National Historic Preservation Act Amendments Of 2006

NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2006 -- (House of Representatives - September 25, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5861, introduced by me, amends the National Historic Preservation Act to do five things:

It extends the Historic Preservation Fund to 2015 for State and tribal preservation activities.

Secondly, it reauthorizes the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

Third, requires certain local governments to provide full due process to property owners who object to a determination of eligibility on their property.

Fourth, it imposes a deadline on State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officers to respond to section 106 applications within 30 days of a ``no adverse effects'' determination.

And, fifth, prohibits a State historic preservation officer from requiring a Federal agency applicant to identify properties outside the area of potential effects.

From its auspicious start in April of 2004 as a discussion draft to the bill before us in the House today, H.R. 5861 has been the subject of more discussion and rewrite they any other bill that I have been involved with since becoming the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks.

While the bill may not be the final product that many envisioned, myself included, I believe H.R. 5861 represents a significant step towards improving the section 106 process under the National Historic Preservation Act by reducing some of the conflicts that exist between the business and preservation communities and the State and Tribal Preservation Officers.

In addition, H.R. 5861 will enhance private property protections in the listing process, under the Historic Preservation Act as well as improve the operation of the Advisory Council and extend the authorization of the Historic Preservation Fund.

Finally, this bill was a truly collaborative effort. I believe it is important to take a moment to thank those individuals and organizations for their help in crafting this important bill.

First of all, Congressman Turner of Ohio; Vince Sampson of the Resources Committee majority staff; David Watkins of the Resources Committee minority staff; Chairman John Nau of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers; Sonnenschein, Nath and Rosenthal; the National Mining Association, the National Trust For Historic Preservation; CTIA, the Wireless Association; the United South and Eastern Tribes; the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers; Preservation Action; the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association; the American Cultural Resources Association; the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; and Rob Howard, from the National Park Subcommittee majority staff.

I include a letter in support of the bill from CTIA, the Wireless Association.

CTIA,

THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION,

Washington, DC, September 25, 2006.
Hon. RICHARD W. POMBO,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN POMBO: I want to thank you and National Parks Subcommittee Chairman Pearce for all of your diligent efforts on H.R. 5861, the National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 2006 (NHPA) and specifically the Section 106 provisions.

As you know, in 2004 a Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (NPA) was adopted to streamline the Section 106 tower siting review process. CTIA--The Wireless Association and its member companies greatly appreciate the fine work the Committee has done to clarity the NHPA relative to the NPA.

As such, for tile purposes of legislative history, under Section 800.3(c)( 4) of the rules of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) are required to respond to a request for a review of a finding or determination regarding the impact of a proposed project within 30 days. If the SHPO or THPO fails to respond within 30 days, the agency official or its designee may proceed to the next step in the process or consult with the ACHP.

This technical amendment clarifies that this 30 day time period applies equally to SHPOs, THPOs and other tribal officials acting in the same capacity off tribal lands. Any SHPO, THPO or tribal representative acting in an official capacity that is asked to review a finding or determination of the impact (or lack thereof) of a proposed project must respond to such a request within 30 days.

All parties acting in such a role must affirmatively express any concerns about a proposed project within 30 days of notice. If no such affirmative concern is stated, consent is assumed and the project may proceed to the next stage in the process or the ACHP may be consulted.

Again, thank you for all the conscientious work that you and your National Parks Subcommittee Staff Director, Rob Howarth, have spent on this legislation.

Sincerely,
STEVE LARGENT.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, and reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/