Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Notices 11847 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Health and 

Human Services announces a meeting of 

the Interdepartmental Serious Mental 

Illness Coordinating Committee 

(ISMICC). 

The meeting will provide information 

on federal efforts related to serious 

mental illness (SMI) and serious 

emotional disturbance (SED); the 

Olmstead Decision: 25 Years of History 

in the Making; SMI Advisor: A Modern 

Approach to Technical Assistance that 

Makes an Impact; and Report Outs from 

Focus Area 1—Data and Evaluation; 

Focus Area 2—Access and Engagement; 

Focus Area 3—Treatment and Recovery; 

Focus Area 4—Criminal Justice and 

Focus Area 5—Finance. 

DATES: March 27, 2024, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 

p.m. (EST)/Open. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting is open to the 

public and can be accessed virtually 

only by accessing: https://

www.zoomgov.com/j/1611468532?pwd=

b0xnU2dTbFJqQXlONkJkUzdjdzhtZz09 

or by dialing 646–828–7666, webinar ID: 

161 146 8532, passcode: 127885. 

Agenda with call-in information will be 

posted on the SAMHSA website prior to 

the meeting at https://www.samhsa.gov/ 

about-us/advisory-councils/meetings. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Pamela Foote, ISMICC Designated 

Federal Officer, SAMHSA, 5600 Fishers 

Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; telephone: 

240–276–1279; email: pamela.foote@

samhsa.hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Authority 

The ISMICC was established on 

March 15, 2017, in accordance with 

section 6031 of the 21st Century Cures 

Act, and the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., as 

amended, to report to the Secretary, 

Congress, and any other relevant federal 

department or agency on advances in 

SMI and SED, research related to the 

prevention of, diagnosis of, intervention 

in, and treatment and recovery of SMIs, 

SEDs, and advances in access to services 

and supports for adults with SMI or 

children with SED. In addition, the 

ISMICC will evaluate the effect federal 

programs related to SMI and SED have 

on public health, including public 

health outcomes such as: (A) rates of 

suicide, suicide attempts, incidence and 

prevalence of SMIs, SEDs, and 

substance use disorders, overdose, 

overdose deaths, emergency 

hospitalizations, emergency room 

boarding, preventable emergency room 

visits, interaction with the criminal 

justice system, homelessness, and 

unemployment; (B) increased rates of 

employment and enrollment in 

educational and vocational programs; 

(C) quality of mental and substance use 

disorders treatment services; or (D) any 

other criteria determined by the 

Secretary. Finally, the ISMICC will 

make specific recommendations for 

actions that agencies can take to better 

coordinate the administration of mental 

health services for adults with SMI or 

children with SED. Not later than one 

(1) year after the date of enactment of 

the 21st Century Cures Act, and five (5) 

years after such date of enactment, the 

ISMICC shall submit a report to 

Congress and any other relevant federal 

department or agency. 

II. Membership 

This ISMICC consists of federal 

members listed below or their 

designees, and non-federal public 

members. 

Federal Membership: Members 

include, The Secretary of Health and 

Human Services; The Assistant 

Secretary for Mental Health and 

Substance Use; The Attorney General; 

The Secretary of the Department of 

Veterans Affairs; The Secretary of the 

Department of Defense; The Secretary of 

the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development; The Secretary of the 

Department of Education; The Secretary 

of the Department of Labor; The 

Administrator of the Centers for 

Medicare and Medicaid Services; the 

Administrator of the Administration for 

Community Living, and The 

Commissioner of the Social Security 

Administration. 

Non-Federal Membership: Members 

include, not less than 14 non-federal 

public members appointed by the 

Secretary, representing psychologists, 

psychiatrists, social workers, peer 

support specialists, and other providers, 

patients, family of patients, law 

enforcement, the judiciary, and leading 

research, advocacy, or service 

organizations. 

The ISMICC is required to meet at 

least twice per year. 

To attend virtually, submit written or 

brief oral comments, or request special 

accommodation for persons with 

disabilities, contact Pamela Foote. 

