C.F.R. » Title 36 » CHAPTER I—NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR › PART 60—NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

36 C.F.R. § 60.2

Effects of listing under Federal law

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The National Register is an authoritative guide to be used by Federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation's cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment. Listing of private property on the National Register does not prohibit under Federal law or regulation any actions which may otherwise be taken by the property owner with respect to the property.

(a) The National Register was designed to be and is administered as a planning tool. Federal agencies undertaking a project having an effect on a listed or eligible property must provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The Council has adopted procedures concerning, inter alia, their commenting responsibility in 36 CFR part 800. Having complied with this procedural requirement the Federal agency may adopt any course of action it believes is appropriate. While the Advisory Council comments must be taken into account and integrated into the decisionmaking process, program decisions rest with the agency implementing the undertaking.

(b) Listing in the National Register also makes property owners eligible to be considered for Federal grants-in-aid for historic preservation.

(c) If a property is listed in the National Register, certain provisions of the Tax Reform Act of 1976 as amended by the Revenue Act of 1978 and the Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1980 may apply. These provisions encourage the preservation of depreciable historic structures by allowing favorable tax treatments for rehabilitation, and discourage destruction of historic buildings by eliminating certain otherwise available Federal tax provisions both for demolition of historic structures and for new construction on the site of demolished historic buildings. Owners of historic buildings may benefit from the investment tax credit provisions of the Revenue Act of 1978. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 generally replaces the rehabilitation tax incentives under these laws beginning January 1, 1982 with a 25% investment tax credit for rehabilitations of historic commercial, industrial and residential buildings. This can be combined with a 15-year cost recovery period for the adjusted basis of the historic building. Historic buildings with certified rehabilitations receive additional tax savings by their exemption from any requirement to reduce the basis of the building by the amount of the credit. The denial of accelerated depreciation for a building built on the site of a demolished historic building is repealed effective January 1, 1982. The Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1980 includes provisions regarding charitable contributions for conservation purposes of partial interests in historically important land areas or structures.

(d) If a property contains surface coal resources and is listed in the National Register, certain provisions of the Surface Mining and Control Act of 1977 require consideration of a property's historic values in the determination on issuance of a surface coal mining permit.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2008). “See 36 C.F.R. §§ 60.2 , 65.2(b). In the absence of any rights-creating language, we agree with the district court that § 106 of the NHPA does not create a private right of action against the defendants.”
Found. for San Francisco's Architectural Heritage v. City of San Francisco, 106 Cal. App. 3d 893 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “No requirements of any kind are imposed on private initiative” ( 36 C.F.R. § 60.2 (c) (1979)). The purpose of the National Register is to provide federal agencies with a list of sites that merit study before they may be affected by any federal project.”
In Re B.Y. Dev., Inc., 2000 SD 102 (S.D. 2000). · cites it 4× “36 C.F.R. § 60.2 (c). Whenever a listed site is the subject of a federal proposed project, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation must be afforded "a reasonable opportunity to comment" on the project.”
Historic Green Springs, Inc. v. Bergland, 497 F. Supp. 839 (E.D. Va. 1980). · cites it 2× “36 C.F.R. § 60.2 (d)(2). These decisions were announced in the Federal Register on January 24, 1978.”
Buckingham Twp. v. Wykle, 157 F. Supp. 2d 457 (E.D. Pa. 2001). · cites it 2× “See 36 C.F.R. § 60.2 (establishing consultation requirement and noting that “[h]aving complied with this procedural requirement the Federal agency may adopt any course of action it believes is appropriate”); Concerned Citizens Alliance, 176 F.”
Nat'l Indian Youth Council v. Andrus, 501 F. Supp. 649 (D.N.M. 1980). · cites it 2× “” See, 36 C.F.R. Parts 60.2(c) and 60.12(a) (1977).”
Hough v. Marsh, 557 F. Supp. 74 (D. Mass. 1982). “36 C.F.R. § 60.2 (c). Nonetheless, to suggest that the Corps necessarily would have reached the same decision had it determined or learned that the lighthouse was eligible for Register listing is entirely speculative.”
Citizens for the Scenic Severn River Bridge, Inc. v. Skinner, 802 F. Supp. 1325 (D. Maryland 1991). “This is done by establishing procedural safeguards that require the FHWA to consider the effect of a proposed project on protected property and allowing the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (“ACHP”) an opportunity to comment. D.C. Federation of Civil Associations v.”
Suhre v. Haywood Cnty., NC, 55 F. Supp. 2d 384 (W.D.N.C. 1999). “” 36 C.F.R. § 60.2 . In fact, a property may be removed from the register due to alteration.”
City of Ridgeland v. Nat'l Park Serv., 253 F. Supp. 2d 888 (S.D. Miss. 2002). · cites it 2× “36 C.F.R. § 60.2 (a) (emphasis added). The fact is, while plaintiffs disagree with the NPS’s view as to the primary historic relevance of Old Agency Road/Old Natchez Trace and its decision with respect to this *914 project, the Advisory Council has been consulted, has implicitly…”
Moody Hill Farms Ltd. P'ship v. United States Dep't of the Interior, Nat'l Parks Serv., 205 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “Although national listing does not burden private landowners in any respect, and requires only that federal agencies take into account the effect of any proposed action on protected property, see 36 C.F.R. § 60.2 (a), state listing may impose burdens on landowners within a…”
Thomas Norton v. Joy Beasley (6th Cir. 2022). · cites it 5× “” 36 C.F.R. § 60.2 ; see 54 U.S.C. § 306108 .”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— 36 C.F.R. § 60.2(c) — 2 cases
Nat'l Indian Youth Council v. Andrus, 501 F. Supp. 649 (D.N.M. 1980). “” See, 36 C.F.R. Parts 60.2(c) and 60.12(a) (1977).”
Citizens for the Scenic Severn River Bridge, Inc. v. Skinner, 802 F. Supp. 1325 (D. Maryland 1991). “This is done by establishing procedural safeguards that require the FHWA to consider the effect of a proposed project on protected property and allowing the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (“ACHP”) an opportunity to comment. D.C. Federation of Civil Associations v.”
— 36 C.F.R. § 60.2(d)(2) — 1 case
Historic Green Springs, Inc. v. Bergland, 497 F. Supp. 839 (E.D. Va. 1980). “36 C.F.R. § 60.2 (d)(2). These decisions were announced in the Federal Register on January 24, 1978.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.