Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Notices 88791 

Dated: November 4, 2024. 

Lauren A. Fleck, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2024–25938 Filed 11–7–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–P 

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION 

Notice of Approval of Exemption for 

Indigenous-Knowledge Informed 

Activities by Native Hawaiian 

Organizations 

AGENCY: Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (ACHP) has 

approved an exemption that would 

relieve Federal agencies from the 

historic preservation review 

requirements under Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act 

regarding the effects of various 

undertakings in Hawaii that are 

proposed or directed by a Native 

Hawaiian Organization (NHO), or 

substantially led, designed, or managed 

by an NHO, informed by Indigenous 

Knowledge of that NHO, and related to 

traditional cultural practices of Native 

Hawaiians. 

DATES: The exemption went into effect 

on October 18, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Dancing Feather, (202) 517– 

0195, wdancingfeather@achp.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. 306108 

(Section 106 and NHPA), requires 

Federal agencies to consider the effects 

of projects they carry out, license/ 

permit/approve, or assist (undertakings) 

on historic properties, and provide the 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable 

opportunity to comment with regard to 

such undertakings. Historic properties 

are those properties that are listed in the 

National Register of Historic Places 

(National Register) or eligible for such 

listing. 

The NHPA authorizes the ACHP to 

promulgate regulations for exempting 

undertakings from any or all of the 

requirements of Section 106. 54 U.S.C. 

304108(c). The section 106 regulations, 

found at 36 CFR part 800, detail the 

process for the approval of such 

exemptions at 36 CFR 800.14(c). 

After following that process, on 

October 18, 2024, the ACHP 

membership, by a vote of 17 in favor, 

none against, and three abstentions, 

approved the exemption reproduced at 

the end of this notice. 

I. Background 

The ACHP acknowledges that Native 

knowledge and expertise are crucial to 

a full understanding of historic 

properties that must be recognized in 

the Section 106 review process. 

Accordingly, the ACHP published the 

2021 Traditional Knowledge and the 

Section 106 Process: Information for 

Federal Agencies and Other Participants 

document to keep Federal agencies 

apprised of their duty to incorporate 

traditional knowledge in Section 106 

decisions. Most recently, in March 2024, 

the ACHP adopted a Policy Statement 

on Indigenous Knowledge and Historic 

Preservation calling for the respectful 

integration of Indigenous Knowledge at 

all levels of the Section 106 review 

process. In particular, Principle 3 of this 

policy describes ‘‘Indigenous 

Knowledge’’ for purposes of Section 106 

to include, but is not limited to, the 

‘‘experiences, insights, and knowledge 

held by Indian Tribes and NHOs that 

can assist Federal agencies in 

identifying, evaluating, assessing, and 

resolving adverse effects to historic 

properties that may be of religious and 

cultural significance to them.’’ 

Moreover, Principle 4 of the policy 

explains that section 106 agreement 

documents and program alternatives 

that relate to historic properties of 

religious and cultural significance to an 

Indian Tribe or NHO should recognize 

Indigenous Knowledge in informed 

decision making. 

II. Exemption Criteria 

As mentioned, exemptions are a 

program alternative under 36 CFR 

800.14(c) which may be proposed by a 

Federal agency or by the ACHP. 

Exempted categories must meet the 

following three criteria: (i) the actions 

within the program or category would 

otherwise qualify as ‘‘undertakings’’ as 

defined in § 800.16; (ii) the potential 

effects of the undertakings within the 

program or category upon historic 

properties are foreseeable and likely to 

be minimal or not adverse; and (iii) the 

exemption of the program or category is 

consistent with the purposes of the 

NHPA. 

The actions covered by the exemption 

are undertakings. The ACHP identified 

that certain Federal agencies reviewing 

undertakings involving NHOs, 

specifically those utilizing Indigenous 

Knowledge, were experiencing 

challenges in meeting section 106 

requirements despite clear compliance 

with the broad goals and outlines of 

Federal historic preservation policy. 

Examples of such projects have 

included, in the past, Federal grant 

activities to NHOs, such as grants for 

agricultural restoration in He1eia and 

maintenance activities at Ulupo ̄ Heiau 

in Kailua, and select Federal land 

management actions. 

The exemption applies to certain 

types of undertakings to be carried out, 

licensed, permitted, or assisted by 

Federal agencies that are (1) proposed, 

directed, or authorized by an NHO, or 

substantially led, designed, or managed 

by an NHO, (2) informed by Indigenous 

Knowledge of that NHO, (3) related to 

traditional cultural practices of Native 

Hawaiians, and (4) preceded by the 

submission of an attestation statement 

by the NHO to the relevant Federal 

agency. The types of activities that are 

included are landscaping practices; 

agricultural practices; rehabilitation, 

preservation, restoration, or 

reconstruction of water features and 

systems, including fishponds, historic 

pathways, sacred and traditional sites, 

traditional Native Hawaiian buildings 

and structures, properties of religious 

and cultural significance to NHOs; 

installation of interpretative signage; 

and transfer of Federal property or 

interest in Federal property to an NHO. 

The undertaking’s potential effects are 

likely to be minimal or not adverse. In 

considering the likely potential effects 

of the undertakings informed by NHOs 

on historic properties, the ACHP Chair 

and staff met with many representatives 

of NHOs, Federal agencies, the Hawai1i 

State Historic Preservation Office, and 

other preservation partners. In addition, 

the ACHP conducted public engagement 

and consultation as further described 

below. 

Based on this input and input from 

ACHP members, the likely effects of the 

exempted undertakings on historic 

properties (including those not of 

religious and cultural significance to 

NHOs), would be minimal or not 

adverse, as such effects are defined in 

36 CFR 800.16(i) and 800.5 respectively. 

The exemption includes several 

safeguards to limit the covered 

undertakings’ effects to those that are 

minimal or not adverse, including: the 

requirements that covered activities 

include only those informed by 

Indigenous Knowledge of the NHO and 

related to the traditional cultural 

practices of Native Hawaiians; a 

requirement that the NHO attest to its 

involvement in the undertaking and the 

undertaking’s relationship to Native 

Hawaiian cultural practice; a carefully 

prescribed list of covered activities, 

each tied to Indigenous Knowledge of 

the NHO and traditional cultural 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
88792 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Notices 

practice of Native Hawaiians; and 

careful limits on the types of materials, 

construction techniques, and activities 

of the covered activities. 

