Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2017 / Notices 43251 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

[NPS–WASO–NRNHL–24004; 

PPWOCRADI0, PCU00RP14.R50000] 

Comments Regarding Listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places of 

Statue of Liberty Enlightening the 

World, Liberty Island, New York Harbor 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, the National Park Service is 

publishing New York (NY) and New 

Jersey (NJ) State Historic Preservation 

Officers’ (SHPOs) comments to the 

National Park Service Federal 

Preservation Officer (FPO) as well as 

responses to SHPOs’ comments by the 

Keeper of the National Register (Keeper) 

prior to including the property in the 

National Register (NR). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice includes comments on the NR 

Nomination entitled ‘‘Statue of Liberty 

Enlightening the World’’ received by the 

FPO from the NY SHPO and the NJ 

SHPO, and the responses by the Keeper 

to these comments. 

NY SHPO: The NY SHPO reviewed 

the following nomination and 

responded to the FPO within 45 days of 

receipt of the nomination. The NY 

SHPO objected to the period of 

significance established for the Statue, 

the period of significance proposed end 

date of 1957 (instead of 1986) for the 

district as a whole, and the omission of 

an area of landscape architecture and 

architecture as areas significance for the 

period 1957–1986. The specific 

comments received by the FPO from the 

NY SHPO are as follows: 

I am writing in response to your request for 

comments on the most recent revised draft 

for the Statue of Liberty Enlightening the 

World Historic District. Ruth Pierpont has 

retired and I am the new Deputy State 

Historic Preservation Officer for New York. 

I have reviewed the file and our comments 

remain the same as they were for the two 

previous drafts. Unfortunately, the New York 

State Historic Preservation Office cannot 

support a period of significance that extends 

‘‘in perpetuity’’ because we do not believe it 

is possible to evaluate the significance of 

events that have not yet occurred. Absent any 

theme, place, or time in which to place these 

unknown events, there is no possible context 

in which to evaluate their meaning. This 

opinion, which I support, is explained in 

more detail in Ruth Pierpont’s letter of June 

6, 2012. 

We would also like to re-state our support 

of a period of significance for the landscape 

elements that extends to include the 1986 

alterations for the statue’s centennial. The 

fact that you have judged changes related to 

its centennial as non-contributing after 

extolling the statue’s unending significance is 

among the reasons that we feel a period of 

‘‘in perpetuity’’ is unwise. At the very least, 

it will generate unnecessary confusion in the 

compliance process as each newly-proposed 

project then automatically becomes 

significant, regardless of its effect on the 

resource. 

Keeper’s Response to NY SHPO 

Comments: The Statue of Liberty 

(including its pedestal) is a singular 

(Keeper’s emphasis), exceptionally 

significant, individually NR-eligible 

historic structure. The significance of 

the Statue to the nation is, and will 

always be, both transcendent and 

perpetual. It is not unprecedented for a 

property with transcendent significance 

to be listed in the NR with period of 

significance that is ongoing. The NR 

listing for National Mall Historic District 

in Washington, DC—under Criterion 

A—is another example. The Keeper 

notes that several properties located in 

the State of New York, including Our 

Lady of Mount Carmel Grotto, 

Richmond County, New York (listed in 

the NR in 2000), and Bohemian Hall and 

Park, in Queens County, New York 

(listed in the NR in 2001), also have 

ongoing periods of significance because 

of their recognition as NR-eligible 

Traditional Cultural Properties. 

The nomination as written is for a 

historic district. The Keeper notes that 

it is a long-established, and common NR 

program practice for an individually 

eligible or individually listed historic 

structure located within a larger NRlisted historic district to have a different 

period of significance than the district 

as a whole. Based on all relevant 

documentation and comments received 

for the nomination, the Keeper finds 

that the proposed end date for the 

period of significance for the district as 

a whole—1957—is appropriate. The 

Keeper concurs with the assessment 

stated in section 7, page 28 of the 

nomination, which states: ‘‘Changes 

made to key elements of the Liberty 

Island Grounds in the mid-1980s and 

alterations over time to contributing 

buildings and structures preclude the 

District’s eligibility in the areas of 

Landscape Architecture or 

Architecture.’’ On balance, the Keeper 

also finds that the post-1957 changes in 

the landscape and buildings for the 

district as a whole (Keeper’s emphasis), 

do not appear to satisfy the ‘‘exceptional 

importance’’ threshold embodied in NR 

Criterion Exception G for properties that 

have achieved significance within the 

past fifty years. 