Individuals can also register at https:// 

snacregister.samhsa.gov/. 

The public comment section will be 

scheduled at the conclusion of the 

meeting. Individuals interested in 

submitting a comment, must notify 

Pamela Foote on or before March 18, 

2024, via email to: Pamela.Foote@

samhsa.hhs.gov. 

Up to three minutes will be allotted 

for each approved public comment as 

time permits. Written comments 

received in advance of the meeting will 

be considered for inclusion in the 

official record of the meeting. 

Substantive meeting information and 

a roster of Committee members is 

available at the Committee’s website: 

https://www.samhsa.gov/about-us/ 

advisory-councils/ismicc. 

Dated: February 12, 2024. 

Carlos Castillo, 

Committee Management Officer, SAMHSA. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03165 Filed 2–14–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4162–20–P 

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION 

Notice of Adoption of Policy Statement 

on Housing and Historic Preservation 

AGENCY: Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation. 

ACTION: Notice of adoption of policy 

statement on housing and historic 

preservation. 

SUMMARY: The Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation has adopted its 

Policy Statement on Housing and 

Historic Preservation. 

DATES: The policy statement was 

adopted and went into effect on 

December 22, 2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Druscilla Null, (202) 517–1487, dnull@

achp.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP), an independent 

Federal agency created by the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 

works to promote the preservation, 

enhancement, and sustainable use of 

our nation’s diverse historic resources, 

and advises the President and the 

Congress on national historic 

preservation policy. 

Under the NHPA, the ACHP’s duties 

include advising the President and 

Congress on matters relating to historic 

preservation; recommending measures 

to coordinate activities of Federal, state, 

and local agencies and private 

institutions and individuals related to 

historic preservation; and advising on 

the dissemination of information 

pertaining to those activities. In keeping 

with these mandates, in June 2023 the 

ACHP initiated discussions regarding 

the role that rehabilitation of historic 

buildings can play in alleviating 

America’s housing shortage and how the 

ACHP might advise and assist Federal 

agencies and other stakeholders on the 

topic. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
11848 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Notices 

ACHP staff developed a draft 

discussion outline that was provided to 

the full ACHP membership for review in 

July 2023. The general consensus of the 

members was to move forward with 

drafting of the policy statement using 

the proposed outline. Staff then 

developed a draft policy statement, with 

input from ACHP members and 

feedback from the Chair’s Expert 

Advisory Committee. (For more 

information on this committee, see 

https://www.achp.gov/expertsadvisory

committee.) 

Subsequently, the members approved 

providing the draft to stakeholders and 

the public for comment. Two 

consultation events were held, one for 

Tribal and Native Hawaiian 

organization leaders and the other for 

State Historic Preservation Officers and 

their staffs. General public comments 

also were solicited. Based on the 

feedback received, the draft was revised. 

The final version of the policy statement 

was adopted by vote of the ACHP 

members on December 22, 2023. 

The ACHP issues the regulations (36 

CFR part 800) that implement section 

106 of the NHPA, which requires 

Federal agencies to take into account the 

effects of projects they carry out, 

approve, or fund on historic properties. 

The policy statement applies to the 

consideration of housing issues during 

section 106 reviews. 

While the policy statement pertains to 

Federal agency challenges and 

opportunities, it also speaks broadly to 

nonfederal parties, including but not 

limited to state, Tribal, and local 

governments; community groups; 

nonprofit organizations; developers, and 

others in the private sector. The 

document defines the scope of the 

challenge and discusses why 

rehabilitating and reusing historic 

buildings can be so impactful in 

addressing the housing shortfall being 

experienced by many communities. The 

policy statement promotes streamlining 

and improved permitting to support 

reuse of historic buildings for housing. 

It also explicitly acknowledges and aims 

to address burdens historically imposed 

on disadvantaged and underserved 

communities, and communities with 

environmental justice concerns. 

