Below are some frequently asked questions for issues regarding Certified Local Governments (CLGs). Topics below cover resources for information on CLGs and issues regarding certification, local designation, local ordinances, and CLG commissions.
* Title 1, Section 101(a)(7)(C), 54 U.S.C .302107 (3) (Page 48 of the Federal Historic Preservation Laws publication)
* Title 1, Section 101(b)(3)(H), 54 U.S.C. 302303(b)(8) (Page 51 of the Federal Historic Preservation Laws publication)
* Title 1 Section 101 (c), 54 U.S.C. Chapter 3025 (Pages 53-55 of the Federal Historic Preservation Laws publication
* Title I Section 103 (c) and (d), 54 U.S.C. 302902(c)(4) (Page 66 of the Federal Historic Preservation Laws publication)
* Title III Section 301(15), 54 U.S.C. 300302 "certified local government" (Page 89 of the Federal Historic Preservation Laws publication)
* Title III Section 301(3), 54 U.S.C. 300310 "local government" (Page 90 of the Federal Historic Preservation Laws publication)
* Title III Section 301(13), 54 U.S.C. 300307 “historic preservation review commission” (Page 89 of the Federal Historic Preservation Laws publication)
* Title 1, Section 101(b)(3)(H), 54 U.S.C. 302303(b)(8) (Page 51 of the Federal Historic Preservation Laws publication)
* Title 1 Section 101 (c), 54 U.S.C. Chapter 3025 (Pages 53-55 of the Federal Historic Preservation Laws publication
* Title I Section 103 (c) and (d), 54 U.S.C. 302902(c)(4) (Page 66 of the Federal Historic Preservation Laws publication)
* Title III Section 301(15), 54 U.S.C. 300302 "certified local government" (Page 89 of the Federal Historic Preservation Laws publication)
* Title III Section 301(3), 54 U.S.C. 300310 "local government" (Page 90 of the Federal Historic Preservation Laws publication)
* Title III Section 301(13), 54 U.S.C. 300307 “historic preservation review commission” (Page 89 of the Federal Historic Preservation Laws publication)
The most important Federal foundation documents are the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 36 Code of Federal Regulations 61, and the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) Grants Manual. The most important State document are your state’s CLG Procedures.
You can find the NHPA in the Federal Historic Preservation Laws book. This is current through December 31, 2017. To check for more current language, use the following link to the NHPA, Title 54 of the United States Code.
“CFR” means “Code of Federal Regulations.” You can find 36 CFR 61 here.
If you want to know why the National Park Service (NPS) took the regulatory position it did in 36 CFR 61, see the introductory materials.
If you want to know why the National Park Service (NPS) took the regulatory position it did in 36 CFR 61, see the introductory materials.
Chapter 3 (Conflict of Interest), Chapter 6, Chapter 7, and, most importantly, Chapter 9.
To be eligible to become a CLG, the local entity must meet the statutory definition of “local government.” Section 301(3) of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 300310) defines local government as “...a general purpose political subdivision of any State.” Most federally-recognized Tribes, because of their sovereign to sovereign relationship with the United States, do not view themselves as “a political subdivision of a State.”
Federally-recognized tribes that have become official partners with the National Park Service through the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) process, can chose to assume any of the SHPO responsibilities (including running a CLG program) on tribal lands. In such a situation, the THPO would have a role similar to the SHPO. The THPO would have to create Tribal procedures for creating CLGs from eligible general purpose political subdivisions of the Tribe, and pass through at least 10% of the THPO ‘s annual award to its CLGs. As of September 1, 2020, none of the 200 THPOs have taken on the responsibility to create and run a CLG program.
Federally-recognized tribes that have become official partners with the National Park Service through the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) process, can chose to assume any of the SHPO responsibilities (including running a CLG program) on tribal lands. In such a situation, the THPO would have a role similar to the SHPO. The THPO would have to create Tribal procedures for creating CLGs from eligible general purpose political subdivisions of the Tribe, and pass through at least 10% of the THPO ‘s annual award to its CLGs. As of September 1, 2020, none of the 200 THPOs have taken on the responsibility to create and run a CLG program.
No. Pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act, each CLG must be a single unit of local government. The National Park Service relies on State government for a reasonable interpretation of what constitutes a single, general purpose political subdivision of the State. For example, a county and any incorporated city, town, or village within the county have legal jurisdiction only within their defined boundaries. Together, the county and any incorporated city, town or village generally is not considered a single unit of local government under State law and thus cannot be a single CLG.
Of course, there are a limited number of exceptions for those cities that have merged with their surrounding county government, such as: Miami-Dade County, Florida; Nashville-Davidson County, Tennessee; Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia, and; Virginia Beach (merged with Princess Anne County).
Of course, there are a limited number of exceptions for those cities that have merged with their surrounding county government, such as: Miami-Dade County, Florida; Nashville-Davidson County, Tennessee; Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia, and; Virginia Beach (merged with Princess Anne County).