NJ SHPO: The NJ SHPO reviewed the 

nomination and responded to the FPO 

within 45 days of receipt of the 

nomination. The NJ SHPO objected to 

the nomination document’s failure to 

recognize the State of New Jersey’s 

jurisdictional claim over a portion of 

Liberty Island and other related matters. 

The specific comments received by the 

FPO from the NJ SHPO are as follows: 

NJ SHPO Comment 1 (Concerning 

Section 2a): The opening page of the 

Registration Form should indicate that 

the two states in which this district is 

situated are New York and New Jersey, 

and that the two counties are New York 

and Hudson. 

Keeper’s response to NJ SHPO 

Comment 1: The Keeper notes that the 

most important function of Section 2a. 

is to readily identify the location of the 

property in its most common format. In 

the present case, the Keeper has 

concluded, especially in light of the 

jurisdiction issues raised by the NJ 

SHPO, that the most appropriate way to 

achieve this purpose is to have Section 

2a. of the Nomination Form read as 

follows for the items noted below: 

Street & number: Liberty Island, New 

York Harbor 

City or town: 

State, County: 

Vicinity: No 

Not For Publication: No 

NJ SHPO Comment 2 (Concerning 

Section 7, page 6): The narrative should 

explain that while the majority of 

Liberty Island is situated within the 

State of New York, including the ground 

upon which the Statue stands, the 

western portion of the island 

(approximately 3.4 acres) is ground 

within New Jersey borders. In 1834, a 

determination of the boundary between 

New York and New Jersey was the 

subject of a bi-state compact, 

subsequently approved by Congress. 

Congressional approval of this compact 

acknowledged New Jersey’s ownership 

of the submerged lands west of the 

midline of the Hudson River. In 1857 

Bedloes Island (today’s Liberty Island) 

was carefully surveyed and mapped. It 

was found to be 9.9 acres in size to 

mean high water, 10.7 acres in size to 

mean low water. An additional 183,756 

square feet of filled land, or 

approximately 4.22 acres was added to 

Liberty Island in stages between 1901 

and 1952. 

In light of the above, the statement 

that ‘‘the entire island is Federally 

owned’’ (Section 7, page 6) should be 

revised. New Jersey’s position has 

historically been that the portion of the 

island that remains within New Jersey’s 

sovereign jurisdiction is also owned by 

the State of New Jersey, as part of its 

ownership of riparian lands in New 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
43252 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2017 / Notices 

Jersey. The State of New Jersey has a 

long history of selling portions of its 

riparian lands at fair market value, to 

appropriate users, in the form of 

‘‘riparian grants.’’ The National Park 

Service bought a riparian grant from 

New Jersey in 1904 to legitimize its 

expansion of Ellis Island, but even 

though New Jersey sought from the 

1930s to the 1950s to reach agreement 

with the Federal government to convey 

title for the filled portions of Liberty 

Island, no agreement, and therefore no 

such transfer, was effected. No Federal 

purchase of the land has subsequently 

been completed. The Federal 

government has continued to use the 

property without obtaining a riparian 

grant. That situation has not changed. 

As a result, the State of New Jersey’s 

ownership interest in the land 

artificially filled after 1834 was not 

extinguished and still remains in effect. 

In addition, the further statement that 

‘‘the land mass [of Liberty Island] is 

considered part of New York County, 

New York.’’ (Section 7, page 6) should 

also be revised. Only the portion of 

Liberty Island that reflects the island as 

it existed in 1834 lies within New York 

County, New York. In our previous 

comments on the earlier draft, we 

provided a map that delineated the area 

the island’s fill, showing that New 

Jersey’s territory comprises 

approximately 3.4 acres of the island’s 

14.1 acres. (see attachment) 

New Jersey disagrees with the 

wording of footnote #5 (Section 7, page 

6), which has a tendentious effect. The 

National Park Service has every 

reasonable basis to conclude, as New 

Jersey holds, that Liberty Island is 

situated in both states, and does not 

need to claim in this footnote that it is 

not pronouncing upon an issue that 

Section 2 of the document clearly does. 