Overall, the exemption aims to 

exempt those activities that are 

themselves cultural preservation. By the 

terms of the exemption, these are 

activities for the preservation, 

restoration, rehabilitation, 

reconstruction, repair, maintenance, and 

stabilization of historic properties of 

significance to NHOs, utilizing their 

expert Indigenous Knowledge about 

such properties. Deference to an NHO’s 

understanding of their own cultural 

preservation activities is consistent with 

the formal position of the ACHP as 

expressed in its Policy Statement on 

Indigenous Knowledge and Historic 

Preservation which states that Federal 

agencies should ‘‘recognize and defer to 

Tribal or NHO interpretation of the 

property’s significance and integrity. 

Members of the preservation community 

are not the experts on what constitutes 

Indigenous Knowledge or how it should 

be utilized to identify or evaluate the 

eligibility of a property that may be of 

religious and cultural significance to an 

Indian Tribe or NHO.’’ 

The exemption does not apply to 

demolition or removal of properties 

listed or known to be eligible for listing 

on the National Register of Historic 

Places, unless the demolition or removal 

decision has previously completed 

review pursuant to Section 106; the 

construction of new buildings or 

structures not expressly allowed in the 

covered activities section; the treatment 

or disposition of burial sites, human 

remains, and funerary objects in a 

manner contrary to the ACHP Policy 

Statement on Burial Sites, Human 

Remains, and Funerary Objects; agency 

decisions to provide or retract 

permission to access agency owned or 

controlled land; and undertakings 

known by a Federal agency or the 

relevant NHO to be contrary to or 

limiting of the Indigenous Knowledgeinformed traditional cultural practice of 

another NHO or to demolish or remove 

properties on or eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places. Moreover, 

the exemption includes language, 

similar to that in other exemptions, 

where Federal agencies remain 

responsible for considering the effects of 

undertakings on historic properties 

other than those directly addressed by 

the activities covered by the exemption. 

In sum, the ACHP consulted with and 

took into account the views of 

stakeholders—including Federal and 

State officials, NHOs, historic 

preservation organizations, and 

individuals—to identify a limited set of 

undertakings whose potential effects 

upon historic properties are foreseeable 

and likely to be minimal or not adverse 

and where exemption of the 

undertakings would be consistent with 

the purposes of the NHPA. The 

exemption includes several safeguards 

to limit the covered undertakings’ 

effects to those that are minimal or not 

adverse, including: the requirements 

that covered activities include only 

those informed by Indigenous 

Knowledge of the NHO and related to 

the traditional cultural practices of 

Native Hawaiians; a requirement that 

the NHO attest to its involvement in the 

undertaking and its relationship to the 

property, and the undertaking’s 

relationship to Native Hawaiian cultural 

practice; a carefully prescribed list of 

covered activities, each tied to 

Indigenous Knowledge of the NHO and 

traditional cultural practice of Native 

Hawaiians; and careful limits on the 

types of materials, construction 

techniques, and activities of the covered 

activities. 

The exemption is consistent with the 

purposes of the NHPA. Among other 

things, the NHPA establishes as the 

policy of the government to ‘‘provide 

leadership in the preservation of the 

historic property of the United States 

and . . . in the administration of the 

national preservation program’’, to 

‘‘administer federally owned, 

administered, or controlled historic 

property in the spirit of stewardship for 

the inspiration and benefit of present 

and future generations’’, and to 

‘‘contribute to the preservation of 

nonfederally owned historic property in 

a spirit of stewardship for the 

inspiration and benefit of present and 

future generations.’’ 54 U.S.C. 30101(2), 

(3), (4). 

The exemption aligns with the 

requirements of the NHPA reflecting an 

effort to promote historic preservation 

by enabling types of restoration and 

rehabilitation projects that are 

essentially preservation activities. This 

effort also aligns with ACHP’s work over 

the course of three decades to expand 

the participation of NHOs in the historic 

preservation review process under 

Section 106 and its implementing 

regulations. In 1992, Congress amended 

the NHPA to clarify that properties of 

religious and cultural importance to 

NHOs may be eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places and 

that Federal agencies, in carrying out 

their Section 106 responsibilities, must 

consult with any NHO that attaches 

religious and cultural significance to 

historic properties that may be affected 

by an undertaking. The ACHP 

incorporated the provisions in the 

Section 106 regulations, 36 CFR part 

800, ‘‘Protection of Historic Properties.’’ 

The ACHP in 2008 adopted the ACHP 

Policy Statement on the ACHP’s 

interaction with Native Hawaiian 

Organizations. This policy set forth the 

ACHP’s commitments to ensure that 

NHOs are fully included and allowed 

the opportunity to effectively participate 

in the Federal historic preservation 

program. The policy also set forth the 

ACHP’s consideration of Native 

Hawaiian values, such as a deep love 

and understanding of the land and a 

respect for the powerful forces of nature, 

and its recognition of the significant 

contribution Native Hawaiians make 

towards the enrichment of this nation. 

In 2010, President Obama announced 

U.S. support for the United Nations 

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous 

Peoples and in 2013 the ACHP became 

the first agency to formally adopt its 

intent with the ACHP Plan to Support 

the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of 

Indigenous Peoples (Declaration). The 

plan calls for the ACHP to incorporate 

the principles and aspirations of the 

Declaration into its work regarding 

Native Hawaiian historic preservation 

issues. 

In 2021, the ACHP published the 

guidance document entitled Traditional 

Knowledge and the Section 106 Process: 

Information for Federal Agencies and 

Other Participants to help inform 

Federal agencies of their obligation to 

incorporate traditional knowledge in the 

Section 106 decision making and noting 

the ACHP’s position that Native 

knowledge and expertise is essential to 

a full understanding of historic 

properties that must be considered in 

the Section 106 review process. In 2022, 

the White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy and the Council on 

Environmental Quality issued 

government-wide Guidance for Federal 

Departments and Agencies on 

Indigenous Knowledge. 

