Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2024 / Notices 97631 

The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The contract proposals and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the contract 

proposals, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy. 

Name of Committee: National Institute of 

Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special 

Emphasis Panel; HHS–NIH–CDC–SBIR PHS 

2023–1 Phase II: Artificial Intelligence to 

Improve Clinical Microscopy for Diagnosis of 

Infectious Diseases (Topic 121). 

Date: January 7, 2025. 

Time: 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate contract 

proposals. 

Place: National Institute of Allergy and 

Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of 

Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3F52A 

Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting). 

Contact Person: Shilpakala Ketha, Ph.D., 

Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review 

Program, Division of Extramural Activities, 

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 

Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 

Fishers Lane, Room 3F52A, Rockville, MD 

20892, (301) 761–6821, shilpa.ketha@

nih.gov. 

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, 

and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 

Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 

Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: December 4, 2024. 

Lauren A. Fleck, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28844 Filed 12–6–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–P 

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION 

Program Comment on Stewardship 

and Management of National Park 

Service Mission 66-Era Facilities 

(1945–1972) 

AGENCY: Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation 

ACTION: Notice of approval of program 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (ACHP) has 

approved a program comment to 

facilitate continued use and 

preservation of Mission 66-era historic 

properties. 

DATES: The program comment went into 

effect on November 4, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kirsten Kulis, (202) 517–0217, kkulis@

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. The ACHP has 

issued the regulations that set forth the 

process through which Federal agencies 

comply with these duties. Those 

regulations are codified under 36 CFR 

part 800 (Section 106 regulations). 

Under section 800.14(e) of those 

regulations, agencies can request the 

ACHP to provide a ‘‘Program Comment’’ 

on a particular category of undertakings 

in lieu of conducting individual reviews 

of each individual undertaking under 

such category, as set forth in 36 CFR 

800.4 through 800.7. An agency can 

meet its Section 106 responsibilities 

with regard to the effects of those 

undertakings by taking into account an 

applicable Program Comment and 

following the steps set forth in that 

comment. 

The U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service (NPS) sought a 

Program Comment to facilitate 

continued use and preservation of 

Mission 66-era historic properties. On 

November 4, 2024, the ACHP issued 

such a Program Comment, the text of 

which is reproduced at the end of this 

notice, with various typographical 

errors corrected. 

I. Background 

‘‘Mission 66’’ refers to the massive 

building campaign that occurred 

between 1945 and 1972 that improved, 

standardized, and democratized the 

public’s national park experience with 

new facilities including comfort 

stations, picnic shelters, campgrounds, 

visitor centers, park staff housing, 

maintenance buildings, warehouses, 

roads, and other infrastructure. This 

period of feverish construction was 

called ‘‘Mission 66’’ because it was 

supposed to have been completed by 

1966, in time for the fiftieth anniversary 

of the founding of the NPS. 

The NPS requested a Program 

Comment (PC) to facilitate continued 

use and preservation of Mission 66-era 

historic properties by providing parks 

with an optional tool that would reduce 

or eliminate external reviews for certain 

straightforward Mission 66-era focused 

undertakings. It would also allow 

superintendents to consider Mission 66- 

era facilities as eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places 

(National Register) when they reference 

the Mission 66-Era Multiple Property 

Determination Form (MPDF), thereby 

addressing NPS’s identification backlog. 

Recent laws provided NPS with funding 

and charged them with improving the 

visitor experience and addressing 

accessibility requirements. NPS plans to 

meet these mandates using these 

facilities and reinvesting in the historic 

properties from this era. 

II. Program Comment Summary 

The PC is intended to be an optional 

compliance tool and park 

superintendents will not be required to 

use it. Moreover, the PC cannot be used 

in a variety of circumstances including: 

—when there’s potential to affect 

National Historic Landmarks, historic 

battlefields, burial sites, human 

remains, and/or funerary objects, or if 

an undertaking is proposed to occur 

on or affect historic properties located 

on Tribal lands (as defined in the 

NHPA), or there’s potential to affect 

properties of religious and cultural 

significance to Indian Tribes or Native 

Hawaiian Organizations, or to the 

Native Hawaiian Community; 

—when there may be adverse effects to 

historic properties that are significant 

for reasons other than Mission 66 

(e.g., not primarily National Register 

-eligible or -listed due any association 

with the Mission 66-era as it is 

described in the MPDF); or 

—when there’s potential for adverse 

effects to Mission 66-era historic 

properties such that they would 

become ineligible for National 

Register listing or candidates for delisting. 

The PC will not amend or change the 

existing Programmatic Agreement 

among the National Park Service (U.S. 

Department of the Interior), the 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and the National 

Conference of State Historic 

Preservation Officers for Compliance 

with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (2008 PA), nor 

any other valid Section 106 agreements. 

The implementation of the PC will 

include regional and national oversight 

and reporting, as well as regular 

training, to ensure accountability. The 

PC will facilitate nationwide 

implementation of the aforementioned 

MPDF, so that NPS may achieve a 

broader perspective in managing these 

properties and they may be understood 

within their national context. The NPS 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
97632 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2024 / Notices 

believes that the PC will encourage 

reuse of Mission 66 era resources. 

III. NPS Consultation Summary 

The PC is the product of more than a 

year of early coordination as well as 

formal NPS consultation which was 

initiated last Fall and closed this past 

Summer. NPS determined the 

development of this request required 

government-to-government consultation 

with Tribes. NPS held six virtual formal 

consultation meetings that were 

attended by sixty-two (62) external 

participants. This included two 

government-to-government consultation 

meetings with Tribes. The other four 

formal meetings were attended by State 

Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO) 

from twenty (20) separate states and 

other stakeholders. In addition to the 

comments from Tribes described 

immediately below, NPS received a total 

of sixteen (16) correspondences 

including from eight SHPOs, three 

members of the public, and the National 

Trust for Historic Preservation. 

NPS received one verbal comment 

about identification from one Tribal 

representative who participated in one 

of the meetings and NPS responded via 

email. Over the course of the NPS 

comment period, NPS received four 

written comment letters from Tribes. 

One had specific questions about a park 

and their comments are confidential; 

one was not concerned because the 

proposed PC would not be used as a 

method of Section 106 compliance for 

undertakings with potential to affect 

Tribal lands and/or properties of 

religious or cultural significance to 

Tribes; and two others declined to 

participate but wanted to be made aware 

if there was an unanticipated discovery. 

NPS responded to each of these directly. 

Some of the comments from the 

SHPOs emphasized that qualified NPS 

staff must be involved in all aspects of 

project planning and execution, 

especially given the nuanced approach 

to adverse effects in the PC. Other 

SHPOs noted that the proposed fifteen 

(15) calendar day review period was too 

short for ‘‘meaningful’’ comments, and 

that NPS should use proprietary (e.g., 

State) databases to enter project 

information instead of providing 

information on Planning, Environment, 

and Public Comment (PEPC) and 

emailing stakeholders. Comments from 

SHPOs, the National Trust for Historic 

Preservation, and members of the public 

also indicated concern that mitigation 

should be commensurate with the 

adverse effects associated with the 

specific undertakings, and inquired 

about how the mitigation will benefit 

the public. 

NPS considered all comments 

received in consultation and responded 

directly to written comments. NPS 

changed certain aspects of the PC to 

address the comments, adding or 

clarifying language in the PC regarding 

qualified personnel, park suspension, 

use on Tribal lands (it will not be so 

used), consultation responsibilities and 

confidentiality. At that time, NPS did 

not adjust the proposed fifteen (15) 

calendar day review period. However, 

NPS responded that the accelerated 

timeframe will better allow Parks to 

focus on other more complex projects 

using the standard Section 106 process. 

Also, NPS clarified that Park 

Superintendents will notify the relevant 

SHPO and/or THPO and potentially 

interested Indian Tribe, Native 

Hawaiian Organization or others in the 

Native Hawaiian Community or Alaska 

Natives via email, hard-copy letter via 

mail or mail service (or an alternative 

method arranged in advance in writing) 

when external review process (ERP) 

packages are available for review and 

comment. 

Finally, NPS clarified that NPS will 

provide mitigation for collective adverse 

effects to Mission 66-era historic 

properties at the national level, rather 

than park-/undertaking-specific 

approaches. However, ERP packages 

must identify mitigation measures, and 

the Federal Preservation Officer must 

track mitigation progress annually. NPS 

also added a requirement for NPS to 

develop a brief web-based on-demand 

training for use by internal and external 

partners. NPS provided drafts of PC to 

the ACHP and made various changes to 

address ACHP staff comments. 

In summary, NPS addressed 

consulting party comments on the PC 

conceptual overview and outline/plan 

and made substantive changes in 

preparation of the PC based on that 

consultation. NPS subsequently 

prepared the PC draft, in coordination 

with ACHP through several iterations of 

review and comment. NPS addressed all 

ACHP staff comments and submitted the 

resulting final PC for ACHP action. 

IV. ACHP Consultation Summary 

ACHP initiated consultation on 

August 26, 2024, and held two virtual 

consultation meetings; one was with 

SHPOs, and one was government-togovernment consultation with Indian 

Tribes. The meetings were attended by 

thirty-five (35) external participants, 

including representatives from 

seventeen (17) SHPOs, and four THPOs 

as well as staff from the National 

Conference of State Historic 

Preservation Officers and the National 

Association of Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officers (NATHPO). ACHP 

also posted a dedicated website and 

accepted public comments through 

October 18, 2024. ACHP members 

discussed the PC at a Regulations and 

Governance Committee meeting on 

October 7, 2024. ACHP received twelve 

(12) correspondences from SHPOs and 

one from NATHPO, totaling eighty (80) 

comments. ACHP responded directly to 

all written correspondences. 