The bulk of the document consists of 

a series of policy principles that are 

grouped under five general topics: reuse 

historic buildings; accelerate project 

permitting and environmental review; 

gather information; educate; and 

collaborate. 

Text of the Policy Statement on Housing 

and Historic Preservation 

The full text of the adopted policy 

statement is reproduced below: 

ACHP Housing and Historic 

Preservation Policy Statement 

Many communities across America 

are experiencing housing shortages, 

especially shortages of affordable 

housing. Cumulatively, this problem has 

grown to crisis proportions. Tackling 

this challenge requires a multi-pronged 

effort, of which rehabilitation of historic 

buildings is a critically important 

component. Recognizing that facilitating 

rehabilitations can help boost housing 

supply, meet sustainability goals, and 

utilize community assets more 

effectively, the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (ACHP) has 

developed this policy statement to 

encourage both rehabilitation of historic 

housing (including historic public 

housing) and adaptation of historic 

buildings not originally built for 

housing. 

Scope of the Issue 

Estimates vary among studies 

quantifying the scope of the current 

housing shortage, but the overall 

conclusion is the same–America is 

facing a significant deficit in housing 

supply versus demand in many 

communities. This deficit is a major 

cause of rising costs. A 2023 report by 

the Joint Center for Housing Studies of 

Harvard University, The State of the 

Nation’s Housing 2023, succinctly 

summarizes what many other studies 

have found: 

Millions of households are now priced 

out of homeownership, grappling with 

housing cost burdens, or lacking shelter 

altogether, including a disproportionate 

share of people of color, increasing the 

need for policies to address the national 

housing shortfall at the root of the 

affordability crisis. 

While discussing the need to 

construct new units, the report also 

concludes that: 

In addition to expanding the supply 

of new homes, improving the existing 

housing supply is critical. Substantial 

investment will be needed to preserve 

the aging stock and respond to climate 

change. At 43 years of age, the median 

home in 2021 was the oldest it has ever 

been . . . 

Rehabilitating and reusing existing 

buildings must be integral to addressing 

the housing shortage, which is not a 

problem America can build its way out 

of solely through new construction. 

Because approximately 40 percent of 

America’s current building stock 

(residential and commercial) is at least 

50 years old, rehabilitation of historic 

and older buildings must play an 

important role in addressing the 

housing supply shortfall. In towns, 

counties, and cities, and on Tribal lands 

throughout the country, historic 

buildings either are or can be 

rehabilitated as housing. Given that the 

cost of rehabilitation on a per-squarefoot basis tends to be less than new 

construction, historic buildings are an 

important source of so-called ‘‘naturally 

occurring’’ affordable housing. The 

opportunities for housing creation and 

retention are immense. Further, every 

person should have safe, clean, and 

affordable options for housing and a 

healthy environment, and these needs 

are closely linked with other social 

determinants of health and 

environmental justice goals. 

This policy statement pertains 

primarily to historic properties— 

buildings, sites, districts, structures, and 

objects—which are included in or 

eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register of Historic Places (National 

Register), and principally to individual 

historic buildings and buildings within 

historic districts. However, it is 

important to recognize that many older 

buildings that could qualify for historic 

designation have not yet been 

designated. Others are not yet 50 years 

old—the usual age threshold that must 

be reached to be considered eligible for 

National Register designation. The 

ACHP acknowledges that many of the 

strategies and suggestions offered in this 

policy statement can apply to older 

buildings generally, not just those 

formally determined to be historic. 

It also is important to acknowledge 

that while efforts to honor and preserve 

the stories of all Americans are 

expanding, historic properties in 

disadvantaged and underserved 

communities, as well as communities 

with environmental justice concerns, 

are often underrepresented on the 

National Register, creating imbalances 

in access to preservation incentives. 

Disproportionately affected by the 

housing shortage, these communities 

also often lack management and 

decision-making authority that would 

help them determine where and how 

investments in the reuse of historic 

buildings for housing are made, or 

address any negative impacts of such 

determinations. 