To further elaborate on this guidance, 

and advance and encourage the use and 

integration of Indigenous Knowledge in 

the Section 106 process, in 2024 the 

ACHP adopted the ACHP Policy 

Statement on Indigenous Knowledge 

and Historic Preservation. The policy 

includes principles that should be 

applied by Federal agencies, State and 

local governments, and 

nongovernmental institutions, including 

private contractors, to advance the 

integration of Indigenous Knowledge 

into historic preservation decision 

making. Principle 3 of that policy states: 

For purposes of Section 106, the term 

‘‘Indigenous Knowledge’’ includes, but 

is not limited to, the experiences, 

insights, and knowledge held by Indian 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Notices 88793 

Tribes and NHOs that can assist Federal 

agencies in identifying, evaluating, 

assessing, and resolving adverse effects 

to historic properties that may be of 

religious and cultural significance to 

them. While the NHPA directs Federal 

agencies to make the final decisions in 

the Section 106 review, the law also 

directs agencies to consult with Indian 

Tribes and NHOs in carrying out the 

review process. Deference can and 

should be provided to the expertise of 

designated representatives about 

Indigenous Knowledge that is provided 

to inform decision making in the 

Section 106 process. A reasonable and 

good faith effort includes the 

responsibility that Federal agencies, 

consistent with 36 CFR 

800.2(c)(2)(ii)(A), consider Indigenous 

Knowledge in a successive and 

cumulative manner throughout the fourstep Section 106 process. 

Principle 4 of that policy states: 

‘‘Section 106 agreement documents and 

program alternatives that relate to or 

include the identification of, assessment 

of effects to, or resolution of adverse 

effects to historic properties of religious 

and cultural significance to an Indian 

Tribe or NHO should include language 

or stipulations that address the role of 

Indigenous Knowledge in informed 

decision making and how designated 

representatives would be involved in 

any ongoing reviews or consultation.’’ 

This exemption constitutes a Section 

106 program alternative that is designed 

to advance the recognition of 

Indigenous Knowledge in informed 

decision making by Federal agencies 

and to advance the ACHP’s application 

of these and other principles within the 

ACHP Policy Statement on Indigenous 

Knowledge and Historic Preservation 

and prior relevant ACHP documents 

and statements. 

The exemption is restricted to only 

specific activities undertaken with or by 

NHOs, and to those projects that benefit 

historic preservation and cultural 

perpetuation by reconstructing, 

interpreting, restoring, rehabilitating, 

and preserving historic properties 

significant to NHOs. Further, this 

exemption offers NHOs engaged with 

Federal agencies the ability to identify 

the appropriate paradigm, cultural 

methods, and practices in which 

proposed undertakings would be carried 

out in order to support the cultural 

perpetuation goals of NHOs as well as 

meeting the policy principles within the 

ACHP’s Policy Statement on Indigenous 

Knowledge. Accordingly, the proposed 

exemption meets the final criterion for 

an exemption. 

III. Summary of Consultation and 

Public Participation 

In accordance with 36 CFR 

800.14(c)(2), public participation 

regarding exemptions must be arranged 

on a level appropriate to the subject and 

scope of the exemption. The exemption 

is not a nationwide action and would 

only have effect within the State of 

Hawai1i. The AHCP determined that 

consultation requirements of Executive 

Order 13175 were not triggered for the 

development of this exemption as there 

are no Indian Tribes with a governmentto-government relationship located 

within, nor have interests in Hawaii. 

In mid-April 2024, Chair Bronin met 

with representatives of NHOs while 

visiting several historic sites on Oahu 

with leaders from the State of Hawaii 

Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Historic 

Hawai1i Foundation, and the 

Department of the Interior (DOI) Office 

of Native Hawaiian Relations. Chair 

Bronin and former ACHP Member Reno 

Franklin further met with numerous 

Native Hawaiians on Maui, including 

the Cultural Monitor of Federal 

Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) recovery efforts in Lahaina. 

During these meetings, Chair Bronin 

and Member Franklin heard comments 

about improving the Section 106 

process for certain undertakings 

involving one or more NHOs that 

propose or direct, or substantially lead, 

design, or manage such undertakings. 

The NHOs identified issues related to 

unnecessary delays and expenses 

associated with Federal historic 

preservation reviews of Native Hawaiian 

cultural practices, and potential 

interference by non-Indigenous 

authorities in Indigenous Knowledgeinformed activities. In addition, there 

was concern that Section 106 reviews of 

any proposed reconstruction and 

restoration of traditional Native 

Hawaiian sites in and around Lahaina 

could delay or thwart the 

implementation of such undertakings. 

In mid-May, Chair Bronin announced 

her intent to draft an exemption at the 

ACHP Tribal and Indigenous Peoples 

Committee meeting with the stated 

support of Chairman Franklin and 

creation of a proposed working group 

consisting of Vice Chair Jordan 

Tannenbaum and representatives of the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), the Department of Defense 

(DOD), the DOI, the National Trust for 

Historic Preservation (NTHP), and the 

National Association of Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officers (NATHPO). 

After circulating a draft of the 

exemption to the above-referenced 

working group on May 16, 2024, Chair 

Bronin met with the NATHPO and 

NTHP. Based on these meetings and 

exchanges among the working group, 

Chair Bronin addressed comments and 

incorporated feedback into the draft. On 

May 22, the Office of Tribal and 

Indigenous Peoples distributed to the 

ACHP’s NHO 106 contacts listserv a 

notice of intent to propose an 

exemption, including a link to the 

ACHP’s web page explaining the 

proposal, notification of two NHO 

consultations and one public meeting 

on the proposal, and a notice that 

written comments would be taken until 

July 7. After Chair Bronin met with 

Hawai1i State Historic Preservation 

Officer Dawn Chang on May 28 to 

discuss the draft exemption, the draft of 

the exemption consolidating all 

preliminary input was posted on the 

ACHP website. 

The ACHP and Chair Bronin 

promoted the proposal and 

opportunities for public engagement 

and NHO consultation on social media, 

including LinkedIn, X, and Facebook. 

Chair Bronin further published an op-ed 

in Hawai1i’s largest newspaper, the 

Honolulu Star-Advertiser (circulation 

107,191), describing the proposed 

exemption, explaining its history and 

rationale, and inviting public comment 

with a link to the ACHP web page. This 

newspaper piece was promoted by Chair 

Bronin and the ACHP on the abovereferenced social media platforms. 

On May 31, 2024, a second notice of 

the proposed exemption was distributed 

to the ACHP’s NHO listserv, restating 

key information in the May 22 notice 

and pointing out that the final draft of 

the proposed NHO Exemption had been 

posted on the ACHP website. Chair 

Bronin further explained the proposed 

exemption while urging feedback and 

ACHP engagement in a webinar of the 

American Planning Association 

Division on Urban Design and Historic 

Preservation on May 22. More than 

1,000 people registered for this event. 