About thirty (30) of the comments 

were addressed with minor edits or 

clarifications. The remaining comments 

focused on the topics below and were 

addressed with substantive changes 

listed in order of magnitude: 

—External Review Process: The steps in 

this clause were clarified and the 

review period was extended to fifteen 

(15) business days with an optional 

additional five (5) business day 

review and consultation period for 

handling objections. The 

requirements for objections were 

specified, and it was made clear that 

objections are made by the relevant 

SHPO/THPO, Indian Tribe, or Native 

Hawaiian organizations or others in 

the Native Hawaiian Community or 

Alaska Natives. 

—Special External Review Process for 

Certain Findings of No Historic 

Properties: Additional language in 

this clause clarifies that a special 

external review must occur when a 

Park Superintendent makes a finding 

that a Mission 66-era facility is no 

longer historic because it lacks 

integrity. It also explains that the 

main purpose of the review is to 

confirm that there are no properties of 

religious and cultural significance to 

an Indian Tribe or to Native Hawaiian 

organizations or others in the Native 

Hawaiian Community or Alaska 

Natives. 

—Discoveries: This clause was 

expanded to provide step-by-step 

instructions for Park Superintendents, 

to reference the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.), and to 

state, ‘‘When applicable, the Park 

Superintendent will consider the 

principles within the ACHP’s Policy 

Statement on Burial Sites, Human 

Remains, and Funerary Objects, dated 

March 1, 2023.’’ The clause also states 

that the NPS will fulfill its Tribal and 

Native Hawaiian consultation 

obligations ‘‘consistent with all 

relevant Executive Orders, Secretary’s 

Orders, the Department of the Interior 

Departmental Manual, and NPS 

Director’s Orders and Related 

Guidance. NPS recognizes and 

considers Indigenous Knowledge in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2024 / Notices 97633 

1https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.

cfm?projectID=116344. 

the Section 106 review process in 

accordance with the November 30, 

2022 Guidance for Federal 

Departments and Agencies on 

Indigenous Knowledge issued by the 

White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy and Council on 

Environmental Quality and the 

Departmental Manual (301 DM 7, 

Departmental Responsibilities for 

Consideration and Inclusion of 

Indigenous Knowledge in 

Departmental Actions and Scientific 

Research).’’ 

—Mitigation: This clause commits NPS 

to developing and publishing an 

Administrative History of NPS 

Housing which will be completed as 

part of a partnership with the NPS 

History Program and a public 

university and made publicly 

available by the spring of 2027. It also 

commits NPS to publishing an MPDF 

reference guide for internal and 

external partners within about six (6) 

months. In addition, the agency will 

develop a brief web-based on-demand 

training for use by internal and 

external partners within one (1) year 

of the publication of the PC in the 

Federal Register. 

—Park Suspension: New language in 

this clause specifies that the 

respective SHPO/THPO, Indian Tribes 

and Native Hawaiian organizations or 

others in the Native Hawaiian 

Community or Alaska Natives may 

also offer comments on park 

suspension. 

—Design Guidelines: This clause allows 

for the development of various types 

of design guidelines. It also explains 

that if design guidelines are being 

developed for a specific park, 

comments from the respective SHPO 

must be reasonably incorporated. 

Finally, ACHP staff provided a final 

review and NPS duly addressed its 

requests for minor edits and 

clarifications. ACHP staff concluded 

that the PC request met the 

requirements in 36 CFR 800.14(e)(1) and 

the changes made in the document 

reasonably addressed the comments and 

concerns offered during consultation, 

the ACHP’s Regulations and Governance 

Committee meeting, and ACHP’s staff 

review. 

V. Text of the Program Comment 

The full text of the issued program 

comment, with various typographical 

errors corrected, is reproduced below. 

Please note that the text of the issued 

program comment includes hyperlinks. 

The footnotes below show the web 

addresses that were hyperlinked: 

Program Comment on Stewardship and 

Management of National Park Service 

Mission 66-Era Facilities (1945–1972) 

for Compliance With Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act 

This Program Comment (Program 

Comment) provides the U.S. Department 

of Interior, National Park Service (NPS) 

with an alternative way to comply with 

their responsibilities under Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(54 U.S.C. 306108, and 36 CFR part 800 

(Section 106)) regarding certain 

stewardship and management 

undertakings at NPS facilities built 

between 1945 and 1972 (Mission 66- 

era). This document was developed in 

consultation by the NPS, as part of a 

larger agency request, and submitted for 

consideration by the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 

pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14(e) in August 

2024. It was consulted upon by the 

ACHP between August and October 

2024, and edits were duly incorporated. 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

A. Background 

B. Significance 

C. Current Compliance Efforts 

D. Goals 

II. Scope 

A. Mission 66-Era Historic Properties 

B. Overall Effect 

C. Effect on Other Applicable Laws or 

Existing Agreements 

D. Effect on Tribal Lands 

E. Category of Undertakings 

F. Non-Qualifying Undertakings 

G. Temporary Effects 

H. Design Guidelines 

III. Identification of Historic Properties 

A. Reasonable and Good Faith Effort 

B. Re-evaluation of Previously Evaluated 

Non-Mission 66-Era Historic Properties 

C. Properties Built Between 1990 and the 

Present Day 

D. Mission 66-Era Utilities 

E. Identification Findings and Next Steps 

F. Identification Findings for the Program 

Comment 

IV. Review Process Overview and Assessing 

Effects 

A. Two Review Processes 

B. Special External Review Process for 

Certain Findings of No Historic 

Properties 

C. Internal Review Process for Certain No 

Adverse Effects Findings 

D. External Review Process for Certain No 

Adverse Effects Findings 

E. External Review Process for Adverse 

Effects Findings 

V. The External and Internal Review 

Processes 

A. The External Review Process 

B. The Internal Review Process 

C. Implementation as Documented and 

Reporting 

VI. ERP and IRP Package Contents 

A. ERP Package Contents 

B. IRP Package Contents 

VII. The Consultation Record 

VIII. Mitigation 

A. Collective Mitigation 

B. Changes to Mitigation Measures 

IX. Park Suspension 

A. Park Suspension Process 

B. Notification of Park Suspension 

X. Reporting and Meetings 

A. Park Annual Report and Annual 

Meeting 

B. Regional, Agency, and Wrap-Up Reports 

XI. Administrative Clauses and Discoveries 

A. Duration and Amendment 

B. Discoveries 

C. Emergencies 

D. Section 106 Review for a Single 

Undertaking 

E. Document Website 

For purposes of this Program 

Comment, definitions listed in 54 U.S.C. 

300309 (i.e., Tribe, Tribal lands), 54 

U.S.C. 300214 (i.e., Native Hawaiian 

organization), and in the regulations at 

36 CFR part 800 broadly and in 36 CFR 

800.16 are incorporated by reference. 

Other definitions appear within the 

document in parenthesis (e.g., ERP, IRP, 

2008 PA, Qualifying Undertaking, etc.). 

Native Hawaiian Community is defined 

in 43 CFR part 50.4. The NPS has 

requested that Native Hawaiian 

Communities and Alaska Natives be 

specifically included in the scope, 

consultation, and other review points in 

the Program Comment. The NPS 

consults with the Native Hawaiian 

Community and Alaska Natives in 

accordance with U.S. Department of 

Interior Departmental Manual 512 

(2022) Chapters 4–7 and Departmental 

Manual 513 Chapters 1–2. More 

information about the Program 

Comment can be found on the NPS 

Section 106 Compliance web page 

(ParkPlanning—Mission 66 Program 

Comment (nps.gov) 1). 

I. Introduction 

A. Background. In 2020, the U.S. 

Congress provided NPS with $1.5 

billion in funding via the Great 

American Outdoors Act (Pub. L. 116– 

152), and other legislation and funding 

followed. Funds from these laws must 

be obligated by NPS within the next few 

years or they will no longer be available 

for NPS use. The laws called out the 

agency’s deferred maintenance backlog 

generally, but also the need for the 

agency to ensure people with 

disabilities have equal opportunity to 

benefit from park facilities, programs, 

services, and activities. 

There are approximately 20,000 

Mission 66-era facilities in NPS parks, 

many of them serving visitors and staff, 

located across the country and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
97634 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2024 / Notices 

2Book review—https://www.nps.gov/crps/ 

CRMJournal/Winter2010/reviewbook3.html. 

3https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/ 

allaback/index.htm. 

4https://www.npshistory.com/publications/ 

mission66/campground-doe-process-guidelines2022.pdf. 

5https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1966/whatwedo.htm. 

6https://www.gsa.gov/policy-regulations/policy/ 

real-property-policy-division-overview/assetmanagement/federal-real-property-council/frpcguidance-library. 

7https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/preservationbriefs.htm. 

concentrated in the Pacific West and 

Intermountain Regions. According to 

NPS data, while almost 50% of Mission 

66-era facilities are in ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘fair’’ 

condition, 35% are in ‘‘poor’’ condition 

and 16% are in ‘‘serious’’ condition and 

contribute to the NPS deferred 

maintenance and repair backlog. This 

backlog totals $23.3 billion as of the end 

of fiscal year 2023. 

