Comments Regarding Listing on the National Register of Historic Places of Statue of Liberty Enlightening the World, Liberty Island, New York Harbor, 43251-43252 [2017-19571]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2017 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
[NPS–WASO–NRNHL–24004;
PPWOCRADI0, PCU00RP14.R50000]
Comments Regarding Listing on the
National Register of Historic Places of
Statue of Liberty Enlightening the
World, Liberty Island, New York Harbor
National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, the National Park Service is
publishing New York (NY) and New
Jersey (NJ) State Historic Preservation
Officers’ (SHPOs) comments to the
National Park Service Federal
Preservation Officer (FPO) as well as
responses to SHPOs’ comments by the
Keeper of the National Register (Keeper)
prior to including the property in the
National Register (NR).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
notice includes comments on the NR
Nomination entitled ‘‘Statue of Liberty
Enlightening the World’’ received by the
FPO from the NY SHPO and the NJ
SHPO, and the responses by the Keeper
to these comments.
NY SHPO: The NY SHPO reviewed
the following nomination and
responded to the FPO within 45 days of
receipt of the nomination. The NY
SHPO objected to the period of
significance established for the Statue,
the period of significance proposed end
date of 1957 (instead of 1986) for the
district as a whole, and the omission of
an area of landscape architecture and
architecture as areas significance for the
period 1957–1986. The specific
comments received by the FPO from the
NY SHPO are as follows:
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
I am writing in response to your request for
comments on the most recent revised draft
for the Statue of Liberty Enlightening the
World Historic District. Ruth Pierpont has
retired and I am the new Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer for New York.
I have reviewed the file and our comments
remain the same as they were for the two
previous drafts. Unfortunately, the New York
State Historic Preservation Office cannot
support a period of significance that extends
‘‘in perpetuity’’ because we do not believe it
is possible to evaluate the significance of
events that have not yet occurred. Absent any
theme, place, or time in which to place these
unknown events, there is no possible context
in which to evaluate their meaning. This
opinion, which I support, is explained in
more detail in Ruth Pierpont’s letter of June
6, 2012.
We would also like to re-state our support
of a period of significance for the landscape
elements that extends to include the 1986
alterations for the statue’s centennial. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Sep 13, 2017
Jkt 241001
fact that you have judged changes related to
its centennial as non-contributing after
extolling the statue’s unending significance is
among the reasons that we feel a period of
‘‘in perpetuity’’ is unwise. At the very least,
it will generate unnecessary confusion in the
compliance process as each newly-proposed
project then automatically becomes
significant, regardless of its effect on the
resource.
Keeper’s Response to NY SHPO
Comments: The Statue of Liberty
(including its pedestal) is a singular
(Keeper’s emphasis), exceptionally
significant, individually NR-eligible
historic structure. The significance of
the Statue to the nation is, and will
always be, both transcendent and
perpetual. It is not unprecedented for a
property with transcendent significance
to be listed in the NR with period of
significance that is ongoing. The NR
listing for National Mall Historic District
in Washington, DC—under Criterion
A—is another example. The Keeper
notes that several properties located in
the State of New York, including Our
Lady of Mount Carmel Grotto,
Richmond County, New York (listed in
the NR in 2000), and Bohemian Hall and
Park, in Queens County, New York
(listed in the NR in 2001), also have
ongoing periods of significance because
of their recognition as NR-eligible
Traditional Cultural Properties.
The nomination as written is for a
historic district. The Keeper notes that
it is a long-established, and common NR
program practice for an individually
eligible or individually listed historic
structure located within a larger NRlisted historic district to have a different
period of significance than the district
as a whole. Based on all relevant
documentation and comments received
for the nomination, the Keeper finds
that the proposed end date for the
period of significance for the district as
a whole—1957—is appropriate. The
Keeper concurs with the assessment
stated in section 7, page 28 of the
nomination, which states: ‘‘Changes
made to key elements of the Liberty
Island Grounds in the mid-1980s and
alterations over time to contributing
buildings and structures preclude the
District’s eligibility in the areas of
Landscape Architecture or
Architecture.’’ On balance, the Keeper
also finds that the post-1957 changes in
the landscape and buildings for the
district as a whole (Keeper’s emphasis),
do not appear to satisfy the ‘‘exceptional
importance’’ threshold embodied in NR
Criterion Exception G for properties that
have achieved significance within the
past fifty years.