On June 12, Chair Bronin led a public 

engagement meeting about the proposed 

exemption with participating members 

including representatives of Federal 

agencies, the State of Hawai1i State 

Historic Preservation Division, and 

members of the general public. Chair 

Bronin addressed comments and 

questions from participants, including 

several representatives of the SHPO, 

Federal agencies, and cultural resources 

practitioners. 

The ACHP developed and executed a 

plan to consult with Native Hawaiian 

Organizations. The plan included the 

conduct of two NHO consultations 

organized by the ACHP and directly 

facilitated by Chair Bronin. On June 14, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
88794 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Notices 

Chair Bronin led a first NHO 

consultation meeting with a second 

meeting on June 27. At the first 

consultation meeting, representatives of 

NHOs were in attendance. At the second 

consultation meeting, representatives of 

NHOs were again in attendance. 

At both meetings, attendees expressed 

support for the intent and overall 

content of the exemption and raised 

specific suggestions about covered 

activities to include in the list 

(including, among others, fencing to 

protect cultural sites, climate changerelated adaptation measures, and new 

construction of traditional structures 

such as hale and ha ̄lau wa1a), urged that 

there be safeguards (such as public 

notice or reporting) on the exemption, 

and that the exemption provide for 

documentation that the NHO proponent 

meets the definition of an NHO 

(pursuant to NHPA and 36 CFR 

800.16(s)(1)). In addition, attendees 

asked that undertakings known to have 

the potential to infringe on the 

Indigenous Knowledge-informed 

cultural practice by other NHOs not be 

included in the scope of the exemption 

and asked for clarification about the 

applicability of other State and Federal 

laws. Chair Bronin addressed comments 

and questions from the attendees, and 

those unable to attend had the 

opportunity to contact staff through a 

dedicated email address monitored by 

staff to guarantee a timely response. 

The first consultation period closed 

on July 7. Chair Bronin and ACHP staff 

reviewed the comments and questions 

from NHOs and the general public and 

made adjustments to create a second 

draft of the exemption. 

ACHP members discussed the public 

comments and preliminary version of 

the second draft at the ACHP Tribal and 

Indigenous Peoples Committee meeting 

on July 11 and at the ACHP Business 

Meeting on July 18. Members discussed 

a timeline for a second round of 

consultation on a second draft, and an 

updated draft was posted to the ACHP 

website. 

On August 15, Chair Bronin led a 

third NHO consultation meeting. 

Representatives of NHOs were in 

attendance. 

At this meeting, certain individuals 

expressed general support for the 

exemption, stating that it would 

simplify the process for restoration and 

preservation activities. Many 

participants shared that it would be 

helpful in Lahaina specifically, with 

others remarking it had broader utility. 

A few participants asked for more 

specific details about exactly which 

organizations could use this exemption, 

and flagged concern that agency 

contractors are also reflected on the DOI 

NHO list or otherwise may meet the 

criteria. Some participants expressed a 

concern that the exemption would allow 

actors who do not properly represent 

Native Hawaiian communities or lineal 

descendants in an area to take advantage 

of the exemption, while others noted 

that recent ACHP changes to the draft 

exemption may address these concerns. 

A few participants flagged a desire for 

public information about ongoing use of 

the exemption and public notice about 

the use of application of the exemption 

before it is applied, so that lineal 

descendants are aware of its use on 

properties of significance to their family 

and communities and can raise a 

dispute if needed. Some individuals 

requested additional outreach to consult 

on the proposed exemption. Chair 

Bronin again responded to comments 

and questions from the attendees and 

encouraged the submission of written 

comments. 

The second consultation period 

closed on August 26. Chair Bronin and 

ACHP staff reviewed the comments and 

made adjustments to create a third draft 

of the exemption to be considered by 

ACHP members. Members of the ACHPInitiated Program Alternatives Forum 

Committee held a meeting on September 

5 to discuss a preliminary third draft. 

Members provided additional feedback 

between that discussion and September 

25. 

Chair Bronin and staff revised the 

proposed exemption extensively as a 

result of consultation. Below is a 

summary of how Chair Bronin and staff 

integrated suggestions or considered 

them in the revisions. 

Comments from members of the 

public, State and Federal agencies, and 

NHOs covered a range of topics, 

including: strengthening protections for 

historic and cultural properties not 

involved with a covered undertaking; 

requesting additional consultation and 

outreach; addressing several issues 

related to NHO connections to 

properties at issue and NHO capacity; 

refining the scope of covered activities 

and excluded activities; confirming 

Federal agency responsibilities; adding 

notice to the public, periodic reporting, 

and reviews; and several minor 

suggestions. In response to these 

comments, the ACHP revised the 

exemption to more clearly define the 

range of actions that can occur using the 

exemption and added additional detail 

to the conditions under which an 

undertaking may fall within the scope of 

this exemption. 

Several comments suggested 

strengthening the provisions in the 

exemption to clarify how historic and 

cultural properties not involved with a 

covered undertaking would be protected 

against adverse effects. In response, the 

ACHP revised the exemption to: require 

a statement by an NHO participating in 

the exemption that explains the NHO’s 

connection to the property and its 

members’ current or ancestors’ prior 

relationship to the property, as well as 

a statement that the NHO knows of no 

other NHO’s traditional cultural practice 

being infringed upon and that no other 

properties on or eligible for the National 

Register will be potentially demolished, 

removed, or modified in a manner that 

adversely affects character-defining 

features; indicate that the Federal 

agency remains responsible for 

identification and considering the 

effects of the covered activities on other 

surrounding sites; and explicitly 

exclude from the exemption 

undertakings known by the agency or 

NHO to be contrary to or limiting of 

another NHO’s traditional cultural 

practice. Such provisions were added to 

other existing protections, including the 

explicit exclusion from the exemption 

the demolition or removal of properties 

listed or known to be eligible for the 

National Register. 

Several comments queried how NHOs 

identified by a Federal agency might be 

asked to demonstrate their connection 

to a particular historic property at issue. 

