Processing of Department of the Army Permits; Procedures for the Protection of Historic Properties, 9079-9087 [2024-02580]
Download as PDF
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number. CPSC may post all comments
without change, including any personal
identifiers, contact information, or other
personal information provided, to
https://www.regulations.gov. If you wish
to submit confidential business
information, trade secret information, or
other sensitive or protected information
that you do not want to be available to
the public, you may submit such
comments by mail, hand delivery, or
courier, or you may email them to: cpscos@cpsc.gov.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to: https://
www.regulations.gov, and insert the
docket number, CPSC–2022–0017, into
the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the
prompts.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scott Ayers, U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, 5 Research Place,
Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: 301–
987–2030; email: sayers@cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
PFCSA requires the Commission to
promulgate a final rule to require flame
mitigation devices in portable fuel
containers that impede the propagation
of flame into the container. 15 U.S.C.
2056d(b)(1)–(2). However, the
Commission is not required to
promulgate a final rule for a class of
portable fuel containers within the
scope of the PFCSA if the Commission
determines that:
• there is a voluntary standard for
flame mitigation devices for those
containers that impedes the propagation
of flame into the container;
• the voluntary standard is or will be
in effect not later than 18 months after
the date of enactment of the PFCSA; and
• the voluntary standard is developed
by ASTM International or such other
standard development organization that
the Commission determines to have met
the intent of the PFCSA.
15 U.S.C. 2056d(b)(3)(A). After
publication of the Federal Register
notification announcing the
Commission’s positive determination,
the requirements of such a voluntary
standard ‘‘shall be treated as a consumer
product safety rule.’’ 15 U.S.C.
2056d(b)(2)(B) and (b)(4). Under this
authority, on January 13, 2023, the
Commission published a notification
determining that three voluntary
standards for portable fuel containers
meet the requirements of the PFCSA
and would be treated as consumer
product safety rules: ASTM F3429/
F3429M–20 (pre-filled containers);
ASTM F3326–21 (containers sold
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Feb 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
empty); and section 18 of UL 30:2022
(safety cans). 88 FR 2206.
Portable fuel containers sold pre-filled
are within the scope of ASTM F3429/
F3429M, Standard Specification for
Performance of Flame Mitigation
Devices Installed in Disposable and PreFilled Flammable Liquid Containers.
ASTM lists the standard as a dual
standard in inch-pound units (F3429
designation) and metric units (F3429M
designation). ASTM F3429/F3429M was
first published in 2020. ASTM
published a revised version of ASTM
F3429/F3429M–20 in May 2023, as
ASTM F3429/F3429M–23. On August
22, 2023, the Commission determined
that the 2023 revisions met the
requirements of section 2056d(b)(3)(A)
of the PFCSA. Accordingly, ASTM
F3429/F3429M–23 is the current
mandatory consumer product safety rule
for pre-filled-portable fuel containers.
On October 31, 2023, the Commission
published a direct final rule creating 16
CFR part 1461 for portable fuel
containers to incorporate by reference
the revised ASTM F3429/F3429M–23,
as well as ASTM F3326–21 and section
18 of UL 30:2022.5. 88 FR 74342.
Under section (b)(5) of the PFCSA, if
the requirements of a voluntary
standard that meet the requirements of
section (b)(3) are subsequently revised,
the organization that revised the
standard shall notify the Commission
after the final approval of the revision.
15 U.S.C. 2056d(b)(5). Any such
revision to the voluntary standard shall
become enforceable as the new
consumer product safety rule not later
than 180 days after the Commission is
notified of a revised voluntary standard
that meets the conditions of section
(b)(3) (or such later date as the
Commission determines appropriate),
unless the Commission determines,
within 90 days after receiving the
notification, that the revised voluntary
standard does not meet the
requirements described in section (b)(3)
of the PFCSA. 15 U.S.C. 2056d(b)(5).
On January 29, 2024, ASTM notified
the Commission that it had approved
and published ASTM F3429/F3429M–
24. CPSC staff is assessing the revised
voluntary standard to determine,
consistent with section (b)(5) of the
PFCSA, whether the revisions in ASTM
F3429/F3429M–24 meet the
requirements of section (b)(3)(A) of the
PFCSA listed above. The Commission
invites public comment on that question
to inform staff’s assessment and any
subsequent Commission consideration
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9079
of the revisions in ASTM F3429/
F3429M–24.1
ASTM F3429/F3429M–24 is available
for review in several ways. ASTM has
provided on its website (at
www.astm.org/CPSC.htm), at no cost, a
read-only copy of ASTM F3429/
F3429M–24, including a red-lined
version that identifies the changes made
to ASTM F3429/F3429M–23. A readonly copy of the existing standard
(ASTM F3429/F3429M–23) is available
for viewing, at no cost, on the ASTM
website at: www.astm.org/
READINGLIBRARY/. Interested parties
can also download copies of the
standards by purchasing them from
ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor
Drive, P.O. Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959; phone:
610–832–9500; https://www.astm.org.
Alternatively, interested parties can
schedule an appointment to inspect
copies of the standards at CPSC’s Office
of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, 4330 East West
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814,
telephone: 301–504–7479.
Comments must be received by
February 23, 2024. Because of the short
statutory time frame Congress
established for the Commission to
consider revised voluntary standards
under section (b)(5) of the PFCSA, CPSC
will not consider comments received
after this date.
Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024–02562 Filed 2–8–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
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
Army Corps of Engineers,
Department of Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
1 The Commission voted 4–0 to publish this
notification.
E:\FR\FM\09FEP1.SGM
09FEP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
9080
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Email: historicpropertyreg@
usace.army.mil. 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 https://
www.regulations.gov, 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 regulations.gov or
email. The regulations.gov 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 regulations.gov
your email address will be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Feb 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
regulations.gov. 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, historicpropertyreg@
usace.army.mil, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\09FEP1.SGM
09FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Feb 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 fiveyear timeframe.1
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
1 https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Regulatory-Program-and-Permits/
Nationwide-Permits/, last accessed January 17,
2023.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9081
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
E:\FR\FM\09FEP1.SGM
09FEP1
9082
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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 nonfederally 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Feb 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\09FEP1.SGM
09FEP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 governmentto-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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Feb 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 nonregulation 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.
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.
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
2 https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/
collection/p16021coll11/id/2478 (accessed April 3,
2022).
3 https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/
collection/p16021coll11/id/4042 (accessed April 3,
2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9083
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
E:\FR\FM\09FEP1.SGM
09FEP1
9084
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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.
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
4 https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2022/12/
08/7e19d5a2/modernize-civil-works-frn-commentson-appendix-c.pdf (accessed April 19, 2023).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Feb 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
E:\FR\FM\09FEP1.SGM
09FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Feb 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
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
5 https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2022/12/
08/7e19d5a2/modernize-civil-works-frn-commentson-appendix-c.pdf, last accessed on April 19, 2023.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9085
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-forprofit 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
E:\FR\FM\09FEP1.SGM
09FEP1
9086
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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 costbenefit 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Feb 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 § 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,
E:\FR\FM\09FEP1.SGM
09FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
www.regulations.gov 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 foreignbased enterprises in domestic and
export markets.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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
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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Feb 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
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:
9087
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.; 33 U.S.C.
1344; 33 U.S.C. 1413.
2. Amend § 325.2 by revising
paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
■
§ 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]
■
3. Remove Appendix C to part 325.
PART 330—NATIONWIDE PERMIT
PROGRAM
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.
5. Amend § 330.4 by revising
paragraph (g) to read as follows:
■
§ 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.
PART 325—PROCESSING OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
PERMITS
Approved by:
Michael L. Connor,
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).
1. The authority citation for part 325
continues to read as follows:
[FR Doc. 2024–02580 Filed 2–8–24; 8:45 am]
■
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
BILLING CODE 3720–58–P
E:\FR\FM\09FEP1.SGM
09FEP1
Agencies
[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 [www.gpo.gov]
[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: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Email: [email protected]. 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 https://www.regulations.gov, 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 regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov 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
regulations.gov 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 regulations.gov. 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,
[email protected], 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\ https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Regulatory-Program-and-Permits/Nationwide-Permits/, 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\ https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll11/id/2478 (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\ https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll11/id/4042 (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\ https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2022/12/08/7e19d5a2/modernize-civil-works-frn-comments-on-appendix-c.pdf (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\ https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2022/12/08/7e19d5a2/modernize-civil-works-frn-comments-on-appendix-c.pdf, 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
www.regulations.gov 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