NJ SHPO: The NJ SHPO reviewed the
nomination and responded to the FPO
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
43251
within 45 days of receipt of the
nomination. The NJ SHPO objected to
the nomination document’s failure to
recognize the State of New Jersey’s
jurisdictional claim over a portion of
Liberty Island and other related matters.
The specific comments received by the
FPO from the NJ SHPO are as follows:
NJ SHPO Comment 1 (Concerning
Section 2a): The opening page of the
Registration Form should indicate that
the two states in which this district is
situated are New York and New Jersey,
and that the two counties are New York
and Hudson.
Keeper’s response to NJ SHPO
Comment 1: The Keeper notes that the
most important function of Section 2a.
is to readily identify the location of the
property in its most common format. In
the present case, the Keeper has
concluded, especially in light of the
jurisdiction issues raised by the NJ
SHPO, that the most appropriate way to
achieve this purpose is to have Section
2a. of the Nomination Form read as
follows for the items noted below:
Street & number: Liberty Island, New
York Harbor
City or town:
State, County:
Vicinity: No
Not For Publication: No
NJ SHPO Comment 2 (Concerning
Section 7, page 6): The narrative should
explain that while the majority of
Liberty Island is situated within the
State of New York, including the ground
upon which the Statue stands, the
western portion of the island
(approximately 3.4 acres) is ground
within New Jersey borders. In 1834, a
determination of the boundary between
New York and New Jersey was the
subject of a bi-state compact,
subsequently approved by Congress.
Congressional approval of this compact
acknowledged New Jersey’s ownership
of the submerged lands west of the
midline of the Hudson River. In 1857
Bedloes Island (today’s Liberty Island)
was carefully surveyed and mapped. It
was found to be 9.9 acres in size to
mean high water, 10.7 acres in size to
mean low water. An additional 183,756
square feet of filled land, or
approximately 4.22 acres was added to
Liberty Island in stages between 1901
and 1952.
In light of the above, the statement
that ‘‘the entire island is Federally
owned’’ (Section 7, page 6) should be
revised. New Jersey’s position has
historically been that the portion of the
island that remains within New Jersey’s
sovereign jurisdiction is also owned by
the State of New Jersey, as part of its
ownership of riparian lands in New
E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM
14SEN1
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
43252
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2017 / Notices
Jersey. The State of New Jersey has a
long history of selling portions of its
riparian lands at fair market value, to
appropriate users, in the form of
‘‘riparian grants.’’ The National Park
Service bought a riparian grant from
New Jersey in 1904 to legitimize its
expansion of Ellis Island, but even
though New Jersey sought from the
1930s to the 1950s to reach agreement
with the Federal government to convey
title for the filled portions of Liberty
Island, no agreement, and therefore no
such transfer, was effected. No Federal
purchase of the land has subsequently
been completed. The Federal
government has continued to use the
property without obtaining a riparian
grant. That situation has not changed.
As a result, the State of New Jersey’s
ownership interest in the land
artificially filled after 1834 was not
extinguished and still remains in effect.
In addition, the further statement that
‘‘the land mass [of Liberty Island] is
considered part of New York County,
New York.’’ (Section 7, page 6) should
also be revised. Only the portion of
Liberty Island that reflects the island as
it existed in 1834 lies within New York
County, New York. In our previous
comments on the earlier draft, we
provided a map that delineated the area
the island’s fill, showing that New
Jersey’s territory comprises
approximately 3.4 acres of the island’s
14.1 acres. (see attachment)
New Jersey disagrees with the
wording of footnote #5 (Section 7, page
6), which has a tendentious effect. The
National Park Service has every
reasonable basis to conclude, as New
Jersey holds, that Liberty Island is
situated in both states, and does not
need to claim in this footnote that it is
not pronouncing upon an issue that
Section 2 of the document clearly does.
Your letter cites the 1998 Supreme
Court decision in New Jersey v. New
York, decided in New Jersey’s favor (a
point not mentioned in footnote #5), in
which it was held that the portion of
Ellis Island composed of landfill
emplaced subsequent to the Compact of
1834 has remained in the territory of
New Jersey since the time of that
compact. With respect to the
neighboring Liberty Island, the factual
circumstances are nearly identical and
the same legal reasoning applies that
formed the basis of the Ellis Island
decision. As a result, the National Park
Service should recognize New Jersey
sovereignty over the western portion of
the island.
Keeper’s response to NJ SHPO
Comment 2 (Concerning Section 7, page
6): The Keeper disagrees with the NJ
SHPO’s contention that, ‘‘The National
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Sep 13, 2017
Jkt 241001
Park Service has every reasonable basis
to conclude, as New Jersey holds, that
Liberty Island is situated in both states
. . .’’ The Keeper agrees with the NPS
assertion that boundary issues between
states are matters of original jurisdiction
with the U.S. Supreme Court, and that
neither the Keeper nor the National Park
Service are fitted by expertise or
authority to pronounce upon them.
Since the issue regarding jurisdiction
that was raised by the NJ SHPO cannot
be resolved within the context of this
nomination, the Keeper has determined
that the most appropriate course of
action is to ensure that, as approved by
the Keeper, the paragraph under
‘‘Setting’’ on page 7–6 reads:
Liberty Island is located within New York
Harbor, one of the world’s busiest shipping
ports. It is accessed by ferries that run
regularly from landings at Liberty State Park
in Jersey City, New Jersey, and Battery Park
at the southern tip of Manhattan, New York
City. The island is manifestly flat, with an
average elevation of about 15 feet (ft) above
sea level. The landform is approximately a
quarter-mile long and about .15-mile wide at
its widest point. Two significant filling
events, conducted on the west side of the
island by the US Army during the First
World War and on the northwestern end of
the island by the National Park Service in the
early 1950s, accreted the island to its current
14.1-acre form. Liberty Island is surrounded
by New Jersey state waters. The Statue in its
entirety was constructed and remains within
the territorial jurisdiction of the State of New
York. The entire island is administered by
the National Park Service. The Statue of
Liberty is located on the southern portion of
Liberty Island and is immediately
surrounded on the east, west, and south sides
by grass lawns. Visitors arrive at the island’s
West Pier after a ferry trip from Manhattan
or Jersey City and usually walk to the Statue
on the island’s primary circulation system, a
wide paved system of malls and plazas that
conveys visitors to the main entrance to the
Statue. The malls and plazas are lined with
linden trees and yew hedges that give the
setting a park-like feel. A secondary
circulation system consisting of interior
paths and a perimeter promenade offers other
views of the Statue and New York Harbor
from a variety of vantage points. Operational
facilities such as maintenance buildings and
staff housing are located primarily in the
northwest corner of the island and are
screened from public view in most
directions. (**NOTE: footnote #5 referenced in
the NJ SHPOs comments regarding the above
paragraph has been corrected to read as
footnote #6 in the final nomination
document.)
Authority: The National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, 54 U.S.C. 302104
(c)(5)–(6) of; 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: August 14, 2017.
J. Paul Loether,
Chief, NR of Historic Places/National Historic
Landmarks Program and Keeper, NR of
Historic Places.