Revisions to the NHO attestation 

provisions in section II refine the types 

of connections that must be attested to, 

including statements about the 

property’s ongoing or prior traditional 

cultural practices related to the property 

and about the prior connections 

(including activities, support, and 

relationships) between key individual 

decision-makers and members of the 

NHO and the Native Hawaiian 

community and individuals known to 

have ancestral connections to the 

property. In addition, as a threshold 

matter, it was noted that some NHOs 

may not have the capacity to directly 

manage a project, though they could 

nonetheless propose, direct, or 

authorize such a project. Thus, the 

provision in the exemption originally 

requiring both direct project 

management and proposal, direction, or 

authorization were combined to allow 

for a broader range of NHOs to 

participate in this exemption. This 

change was made in the first sentence 

of section III. 

Many comments addressed the list of 

covered activities in section III. The 

draft exemption was revised to include 

several Native Hawaiian terms and to 

identify more precisely certain 

activities, as well as revised to 

acknowledge the description of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Notices 88795 

Indigenous Knowledge. A comment 

suggesting that undertakings with the 

potential to affect ‘‘properties with 

religious and cultural significance to 

NHOs’’ was an overly broad category of 

actions to include in the proposed 

exemption, and this comment resulted 

in the deletion of that provision given 

that other activities in the section were 

described in greater detail. Commenters 

suggested that the provision on new 

construction be narrowed, and specific 

buildings and structures identified (or 

excluded); that provision was modified 

to include hale, ha ̄lau wa1a, and 

boundary structures in response to 

specific suggestions. Several NHOs and 

a State agency suggested that minor 

adaptations to the covered activities to 

respond to climate change, pollution, 

and invasive species be expressly 

allowed. A provision on this was 

included. Language on natural habitat 

conservation practices, fishing, and 

aquaculture was also added, reflecting 

the agency’s stated commitment to 

advancing the fact that natural resources 

are cultural resources. 

Commenters had questions and 

suggestions about activities not to be 

covered by the exemption. In response, 

the ACHP clarified that Federal agency 

decisions regarding land access, 

undertakings known to be contrary to or 

limiting of NHO or Native Hawaiian 

cultural practices, undertakings outside 

the State of Hawai1i, undertakings 

conducted during emergency situations, 

and National Historic Landmarks were 

not covered by the exemption. 

Commenters wanted clearer language 

confirming Federal agency 

responsibilities for Section 106 

compliance. New language in section II 

clarifies that the exemption may only be 

applied after a Federal agency identifies 

an NHO for participation in an 

undertaking, and only after the Federal 

agency initiates any necessary 

consultation. A new section V confirms 

that Federal agencies remain 

responsible for Section 106 compliance 

and for considering the effects of 

undertakings on historic properties 

other than those directly addressed by 

covered activities. It also provides 

clarity regarding dispute resolution if a 

Federal agency learns of an unexpected 

conflict after it decides to use the 

exemption. 

Commenters from the Federal 

Government and NHOs suggested public 

notice, periodic reporting, and reviews 

to assess the effectiveness of the 

exemption. To address these comments, 

the ACHP added a recommendation for 

public notice to the State of Hawai1i or 

a newspaper of statewide circulation in 

section II. In addition, the ACHP added 

section X, which includes annual 

reporting by Federal agencies that use 

the exemption and biannual reporting 

for a subsequent period. It also requires 

the ACHP to schedule a meeting with 

Federal agencies that used the 

exemption, representatives of the State 

Historic Preservation Office, NHOs, 

Federal preservation officers, and 

others. 

During the second round of 

consultation, comments recommended 

that the ACHP consider additional 

consultation with Native Hawaiian 

Organizations to address difficulty of 

attending consultations during working 

hours and to raise awareness about the 

proposed exemption and encourage 

questions and discussions about it. The 

ACHP did not foresee additional 

substantive concerns would be raised 

during additional consultation sessions 

that had not been responded to during 

the course of consultation. 

Public comments also included a 

range of typographical and similarly 

minor suggestions, such as including a 

reference to Chapter 6(E) of the Hawaii 

Revised Statutes in section VI. The 

ACHP largely incorporated these 

suggestions. In addition, commenters 

suggested the inclusion of definitions 

from the Secretary of the Interior 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties, and section XI now includes 

these. Finally, it was suggested that a 

reference to the provision in the policy 

statement promoting consultation with 

and deference for descendant 

communities in the ACHP Policy 

Statement on Burial Sites, Human 

Remains, and Funerary Objects be 

included; such a reference was added. 

The ACHP declined to include several 

suggestions. Several NHOs suggested 

that the provision on new buildings and 

structures be expanded to include 

various support facilities, such as offices 

and housing. The ACHP declined to 

expand the provision on new buildings 

and structures in this manner, because 

the potential adverse effects of these 

buildings and structures could not be 

readily ascertained, and similarly 

declined to include a suggestion by a 

Federal agency to add wildland fire 

management. At least two comments 

requested there be an appeals process to 

the ACHP of agency determinations. 

The ACHP declined to include an 

appeals process into this exemption. 

The exemption, as a type of program 

alternative, removes the requirement for 

Section 106 review for specified 

undertakings; therefore, it is not the 

appropriate administrative vehicle to 

provide for a dispute resolution process. 

Each Federal agency should consult 

meaningfully with NHOs in proposing 

and developing undertakings that may 

be subject to this exemption. In doing 

so, each agency should utilize, and 

update as needed, its own NHO 

consultation policy and procedures. 

Should conflicts arise in determining 

whether use of the exemption is 

appropriate, the agency should work to 

resolve that conflict in accordance with 

its consultation policy and procedures 

prior to utilizing the exemption. The 

ACHP also declined to include reference 

to blood quantum in the definition of 

Native Hawaiian, instead retaining the 

definition of Native Hawaiian in the 

NHPA. And finally, the ACHP declined 

to include reference to NAGPRA, as 

requested by one commentator, to avoid 

conflating statutory regimes. 

A comment also requested a definite 

end date for the exemption. The ACHP 

declined to include an end date, noting 

that according to section VII of the 

exemption, the ACHP membership may 

terminate the exemption at any time. 

Another commenter suggested that the 

definition for NHO should refer 

specifically to, and allow NHOs listed 

on, the DOI list. Because NHOs and 

others requested that the DOI list not be 

referenced or used to qualify 

organizations for use of this exemption, 

the ACHP decided to maintain the 

definition of NHO as in the NHPA 

regulations and to add additional 

requests for the NHO in section II of the 

exemption, on attestation. 

IV. Text of Exemption 

The full text of the approved 

exemption is reproduced below: 

Exemption for Indigenous-Knowledge 

Informed Activities by Native Hawaiian 

Organizations 

Section I. Exemption From Section 106 

Except as noted in Section IV, all 

federal agencies are exempt from the 

Section 106 requirements of taking into 

account the effects of undertakings 

identified in Section III. 