Projects to rehabilitate historic 

buildings for housing or build new 

housing may be subject to historic 

preservation review at the Federal, state, 

and/or local levels. The existence of 

these processes sometimes gives rise to 

an assumption that historic preservation 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Notices 11849 

1 54 U.S.C. 300101. 

2 54 U.S.C. 304102. 

3 54 U.S.C. 306101–306107; 306109–306114. 

4 54 U.S.C 306108; 36 CFR part 800. 

5This statement incorporates provisions of a 2006 

ACHP Policy Statement on Affordable Housing and 

Historic Preservation (a replacement for a previous 

1995 policy statement), which was designed to 

serve as a guide for Federal agencies and other 

stakeholders when making decisions about 

affordable housing projects during section 106 

review. In recognition that the Federal government 

engages in undertakings triggering section 106 

review for both affordable housing and other types 

of housing, this policy statement removes the word 

‘‘affordable’’ from text that previously appeared in 

the 2006 policy statement. 

reviews will complicate or be a barrier 

to housing development, particularly of 

affordable housing. This need not be the 

case, and when fully integrated into 

regular project planning and scheduling, 

such reviews can benefit project 

development without causing delay or 

increasing project costs. However, such 

reviews do need to be grounded in a 

flexible yet consistent approach to 

ensure that housing can be developed 

expeditiously while still preserving the 

historic qualities of affected historic 

properties. One intent of this policy 

statement is to encourage such 

flexibility. 

Role of the Federal Government 

The National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA) states that it is the policy 

of the Federal government ‘‘to foster 

conditions under which our modern 

society and our historic property can 

exist in productive harmony and fulfill 

the social, economic, and other 

requirements of present and future 

generations.’’ 1 Consistent with this, the 

Federal government plays a role in 

establishing and implementing both 

historic preservation and housing 

policy. It also directly funds both 

historic preservation projects and 

housing projects, undertaken by public 

and private actors alike. And finally, it 

sets forth standards for the treatment of 

historic properties that are, in turn, 

interpreted and applied by state, Tribal, 

and local governments and private 

parties. Thus, the Federal government 

has a significant role to play in the way 

that buildings are updated or 

repurposed for housing. 

A key player regarding historic 

preservation is the ACHP, an 

independent Federal agency created by 

the NHPA. It works to promote the 

preservation, enhancement, and 

sustainable use of our nation’s diverse 

historic resources. It is the ACHP’s 

responsibility to ‘‘advise the President 

and Congress on matters relating to 

historic preservation, recommend 

measures to coordinate activities of 

Federal, state, and local agencies and 

private institutions and individuals 

related to historic preservation, and 

advise on the dissemination of 

information pertaining to those 

activities.’’ 2 The ACHP has developed 

this policy statement in keeping with 

this mandate. 

Across the Federal government, 

agencies are responsible for directly 

managing and caring for historic 

properties under their control, and for 

fostering both nonfederal, governmental, 

and private preservation activities. 

Section 110 of the NHPA sets out these 

broad historic preservation 

responsibilities of Federal agencies and 

is intended to ensure that historic 

preservation is fully integrated into their 

ongoing programs.3 Federal agencies 

with responsibilities regarding housing 

must consider historic properties as part 

of their program planning, addressing 

the role historic buildings can play in 

providing housing and the potential 

impacts of housing projects and 

programs on historic properties of all 

types. 

Federal agencies also must consider 

the effects of projects—including 

housing projects—they carry out, 

approve, or fund on historic properties. 

This requirement has been enshrined in 

section 106 of the NHPA and in 

corresponding regulations issued by the 

ACHP.4 Section 106 applies both to 

housing built directly by Federal 

agencies and to housing funded by 

Federal agencies. Many Federal 

agencies, including the Departments of 

Defense, Interior, and Agriculture build 

housing for their staff and for other 

purposes. In addition, some Federal 

agencies, notably the Departments of 

Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD), Agriculture, and Veterans 

Affairs, provide funding to and/or 

partner with public housing authorities, 

state and local governments, and private 

entities for the creation of housing. 