[FR Doc. 2017–19571 Filed 9–13–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–52–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1055]
Certain Mirrors With Internal
Illumination and Components Thereof;
Supplemental Notice of Commission
Determination Not To Review an Initial
Determination Finding the Sole
Remaining Respondent in Default;
Request for Written Submissions on
Remedy, the Public Interest, and
Bonding
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined not to
review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’)
(Order No. 10) finding the sole
remaining respondent in default. The
Commission requests written
submissions, under the schedule set
forth below, on remedy, public interest,
and bonding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clint Gerdine, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–
708–2310. Copies of non-confidential
documents filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for
inspection during official business
hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the
Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street SW., Washington, DC 20436,
telephone 202–205–2000. General
information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its
Internet server (https://www.usitc.gov).
The public record for this investigation
may be viewed on the Commission’s
electronic docket (EDIS) at https://
edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired
persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on 202–205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission instituted this investigation
on May 8, 2017, based on a complaint
filed by Electric Mirror, LLC of Everett,
Washington (‘‘Electric Mirror’’) and
Kelvin 42 LLC of Pensacola, Florida
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM
14SEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43251-43252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19571]
[[Page 43251]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
[NPS-WASO-NRNHL-24004; PPWOCRADI0, PCU00RP14.R50000]
Comments Regarding Listing on the National Register of Historic
Places of Statue of Liberty Enlightening the World, Liberty Island, New
York Harbor
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, the National Park Service is publishing New York (NY) and New
Jersey (NJ) State Historic Preservation Officers' (SHPOs) comments to
the National Park Service Federal Preservation Officer (FPO) as well as
responses to SHPOs' comments by the Keeper of the National Register
(Keeper) prior to including the property in the National Register (NR).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice includes comments on the NR
Nomination entitled ``Statue of Liberty Enlightening the World''
received by the FPO from the NY SHPO and the NJ SHPO, and the responses
by the Keeper to these comments.
NY SHPO: The NY SHPO reviewed the following nomination and
responded to the FPO within 45 days of receipt of the nomination. The
NY SHPO objected to the period of significance established for the
Statue, the period of significance proposed end date of 1957 (instead
of 1986) for the district as a whole, and the omission of an area of
landscape architecture and architecture as areas significance for the
period 1957-1986. The specific comments received by the FPO from the NY
SHPO are as follows:
I am writing in response to your request for comments on the
most recent revised draft for the Statue of Liberty Enlightening the
World Historic District. Ruth Pierpont has retired and I am the new
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer for New York.
I have reviewed the file and our comments remain the same as
they were for the two previous drafts. Unfortunately, the New York
State Historic Preservation Office cannot support a period of
significance that extends ``in perpetuity'' because we do not
believe it is possible to evaluate the significance of events that
have not yet occurred. Absent any theme, place, or time in which to
place these unknown events, there is no possible context in which to
evaluate their meaning. This opinion, which I support, is explained
in more detail in Ruth Pierpont's letter of June 6, 2012.
We would also like to re-state our support of a period of
significance for the landscape elements that extends to include the
1986 alterations for the statue's centennial. The fact that you have
judged changes related to its centennial as non-contributing after
extolling the statue's unending significance is among the reasons
that we feel a period of ``in perpetuity'' is unwise. At the very
least, it will generate unnecessary confusion in the compliance
process as each newly-proposed project then automatically becomes
significant, regardless of its effect on the resource.
Keeper's Response to NY SHPO Comments: The Statue of Liberty
(including its pedestal) is a singular (Keeper's emphasis),
exceptionally significant, individually NR-eligible historic structure.
The significance of the Statue to the nation is, and will always be,
both transcendent and perpetual. It is not unprecedented for a property
with transcendent significance to be listed in the NR with period of
significance that is ongoing. The NR listing for National Mall Historic
District in Washington, DC--under Criterion A--is another example. The
Keeper notes that several properties located in the State of New York,
including Our Lady of Mount Carmel Grotto, Richmond County, New York
(listed in the NR in 2000), and Bohemian Hall and Park, in Queens
County, New York (listed in the NR in 2001), also have ongoing periods
of significance because of their recognition as NR-eligible Traditional
Cultural Properties.