Section II. Applicability and Initiation 

of Exemption 

a. Applicability. 

This exemption applies only to 

undertakings identified in Section III 

that take place in the state of Hawai1i. 

This exemption applies to undertakings 

where, prior to [date of adoption], the 

relevant federal agency has not yet made 

a final decision about carrying out, 

licensing, or assisting the undertaking, 

as applicable. 

b. Prior Decision to Identify an NHO. 

The exemption is not intended to 

guide the federal agency in actually 

identifying a Native Hawaiian 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
88796 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Notices 

Organization (NHO) for participation in 

a covered undertaking. It is anticipated 

that the federal agency will have already 

made this identification, pursuant to its 

own processes consistent with 36 CFR 

800.2, and only after that identification 

will consider whether to use this 

exemption. Such a process may include 

the federal agency initiation of 

consultation with the NHOs known to 

have an interest in the property or 

properties that are the subject of the 

proposed undertaking to determine 

whether the proposed undertaking will 

be contrary to or limiting of the 

Indigenous Knowledge-informed 

traditional cultural practice of an NHO. 

The federal agency shall not proceed 

with the use of this exemption if it 

determines that such a conflict is likely 

to occur. 

c. Submission of Formal Statement by 

an NHO. 

After the federal agency identifies an 

NHO that will be proposing or directing, 

or substantially leading, designing, or 

managing the relevant undertaking, but 

before a federal agency may use this 

exemption, the federal agency must 

request and receive from the identified 

NHO a formal statement detailing how 

such activities meet the terms of this 

exemption. Such a formal statement 

must include, subject to Section IX of 

this exemption: 

i. An attestation that the entity meets 

the definition of an NHO in the NHPA, 

including expertise in aspects of historic 

preservation that are significant to 

Native Hawaiians, which the federal 

agency should consider in light of the 

ACHP Policy Statement on Indigenous 

Knowledge and Historic Preservation; 

ii. A description of the NHO’s 

proposal, direction, leadership, design, 

or management vis-a`-vis the covered 

activities; 

iii. A description of the extent to 

which the covered activities are 

informed by the Indigenous Knowledge 

of the NHO; 

iv. A statement identifying the 

property upon which the covered 

activities are proposed to occur as a 

property of religious and cultural 

significance to the NHO and explaining 

the NHO’s ongoing or prior traditional 

cultural practices related to the 

property; 

v. An explanation of current or prior 

connections (including activities, 

support, and relationships), if any, 

between (i) key individual decisionmakers and members of the NHO and 

(ii) the Native Hawaiian community and 

individuals known to have ancestral 

connections to the property; 

vi. A statement indicating that, to the 

best of the knowledge of the NHO and 

its authorized representative (i) no other 

NHO has asserted or would likely assert 

that the covered activities are or would 

be contrary to or limiting of the 

Indigenous Knowledge-informed 

traditional cultural practice of another 

NHO and (ii) the activities will not lead 

to demolition or removal of properties 

listed or known to be eligible for listing 

on the National Register of Historic 

Places, unless the demolition or removal 

decision was previously completed 

during a review pursuant to Section 

106; 

vii. A statement identifying the 

individual (such as a chair, executive 

director, president, or other person) who 

is authorized to represent and submit on 

behalf of the NHO; and 

viii. A signature or other attribution 

by the above-mentioned authorized 

representative. 

As a federal agency may identify more 

than one NHO that will propose or 

direct, or substantially lead, design, or 

manage the covered activities, this 

statement must be submitted by each 

such NHO. 

d. Federal Agency Review and 

Documentation. 

The federal preservation officer of the 

federal agency, or another agency staff 

member with experience in historic 

preservation or Native Hawaiian issues, 

shall review the formal statement from 

the NHO and advise the lead agency 

official on the agency decision as to 

whether to proceed with the use of this 

exemption. The lead agency official 

shall document the agency decision to 

apply the exemption to an undertaking 

and shall maintain the formal statement 

as part of the administrative record. 

e. Federal Agency Notice. 

The federal agency is encouraged to 

submit notice of its decision and invite 

public comment for a thirty-day period, 

to (1) the State of Hawaii Office of 

Planning and Sustainable Development 

Environmental Review Program for 

publication to ‘‘Environmental Notice’’; 

(2) a newspaper of statewide circulation; 

or (3) any publication with similar 

purpose or scope if the aforementioned 

publications cease to exist. Such 

submission should include the name of 

the NHO proposing, directing, or 

substantially leading, designing, or 

managing the undertaking, a reasonable 

description of the proposed 

undertaking(s), a description of the 

property sufficient for identification 

purposes, and a mechanism for 

contacting the federal agency. 

f. Federal Agency Discretion. 

Nothing in this exemption shall be 

interpreted to require a federal agency to 

permit, license, fund, or provide other 

assistance to any covered activities. 

Section III. Covered Activities 

This exemption applies to the 

following categories of undertakings 

when they are (1) proposed or directed 

by an NHO, or substantially led, 

designed, or managed by an NHO, (2) 

informed by Indigenous Knowledge of 

that NHO, (3) related to traditional 

cultural practices of Native Hawaiians, 

and (4) preceded by the submission of 

the statement described in Section II by 

the NHO to the relevant federal agency: 

a. Conduct of landscaping practices or 

activities, including but not limited to 

arboreal practices, invasive species 

removal, and other landscape 

maintenance, reestablishment, or 

facilitation. 

b. Conduct of agricultural or 

aquacultural practices or activities, 

including but not limited to planting 

and crop rotation, harvesting, native 

species propagation, soil management, 

and fishing. 

c. Conduct of species conservation 

and habitat conservation and 

management activities that are 

necessary to perpetuate traditional 

Native Hawaiian cultural practices. 

d. Rehabilitation, preservation, 

restoration, or reconstruction of any the 

following: 

i. Water features and systems, 

including but not limited to fishponds 

(loko i1a) and other traditional 

aquaculture. 

ii. Lo1i kalo and agricultural terraces. 

iii. Historic pathways using natural 

materials, including gravel and other 

rock, sand, mulch, and wood. 

iv. Sacred and traditional sites and 

objects including but not limited to 

heiau, burial sites, shrines, ahu, and 

similar sites and objects. 