No. It is certainly permissible and wise to use the information contained in National Register listings to inform local land-use decisions. As a matter of statute and Federal policy for the CLG program, however, CLGs may not make local designations or otherwise make historic properties subject to local restrictions (e.g., design review) automatically and solely based on a property’s listing in the National Register.
The National Park Service (NPS) has seen proposals making National Register listing the sole basis for local designation/making historic properties subject to local historic preservation restrictions. NPS has also seen proposals in which automatic local designation/decisions based on National Register listing is a supplemental provision. Neither approach is acceptable. Here are some reasons why:
Section 101(c)(1)(D) of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 302503(a)(4)) requires every CLG to provide “for adequate public participation in the local historic preservation program including the process of recommending properties for nomination to the National Register…” In a CLG, every local designation decision and every decision which makes a property subject to local restrictions must have its own appropriate public participation process.
A CLG created automatic link between National Register listings and local designations could have a chilling on National Register nominations. All that a property owner would have to do to avoid local restrictions would be to object to the National Register nomination. This is contrary to the statutory directive for the National Register program. National Register listings by themselves should have no effect on property owners under State, Tribal, or local law.
National Register listings do not require that all possible areas of significance or periods of significance be identified and addressed. Therefore, total reliance on a National Register listing could cause elements of a historic property’s significance that are important to the local community to be made vulnerable to damage or irreplaceable loss.
No one can count on a National Register listing as being a statement of a property’s current significance and integrity. Properties are not removed from the National Register unless someone proactively asks for a removal. There is no proactive system to check for continued eligibility for National Register listings.
Some properties that might be eligible for local designation are not eligible for National Register listing or have not yet been considered for National Register listing. Why limit local designations to just those decisions that have already been made at the national level? When there is an emergency need for a local designation, waiting for the completion of a National Register listing can cause problems.
The National Park Service (NPS) has seen proposals making National Register listing the sole basis for local designation/making historic properties subject to local historic preservation restrictions. NPS has also seen proposals in which automatic local designation/decisions based on National Register listing is a supplemental provision. Neither approach is acceptable. Here are some reasons why:
Section 101(c)(1)(D) of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 302503(a)(4)) requires every CLG to provide “for adequate public participation in the local historic preservation program including the process of recommending properties for nomination to the National Register…” In a CLG, every local designation decision and every decision which makes a property subject to local restrictions must have its own appropriate public participation process.
A CLG created automatic link between National Register listings and local designations could have a chilling on National Register nominations. All that a property owner would have to do to avoid local restrictions would be to object to the National Register nomination. This is contrary to the statutory directive for the National Register program. National Register listings by themselves should have no effect on property owners under State, Tribal, or local law.
National Register listings do not require that all possible areas of significance or periods of significance be identified and addressed. Therefore, total reliance on a National Register listing could cause elements of a historic property’s significance that are important to the local community to be made vulnerable to damage or irreplaceable loss.
No one can count on a National Register listing as being a statement of a property’s current significance and integrity. Properties are not removed from the National Register unless someone proactively asks for a removal. There is no proactive system to check for continued eligibility for National Register listings.
Some properties that might be eligible for local designation are not eligible for National Register listing or have not yet been considered for National Register listing. Why limit local designations to just those decisions that have already been made at the national level? When there is an emergency need for a local designation, waiting for the completion of a National Register listing can cause problems.
There is no such Federal requirement, but the National Park Service strongly recommends that every local historic preservation ordinance contain a waiver provision and an appeals provision. Check with your State’s CLG procedures or in your State’s enabling legislation to determine if there is a State requirement for this.
No piece of legislation and no policy document can anticipate every possible situation to which the ordinance/policy might be applied. For this reason, it is important to allow for rarely used waivers to deal with unanticipated situations. Similarly, many local historic preservation ordinances have timing provisions. That is, certain decisions must be made or actions taken within a specified number of days. The problem is that disasters happen which can prevent deadlines from being met. No historic preservation-related decision should be made based solely upon failure to meet a deadline in this kind of situation. Dealing with this kind of situation is another function that a carefully crafted waiver provision can serve. An appeals provision which allows for successful appeals when a deadline is missed due to circumstances beyond the control of the CLG Commission, the historic preservation office, etc. can serve the same function as a waiver provision.
No piece of legislation and no policy document can anticipate every possible situation to which the ordinance/policy might be applied. For this reason, it is important to allow for rarely used waivers to deal with unanticipated situations. Similarly, many local historic preservation ordinances have timing provisions. That is, certain decisions must be made or actions taken within a specified number of days. The problem is that disasters happen which can prevent deadlines from being met. No historic preservation-related decision should be made based solely upon failure to meet a deadline in this kind of situation. Dealing with this kind of situation is another function that a carefully crafted waiver provision can serve. An appeals provision which allows for successful appeals when a deadline is missed due to circumstances beyond the control of the CLG Commission, the historic preservation office, etc. can serve the same function as a waiver provision.