The nomination as written is for a historic district. The Keeper
notes that it is a long-established, and common NR program practice for
an individually eligible or individually listed historic structure
located within a larger NR-listed historic district to have a different
period of significance than the district as a whole. Based on all
relevant documentation and comments received for the nomination, the
Keeper finds that the proposed end date for the period of significance
for the district as a whole--1957--is appropriate. The Keeper concurs
with the assessment stated in section 7, page 28 of the nomination,
which states: ``Changes made to key elements of the Liberty Island
Grounds in the mid-1980s and alterations over time to contributing
buildings and structures preclude the District's eligibility in the
areas of Landscape Architecture or Architecture.'' On balance, the
Keeper also finds that the post-1957 changes in the landscape and
buildings for the district as a whole (Keeper's emphasis), do not
appear to satisfy the ``exceptional importance'' threshold embodied in
NR Criterion Exception G for properties that have achieved significance
within the past fifty years.
NJ SHPO: The NJ SHPO reviewed the nomination and responded to the
FPO within 45 days of receipt of the nomination. The NJ SHPO objected
to the nomination document's failure to recognize the State of New
Jersey's jurisdictional claim over a portion of Liberty Island and
other related matters. The specific comments received by the FPO from
the NJ SHPO are as follows:
NJ SHPO Comment 1 (Concerning Section 2a): The opening page of the
Registration Form should indicate that the two states in which this
district is situated are New York and New Jersey, and that the two
counties are New York and Hudson.
Keeper's response to NJ SHPO Comment 1: The Keeper notes that the
most important function of Section 2a. is to readily identify the
location of the property in its most common format. In the present
case, the Keeper has concluded, especially in light of the jurisdiction
issues raised by the NJ SHPO, that the most appropriate way to achieve
this purpose is to have Section 2a. of the Nomination Form read as
follows for the items noted below:
Street & number: Liberty Island, New York Harbor
City or town:
State, County:
Vicinity: No
Not For Publication: No
NJ SHPO Comment 2 (Concerning Section 7, page 6): The narrative
should explain that while the majority of Liberty Island is situated
within the State of New York, including the ground upon which the
Statue stands, the western portion of the island (approximately 3.4
acres) is ground within New Jersey borders. In 1834, a determination of
the boundary between New York and New Jersey was the subject of a bi-
state compact, subsequently approved by Congress. Congressional
approval of this compact acknowledged New Jersey's ownership of the
submerged lands west of the midline of the Hudson River. In 1857
Bedloes Island (today's Liberty Island) was carefully surveyed and
mapped. It was found to be 9.9 acres in size to mean high water, 10.7
acres in size to mean low water. An additional 183,756 square feet of
filled land, or approximately 4.22 acres was added to Liberty Island in
stages between 1901 and 1952.
In light of the above, the statement that ``the entire island is
Federally owned'' (Section 7, page 6) should be revised. New Jersey's
position has historically been that the portion of the island that
remains within New Jersey's sovereign jurisdiction is also owned by the
State of New Jersey, as part of its ownership of riparian lands in New
[[Page 43252]]
Jersey. The State of New Jersey has a long history of selling portions
of its riparian lands at fair market value, to appropriate users, in
the form of ``riparian grants.'' The National Park Service bought a
riparian grant from New Jersey in 1904 to legitimize its expansion of
Ellis Island, but even though New Jersey sought from the 1930s to the
1950s to reach agreement with the Federal government to convey title
for the filled portions of Liberty Island, no agreement, and therefore
no such transfer, was effected. No Federal purchase of the land has
subsequently been completed. The Federal government has continued to
use the property without obtaining a riparian grant. That situation has
not changed. As a result, the State of New Jersey's ownership interest
in the land artificially filled after 1834 was not extinguished and
still remains in effect.
