Update: June 07, 2021
Today, the National Park Service announced they would be officially withdrawing the March 2019 proposal to revise regulations governing the listing of properties in the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed rule changes would have had a devastating impact on how historic resources are nominated to the National Register and determined eligible. The announcement from the National Park Service, specifically cited the more than 3,200 comments that were received and the concerns raised by the historic preservation community throughout the review process.
While it was announced in January that the proposed rule changes would not be implemented, we are very pleased the proposed rules are bring withdrawn entirely. This is a HUGE win for preservation. Thank you to everyone who made their voices heard over the last two years. Clearly the engagement of historic preservation advocates throughout the review process had a big impact.
Update: January 19, 2021
We have been advised that the proposed harmful rule changes to the National Register of Historic Places will not be implemented, according to an administration official source! This is a HUGE win for preservation and we look forward to a formal announcement coming soon!
Thanks to the more than 3,200 people who made their voices heard, the detrimental proposed regulatory changes to the National Register hit a wall! These changes would have had a significant negative impact on our communities, including how properties were nominated and determined eligible.
Update: October 30, 2020
The National Park Service is moving closer to finalizing rule changes to the National Register of Historic Places that will have a significant impact on how properties are nominated to the National Register and determined eligible. The rulemaking is currently under it’s final review by the Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.
At this time interested parties can request a meeting with OIRA to discuss concerns about the National Register rulemaking during this final review stage and reference RIN 1024-AE49.
Update: May 24, 2019
The National Park Service (NPS) announced, in response to concerns raised in the public comment period, that they would conduct a government to government consultation with with Tribes regarding the proposed rule changes to the National Register of Historic Places. The National Park Service will hold two consultation meetings with tribes and is accepting additional comments from tribes through July 8th. Thanks to everyone that submitted comments and made their voice heard! Check out the Tribal Consultation Notice for more information and stay tuned for the latest.
Update: May 01, 2019
Thanks to everyone who made their voice heard and submitted comments to the proposed rule changes to the National Register of Historic Places. The preservation community has spoken loud and clear, the proposed regulatory changes will have a significant negative impact on our citizens and on our communities. More than 3,200 comments were submitted, the vast majority expressing strong concerns. Preservation Action’s official comments are available below.
Now the submitted comments will be reviewed by the National Park Service. Preservation Action will continue our advocacy efforts as the process continues. Stay tuned for more.
Preservation Action National Register Comments
Action Alert
April 15, 2019
TAKE ACTION! Submit Comments on the Proposed Rule Changes to the National Register by April 30th
Preservation Action Objects to Harmful Proposed Rule Changes to National Register of Historic Places
Preservation Action is highly concerned with proposed revisions to the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed rule changes would substantially impact how historic resources are nominated to the National Register of Historic Places and determined eligible. While the stated intent is to bring regulations current with recent amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the proposed revisions clearly go far beyond that purpose and are inconsistent with the language in and intent of the NHPA.
1. Federal historic properties. Federal agencies will be given total control of whether to nominate properties under their jurisdiction, meaning federally owned historic properties may no longer be added to the National Register of Historic Places.
2. Federal ownership in a historic district. A historic district nomination can be blocked if only one property in the entire district is owned by the US Government and the agency that owns the property objects to listing.
3. Property owner objections. Owners of large properties will be given an outweighed ability to block the listing of historic districts or other nominations to the National Register. Under the proposed revisions, objections to National Register listings will be based on the ownership of a majority of the land area in addition to the current counting of one private owner, one vote. There is no statutory authority to make this change and any such change would place a near impossible burden on State Historic Preservation Officers to implement.
4. Historic Tax Credit Projects. The vast majority of federal historic tax credit projects are in National Register historic districts. Changing the rules for owner objections to nominations will jeopardize the listing of new historic districts, and thus restrict the use of historic tax credits.
5. Section 106. Determinations of eligibility for listing in the National Register are the primary vehicle for considering whether a property is worthy of consideration under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The federal agency, not the Keeper of the National Register, will have the final say on the eligibility of a property under its jurisdiction, thereby thwarting consultation on a project.
6. Appeal Process. By law, any person or local government has the right to appeal the failure of a nominating authority to nominate a property to the National Register. That right will disappear if the property is a federally owned and the agency objects.
7. Consultation with Affected Parties. The proposed revisions falsely claim there would be no impact on federally recognized Indian tribes even though the changes would have a substantial effect on the recognition and consideration of historic places they value, which is contrary to the requirement to consult with tribes. Additionally, the revisions fail to consider potential concerns of State Historic Preservation Officers or others involved in historic preservation who would be drastically impacted and forced to adhere to these new rules.