Although property owners generally cannot opt out of local zoning or planning laws, there are CLGs with local historic preservation ordinances containing “Owner Consent” provisions and CLGs with “Owner Object” provisions. That choice is up to each State as expressed in its CLG procedures.
Pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Register of Historic Places has an “Owner Object” process in place for National Register listings.
For both local individual landmarks and for local historic districts, the “Owner Object” process and the “Owner Consent“ process require a polling of property owners covered by the proposed local designation. The difference between the two approaches largely comes down to how silence or non-response by property owners is treated. In an “Owner Consent” approach, silence or non-response has the effect of a vote against designation/historic preservation. In an “Owner Object” approach, silence or non-response has the effect of a vote for designation/historic preservation.
Pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Register of Historic Places has an “Owner Object” process in place for National Register listings.
For both local individual landmarks and for local historic districts, the “Owner Object” process and the “Owner Consent“ process require a polling of property owners covered by the proposed local designation. The difference between the two approaches largely comes down to how silence or non-response by property owners is treated. In an “Owner Consent” approach, silence or non-response has the effect of a vote against designation/historic preservation. In an “Owner Object” approach, silence or non-response has the effect of a vote for designation/historic preservation.
Many CLGs require a majority (or some other percentage) of property owner approval to move forward with the designation of local historic districts. The question has to do with whether the required percentage is based on the number of property owners in the proposed local historic district or the number of property owners who respond to a proper polling of their position. The difference between the two approaches largely comes down to how silence or non-response by property owners is treated. If the required percentage is based on the number of property owners, silence or non-response has the effect of a vote against designation/historic preservation. If the required percentage is based on the number of responding property owners, silence or non-response has the effect of a vote for designation/historic preservation.
Consult the National Register and the State National Register Coordinator for the details on how this process works. In general, each local government that has legal jurisdiction over at least part of the nominated property has a review responsibility. This is a fairly common situation with nominations related to bridges, roads, archeological sites, large rural properties, etc. The application of CLG-specific rules related to nominations will vary depending upon the particular situation.
No. Each CLG must have its own CLG Commission and independently meet all of the requirements for being a CLG within its State. That said, the same people can be members of more than one CLG Commission or do work for more than one CLG. For example, the same group of people could meet as the County’s CLG Commission in the morning and then meet as the City’s CLG Commission in the afternoon.
The creation of a Certified Local Government (CLG) is a joint certification by the State and the National Park Service. Pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act (the Act), the State Historic Preservation Officer is the official who represents the State in all historic preservation responsibilities that the Act specifies, including the CLG program. Therefore, the State Historic Preservation Officer or someone to whom the SHPO has delegated signature authority for these matters must sign each certification agreement.
Note that State CLG Coordinators normally sign the checklist materials that the State sends to the National Park Service prior to its review and certification.
Note that State CLG Coordinators normally sign the checklist materials that the State sends to the National Park Service prior to its review and certification.
There is no such Federal requirement, but the National Park Service strongly recommends that every local historic preservation ordinance contain a purpose section. Check with your State’s CLG procedures or your State’s enabling legislation to determine if there is a State requirement for this kind of provision. No piece of legislation and no policy document can anticipate every possible situation to which the ordinance/policy might be applied. To give general direction regarding the intent of the ordinance/policy will help those interpreting the ordinance/policy make reasonable decisions.
Certain events like National Register nominations or other topics that State procedures or local processes specify can trigger the need to hold CLG Commission meetings. Beyond those triggering events, there is no Federal requirement regarding how often a CLG Commission must meet each year. In general, the National Park Service recommends that each CLG Commission meet as often as is necessary to carry out its responsibilities in a timely fashion. Check State CLG procedures and applicable local requirements to determine if there are other rules regarding the frequency of CLG Commission meetings.
Can a CLG Commission require a minimum number of nominations as a prerequisite to holding a meeting?
Although the National Park Service has heard of this situation, it seems to be an uncommon scenario. For National Register nominations there are deadlines by which the CLG Commission must render its recommendation. This requirement is independent of the number of National Register nominations being considered. Similar deadlines almost always apply to the consideration of local designations.
Yes. See Chapter 3 of the HPF Grants Manual.
The State Historic Preservation Office should notify in writing (email is okay) the property owner, the nominator (if different), the chief elected local official, the CLG Commission, and the CLG Contact a) what the official date of receipt of the negative recommendations is , b) the date by which an appeal must be filed, and c) all other relevant information about the appeals process.
Pursuant to State and local procedures, the CLG contact should inform all interested parties a) when the double recommendation against a property’s National Register eligibility has been submitted to the State and b) when the State has provided details about the appeals process.
Pursuant to State and local procedures, the CLG contact should inform all interested parties a) when the double recommendation against a property’s National Register eligibility has been submitted to the State and b) when the State has provided details about the appeals process.
Last updated: April 19, 2021