These Federal agencies (and funding 

recipients that have assumed HUD’s 

environmental review requirements by 

statute) must comply with section 106.5

Influencing the physical nature and 

form of both public and private projects, 

whether subject to the section 106 

review process or not, are standards for 

the treatment of historic properties set 

forth by the Department of the Interior, 

including the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for Rehabilitation (Secretary’s 

Standards). These standards have been 

adopted by state and local governments 

and also influence private action. 

It is within this context of the Federal 

government’s role at the intersection of 

housing and historic preservation that 

this policy statement has been 

developed. 

Intended Audience 

Given the leadership role of the 

Federal government in addressing both 

housing and historic preservation, the 

following policy principles seek to 

promote informed policy making, 

decision making, and responsible 

stewardship of historic properties by the 

Federal government. The ACHP also has 

designed this policy statement to assist 

Tribal, state, and local governments; 

community groups; and nonprofit 

organizations (collectively, along with 

Federal agencies, ‘‘public-serving 

institutions’’); developers, and others in 

the private sector as they seek to reuse 

historic buildings for housing as a 

strategy to address the housing crisis. 

It is important to note that a wide 

variety of nonprofit organizations can 

play a role in rehabilitation of historic 

buildings for housing. Among these are 

nonprofit housing corporations, 

community development corporations, 

land banks, and heritage conservancies. 

Similarly, for-profit developers are 

central to maximizing housing creation 

through historic building rehabilitation, 

frequently creating affordable housing 

through the use of local, state, or 

Federal tax credits or subsidies. The 

ACHP encourages both the nonprofit 

and the for-profit private sectors to 

explore the opportunities inherent in 

reusing historic buildings for housing. 

Policy Principles 

It is the policy of the ACHP to 

encourage and accelerate rehabilitation 

of historic buildings for housing and to 

assist in harmonizing historic 

preservation and housing goals. The 

ACHP has developed the following 

principles to guide its own actions and 

to advise public-serving institutions and 

other public and private entities on 

these issues. The ACHP will integrate 

these principles into its oversight of the 

Federal section 106 review process and 

into the advice it provides to Federal 

agencies, Tribal, state, and local 

governments, and the general public. 

Reuse Historic Buildings 

1. The Federal government and state 

governments should develop additional 

historic tax incentives and easier ways 

to pair those incentives with housing 

and energy tax incentives. The existing 

Federal historic tax credit provides a 20 

percent income tax credit for the 

rehabilitation of historic, incomeproducing buildings. As of June 2023, 

39 states also have adopted state historic 

tax credits. Retaining and enhancing 

these credits and developing new 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
11850 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Notices 

historic tax incentives is vitally 

important to scaling up rehabilitation of 

historic buildings for housing. 

Policymakers should consider 

increasing historic tax credit 

percentages for rehabilitation projects 

that create housing, particularly 

affordable housing, as well as setting 

aside a portion of tax credit benefits for 

housing creation in states where the 

state historic tax credit has a monetary 

program cap. 

Tax credits for rehabilitation of older 

buildings that are not formally 

designated as historic also would 

contribute to housing creation while 

complementing and supporting efforts 

to rehabilitate nearby historic buildings 

in historic neighborhoods. Also, 

expanding homeowner historic tax 

credits should be considered. 

Rehabilitation of owner-occupied 

historic housing does not qualify for all 

state credits or the Federal historic tax 

credit. Homeowner rehabilitation tax 

credits would encourage preservation of 

existing historic housing by helping to 

support maintenance, rehabilitation, 

weatherization, and energy retrofits of 

historic homes. 

The effectiveness of Federal and state 

historic tax credits could be further 

leveraged if it were easier to couple 

them with housing and energy tax 

incentives, notably the Low-Income 

Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). Legislative 

and/or administrative fixes should be 

explored to reconcile conflicts. It is 

particularly important to address 

disconnects that are making pairing of 

the Federal historic tax credit and 

LIHTC increasingly difficult, including 

both tax policy and application-based 

challenges. More states should consider 

giving preference points for historic 

preservation projects in their allocation 

of LIHTCs, as some already do. 