Many NPS visitor centers still lack 

accessible restrooms, water fountains, 

and entrances. Also, paths between 

parking lots, sidewalks, buildings, and 

interpretive programs are often not 

accessible. Many facilities in staff areas 

(e.g., housing and maintenance 

facilities) are also in need of 

accessibility improvements, as detailed 

in NPS reports and testimony before the 

U.S. Congress (ALL IN! Accessibility in 

the National Park Service 2015–2020). 

Further, the lack of suitable affordable 

NPS staff housing in parks has been 

identified by the current NPS director as 

a ‘‘critical issue,’’ and widely reported. 

B. Significance. The massive NPS 

‘‘Mission 66’’ building campaign that 

occurred between 1945 and 1972 

improved, standardized, and 

democratized the public’s national park 

experience with new facilities including 

comfort stations, picnic shelters, 

campgrounds, visitor centers, park staff 

housing, maintenance buildings, 

warehouses, roads, and other 

infrastructure. This period of feverish 

construction was called ‘‘Mission 66’’ 

because it was supposed to have been 

completed by 1966, in time for the 

fiftieth anniversary of the founding of 

the NPS. 

Based on NPS nationwide data, the 

Intermountain Region and Pacific West 

have the greatest number of NPS 

Mission 66-era facilities, followed by 

the Southeast and Northeast, Midwest, 

National Capital, and the Alaska 

Regions. The states with 500 or more 

Mission 66-era facilities are: California 

(2,450), Wyoming (1,500), Washington 

(1,200), Virginia (1,150), North Carolina 

(900), Utah (900), Arizona (900), 

Colorado (800), Tennessee (700), New 

York (650), Montana (650), Mississippi 

(600), Maryland (500), and Texas (500), 

for a total of about 12,950 facilities 

(approximately). Other States have less 

than 500 each. (All figures are 

approximate and nationwide data has 

not been verified at the regional, State, 

or park levels.) 

While some of the Mission 66-era 

facilities, especially visitor centers, were 

designed by renowned architects, many 

others were built using standard plans 

such as those developed for comfort 

stations, staff housing, administrative 

and maintenance/utility buildings, 

ranger kiosks, and similar. During the 

Mission 66-era, some adjustments were 

made to the standard plans to address 

changing park needs as well as both the 

suitability and availability of 

construction materials in different 

regions. 

NPS staff typically utilizes the 

National Register of Historic Places 

Multiple Property Documentation Form 

(MPDF, NRIS #64501248, 2015, https:// 

npgallery.nps.gov/AssetDetail/ 

84789671-6031-4916-8bf1- 

18fbe8c80511/) to provide a framework 

for identification of Mission 66-era 

historic properties. The MPDF 

established the period of significance as 

1945 to 1972. It mentions certain 

properties as early or exemplary 

embodiments of the period, lists the 

ninety-five (95) parks that were 

established as part of Mission 66, sets 

eligibility evaluation criteria for 

individual listings and park-wide 

districts, and focuses on consideration 

of small area use-specific districts. 

A monograph on the subject, 

‘‘Mission 66: Modernism and the 

National Park Dilemma’’ (Ethan Carr, 

LALH, 2007, Review of Mission 66: 

Modernism and the National Park 

Dilemma (nps.gov) 2), and an NPSpublished book, ‘‘MISSION 66 VISITOR 

CENTERS: The History of a Building 

Type’’ (Sarah Allaback, Ph.D., NPS, 

2000, National Park Service: Mission 66 

Visitor Centers (nps.gov) 3), provide 

additional context. In 2022, NPS also 

published process guidelines for 

determinations of eligibility for Mission 

66 Campgrounds (Mission 66 

Campgrounds Determination of 

Eligibility Process Guidelines 

(npshistory.com) 4). 

C. Current Compliance Efforts. The 

Programmatic Agreement among the 

National Park Service (U.S. Department 

of Interior), the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, and the National 

Conference of State Historic 

Preservation Officers for Compliance 

with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (2008) (2008 

PA, What We Do—Section 106 

Compliance Program (U.S. National 

Park Service) (nps.gov) 5), governs 

implementation of regular management 

activities at the NPS. Such management 

activities may include work done on 

Mission 66-era facilities; however, as 

described below, the 2008 PA has 

limited applicability in regard to many 

undertakings on Mission 66-era 

facilities. 

The 2008 PA requires Park 

Superintendents to develop an 

inventory of historic properties, 

properties that are listed in or eligible 

for listing in the National Register. 

When an undertaking is proposed, the 

2008 PA’s streamlined process requires 

that ‘‘identification and evaluation of all 

types of historic properties within the 

project area of potential effects (APE) 

must have been previously undertaken, 

sufficient to assess effects on those 

resources’’ either via 36 CFR part 800 or 

section 110 (54 U.S.C. 306102) (The 

identification effort would have 

occurred sometime before the 

undertaking was planned.). 

These processes can be time 

consuming and according to NPS 

nationwide data, approximately 75% of 

Mission 66 facilities have not been 

evaluated for listing in the National 

Register. 

Furthermore, the 2008 PA focuses on 

regular management activities. As many 

Mission 66-era facilities are in poor or 

serious condition and hundreds are 

underutilized or unutilized (defined in 

the Federal Real Property Profile Data 

Dictionary, FRPC Guidance Library | 

GSA 6), scopes of work may address 

more than regular management. Also, 

the streamlined review process 

described in the 2008 PA can only be 

used by Park Superintendents when 

there is a determination of ‘‘no historic 

properties affected’’ or ‘‘no adverse 

effects’’ (36 CFR part 800). Some 

proposed scopes of work go beyond 

regular management and may pose 

adverse effects to Mission 66-era 

historic properties, rendering the 2008 

PA inapplicable. Finally, the 2008 PA’s 

streamlined review process cannot be 

used when there is a lease that includes 

a change of use or where projects 

cumulatively result in the complete 

rehabilitation of a historic property. 

While it is standard for NPS to make 

reasonable efforts to avoid and 

minimize adverse effects (e.g., so 

activities are completed in accordance 

with various NPS Preservation Briefs 

Preservation Briefs—Technical 

Preservation Services (U.S. National 

Park Service) (nps.gov) 7), again, there 

may be cases in which projects cannot 

achieve mission goals while completely 

avoiding or minimizing adverse effects 

to Mission 66-era historic properties 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2024 / Notices 97635 

8https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/secretarystandards-treatment-historic-properties.htm. 9https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1966/upload/2022-06- 

06-PA_Guidance_508_2022-0606-3.pdf. 

(e.g., such as making accessibility 

improvements to comfort stations by 

changing their layouts, upgrading staff 

housing kitchens and baths, applying 

certain preventive seal treatments to 

vehicular areas, switching out building 

yard plantings to address the changing 

climate, and improving utilities at 

campgrounds, etc.). There may also be 

temporary adverse effects to Mission 66- 

era historic properties and other historic 

properties during construction and 

reasonably associated with construction 

activities, that may not be entirely 

avoidable or minimizable, but will cease 

once construction is complete. 

In these cases, compliance for Mission 

66-era facilities has often occurred in 

conjunction with other larger park 

initiatives, for which a memorandum of 

agreement or a programmatic agreement 

has been executed, or when a park-wide 

programmatic agreement is already in 

place. 

D. Goals. The Program Comment will 

support specific NPS efforts to use 

Mission 66-era historic properties to 

meet mission needs, by expediting 

Section 106 reviews. It will help NPS 

fulfill legislated mandates to improve 

the visitor experience and accessibility, 

enhance conditions for staff, address 

longstanding deferred maintenance, and 

advance ongoing stewardship efforts. 

NPS plans to accomplish the following 

with the Program Comment: 

1. implement the MPDF on a national 

level, to address the NPS identification 

backlog and alleviate workloads; 

2. utilize the existing NPS compliance 

staffing and teams with Qualified 

Personnel and/or Cultural Resource 

Management (CRM) Team engagement; 

3. encourage preservation and 

predictability in project planning by 

requiring internal reviews by Qualified 

Personnel and/or a CRM Team for 

certain undertakings that either pose no 

adverse effects to historic properties or 

when the only condition for such a 

finding, by a Park Superintendent, is 

that the undertaking will follow the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

the Treatment of Historic Properties, 

(Secretary’s Standards, The Secretary of 

the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties— 

Technical Preservation Services (U.S. 

National Park Service) (nps.gov) 8) and 

applicable guidelines; 

4. provide for accountability by listing 

requirements for the Consultation 

Record and ensuring the NPS Federal 

Preservation Officer (FPO) and deputies 

have access to it for oversight and 

regular reporting, and may reference it 

as needed; 

5. complete mitigation for adverse 

effects associated with undertakings 

subject to the Program Comment with 

measures including development of 

additional National Register 

documentation of Mission 66-era 

historic properties, development and 

publication of an Administrative 

History of NPS Housing available by 

spring 2027, and either advancing 

conservation of Mission 66-era materials 

via materials research and analysis or 

developing a nationwide interpretive 

plan, as funds allow; and 

6. facilitate a smooth transition to 

consistent use of the 2008 PA, for 

regular routine management activities, 

at the end of the Program Comment’s 

ten-year duration. 

E. Existing Compliance Structure. 

NPS will utilize the existing NPS 

compliance staffing and teams 

(described in the 2008 PA and this 

Program Comment) at the national, 

regional, and park levels, with Qualified 

Personnel and/or Cultural Resource 

Management Team engagement, to 

implement this Program Comment as 

described below. 

