 FR 33756, June 3, 2022). A summary of comments
received can be found on the Army Civil Works web page.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ <a href="https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2022/12/08/7e19d5a2/modernize-civil-works-frn-comments-on-appendix-c.pdf">https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2022/12/08/7e19d5a2/modernize-civil-works-frn-comments-on-appendix-c.pdf</a>, last accessed
on April 19, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires the Corps to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
The proposal to remove Appendix C from the Corps' regulations at 33 CFR
part 325 and use the regulations at 36 CFR part 800 during the Corps
Regulatory Program's processing of individual permit applications and
general permit verification requests does not have federalism
implications. We do not believe that the proposed change in the Corps
Regulatory Program's procedures for compliance with section 106 of the
NHPA will have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the Federal government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. The proposal will not impose any additional substantive
obligations on State or local governments. Therefore, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this proposal.
Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed removal of
appendix C from 33 CFR part 325, the use of the regulations at 36 CFR
part 800 to comply with section 106 of the NHPA during the processing
of applications for DA authorizations, and the proposed conforming
changes to the Corps' nationwide permit program regulations at 33 CFR
330.4(g) on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business based on Small Business Administration size standards; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district, or special district with a population of less
than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of the proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Corps Regulatory
Program's proposed procedures for compliance with section 106 of the
NHPA would follow the section 106 implementing regulations at 36 CFR
part 800. Small entities that need to obtain required DA authorizations
through individual permits or general permits would have to support
compliance with section 106 of the NHPA through the existing section
106 procedures at 36 CFR part 800. All other Federal agencies, unless
they have an approved program alternative, use the 36 CFR 800
regulations and as such the small entities who apply for permits or
work with the Federal government would be
[[Page 9086]]
familiar with the procedures outlined in 36 CFR part 800. This
familiarity would eliminate confusion and reduce any burdens on the
part of the small entities under implementation of any finalized rule.
In addition, the rest of the Corps Civil Works programs use the 36 CFR
part 800 regulations so any small entity working with the Corps Civil
Works programs would also already be familiar with implementation.
Following appendix C under its current form can actually cause delays
and expenditure of additional resources for small entities when
multiple authorizations and Federal agencies are involved in addition
to any required Corps Regulatory Program review as the small entity
must comply with and understand two sets of implementing regulations.
In addition, as appendix C has not been updated to align with changes
in the NHPA, this proposed rule is a matter of bringing the Corps
Regulatory Program into alignment with the NHPA.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year. Before promulgating a rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires
the agencies to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The
provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows an agency to adopt an
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an
explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before an agency
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it
must have developed, under section 203 of the UMRA, a small government
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to
have meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
The Corps has determined that the proposed removal of appendix C
from its permit processing regulations at 33 CFR part 325 and the
proposed conforming changes to 33 CFR 330.4(g) do not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. The proposed rule does not impose new
substantive requirements and therefore does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. Therefore, this proposed rule is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. For the same
reasons, we have determined that the proposed removal of appendix C
from 33 CFR part 325 and the proposed conforming changes to 33 CFR
330.4(g) do not contain regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, this
proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA.
Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the proposed rule on children, and explain why the
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives.
The proposal to remove appendix C from 33 CFR part 325 and to make
conforming changes to 33 CFR part 330 is not subject to this Executive
Order because the proposed rule is not economically significant as
defined in Executive Orders 12866 and 14094. In addition, the proposed
removal of appendix C from 33 CFR part 325 does not concern an
environmental health or safety risk that the Corps has reason to
believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
Executive Order 13175
Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments'' (published at 65 FR 67249 on November 9, 2000),
requires agencies to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have Tribal implications.'' The phrase
``policies that have Tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive
Order to include regulations and other policy statements or actions
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes.''
This rulemaking action will have Tribal implications. This
rulemaking action will have direct effects on Tribal governments, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian Tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian Tribes. The 1992 amendments to the NHPA
and the current regulations at 36 CFR part 800 require consultation
with Indian Tribes when undertakings have the potential to cause
effects to historic properties on Tribal lands or to historic
properties of religious and cultural significance to Indian Tribes
located off Tribal lands. Therefore, revising the Corps Regulatory
Program's procedures for the protection of historic properties by
removing appendix C to 33 CFR part 325 and using the section 106
implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800 for the processing of
applications for DA permits, will have Tribal implications. In
addition, a nationwide rulemaking action on procedures for compliance
with section 106 of the NHPA inherently has Tribal implications.
Tribal Nations are encouraged to submit comments on the proposal to
remove appendix C from 33 CFR part 325 (``Procedures for the Protection
of Historic Properties''), the proposal to modify Sec. 325.2(b)(3),
and the proposed conforming changes to section 330.4(g) of the Corps'
Nationwide Permit Program regulations. A letter has also been
disseminated to all federally recognized Tribes, Alaska Native
Corporations, and Native Hawaiian Organizations notifying them of this
proposed rule action and offering Nation-to-Nation consultation. In
addition, a virtual meeting on this proposed rule action has also been
scheduled to solicit input from Tribal Nations, Alaska Native
Corporations,
[[Page 9087]]
and Native Hawaiian Organizations to provide multiple opportunities for
meaningful engagement on this action. Comments are also encouraged from
Indigenous peoples and communities who may not be federally recognized.
Environmental Documentation
The Corps has prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for
this proposed rule. The draft EA is available for public comment in the
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> docket for this proposed rule (docket number COE-
2023-0004).
Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. We will submit a report containing the final rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States. A
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. The proposed removal of appendix C from the Corps
Regulatory Program's permit processing regulations at 33 CFR part 325
is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), because it is
not likely to result in: (1) an annual effect on the economy of
$100,000,000 or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on
the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
Executive Orders 12898 and 14096
Executive Order 14096, Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All, makes clear that the pursuit of
environmental justice is a duty of all executive branch agencies and
should be incorporated into their missions. Executive Order 14096
includes a whole-of-government definition of environmental justice.\6\
Under Executive Order 14096, agencies must, as appropriate and
consistent with applicable law, identify, analyze, and address the
disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects
(including risks) and hazards of rulemaking actions and other Federal
activities on communities with environmental justice concerns.
Executive Order 14096 supplements the foundational efforts of Executive
Order 12898 to address environmental justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See E.O. 14096, Section 2, 88 FR 25,251 (Apr. 26, 2023); see
also E.O. 12898, 59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed removal of appendix C and the use of 36 CFR part 800
to comply with the requirements of section 106 of the NHPA and the
proposed additional conforming amendments to the Corps Regulatory
Program's regulations is not expected to negatively impact any
communities (including to cause any disproportionate adverse impacts).
Executive Order 13211
The proposed removal of appendix C and the use of 36 CFR part 800
to comply with the requirements of section 106 of the NHPA is not a
``significant energy action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
Authority
The Corps is issuing this proposed rule under the authority of
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), sections 9 and 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and
section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of
1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1413).
List of Subjects
33 CFR Part 325
Administrative practice and procedure, Dams, Environmental
protection, Intergovernmental relations, Navigation (water), Water
pollution control, Waterways.
33 CFR Part 330
Administrative practice and procedure, Intergovernmental relations,
Navigation (water), Water pollution control, Waterways.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Corps proposes to amend
33 CFR chapter II as set forth below:
PART 325--PROCESSING OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITS
0
1. The authority citation for part 325 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. 1344; 33 U.S.C.
1413.
0
2. Amend Sec. 325.2 by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 325.2 Processing of applications.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Historic properties. Applications will be reviewed for the
potential impact of the relevant undertaking on historic properties
pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The
district engineer will include a statement in the public notice of
their current knowledge of historic properties based on their initial
review of the application (see paragraph (a)(2) of this section). If
the district engineer determines that the proposed undertaking is of a
type that would not have the potential to cause effects to historic
properties, using the assumption that such properties are present, they
will include a statement to this effect in the public notice. If the
district engineer finds the proposed undertaking is of a type that has
the potential to cause effects to historic properties they will
continue proceeding in accordance with 36 CFR part 800.
* * * * *
Appendix C to Part 325-[Removed]
0
3. Remove Appendix C to part 325.
PART 330--NATIONWIDE PERMIT PROGRAM
0
4. The authority citation for part 330 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. 1344; 33 U.S.C.
1413.
0
5. Amend Sec. 330.4 by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 330.4 Conditions, limitations, and restrictions.
* * * * *
(g) Historic properties. No activity which has the potential to
cause effects to properties listed or properties eligible for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places, is authorized until the
district engineer has complied with the applicable provisions of 36 CFR
part 800.
Approved by:
Michael L. Connor,
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).
[FR Doc. 2024-02580 Filed 2-8-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 9, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.