v. Traditional Native Hawaiian 

buildings and structures built and 

designed primarily by Native 

Hawaiians, and using traditional 

techniques and primarily natural 

materials. 

e. New construction, using traditional 

Native Hawaiian techniques and 

primarily natural materials, of the 

following, to the extent such new 

construction is for the express purpose 

of maintaining or reestablishing 

traditional cultural or religious practices 

informed by Indigenous Knowledge: 

i. Hale. 

ii. Ha ̄lau wa1a. 

iii. Fencing, walls, natural buffer 

zones, flood mitigation, and other 

boundary techniques to protect religious 

and traditional sites or burial sites, 

within the NHO-defined boundary area 

of the property of religious and cultural 

significance to the NHO. 

f. Minor adaptations to the elevation 

and dimension of buildings, structures, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Notices 88797 

and sites recognized by the NHO as a 

property of religious and cultural 

significance to it; minor relocations of 

any buildings, structures, and sites 

within the NHO-defined boundary area 

of the property of religious and cultural 

significance to the NHO; or minor 

adaptations to any of the landscaping or 

agricultural practices and activities, 

related to any of the covered activities 

enumerated in Section III, subsections a 

through e, where such adaptations are 

necessary to mitigate the impact of sea 

level rise, increased precipitation, 

erosion, wildfire, pollution, and 

invasive species, and notwithstanding 

any requirements as to location 

contained in the definitions of 

rehabilitation, preservation, restoration, 

or reconstruction. 

g. Installation of interpretive signage 

related to any of the covered activities 

enumerated in Section III, subsections a 

through f. 

h. The lease, provision of an 

easement, or other limited transfer of 

property rights in federal property to a 

NHO, or the grant of a nonpossessory 

interest in real property to a NHO, for 

use of the property solely to carry out 

any of the covered activities enumerated 

in Section III, subsections a through g or 

for education, outreach, and planning 

related to the covered activities. 

While the preceding categories of 

action have been identified as 

appropriate activities for this 

exemption, nothing in this section 

should be construed as to suggest that 

practices not herein contained are not in 

line with traditional practices informed 

by Indigenous Knowledge, but rather 

that the preceding categories of action 

are expressly eligible for this particular 

exemption. 

Section IV. Activities Not Covered and 

Exceptions 

This exemption shall not cover any 

activities not identified in Section III, 

nor activities involving: 

a. Demolition, removal, or 

modifications that adversely affect 

character-defining features of properties 

listed or known to be eligible for listing 

on the National Register of Historic 

Places, unless the demolition, removal, 

or modification decision was previously 

completed during a review pursuant to 

Section 106. 

b. The construction of new buildings 

or structures not enumerated in Section 

III.e. 

c. The treatment or disposition of 

burial sites, human remains, and 

funerary objects in a manner contrary to 

the ACHP Policy Statement on Burial 

Sites, Human Remains, and Funerary 

Objects, including but not limited to the 

provisions in that policy statement 

requiring consultation with and 

deference for descendant communities. 

d. Components of an undertaking 

beyond those listed in Section III, 

meaning that a federal agency may 

follow the terms of this exemption for 

a covered activity that is a component 

of a larger undertaking, but must follow 

other applicable Section 106 procedures 

or agreements for any other components 

of such larger undertaking. 

e. Federal agency decisions to provide 

or retract permission to access agency 

owned or controlled land, except as 

outlined in Section III.h. 

f. Undertakings known by a federal 

agency or the relevant NHO to be 

contrary to or limiting of the Indigenous 

Knowledge-informed traditional 

cultural practice of one or more other 

NHO, or Native Hawaiian traditional 

cultural practice more generally, which 

cannot be resolved through consultation 

and dispute resolution processes 

referenced in Section V of this 

exemption. 

g. Undertakings conducted during 

emergency situations and subject to 36 

CFR 800.12. 

h. Undertakings that may affect any 

site, object, building, or structure 

individually designated as National 

Historic Landmarks or designated as a 

contributing property to a National 

Historic Landmark district. 

Section V. Federal Agency 

Responsibilities 

The federal agency will remain 

responsible for Section 106 compliance 

with regard to any activities not covered 

by this exemption, including 

appropriate identification, scoping, 

evaluation, and consultation activities, 

among others. 

Each federal agency remains 

responsible for considering the effects of 

undertakings on historic properties 

other than those directly addressed by 

the activities covered by this exemption 

(such as historic properties adjacent to, 

on, or intermingled with the property 

upon which the covered properties are 

proposed to occur or archaeological 

sites that may lie within undisturbed 

areas) in accordance with subpart B of 

the Section 106 regulations or according 

to an applicable program alternative 

executed pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14. 

This exemption is anticipated to be 

utilized in good faith by agencies and 

NHOs without knowledge of potential 

conflicts with or potential adverse 

effects on other historic properties 

(including traditional cultural 

properties) listed on or eligible for the 

National Register, the IndigenousKnowledge informed traditional cultural 

practice of one or more NHOs, or Native 

Hawaiian traditional cultural practice 

more generally, and as noted in Sections 

IV(a) and IV(f) of this exemption, any 

such knowledge would bar the use of 

this exemption. 

If a federal agency learns of an 

unexpected conflict or dispute after it 

decides to use this exemption, the 

federal agency will make a reasonable 

and good faith effort to resolve the 

conflict or dispute in accordance with 

its consultation policies and procedures 

(including its NHO consultation policies 

and procedures) or in accordance with 

procedures specifically adopted in 

relation to this exemption. Federal 

agencies are encouraged to develop and 

utilize procedures that are respectful of 

NHOs’ rights to maintain, control, 

protect and develop their traditional 

cultural heritage, Indigenous 

Knowledge, intellectual property, 

traditional cultural expressions, 

sciences, and technologies, and that 

reflect the principles contained in the 

2013 ACHP guidance, ‘‘Section 106 and 

the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of 

Indigenous Peoples: General 

Information and Guidance.’’ 

Section VI. Existing Agreements, 

Property Rights, and State and Local 

Reviews 

This exemption does not amend, 

invalidate, or otherwise modify Section 

106 agreements in existence at the time 

this exemption goes into effect, 

provided, however, that federal agencies 

are strongly encouraged to use the 

applicable amendment provisions of 

Section 106 Memoranda of Agreement, 

Programmatic Agreements, or 

agreements executed with NHOs in 

accordance with 36 CFR 800(c)(2)(ii)(E) 

executed prior to [date of adoption] for 

undertakings that would otherwise be 

covered by this exemption, to consider 

making such agreements consistent with 

this exemption. This exemption does 

not modify or supersede existing 

property rights, including access rights. 