1. In the entire Federal Government, 

NPS has one of the largest 

concentrations of qualified cultural 

resource personnel. In this Program 

Comment, the term Qualified Personnel 

(Qualified Personnel) refers to those in 

NPS employ that meet the Secretary of 

the Interior’s Professional Qualification 

Standards or the OPM Personnel 

Qualification Standards, which codify 

the minimum requirements that must be 

met for professional work concerning 

historic properties. 

2. The term Cultural Resources 

Management Team or CRM Team is 

explained in the 2008 PA and in NPS’s 

PA Guidance as follows: A team of 

subject matter experts appropriate to the 

resource types found in the park. The 

number of individuals on the CRM 

Team may vary from park to park as 

needed to represent all disciplines 

appropriate to the park’s resources. For 

example, an undertaking being planned 

that involves a historic building must 

have a historical architect on the CRM 

Team. Typical CRM Teams often 

include a historical architect, a 

historical landscape architect, an 

archeologist, a cultural anthropologist, a 

historian, and a museum curator. 

Members may include park staff or staff 

of other parks, NPS Regional Offices, 

NPS Centers, federally recognized 

Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian 

organizations, or others from the public 

or private sector. Agency personnel or 

contractors who participate on the 

Park’s CRM Team must meet either the 

qualification standards established in 

Appendix E to NPS–28, which 

references the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) Personnel 

Qualifications Standards, or the 

Professional Qualification Standards in 

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

and Guidelines for Archeology and 

Historic Preservation. These 

qualification standards define minimum 

education and experience required to 

perform identification, evaluation, 

registration, and treatment activities. In 

some cases, additional areas or levels of 

expertise may be needed, depending on 

the complexity of the task and the 

nature of the historic properties 

involved (NPS Nationwide 

Programmatic Agreement National 

Guidance Document, 2022, NPS 

Nationwide Programmatic Agreement 

National Guidance Document 9). A CRM 

Team may be brought in by a Park 

Superintendent to support the review 

process set forth in the Program 

Comment as needed. 

II. Scope 

A. Mission 66-Era Historic Properties. 

Within this Program Comment, the term 

Mission 66-era Historic Property refers 

to a type of historic property (see 36 

CFR 800.16(l)) that was built between 

1945–1972, during a massive NPS 

‘‘Mission 66’’ building campaign that 

was called ‘‘Mission 66’’ because it was 

supposed to have been completed by 

1966, in time for the fiftieth anniversary 

of the founding of the NPS. This term 

includes Operations Outdoors historic 

properties that were built for the U.S. 

Forest Service, or any other historic 

properties from the Mission 66-era that 

are now in the custody and control of 

the NPS as described in the relevant 

section in this document. Any facility 

built between 1945–1972 may be 

covered by this Program Comment; the 

facility does not need to have been built 

as part of the Mission 66 program. (May 

be referred to in singular as a Mission 

66-era Historic Property, and both 

historic and non-historic Mission 66-era 

properties are referred to as Mission 66- 

era facilities.) 

B. Overall Effect. This Program 

Comment will provide an alternative 

way for NPS to fulfill their Section 106 

responsibilities to take into account the 

effects on historic properties of their 

covered undertakings at Mission 66-era 

facilities. The Program Comment also 

provides the ACHP a reasonable 

opportunity to comment regarding 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
97636 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2024 / Notices 

covered undertakings at Mission 66-era 

facilities. 

C. Effect on Other Applicable Laws or 

Existing Agreements. The Program 

Comment is an optional tool, and will 

not replace, amend, or otherwise change 

the 2008 PA, nor any other park- or 

project-specific Section 106 agreements. 

Under NPS policy, each Park 

Superintendent serves as the 

responsible agency official for the 

purposes of Section 106 compliance for 

their park and makes all findings and 

determinations in the Section 106 

process. 

If standard Section 106 review, the 

2008 PA, a park- or project-specific 

agreement, or some other applicable 

program alternative is better suited for 

NPS to fulfill their Section 106 

responsibilities for a given undertaking, 

there is no requirement for this Program 

Comment to be used by the Park 

Superintendent. Again, use of this 

Program Comment is optional. 

D. Effect on Tribal Lands. This 

Program Comment cannot be used on 

Tribal lands (as defined in the NHPA). 

In addition, this Program Comment 

cannot be used when any portion of an 

undertaking is proposed to occur on or 

affect historic properties located on 

Tribal lands or when the undertaking 

includes activities that may affect 

historic properties located on Tribal 

lands (section II.F.2.). 

E. Category of Undertakings. A Park 

Superintendent will determine whether 

it is appropriate to use this Program 

Comment for a given undertaking as 

described immediately below and 

referencing both the park inventory of 

historic properties described in I.C, 

above and the park’s most recent annual 

report, such as a report associated with 

the 2008 PA or some other park-wide 

agreement, and going forward as 

described in section X. 

This Program Comment may be 

selected by a Park Superintendent as the 

appropriate Section 106 compliance 

method when one of the following 

management undertakings is planned to 

take place: (a) at a single Mission 66-era 

facility or (b) at one or more NPS 

facilities where the majority of facilities 

(or resources) within the APE are from 

the Mission 66-era (1945 to 1972), as 

determined by the Park Superintendent 

(in consultation with Qualified 

Personnel and/or the CRM Team with 

such consultation documented in the 

Consultation Record). 

The following lists the qualified 

undertakings (Qualified Undertaking(s) 

or Qualifying Undertaking(s)) covered 

by this Program Comment: 

1. Regular repetitive management 

activities (as listed in the 2008 PA 

Stipulation III.C, and referred to in this 

Program Comment as Regular 

Management Activities.) and associated 

work (e.g., site, site signage, and 

utilities) and 

2. Other management activities (Other 

Management Activities) and associated 

work (e.g., site, site signage, and 

utilities) listed below: 

i. Complete rehabilitation in 

accordance with the Secretary’s 

Standards, specifically the Secretary’s 

Standards for Rehabilitation, and 

applicable guidelines; and/or 

ii. section II.E.2.i. when associated 

with leasing; and/or 

iii. Alteration, accessibility 

improvements, HazMat abatement, 

stabilization and mothballing, 

demolition of non-historic properties, 

new construction in accordance with 

the Secretary’s Standards and applicable 

guidelines or with Design Guidelines 

(section II.H.), and construction of 

additions. 

F. Non-Qualifying Undertakings. 

However, an otherwise Qualifying 

Undertaking may not utilize the 

Program Comment when the Park 

Superintendent (in consultation with 

Qualified Personnel and/or the CRM 

Team and documented in the 

Consultation Record), determines that 

any of the conditions below (also 

referred to as Kick-Outs) are present, as 

it would then be considered nonqualified or non-qualifying (NonQualified Undertaking(s) or NonQualifying Undertaking(s)): 

1. potential to affect National Historic 

Landmarks (NHLs) (including those 

from the Mission 66-era), historic 

battlefields, burial sites, human 

remains, and/or funerary objects; 

2. any portion is proposed to occur on 

or affect historic properties located on 

Tribal lands, or there is the potential to 

affect properties of religious and 

cultural significance to an Indian Tribe 

or to Native Hawaiian organizations or 

others in the Native Hawaiian 

Community, or to Alaska Natives; 

3. potential to affect a historic 

property that is significant for reasons 

other than Mission 66 (e.g., National 

Register-eligible or -listed historic 

properties that are not primarily-eligible 

or -listed due to any association with 

the Mission 66-era as it is described in 

the MPDF, such as a Colonial-period 

archaeological site, a Queen Anne Style 

farmhouse complex district, a CCC-era 

structure or linear district, a historic 

landscape site or district, etc.); and/or 

4. potential to affect a Mission 66-era 

historic property or properties such that 

it/they would be ineligible for National 

Register listing or a candidate(s) for delisting. 

To clarify, the majority of facilities (or 

resources) within the APE must have 

been built within the Mission 66-era 

(1945 to 1972), as determined by the 

Park Superintendent (in consultation 

with Qualified Personnel and/or the 

CRM Team with such consultation 

documented in the Consultation 

Record), section II.E., or the undertaking 

is Non-Qualifying. 

G. Temporary Effects. Use of this 

Program Comment may still occur if 

there may be potential temporary 

adverse effects to a historic property or 

properties during construction which 

may be reasonably associated with 

construction activities for the Qualifying 

Undertaking. Such temporary adverse 

effects are the type that will cease once 

construction is complete (Temporary 

Effects) (e.g., temporary effects 

associated with safety signage or 

apparatus, construction lay-down or 

staging areas, or for temporary provision 

or cessation of utilities or channeled 

drainage). These effects must be 

minimized with assistance from 

Qualified Personnel and/or the CRM 

Team, as documented in the Qualifying 

Undertaking’s Consultation Record. 

If a Qualified Undertaking would not 

otherwise trigger an External Review 

Process (defined below), but may cause 

Temporary Effects, the External Review 

Process will not be triggered due to the 

Temporary Effects. 

H. Design Guidelines. Guidelines for 

new construction, construction of 

additions, or other actions (II.E.2.) at 

Mission 66-era facilities that may be 

developed on a park-by-park basis or on 

a facility type basis (e.g., Design and 

Maintenance Guidelines: Mission 66 

Comfort Stations, National Capital 

Region, Washington, DC) and utilized in 

conjunction with this Program 

Comment to avoid and minimize 

adverse effects when comments by 

ACHP, the National Conference of State 

Historic Preservation Officers 

(NCSHPO), and the respective state 

State Historic Preservation Officers 

(SHPOs) for park-by-park guidelines 

have been reasonably incorporated and 

the final document is promulgated by 

the Federal Preservation Officer (FPO) 

to ACHP, NCSHPO, and the respective 

state SHPO(s) online, and in regular 

reporting (Design Guidelines). 

