```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 236 (Monday, December 9, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 97631-97642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28519]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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, 
[email protected].

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 de-listing.

    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

[[Page 97632]]

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-to-government 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

[[Page 97633]]

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\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=116344.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 97634]]

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 NPS-
published 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\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Book review--https://www.nps.gov/crps/CRMJournal/Winter2010/reviewbook3.html.
    \3\ https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/allaback/index.htm.
    \4\ https://www.npshistory.com/publications/mission66/campground-doe-process-guidelines-2022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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 [verbar] 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ https://www.gsa.gov/policy-regulations/policy/real-property-policy-division-overview/asset-management/federal-real-property-council/frpc-guidance-library.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 97635]]

(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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/preservation-briefs.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/secretary-standards-treatment-historic-properties.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1966/upload/2022-06-06-PA_Guidance_508_2022-0606-3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 97636]]

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 non-qualified or non-qualifying (Non-Qualified 
Undertaking(s) or Non-Qualifying 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 de-listing.
    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

[[Page 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 character-defining 
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 post-1990 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 
non-historic 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 park-specific 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.

[[Page 97638]]

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 project-specific 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

[[Page 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 national- level(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:

[[Page 97640]]

--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, in-person, 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 non-
historic 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 97642]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(END OF DOCUMENT)

    Authority: 36 CFR 800.14(e).

    Dated: December 2, 2024.
Javier Marqu[eacute]s,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2024-28519 Filed 12-6-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-K6-P
```