2. Public-serving institutions should 

support existing programs and develop 

new programs that assist homeowners 

(particularly lower- and middle-income 

homeowners) and small-scale landlords 

in maintaining, repairing, and 

weatherizing their historic homes, and 

reducing their energy costs through 

renewable energy installation. While 

historic tax credits for homeowners and 

small-scale landlords are one vehicle to 

help preserve historic homes, other 

forms of assistance are needed. Support 

is particularly critical in the case of lowand middle-income housing and can 

help assist in discouraging displacement 

of long-term residents in established 

neighborhoods. Financial constraints of 

owners can lead to a spiral of deferred 

maintenance and an inability to lower 

utility costs through weatherization and 

energy retrofitting, potentially leading to 

eventual vacancy and demolition of 

buildings. Types of assistance—with an 

emphasis on retention and repair of 

historic materials—that should be 

considered include the following: grants 

and low-cost loans for repairs and 

hazard mitigation (remediation of leadbased paint, asbestos, mold, etc.); do-ityourself support through materials 

warehouses, tool sharing programs, and 

training workshops; free or low-cost 

energy audits; and job training programs 

focused on historic home repair. 

3. Public-serving institutions should 

support zoning code changes that 

encourage greater density and 

availability of housing in tandem with 

preserving historic buildings, that allow 

for mixed uses, and that allow housing 

in historic buildings in areas where it is 

now prohibited. Increasing density and 

expanding housing options in existing 

neighborhoods—including historic 

neighborhoods and historic districts— 

are potential solutions to help address 

the shortfall in housing supply. This 

and other changes to zoning to better 

balance competing factors—such as 

through the use of form-based codes— 

should be seriously explored. 

Taking into account the unique 

conditions of each community, 

consideration should be given to 

allowing and incentivizing ‘‘density 

without demolition’’ through: 

conversion of historic single-family 

dwellings to multi-family dwellings; 

creation of accessory dwelling units, 

either in rehabilitated historic structures 

or through compatible new 

construction; removal or reduction of 

minimum parking requirements in 

historic neighborhoods; enabling 

transfer of development rights to 

incentivize rehabilitation of historic 

buildings while allowing new 

development in alternative locations; 

adoption of procedures and permitting 

incentives to facilitate the reuse of 

existing buildings for housing; and 

compatible infill construction of multifamily housing on vacant parcels in 

historic districts. More guidelines, 

pattern books, best practices, and other 

resources are needed to help assist local 

governments and developers in 

implementing additional density in a 

manner most compatible with a 

community’s historic buildings. 

Proactive efforts should be made, 

however, to ensure ‘‘density without 

demolition’’ also means ‘‘density 

without displacement,’’ so that longterm residents are not priced out of 

living in their historic homes and 

neighborhoods. 

Many zoning codes prohibit historic 

buildings in certain areas from being 

converted into housing. There is a 

significant need to rezone 

neighborhoods filled with office and 

commercial buildings for residential 

use. In addition, large-scale historic 

industrial buildings, like New England 

mill buildings, are often zoned for 

industrial purposes, even in locations 

where manufacturing seems unlikely to 

return. And finally, public-serving 

institutions should consider zoning for 

historic Main Streets, which organically 

developed with housing mixed with 

(and usually above) shops but which are 

too often now subject to prohibitions on 

residential uses enacted through everstricter zoning codes. Upper stories can 

be returned to residential use and, in 

some instances, first-floor commercial 

space could be converted to housing. 

This mix of uses that proved to enrich 

small towns and larger cities alike 

should be allowed again through 

zoning. 

Local historic preservation 

commissions can play a pivotal role in 

advising on zoning changes to address 

the issues raised above. They, as well as 

the planners responsible for zoning code 

development and revision, should have 

the training and resources they need to 

understand the options and 

opportunities for enabling and 

promoting rehabilitation of historic 

buildings for housing and development 

of compatible new infill construction. 