III. Identification of Historic Properties 

A. Reasonable and Good Faith Effort. 

After determining that it is appropriate 

to use the Program Comment for the 

proposed Qualifying Undertaking as 

described above, the Park 

Superintendent will identify historic 

properties within its APE. Qualified 

Personnel and/or a CRM Team will 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2024 / Notices 97637 

support Park Superintendents to help 

them make informed determinations. 

The Park Superintendent will make a 

reasonable and good-faith effort to 

identify historic properties through one 

of the options described below, or a 

combination thereof, and must also 

reference their park’s most recent 

annual report, such as a report 

associated with the 2008 PA or some 

other parkwide agreement and going 

forward as described in section X. 

1. Rely on the records from previous 

identification efforts including but not 

limited to those completed pursuant to 

36 CFR 800.4(c) for another undertaking 

within the APE, or identification efforts 

done in implementation of the agency’s 

responsibilities under section 110 of the 

NHPA (54 U.S.C. 306102). In 

consultation with the Qualified 

Personnel and/or CRM Team, the Park 

Superintendent would determine if 

those previous efforts are sufficient to 

identify historic properties within the 

APE for the proposed undertaking. 

2. Alternatively and in lieu of 

conducting individual determinations of 

eligibility in accordance with 36 CFR 

800.4, the Park Superintendent may 

consider unevaluated Mission 66-era 

facilities (or those for which evaluations 

were incomplete or insufficient) as 

eligible for the National Register for the 

purposes of compliance with Section 

106 via the Program Comment, with 

assistance from Qualified Personnel 

and/or a CRM Team primarily by 

applying the criteria set forth in the 

MPDF, and the National Register 

criteria, and any associated guidance so 

that the historic property’s characterdefining features are identified and 

documented as described immediately 

below. 

Identification efforts and consultation 

(e.g., among the Park Superintendent, 

Qualified Personnel and/or a CRM 

Team), including any disagreements and 

their resolution, must be documented in 

the Qualifying Undertaking’s 

Consultation Record. The Consultation 

Record must also summarize the 

applicability of the MPDF and the 

National Register criteria, and any 

associated guidance, the summary being 

prepared by Qualified Personnel and/or 

the CRM Team, so that the historic 

property’s character-defining features 

are identified. The following resources, 

‘‘Mission 66: Modernism and the 

National Park Dilemma’’ (Ethan Carr, 

LALH, 2007) and ‘‘MISSION 66 

VISITOR CENTERS: The History of a 

Building Type’’ (Sarah Allaback, Ph.D., 

NPS, 2000), and other NPS publications 

may provide additional context, if 

necessary. 

B. Re-evaluation of Previously 

Evaluated Non-Mission 66-Era Historic 

Properties. Analysis and formal 

correspondence may be necessary to 

determine whether properties that are 

not from the Mission 66-era are historic. 

This may require re-evaluation of 

previously evaluated properties (e.g., in 

accordance with 36 CFR 800.4), and 

would preclude use of the Program 

Comment until such evaluation is 

complete. 

C. Properties Built Between 1990 and 

the Present Day. The Park 

Superintendent would not carry out any 

identification or evaluation efforts on 

properties within the APE that were 

built between 1990 and the present day 

unless previous review or consultation 

identified that property as National 

Register-eligible under Criteria 

Consideration G. Excepting previously 

determined eligible properties, the Park 

Superintendent would have no further 

review responsibility to consider effects 

for Qualifying Undertakings on post1990 properties under the Program 

Comment. 

D. Mission 66-Era Utilities. The 

Mission 66 program provided funds to 

introduce potable water, sewer systems, 

and electricity to new comfort stations 

and other buildings and structures 

within a park, as well as certain roads 

or trails. While construction of this 

infrastructure addressed Mission 66 

goals to modernize parks and visitor 

services, utility infrastructure, such as 

water, sewer, telephone 

(communication), and electric lines 

(above and below ground), the utilities 

seldom in and of themselves have 

architectural or historical significance. 

Utility resources that are buried, either 

wholly or in part, should be described 

as a part of the overall setting, but need 

not be further evaluated or assessed to 

consider potential effects to them. They 

should be considered and described 

within the context of a related historic 

district, as applicable. As such, there are 

two (2) types of Mission 66-era facilities 

for which no further review is required 

under the Program Comment: 

i. Effects to those Mission 66-era 

facilities already formally determined as 

ineligible, when those determinations 

indicated that the MPDF was taken into 

consideration and did not call for 

further evaluation of the subject 

facilities; and 

ii. Effects to below-grade utilities and 

above or below-grade utility covers, 

lines, poles, and pipes (e.g., water, 

sewer, telephone and communication, 

and electric) unless it is/they are an 

example of distinctive design or 

engineering. 

However, there may be components of 

Mission 66-era utility systems that are 

visible and if, based on a determination 

of the Park Superintendent with input 

from Qualified Personnel and/or the 

CRM Team, they constitute examples of 

distinctive design or engineering 

compatible with other Mission 66 

facilities and retain integrity, they 

should be evaluated for eligibility and 

included with the Park 

Superintendent’s assessment of effects 

under the Program Comment (sections 

IV. and V.). 

E. Identification Findings and Next 

Steps. After completing the effort 

described above, the Park 

Superintendent will make one of the 

following determinations (with input 

from Qualified Personnel and/or the 

CRM Team and made part of the 

Consultation Record): 

1. A finding of no historic properties 

within the APE including no Mission 

66-era historic properties, or 

2. A finding that properties identified 

within the APE consist of: 

i. only Mission 66-era historic 

properties, or 

ii. Mission 66-era facilities (a 

combination of Mission 66-era historic 

properties and Mission 66-era facilities 

that are not historic), or 

iii. a combination of Mission 66-era 

historic properties and other nonhistoric facilities (or resources) from 

outside of the Mission 66-era (but with 

the latter not representing a majority of 

the properties, per the Kick-Outs); or 

iv. Mission 66-era facilities that are 

not historic and other facilities (or 

resources) from outside of the Mission 

66-era that are historic (section II.E.). 

Once one of these determinations has 

been made by the Park Superintendent, 

they will proceed to the next steps in 

the process, sections IV. and V., below. 

The Park Superintendent must also 

record the identification finding(s), for 

the purposes of the annual report 

(section X.). 

F. Identification Findings for the 

Program Comment. The Park 

Superintendent would only make 

National Register determinations of 

eligibility as described above for 

Mission 66-era facilities when 

considering a Qualified Undertaking(s) 

under the Program Comment. If for any 

reason Section 106 compliance must be 

accomplished via another means (e.g., 

standard Section 106 review, a parkspecific programmatic agreement, or an 

undertaking-specific memorandum of 

agreement is needed because an 

undertaking is no longer a Qualified 

Undertaking), additional analysis and 

reviews may be necessary. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
97638 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2024 / Notices 

IV. Review Process Overview and 

Assessing Effects 

A. Two Review Processes. Under this 

Program Comment, there are two review 

processes. Some Qualifying 

Undertakings may require an External 

Review Process (ERP) and others may 

require only an Internal Review Process 

(IRP). The ERP package and IRP package 

will include relevant documentation so 

as to meet the requirements set forth in 

36 CFR 800.11, as described below, and 

will be part of the Consultation Record. 

Qualified Personnel and/or a CRM 

Team will support Park 

Superintendents to help them make 

informed determinations, to avoid or 

minimize adverse effects, and to take 

cumulative effects into consideration. It 

is standard for Park Superintendents to 

make reasonable efforts to avoid and 

minimize adverse effects to historic 

properties. The Consultation Record 

must indicate that such consideration 

occurred and support the Park 

Superintendent’s findings. Any 

disagreements about the ERP or IRP 

between Park Superintendents, 

Qualified Personnel, and/or a CRM 

Team, and their resolution, must also be 

part of the Consultation Record. 

B. Special External Review Process for 

Certain Findings of No Historic 

Properties. When no historic properties 

are identified within the APE, including 

findings that there are no Mission 66-era 

historic properties (section III.E.1.) or 

some Mission 66-era facilities that are 

not historic because they lack integrity 

(section III.E.2.ii. and iv.), a special ERP 

is required. This review is independent 

of the ERP but follows the same process 

(section V.A.) and has the same ERP 

Package Content requirements (section 

IV.A.). It requires a special review with 

Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian 

organizations or others in the Native 

Hawaiian Community or Alaska Natives 

and the main purpose is to confirm that 

there are no properties of religious and 

cultural significance to an Indian Tribe 

or to Native Hawaiian organizations or 

others in the Native Hawaiian 

Community or to Alaska Natives in the 

APE. 

If an ERP is occurring, the Special 

ERP may be accomplished in 

conjunction with the ERP. If an ERP is 

not occurring, the Special ERP must be 

completed separately. 

C. Internal Review Process for Certain 

No Adverse Effects Findings. For all 

findings in section III.E.2., when there is 

a determination that there are no 

adverse effects to historic properties in 

the APE because the Secretary’s 

Standards and applicable guidelines 

will be applied (confirmed with input 

from Qualified Personnel and/or the 

CRM Team and as shown in in the 

Consultation Record), and there are no 

other conditions (Conditions such as but 

not limited to archaeological 

monitoring, movement monitoring, and 

similar, but not those for Temporary 

Effects), the Park Superintendent is 

required to do an IRP. 

D. External Review Process for Certain 

No Adverse Effects Findings. For all 

findings in section III.E.2., when there is 

also a determination that there are no 

adverse effects to historic properties in 

the APE because the Secretary’s 

Standards and applicable guidelines 

will be applied, and other conditions 

will also be applied (aside from those 

for Temporary Effects), the Park 

Superintendent is required to do an 

ERP. (Conditions such as but not limited 

to archaeological monitoring, movement 

monitoring, and similar.) 

E. External Review Process for 

Adverse Effects Findings. For findings 

in section III.E.2.i–iii., if there is a 

determination that there may be adverse 

effects to Mission 66-era historic 

properties, the Park Superintendent is 

required to do an ERP. 

(For findings in section III.E.2.iv., if 

there is a determination that there may 

be adverse effects to non-Mission 66 era 

historic properties (i.e., II.F.3.), 

excepting Temporary Effects, the Park 

Superintendent must follow the 

standard Section 106 review process or 

another applicable program alternative, 

because such adverse effects would 

render the undertaking Non-Qualifying.) 

V. The External and Internal Review 

Processes 

A. The External Review Process. The 

ERP will occur in the situations 

described above, sections IV. B. and D– 

E. The Park Superintendent will 

develop the ERP package as set forth in 

section VI. and post it on a public-facing 

PEPC (or other publicly accessible) 

website for Notified Parties (hereinafter 

defined) and consulting parties. 

The Park Superintendent will notify 

the relevant SHPO and/or Tribal 

Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) 

and potentially interested Indian Tribes, 

or Native Hawaiian organizations or 

others in the Native Hawaiian 

Community or Alaska Natives (Notified 

Parties) (i.e., via email, hard-copy letter 

via mail or mail service, or an 

alternative method arranged in advance 

in writing) that the ERP package has 

been posted. 

Upon the Notified Parties’ receipt of 

the notification, a fifteen (15) business 

day review period commences. The 

public-facing PEPC (or other publicly 

accessible) website and the first page of 

the ERP will clearly indicate the last day 

of the review period. 

Consulting parties and the Notified 

Parties may provide any comments in 

writing via the public-facing PEPC (or 

other publicly accessible) website or 

email to the Park Superintendent within 

the review period, and the Park 

Superintendent will take them into 

account. 

If no written objection or no response 

from the Notified Parties is received by 

the Park Superintendent within the 

review period, the Section 106 review as 

documented in the ERP is complete and 

no further review or consultation on the 

Qualifying Undertaking is required. 

A Notified Party may object to the 

ERP package by providing a written 

notice to the Park Superintendent 

within the review period with a 

substantive, fact-based, and projectspecific objection, and including a 

reasonable level of detail. Upon receipt, 

the Park Superintendent will either 

follow the standard Section 106 review 

process in 36 CFR part 800 or another 

applicable program alternative, or 

attempt to resolve the objection with the 

objecting Notified Party. 

If the Park Superintendent attempts to 

resolve the objection, they may reach 

out to the objecting Notified Party and/ 

or other Notified Parties to consult. If 

additional materials are necessary, they 

must be posted on the public-facing 

PEPC (or other publicly accessible) 

website for an additional five (5) 

business day review and consultation 

period. The Notified Parties will be 

notified of the availability of the 

additional information in the same way 

they received the initial ERP 

notification, and the first page of the 

public-facing PEPC (or other publicly 

accessible) website and the first page of 

the additional ERP information will 

clearly indicate the last day of the 

additional review and consultation 

period. 

If the Park Superintendent is able to 

resolve the objection by the end of the 

additional review and consultation 

period, a summary of the resolution will 

be posted on the public-facing PEPC (or 

other publicly accessible) website 

promptly, and the Notified Parties will 

be notified of the resolution in the same 

way they received the initial ERP 

notification. 

If the Park Superintendent is unable 

to resolve the Notified Party’s objection 

by the end of the additional review and 

consultation period, the Program 

Comment cannot be used for the 

proposed undertaking and the Park 

Superintendent will follow the standard 

Section 106 review process in 36 CFR 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2024 / Notices 97639 

part 800 or another applicable program 

alternative. 

All ERP package materials, comments, 

and objections will become part of the 

Consultation Record. 

B. The Internal Review Process. The 

IRP will occur in the situations 

described in section IV.C. Park 

Superintendents, Qualified Personnel, 

and/or a CRM Team will develop the 

IRP package in accordance with the 

requirements in section VI., reasonable 

time periods will be provided for 

internal review and discussion, and the 

Consultation Record must reflect all 

findings and determinations. Any 

disagreements between Park 

Superintendents, Qualified Personnel, 

and/or a CRM Team, and their 

resolution must also be documented in 

the Consultation Record. 

C. Implementation as Documented 

and Reporting. Implementation of a 

Qualifying Undertaking in accordance 

with the finding(s) as documented in 

the ERP or IRP, including with any 

documented resolution summary 

described in section V.A., fulfills the 

agency’s responsibilities under Section 

106 for the Qualifying Undertaking. 

The status of any ERP or IRP will be 

included in annual reporting, described 

in section X. If the Qualified 

Undertaking is not being reasonably 

executed as documented in the ERP or 

IRP package (e.g., due to substantive 

differences between the preliminary 

design documents from the ERP or IRP 

package and later final design or 

construction documents that introduce 

Kick-Outs or new adverse effects, 

intensification of adverse effects, etc., or 

for another reason), then NPS will 

consult with Qualified Personnel and/or 

the CRM Team to determine whether 

the matter can be resolved, the initial 

effect findings maintained, and 

documented appropriately (i.e., in the 

Consultation Record). If it cannot, 

Section 106 compliance must be 

reopened and accomplished via the 

Program Comment (i.e., a new or 

updated IRP or a new ERP) or another 

means (i.e., standard Section 106 

review, a park-specific programmatic 

agreement, or an undertaking-specific 

memorandum of agreement). If this 

occurs, additional analysis and reviews 

may be necessary. 

VI. ERP and IRP Package Contents 

A. ERP Package Contents. The ERP 

package for the proposed Qualifying 

Undertaking must include: 

1. a description of the Qualifying 

Undertaking; 

2. analysis confirming no Kick-Outs 

are present; 

3. a relevant excerpt of current 

preliminary design documents that 

clearly depict and delineate the 

Qualifying Undertaking (i.e., plans, 

elevations, and specifications); 

4. a description and map of the APE; 

5. ground-disturbance information 

and surveys as appropriate and 

consistent with confidentiality 

provisions in 36 CFR 800.11(c); 

6. a finding by the Park 

Superintendent as noted in section 

III.E.; 

7. a finding by the Park 

Superintendent as noted in section IV. 

B., D. (e.g., conditions), or E.; 

8. the Park Superintendent’s name 

and the name(s) of Qualified Personnel 

and/or the CRM Team; and, 

9. the Park Superintendent’s signature 

on the ERP package to confirm: the 

proposed project is a Qualifying 

Undertaking; that reasonable efforts 

were made to avoid and minimize 

adverse effects; the finding and 

determinations; that the park will 

execute the Qualifying Undertaking as 

documented; and, 

10. the following statement, to 

account for various situations such as 

where there may be substantive 

differences between the preliminary 

design documents from the ERP package 

and later final design or construction 

documents that introduce Kick-Outs or 

new adverse effects, or intensify adverse 

effects, ‘‘If the Qualifying Undertaking is 

not substantively executed as 

documented in the ERP, including any 

resolution summary if applicable, NPS 

will consult with Qualified Personnel 

and/or the CRM Team to determine 

whether the matter can be resolved and 

documented appropriately (i.e., in the 

Consultation Record). If the matter 

cannot be resolved, and the initial effect 

findings would change, the Park 

Superintendent will reopen Section 106 

and accomplish compliance for the 

proposed project via the Program 

Comment (i.e., a new or updated ERP or 

IRP) or another means (i.e., standard 

Section 106 review, a park-specific 

programmatic agreement, or an 

undertaking-specific memorandum of 

agreement).’’ 

With regard to section VI.A.7., when 

adverse effects to Mission 66-era 

historic properties may result from the 

proposed undertaking, the Park 

Superintendent will reference the 

commensurate and relevant Mitigation 

Menu measure in section VIII., which 

will not be subject to further 

consultation, nor available for objection 

in the ERP. 

The status of the ERP for the 

Qualifying Undertaking will be posted 

on a public-facing PEPC (or other 

publicly accessible) website for the 

duration of construction. 

B. IRP Package Contents. The IRP 

package for the proposed Qualifying 

Undertaking must include the same 

elements listed for the ERP package to 

the extent applicable to the proposed 

undertaking, but will be posted on an 

internal-facing PEPC site, and all 

references to ERP above will be 

substituted with the term IRP. 

VII. The Consultation Record 

A. A complete Consultation Record 

that follows the documentation 

standards in 36 CFR 800.11, will be 

available and accessible to NPS staff at 

the park-, regional-, and national-levels 

for NPS reporting purposes, and 

includes: 

—a summary of the Qualifying 

Undertaking; 

—the APE; 

—information on Kick-Outs, and their 

applicability; 

—a summary of the applicability of the 

MPDF and National Register criteria 

and any associated guidance; 

—a summary of any Temporary Effects 

and how they were minimized; 

—the ERP package or IRP package 

including the finding of effects, 

comments and objections, and 

resolution summaries, as applicable; 

—any other relevant internal or external 

comments or objections and their 

resolution or next steps planned or 

taken. 