In addition, the further statement that ``the land mass [of Liberty
Island] is considered part of New York County, New York.'' (Section 7,
page 6) should also be revised. Only the portion of Liberty Island that
reflects the island as it existed in 1834 lies within New York County,
New York. In our previous comments on the earlier draft, we provided a
map that delineated the area the island's fill, showing that New
Jersey's territory comprises approximately 3.4 acres of the island's
14.1 acres. (see attachment)
New Jersey disagrees with the wording of footnote #5 (Section 7,
page 6), which has a tendentious effect. The National Park Service has
every reasonable basis to conclude, as New Jersey holds, that Liberty
Island is situated in both states, and does not need to claim in this
footnote that it is not pronouncing upon an issue that Section 2 of the
document clearly does.
Your letter cites the 1998 Supreme Court decision in New Jersey v.
New York, decided in New Jersey's favor (a point not mentioned in
footnote #5), in which it was held that the portion of Ellis Island
composed of landfill emplaced subsequent to the Compact of 1834 has
remained in the territory of New Jersey since the time of that compact.
With respect to the neighboring Liberty Island, the factual
circumstances are nearly identical and the same legal reasoning applies
that formed the basis of the Ellis Island decision. As a result, the
National Park Service should recognize New Jersey sovereignty over the
western portion of the island.
Keeper's response to NJ SHPO Comment 2 (Concerning Section 7, page
6): The Keeper disagrees with the NJ SHPO's contention that, ``The
National Park Service has every reasonable basis to conclude, as New
Jersey holds, that Liberty Island is situated in both states . . .''
The Keeper agrees with the NPS assertion that boundary issues between
states are matters of original jurisdiction with the U.S. Supreme
Court, and that neither the Keeper nor the National Park Service are
fitted by expertise or authority to pronounce upon them. Since the
issue regarding jurisdiction that was raised by the NJ SHPO cannot be
resolved within the context of this nomination, the Keeper has
determined that the most appropriate course of action is to ensure
that, as approved by the Keeper, the paragraph under ``Setting'' on
page 7-6 reads:
Liberty Island is located within New York Harbor, one of the
world's busiest shipping ports. It is accessed by ferries that run
regularly from landings at Liberty State Park in Jersey City, New
Jersey, and Battery Park at the southern tip of Manhattan, New York
City. The island is manifestly flat, with an average elevation of
about 15 feet (ft) above sea level. The landform is approximately a
quarter-mile long and about .15-mile wide at its widest point. Two
significant filling events, conducted on the west side of the island
by the US Army during the First World War and on the northwestern
end of the island by the National Park Service in the early 1950s,
accreted the island to its current 14.1-acre form. Liberty Island is
surrounded by New Jersey state waters. The Statue in its entirety
was constructed and remains within the territorial jurisdiction of
the State of New York. The entire island is administered by the
National Park Service. The Statue of Liberty is located on the
southern portion of Liberty Island and is immediately surrounded on
the east, west, and south sides by grass lawns. Visitors arrive at
the island's West Pier after a ferry trip from Manhattan or Jersey
City and usually walk to the Statue on the island's primary
circulation system, a wide paved system of malls and plazas that
conveys visitors to the main entrance to the Statue. The malls and
plazas are lined with linden trees and yew hedges that give the
setting a park-like feel. A secondary circulation system consisting
of interior paths and a perimeter promenade offers other views of
the Statue and New York Harbor from a variety of vantage points.
Operational facilities such as maintenance buildings and staff
housing are located primarily in the northwest corner of the island
and are screened from public view in most directions. (**Note:
footnote #5 referenced in the NJ SHPOs comments regarding the above
paragraph has been corrected to read as footnote #6 in the final
nomination document.)
Authority: The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 54
U.S.C. 302104 (c)(5)-(6) of; 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
Dated: August 14, 2017.
J. Paul Loether,
Chief, NR of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program and
Keeper, NR of Historic Places.
[FR Doc. 2017-19571 Filed 9-13-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-P