4. Public-serving institutions should 

advocate for changes in building codes 

and interpretations of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act to create more 

flexible standards (especially for smallscale housing of four units or fewer) to 

facilitate conversion of nonresidential 

historic buildings to residential use and 

to prioritize design solutions for historic 

housing that ensure access and 

inclusion of disabled residents and 

visitors. Traditional building codes tend 

to focus on new construction to the 

detriment of rehabilitation of historic 

buildings, particularly for affordable 

housing. Property owners wishing to 

undertake renovations, regardless of 

their scope, are often confronted with 

requirements to bring a historic building 

into full compliance with the building 

code requirements for new construction. 

Cities and states should consider 

adoption of performance-based 

rehabilitation building codes (such as 

the International Existing Building 

Code) or other building code changes to 

provide needed flexibility and better 

relate building code requirements to the 

scale of projects. This also would 

facilitate new approaches to housing 

development, such as conversion of 

underused office and retail buildings– 

including those that are historic–for use 

as housing. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Notices 11851 

6 36 CFR 800.14. 

The American with Disabilities Act 

prohibits public-serving institutions 

from discriminating on the basis of 

disability in providing or making 

available housing. Public-serving 

institutions should give full 

consideration of all that is needed to 

ensure accessibility for users of housing, 

including historic properties used for 

housing. Interpretations of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act by 

public officials should prioritize the 

need to provide accessible 

environments to all users of housing in 

historic buildings. Collecting successful 

examples of projects that promote both 

preservation ideals and accessibility 

could be useful to many different actors. 

It also is imperative that planners, local 

historic preservation commission 

members and staff, and building 

inspectors have the training and 

resources they need to understand the 

code enforcement options available for 

the rehabilitation of historic buildings 

for housing and development of 

compatible new infill construction. 

5. Public-serving institutions should 

seek to promote thoughtful energy 

retrofitting during rehabilitation of 

historic buildings for housing. Most 

states have adopted energy conservation 

codes to enhance creation and operation 

of energy efficient buildings. Widely 

used codes and standards often include 

options for exempting historic buildings 

in situations where full compliance 

would damage their historic design and 

materials. However, as the climate crisis 

becomes more acute, use of such 

waivers may increasingly be seen as 

seen as problematic, discourage reuse of 

historic buildings for housing, and 

cause disproportionate and adverse 

health or environmental impacts on 

already overburdened communities 

with environmental justice concerns. 

More guidelines, best practices, and 

other resources are needed to help 

promote energy retrofitting of historic 

buildings used for housing in a manner 

most compatible with their historic 

character. 

6. Federal, state, Tribal, and local 

governments should lead by example 

through disposition or outleasing of 

excess or underutilized historic 

government buildings for housing 

development. Government building 

inventories often include structures that 

are no longer needed to facilitate agency 

missions and that are vacant or 

underutilized. Enhanced use of telework 

and remote work, sparked by the 

COVID–19 pandemic, has further 

increased the amount of government 

office space that is underused. 

Governments at all levels should 

examine the opportunities inherent in 

excess and underutilized government 

buildings–including those that are 

historic–to create housing through 

office-to-housing conversions and other 

adaptive use. Strategic disposal (with 

protective covenants) and leasing to 

nongovernmental partners should be 

considered. Section 111 of the NHPA 

and other agency-specific authorities 

allow Federal property-managing 

agencies to outlease historic buildings 

(or portions thereof) to nonfederal 

parties. Federal agencies should identify 

and remove impediments to outleasing 

their historic buildings, with 

consideration given to the 

recommendations of the ACHP’s 2021 

report, Leveraging Federal Historic 

Buildings. 