—in cases when the undertaking is not 

substantively executed as 

documented in the ERP or the IRP, 

and consultation must occur with 

Qualified Personnel and/or the CRM 

Team to determine whether the matter 

can be resolved and documented in 

the Consultation Record, such 

documentation or information on how 

the matter was addressed; 

—the date the PEPC file was closed. 

VIII. Mitigation 

A. Collective Mitigation. NPS will 

provide mitigation for collective adverse 

effects to Mission 66-era historic 

properties at the national level, rather 

than park-/undertaking-specific 

approaches. The list below is a 

Mitigation Menu which consists of 

measures which may be employed alone 

or combined, and may be accomplished 

at the park-, regional-, or nationallevel(s), or some combination thereof. 

The Park Superintendent will identify 

the selected measure to resolve adverse 

effects to Mission 66-era historic 

properties that may occur when 

Qualified Undertakings are completed 

in accordance with the Program 

Comment: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
97640 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2024 / Notices 

—resource stewardship training; 

—national-level inventory management; 

—national-, park-, district-, and 

individual property-level National 

Register documentation; 

—development and publication of an 

Administrative History of NPS 

Housing which will be completed as 

part of a partnership with the NPS 

History Program and a public 

university, and which will be publicly 

available by the spring of 2027; 

—publication of an MPDF reference 

guide for internal and external 

partners, to facilitate standardized use 

of the MPDF, within six months of 

publication of the Program Comment 

in the Federal Register, and 

—formal study of materials analysis 

and/or materials conservation or 

development of a national-level 

Mission 66-focused interpretive plan 

(as funds allow). 

(The above list will be referred to as 

the Mitigation Menu and the individual 

measures will be referred to as 

Mitigation Measure(s).) 

In addition, utilizing materials 

generated from regular reporting and 

Mitigation Measures, NPS national-level 

staff may endeavor to conduct data 

(statistics) collection and perform 

associated analysis, which may be 

described in the agency annual report 

(defined below). 

For Qualifying Undertakings that pose 

adverse effects to historic properties, the 

associated ERP package will reference 

associated Mitigation Measure(s). The 

Park Superintendent will specify 

whether the Mitigation Measure will be 

completed at the park-, regional-, or 

national-level and who will be 

responsible for reporting on its status. 

Mitigation Measures will be tracked 

by the FPO and deputy associate 

directors at the national level. National- 

, regional- and park-level progress must 

be detailed in the annual meeting and 

report, the regional annual report, and 

the agency annual report and meeting 

(defined below), segments of which 

must be posted on a public-facing PEPC 

(or other publicly accessible) website as 

described in the section X. 

Within one (1) year of publication of 

the Program Comment in the Federal 

Register, NPS will also develop a brief 

web-based on-demand training for use 

by internal and external partners. 

B. Changes to Mitigation Measures. 

Any change or modification to the 

mitigation menu would require an 

amendment to this Program Comment. 

IX. Park Suspension 

A. Park Suspension Process. Park 

suspension from use of the Program 

Comment, for a reasonable period of 

time, may occur if there are repeated or 

egregious instances where the Qualified 

Undertaking was not reasonably 

executed as documented in the IRP 

package or ERP package, or for similar 

concerns as may be raised by Notified 

Parties, the ACHP, NCSHPO, individual 

SHPOs, or Tribes or Native Hawaiian 

organizations or others in the Native 

Hawaiian Community or Alaska 

Natives, as noted below and as 

determined by the FPO in consultation 

with regional leadership, and with input 

from the respective Park Superintendent 

and the Qualified Personnel and/or the 

CRM Team(s). It may also occur if a park 

has a pattern of not complying with the 

terms of the Program Comment when it 

was the selected Section 106 

compliance method, with such pattern 

documented in the Consultation 

Records or annual reporting, also as 

determined by the FPO as described in 

this section. 

The respective SHPO/THPO, Indian 

Tribes and Native Hawaiian 

organizations or others in the Native 

Hawaiian Community or Alaska Natives 

may also offer comments in this regard 

to the Park Superintendent and/or FPO 

at any time in writing. 

B. Notification of Park Suspension. 

The ACHP, NCSHPO, and the respective 

SHPO/THPO, Indian Tribes and Native 

Hawaiian organizations or others in the 

Native Hawaiian Community or Alaska 

Natives, will be promptly notified, in 

writing, if a park has been suspended 

from using the Program Comment and 

informed of the terms of such 

suspension. Those parks suspended 

from use of the Program Comment will 

be listed in the annual meeting and 

report (e.g., to close out the year for that 

park), the regional annual report, and 

the agency annual report and meeting. 

(Segments of certain reports must be 

posted on a public-facing PEPC or other 

publicly accessible website, as 

described in the next section.) 

X. Reporting and Meetings 

A. Park Annual Report and Annual 

Meeting. For parks using or planning to 

use the Program Comment, the Park 

Superintendent will develop a park 

annual report and hold an annual 

meeting with consulting parties each 

year, initially occurring at least within 

eight (8) months of the issuance of the 

Program Comment or in conjunction 

with biannual meetings already 

occurring to meet requirements of other 

program alternatives (e.g., the 2008 PA), 

whichever is earlier, either virtually, inperson, or via telephone. 

Primary invitees include the SHPO, 

THPO, Indian Tribes and Native 

Hawaiian organizations or others in the 

Native Hawaiian Community or Alaska 

Natives, and a reasonable effort will be 

made, by the Park Superintendent, to 

accommodate their schedules. Other 

invitees may include other consulting 

parties, lessees, historic societies, 

gateway communities, Qualified 

Personnel and/or CRM Teams. Other 

stakeholders may also be invited. 

The Park Superintendent will provide 

the park annual report to invitees 

concurrently with the annual meeting 

invitation via email, hard-copy letter 

through mail or other shipping service, 

or an alternative method arranged in 

advance and agreed to in writing by the 

sending and receiving parties. The 

annual reports will include: 

—updates to inventories of Mission 66- 

era historic properties and nonhistoric properties, including new 

determinations of National Register 

eligibility; 

—a summary of undertakings that were 

completed which utilized the Program 

Comment (if applicable); 

—information about undertakings that 

are ongoing or are planned and the 

status of any relevant objections on an 

ERP package; 

—park-level mitigation status; 

—problems with implementation of the 

Program Comment; 

—training administered; 

—relevant NPS contact information; and 

—any park suspension status. 

The park will hold the annual 

meeting no less than thirty (30) days 

after the park has transmitted the 

invitation and park annual report. 

Meeting minutes will be distributed 

by the park to all attendees, the Regional 

Director and Regional Section 106 

Coordinator, and the Park 106 

Coordinator, within thirty (30) days 

after the meeting. The park will also 

provide a summary on public-facing 

PEPC (or other publicly-accessible 

website) including meeting highlights, 

within that same period. 

If a THPO, Indian Tribe and/or Native 

Hawaiian organizations or others in the 

Native Hawaiian Community or Alaska 

Natives has informed a Park 

Superintendent of an area of interest or 

concern due to the location of a 

property of religious and cultural 

significance to them, and a Mission 66- 

era facility has any geographic overlap 

with that area of interest or concern, the 

Park Superintendent will individually 

write to the respective THPO, Indian 

Tribe and/or Native Hawaiian 

organizations or others in the Native 

Hawaiian Community or Alaska 

Natives, (i.e., via email, hard-copy letter 

through mail or other shipping service, 

or an alternative method arranged in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2024 / Notices 97641 

advance and agreed to in writing by the 

sending and receiving parties) in 

parallel with the park annual reporting, 

to inform them of the inventory and any 

updates. Park Superintendents will 

comply with all confidentiality 

requirements as applicable. 

B. Regional, Agency, and Wrap-Up 

Reports. For regions that include parks 

using or planning to use the Program 

Comment, a regional annual report must 

be provided to the FPO within one (1) 

month before the end of the fiscal year 

and include a summary and compilation 

of: 

—PEPC data; 

—inventories of Mission 66-era historic 

properties and non-historic properties 

including new determinations of 

National Register eligibility; 

—a summary of undertakings that were 

completed which utilized the Program 

Comment (if applicable); 

—undertakings that are ongoing or are 

planned; 

—park- and regional-level mitigation 

status; 

—problems with implementation of the 

Program Comment including any park 

suspension(s) or overarching 

objections to multiple ERP packages; 

—training administered; and 

—NPS contact information. 

Any disagreements between Park 

Superintendents, Qualified Personnel, 

and/or a CRM Team, and their 

resolution, must also be listed in 

summary fashion. 

The FPO’s summary and compilation 

of all the regional annual reports, as 

well as a summary of national-level 

mitigation status will comprise the 

agency annual report. It will include an 

executive summary that will be posted 

by the FPO on a public-facing PEPC (or 

other publicly accessible) website by the 

end of the fiscal year. The ACHP and 

NCSHPO will be notified of the posting 

in writing. 

At the written request of the ACHP 

and/or NCSHPO, an annual meeting 

may occur to review implementation of 

the terms of the Program Comment and 

determine whether an amendment is 

needed. In the event that a meeting on 

the agency annual report is held by 

NPS, ACHP and NCSHPO will both be 

invited and it will occur no less than 

thirty (30) days after the agency annual 

report was posted on a PEPC (or other 

publicly accessible) website. 

Three (3) years before the end of the 

duration of the Program Comment, the 

FPO will send a report to the ACHP and 

NCSHPO detailing progress made with 

the Program Comment, Mitigation 

Measures completed, National Register 

nomination status, challenges 

encountered, and the NPS’s plans for 

the final two and a half (2.5) years of the 

Program Comment’s duration. This will 

be known as the Program Comment 

wrap-up report. 