Your letter cites the 1998 Supreme 

Court decision in New Jersey v. New 

York, decided in New Jersey’s favor (a 

point not mentioned in footnote #5), in 

which it was held that the portion of 

Ellis Island composed of landfill 

emplaced subsequent to the Compact of 

1834 has remained in the territory of 

New Jersey since the time of that 

compact. With respect to the 

neighboring Liberty Island, the factual 

circumstances are nearly identical and 

the same legal reasoning applies that 

formed the basis of the Ellis Island 

decision. As a result, the National Park 

Service should recognize New Jersey 

sovereignty over the western portion of 

the island. 

Keeper’s response to NJ SHPO 

Comment 2 (Concerning Section 7, page 

6): The Keeper disagrees with the NJ 

SHPO’s contention that, ‘‘The National 

Park Service has every reasonable basis 

to conclude, as New Jersey holds, that 

Liberty Island is situated in both states 

. . .’’ The Keeper agrees with the NPS 

assertion that boundary issues between 

states are matters of original jurisdiction 

with the U.S. Supreme Court, and that 

neither the Keeper nor the National Park 

Service are fitted by expertise or 

authority to pronounce upon them. 

Since the issue regarding jurisdiction 

that was raised by the NJ SHPO cannot 

be resolved within the context of this 

nomination, the Keeper has determined 

that the most appropriate course of 

action is to ensure that, as approved by 

the Keeper, the paragraph under 

‘‘Setting’’ on page 7–6 reads: 

Liberty Island is located within New York 

Harbor, one of the world’s busiest shipping 

ports. It is accessed by ferries that run 

regularly from landings at Liberty State Park 

in Jersey City, New Jersey, and Battery Park 

at the southern tip of Manhattan, New York 

City. The island is manifestly flat, with an 

average elevation of about 15 feet (ft) above 

sea level. The landform is approximately a 

quarter-mile long and about .15-mile wide at 

its widest point. Two significant filling 

events, conducted on the west side of the 

island by the US Army during the First 

World War and on the northwestern end of 

the island by the National Park Service in the 

early 1950s, accreted the island to its current 

14.1-acre form. Liberty Island is surrounded 

by New Jersey state waters. The Statue in its 

entirety was constructed and remains within 

the territorial jurisdiction of the State of New 

York. The entire island is administered by 

the National Park Service. The Statue of 

Liberty is located on the southern portion of 

Liberty Island and is immediately 

surrounded on the east, west, and south sides 

by grass lawns. Visitors arrive at the island’s 

West Pier after a ferry trip from Manhattan 

or Jersey City and usually walk to the Statue 

on the island’s primary circulation system, a 

wide paved system of malls and plazas that 

conveys visitors to the main entrance to the 

Statue. The malls and plazas are lined with 

linden trees and yew hedges that give the 

setting a park-like feel. A secondary 

circulation system consisting of interior 

paths and a perimeter promenade offers other 

views of the Statue and New York Harbor 

from a variety of vantage points. Operational 

facilities such as maintenance buildings and 

staff housing are located primarily in the 

northwest corner of the island and are 

screened from public view in most 

directions. (**NOTE: footnote #5 referenced in 

the NJ SHPOs comments regarding the above 

paragraph has been corrected to read as 

footnote #6 in the final nomination 

document.) 

Authority: The National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, 54 U.S.C. 302104 

(c)(5)–(6) of; 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60. 

Dated: August 14, 2017. 

J. Paul Loether, 

Chief, NR of Historic Places/National Historic 

Landmarks Program and Keeper, NR of 

Historic Places. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19571 Filed 9–13–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–52–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1055] 

Certain Mirrors With Internal 

Illumination and Components Thereof; 

Supplemental Notice of Commission 

Determination Not To Review an Initial 

Determination Finding the Sole 

Remaining Respondent in Default; 

Request for Written Submissions on 

Remedy, the Public Interest, and 

Bonding 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 10) finding the sole 

remaining respondent in default. The 

Commission requests written 

submissions, under the schedule set 

forth below, on remedy, public interest, 

and bonding. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Clint Gerdine, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202– 

708–2310. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone 202–205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at https://

edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on 202–205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on May 8, 2017, based on a complaint 

filed by Electric Mirror, LLC of Everett, 

Washington (‘‘Electric Mirror’’) and 

Kelvin 42 LLC of Pensacola, Florida 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES