Home > Regulation & Examinations >
Laws & Regulations > FDIC
Federal Register Citations |
|||
FDIC Federal Register Citations State Historical Society of Iowa December 16, 2005 Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary Attention: Comments/Legal ESS Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 550 17th Street, Northwest Washington, DC 20429 RE: Comments on Statement of Policy Regarding the National Historic Preservation Act [Federal Register: Volume 70, Number 200, Tuesday, October 18, 2005, pages 60523-60524] Dear Mr. Feldman, I am writing to comment on the FDICs proposed policy statement regarding compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations, 36 CFR Part 800. I review FDIC undertakings under Section 106 for the State Historical Society of Iowa, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Our office is glad that the FDIC is seeking to make its policy consistent with the most current versions of NHPA and 36 CFR Part 800. In recent years, we have seen the level of consultation on FDIC projects improve. More applicants are seeking our comments prior to beginning their projects. However, we also find that we spend considerable time and effort educating FDIC applicants on how to consult with our office. Many are unaware of the NHPA or the process outlined in 36 CFR Part 800. The Policy Statement does not appear to clarify any of the basic confusion applicants have regarding the process, and might even complicate matters further. Furthermore, it puts into policy a process that already requires at least three separate contacts with our office, when in most cases one contact should be sufficient to complete the process. In the first paragraph of Section B, applicants are directed to request information from SHPO to determine whether or not their proposal may affect an historic property or district. While we maintain a list of previously identified historic properties, there are many historic properties that have yet to be identified throughout the state. This portion of the Policy Statement perpetuates the myth that we know where every historic property exists. In addition, it puts the burden on us to identify properties and effects for the applicant, when it is the responsibility of the Federal Agency to review information on historic properties and consult with our office regarding identified historic properties and the effects of the undertaking on them (36 CFR 800.4 and 800.5). The first paragraph of Section B further instructs applicants to obtain SHPO/THPO clearance before proceeding. The SHPO does not have the authority to provide clearance on any project. As a consulting party in the process, we merely provide comments and recommendations. It is up to the agency official to consider our comments and continue the process according to 36 CFR Part 800, and they alone have the approval authority for the undertaking [36 CFR Part 800.2(a)]. The second paragraph of Section B is very vague and may not be in keeping with 36 CFR Part 800. It suggests that SHPOs consent may not be necessary in all circumstances. Included in the list of examples are applications for financial institution offices located in supermarkets, existing shopping centers and the like. While we may not be concerned about projects involving recent construction, there are a number of shopping centers in Iowa that meet the minimum 50-year age requirement for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and may be eligible for listing due to their association with commercial development in the state. Moreover, properties that are less than 50 years of age may also be eligible for listing if they meet National Register Criteria Consideration G by possessing exceptional importance. Undertakings that take place within these buildings may have the potential to adversely affect a historic property. In conclusion, it is our opinion that while the Policy Statement makes an attempt to clarify the consultation process, consultation could be much more effective and efficient if alternative procedures were developed as part of a Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (PA). A PA would outline the responsibilities of all participants in the consultation process, including the applicants and the FDIC. It would provide legal guidance to FDIC applicants who have little prior knowledge of Section 106 of the NHPA. It could allow us to categorically agree that certain types of undertakings have little potential to affect historic properties, such as those involving modern construction. It could also incorporate FDIC policies regarding demolition of buildings for bank parking lots without consultation under Section 106a concern repeatedly brought to our attention by Iowas citizens. Alternately, we would be willing to develop a PA between the FDIC and our office to cover undertakings in Iowa. We also recommend that the FDIC develop guidance materials for its applicants regarding compliance with Section 106. We have found that a little technical assistance goes a long way and FDIC applicants have been more than willing to do a bit of legwork once they understand what needs to be done. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this Policy Statement and look forward to continuing to improve the consultation process with the FDIC. Sincerely, Barbara A. Mitchell Architectural Historian |
||
Last Updated 12/20/2005 | Regs@fdic.gov |