In the final six (6) months of the ninth 

year of Program Comment’s duration, 

regardless of the status of an 

amendment (if pursued), the FPO will 

submit an agency report to ACHP and 

NCSHPO detailing progress made and 

providing links to completed mitigation. 

NPS will also promptly post a summary 

of the agency report for public review 

on a public-facing PEPC (or other 

publicly accessible) website. 

XI. Administrative Clauses and 

Discoveries 

A. Duration and Amendment. The 

Program Comment will remain in effect 

until November 4, 2034 unless, prior to 

that time, the ACHP withdraws the 

Program Comment in accordance with 

36 CFR 800.14(e)(6). Following such 

expiration or withdrawal, NPS will be 

required to comply with Section 106 

through the process in 36 CFR part 800, 

or an applicable program alternative 

under 36 CFR 800.14. 

During the first six (6) months of the 

ninth year of the issuance of the 

Program Comment, and at the time the 

wrap-up report is supposed to be issued, 

NPS and the ACHP will meet to 

determine whether the ACHP should 

consider an extension to its term via an 

amendment. 

The Program Comment may be 

amended by the ACHP’s Executive 

Director when the NPS, NCSHPO, or the 

ACHP’s Executive Director proposes an 

amendment in writing to the other 

parties. In deciding whether to amend 

the Program Comment, the ACHP’s 

Executive Director will consult with 

NPS and NCSHPO, and other parties as 

appropriate. The ACHP will publish 

notice in the Federal Register within 

thirty (30) days after the Executive 

Director’s decision to amend the 

Program Comment, and also provide 

written notification to NPS, NCSHPO, 

and other parties as appropriate. 

B. Discoveries. In the event that 

previously undocumented historic 

properties are encountered during an 

undertaking for which review has been 

completed under this Program 

Comment, the Park Superintendent will 

stop work and notify the SHPO/THPO, 

Indian Tribe(s), and/or Native Hawaiian 

organizations and the Native Hawaiian 

Community, as appropriate, within 48 

hours, or as soon as reasonably possible. 

The Park Superintendent in 

consultation with Qualified Personnel 

and/or the CRM Team, will notify the 

parties of the park’s proposed eligibility 

assessment for the property(ies) and any 

proposed measures to avoid, minimize, 

or mitigate adverse effects to historic 

property(ies), if present. The SHPO/ 

THPO, Tribes, NHOs and Native 

Hawaiian Community will have 48 

hours from receipt of the notice to 

provide the Superintendent with any 

comments on the proposal. The 

Superintendent will take into account 

any timely comments, in consultation 

with Qualified Personnel and/or the 

CRM Team, in implementing the 

proposal and proceed with the 

undertaking. 

In the event the discovery includes 

human remains, funerary objects, sacred 

objects, or objects of cultural patrimony, 

the Park Superintendent will comply 

with the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.). 

Pursuant to an applicable NAGPRA Plan 

of Action or as otherwise required, the 

Park Superintendent will ensure that 

any human remains are left in situ, are 

not exposed, and remain protected 

while the park complies with relevant 

provisions of applicable Federal, State, 

and/or local laws. 

When applicable, the Park 

Superintendent will consider the 

principles within the ACHP’s Policy 

Statement on Burial Sites, Human 

Remains, and Funerary Objects, dated 

March 1, 2023. In implementing the 

Program Comment the NPS will fulfill 

its obligation to consult with Tribes and 

Native Hawaiian organizations and the 

Native Hawaiian Community consistent 

with all relevant Executive Orders, 

Secretary’s Orders, the Department of 

the Interior Departmental Manual, and 

NPS Director’s Orders and Related 

Guidance. NPS recognizes and 

considers Indigenous Knowledge in the 

Section 106 review process in 

accordance with the November 30, 2022 

Guidance for Federal Departments and 

Agencies on Indigenous Knowledge 

issued by the White House Office of 

Science and Technology Policy and 

Council on Environmental Quality and 

the Departmental Manual (301 DM 7, 

Departmental Responsibilities for 

Consideration and Inclusion of 

Indigenous Knowledge in Departmental 

Actions and Scientific Research). 

C. Emergencies. Emergency situations 

will be addressed via 36 CFR 800.12. 

D. Section 106 Review for a Single 

Undertaking. Each proposed 

undertaking to be subject to the Program 

Comment should be reviewed in its 

entirety. Different program alternatives 

may not be used to fulfill Section 106 

review responsibility for a single 

undertaking. To clarify, a Park 

Superintendent may not use more than 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
97642 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2024 / Notices 

10https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1966/park-106- 

compliance.htm. 

one program alternative to fulfill that 

park’s Section 106 compliance for a 

single undertaking. 

E. Document Website. This document 

will initially be available at 

www.achp.gov and Park 106 

Compliance—Section 106 Compliance 

Program (U.S. National Park Service) 

(nps.gov) 10 and will continue to be 

made available online by NPS as 

referenced in agency annual reports. 

(END OF DOCUMENT) 

Authority: 36 CFR 800.14(e). 

Dated: December 2, 2024. 

Javier Marque ́s, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28519 Filed 12–6–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–K6–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

[Docket No. USCG–2024–0733] 

Collection of Information Under 

Review by Office of Management and 

Budget; OMB Control Number 1625– 

0128 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the 

U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an 

Information Collection Request (ICR), 

abstracted below, to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA), requesting an extension of its 

approval for the following collection of 

information: 1625–0128, Prospect 

Questionnaire, Chat Now Questionnaire, 

and the Officer Program Application; 

without change. Our ICR describes the 

information we seek to collect from the 

public. Review and comments by OIRA 

ensure we only impose paperwork 

burdens commensurate with our 

performance of duties. 

DATES: You may submit comments to 

the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before 

January 8, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Comments to the Coast 

Guard should be submitted using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. Search for docket 

number [USCG–2024–0733]. Written 

comments and recommendations to 

OIRA for the proposed information 

collection should be sent within 30 days 

of publication of this notice to https:// 

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

Find this particular information 

collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under 

30-day Review—Open for Public 

Comments’’ or by using the search 

function. 

A copy of the ICR is available through 

the docket on the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov. Additionally, 

copies are available from: Commandant 

(CG–6P), Attn: Paperwork Reduction 

Act Manager, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 

Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 

7710, Washington, DC 20593–7710. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. 

Craig, Office of Privacy Management, 

telephone 202–475–3528, fax 202–372– 

8405, or email hqs-dg-m-cg-61-pii@

uscg.mil for questions on these 

documents. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

This notice relies on the authority of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., chapter 35, as 

amended. An ICR is an application to 

OIRA seeking the approval, extension, 

or renewal of a Coast Guard collection 

of information (Collection). The ICR 

contains information describing the 

Collection’s purpose, the Collection’s 

likely burden on the affected public, an 

explanation of the necessity of the 

Collection, and other important 

information describing the Collection. 

There is one ICR for each Collection. 

The Coast Guard invites comments on 

whether this ICR should be granted 

based on the Collection being necessary 

for the proper performance of 

Departmental functions. In particular, 

the Coast Guard would appreciate 

comments addressing: (1) the practical 

utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy 

of the estimated burden of the 

Collection; (3) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of 

information subject to the Collection; 

and (4) ways to minimize the burden of 

the Collection on respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. These 

comments will help OIRA determine 

whether to approve the ICR referred to 

in this Notice. 

We encourage you to respond to this 

request by submitting comments and 

related materials. Comments to Coast 

Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB 

Control Number of the ICR. They must 

also contain the docket number of this 

request, USCG–2024–0733, and must be 

received by January 8, 2025. 

Submitting Comments 

We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. If your material 

cannot be submitted using https://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. Documents 

mentioned in this notice, and all public 

comments, are in our online docket at 

https://www.regulations.gov and can be 

viewed by following that website’s 

instructions. We review all comments 

received, but we may choose not to post 

off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate 

comments that we receive. Additionally, 

if you go to the online docket and sign 

up for email alerts, you will be notified 

when comments are posted. 

We accept anonymous comments. 

Comments we post to https://

www.regulations.gov will include any 

personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy and 

submissions to the Coast Guard in 

response to this document, see DHS’s 

eRulemaking System of Records notice 

(85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020). For 

more about privacy and submissions to 

OIRA in response to this document, see 

the https://www.reginfo.gov, commentsubmission web page. OIRA posts its 

decisions on ICRs online at https://

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain 

after the comment period for each ICR. 

An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR 

will become available via a hyperlink in 

the OMB Control Number: 1625–0128 

Previous Request for Comments 

This request provides a 30-day 

comment period required by OIRA. The 

Coast Guard published the 60-day 

notice (89 FR 71915, September 4, 2024) 

required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That 

notice elicited no comments. 

Accordingly, no changes have been 

made to the Collection. 

Information Collection Request 

Title: Prospect Questionnaire, Chat 

Now Questionnaire, and the Officer 

Program Application. 

OMB Control Number: 1625–0128. 

Summary: This collection contains 

the recruiting website gocoastguard.com 

Prospect Questionnaire (CGRC–1130), 

Chat Now Questionnaire (CGRC–1132), 

and the Officer Program Application 

(CGRC–1131) that are used to screen 

active duty and reserve enlisted and 

officer applicants. 

Need: The information is needed to 

initiate the recruiting and 

commissioning of active duty and 

reserve, enlisted and officer members. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1