This exemption does not modify, 

preempt, or replace any other federal 

laws, or any applicable state or local 

laws or regulations, including but not 

limited to Hawaii Revised Statutes, Title 

1, Chapter 6E, Historic Preservation. 

Section VII. Termination 

The ACHP may terminate this 

exemption in accordance with 36 CFR 

800.14(c)(7) if it determines that the 

purposes of Section 106 are not 

adequately met. 

Section VIII. Amendments 

This exemption may be amended by 

the ACHP membership. Such 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
88798 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2024 / Notices 

amendments must be consistent with 

the criteria at 36 CFR 800.14(c)(1) and 

preceded by consultation appropriate to 

the scope of the amendments. 

Section IX. Confidential Information 

Nothing in the terms of this 

exemption shall be construed to require 

the disclosure of confidential 

information or sensitive information, or 

the publication of Indigenous 

Knowledge. Federal agencies shall 

follow the guidance contained in the 

ACHP 2016 Frequently Asked Questions 

on Protecting Sensitive Information 

about Historic Properties Under Section 

304 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, as applicable, and 

shall comply with applicable laws 

regarding the protection and 

dissemination of records. 

Section X. Reports and Evaluations 

For five years after the date of the 

adoption of this exemption, the federal 

agencies that use this exemption will 

provide a report to the ACHP for the 

previous reporting year, ending 

September 30 annually, then every two 

years for six additional years. Each 

agency’s report will provide a brief 

summary of the locations and nature of 

covered activities, any significant issues 

that arose while implementing the 

exemption, the manner in which such 

issues were addressed, and suggestions 

to avoid such issues in the future. 

Federal agencies are invited to include 

an assessment of the overall 

effectiveness of the exemption in 

meeting its intent in this report. Reports 

are due on or before December 31 of 

each year, starting December 31, 2025 

annually through December 31, 2029, 

and then biannually on or before 

December 31, 2031 through December 

31, 2035. 

Within ninety days of each report due 

date, the ACHP will schedule a meeting 

with the federal agencies that used the 

exemption during the relevant reporting 

year or biennium, as applicable, and 

invite representatives of the State of 

Hawaii Historic Preservation Division, 

NHOs, federal preservation officers, and 

others it deems appropriate, to discuss 

implementation of the exemption. The 

meetings shall provide an opportunity 

for attendees to provide their views on 

the overall effectiveness of the 

exemption in meeting its intent and may 

inform decisions such as those 

regarding amendments to the 

exemption. The meetings may take 

place in-person, by phone, virtually 

using electronic meeting platforms, or 

any combination of such means. 

Section XI. Definitions and Descriptions 

For purposes of this Exemption, the 

following definitions apply: 

a. Agency: As provided by 5 U.S.C. 

551, including state, local, or tribal 

government officials who have been 

delegated legal responsibility for 

compliance with Section 106 in 

accordance with federal law. 

b. Effect: As provided in 36 CFR 

800.5(a)(1) and 800.16(i), means a 

direct, indirect, reasonably foreseeable, 

or cumulative alteration to the 

characteristics of a historic property 

qualifying it for inclusion in or 

eligibility for the National Register of 

Historic Places. 

c. Historic property: As provided in 

36 CFR 800.16(l), any prehistoric or 

historic district, site, building, structure, 

or object included in, or eligible for 

inclusion in, the National Register of 

Historic Places maintained by the 

Secretary of the Interior. It includes 

artifacts, records, and remains that are 

related to and located within such 

properties, and it includes properties of 

religious and cultural significance to an 

Indian Tribe or NHO that meet the 

National Register of Historic Places 

criteria. 

d. Native Hawaiian: As provided in 

36 CFR 800(16)(s)(2), any individual 

who is a descendant of the aboriginal 

people who, prior to 1778, occupied and 

exercised sovereignty in the area that 

now constitutes the state of Hawaii. 

e. Native Hawaiian Organization 

(NHO): As provided in 36 CFR 

800(16)(s)(1), any organization which 

serves and represents the interests of 

Native Hawaiians; has as a primary and 

stated purpose the provision of services 

to Native Hawaiians; and has 

demonstrated expertise in aspects of 

historic preservation that are significant 

to Native Hawaiians. 

f. Undertaking: As provided in 36 

CFR 800(16)(y), 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. 

This exemption uses the definitions 

for the following words found in 36 CFR 

68.2, and for convenience these 

definitions are provided here: 

g. Preservation: The act or process of 

applying measures necessary to sustain 

the existing form, integrity and 

materials of an historic property. Work, 

including preliminary measures to 

protect and stabilize the property, 

generally focuses upon the ongoing 

maintenance and repair of historic 

materials and features rather than 

extensive replacement and new 

construction. 

h. Rehabilitation: The act or process 

of making possible an efficient 

compatible use for a property through 

repair, alterations and additions while 

preserving those portions or features 

that convey its historical, cultural or 

architectural values. 

i. Restoration: The act or process of 

accurately depicting the form, features 

and character of a property as it 

appeared at a particular period of time 

by means of the removal of features 

from other periods in its history and 

reconstruction of missing features from 

the restoration period. The limited and 

sensitive upgrading of mechanical, 

electrical and plumbing systems and 

other code-required work to make 

properties functional is appropriate 

within a restoration project. 

j. Reconstruction: The act or process 

of depicting, by means of new 

construction, the form, features and 

detailing of a non-surviving site, 

landscape, building, structure or object 

for the purpose of replicating its 

appearance at a specific period of time 

and in its historic location. 

Native Hawaiian terms in this 

exemption, including ahu, hale, ha ̄lau 

wa1a, heiau, loko i1a, and lo1i kalo, shall 

be interpreted in a manner consistent 

with accepted understanding of these 

terms by Native Hawaiians, as informed 

by any NHO using this exemption. 

A description of Indigenous 

Knowledge to be used in guiding 

application of this exemption is set forth 

in the ACHP Policy Statement on 

Indigenous Knowledge and Historic 

Preservation. 

(END OF DOCUMENT) 

(Authority: 36 CFR 800.14(c)) 

Dated: November 4, 2024. 

Javier Marque ́s, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2024–25984 Filed 11–7–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–K6–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1