7. The Federal government should 

expand upon its guidance regarding 

reuse and rehabilitation of historic 

properties for housing and should 

encourage flexible yet consistent 

application of such guidance. Federal 

standards and guidelines significantly 

influence the rehabilitation of historic 

properties, public and private alike, 

because they are often adopted or 

adapted by state and local governments, 

as has been the case with the Secretary’s 

Standards. The Federal government 

should add to and flexibly apply its 

guidance on the treatment of historic 

properties in ways that will incentivize 

housing development, particularly of 

affordable housing, and facilitate 

adapting nonresidential buildings to 

housing. Likewise, additional guidance 

is needed on remediating 

environmental, health, and safety 

hazards when rehabilitating historic 

buildings and providing access for 

persons with disabilities. The Federal 

government, particularly agencies that 

fund housing development, also should 

accelerate the development of guidance 

on the benefits of rehabilitating historic 

housing (including historic public 

housing) and of adapting historic 

commercial buildings for use as 

housing. Enhanced recommendations 

and training are needed to encourage 

reuse of historic buildings and promote 

project planning and review that are 

adaptable yet consistent. 

Accelerate Project Permitting and 

Environmental Review 

8. Federal, state, Tribal, and local 

governments should expedite 

development of housing projects 

through efficient and effective 

permitting processes and environmental 

reviews while still ensuring full 

consideration of potential impacts to 

historic properties. Addressing the 

problem of insufficient housing supply 

will require widespread large-scale and 

small-scale projects, both for new 

construction and for rehabilitation of 

historic and other existing buildings. 

Environmental reviews and permitting 

processes for such projects, especially 

small-scale projects with limited 

impacts, should be managed in such a 

way as to proceed expeditiously. 

However, potential adverse effects to 

historic properties must be carefully 

addressed, whether they be physical or 

visual impacts to historic properties 

from new housing construction or 

effects to the historic qualities of 

historic buildings that are being 

rehabilitated. It also is important that 

actions not be taken that result in the 

damage or destruction of historic 

properties prior to applicants seeking 

tax credits and government funding, and 

prior to agencies completing 

environmental review. 

Efficient permitting and 

environmental review depends in large 

part upon the funding and staffing 

capacity of the government agencies at 

all levels participating in the reviews. It 

is vitally important to build capacity for 

historic preservation review within 

Federal agencies, State and Tribal 

Historic Preservation Offices, and local 

historic preservation commissions, and 

to provide robust training for staff. 

Public-serving institutions also should 

seek to educate communities and 

project sponsors on environmental 

review requirements; their roles in those 

review processes; the need to initiate 

environmental review early in planning; 

and the importance of flexible 

consideration of project alternatives. 

Current housing needs pose complex 

challenges that need to be addressed on 

an increasingly accelerated timeline, 

and it is important that environmental 

reviews be rooted in flexibility and 

creativity. The section 106 regulations 

provide for development of program 

alternatives to tailor and expedite the 

review process while at the same time 

ensuring the consultation process is 

accessible, meaningful, and transparent 

to the wide variety of consulting parties 

and stakeholders.6 Program alternatives 

already are in use for a variety of 

housing-related projects and programs. 

The ACHP will explore further 

opportunities to use program 

alternatives to expedite housing 

development, as should other Federal 

agencies. Federal agencies also should 

explore how best to integrate section 

106 review with review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act, 

based on options available in the section 

106 regulations and advice in NEPA and 

NHPA: A Handbook for Integrating 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
11852 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Notices 

7 54 U.S.C 306107. 

NEPA and Section 106, issued by the 

ACHP and the Council on 

Environmental Quality in 2013. Policy 

Principle #9 offers further 

recommendations on flexibly 

proceeding through section 106 review 

specifically for housing projects. 

9. All participants in section 106 

review of housing projects should 

approach the review flexibly in keeping 

with the following principles and any 

applicable implementing guidance from 

the ACHP. In keeping with section 

110(f) of the NHPA,7 which requires 

Federal agencies to minimize harm to 

National Historic Landmarks to the 

maximum extent possible, the following 

provisions should not apply to National 

Historic Landmarks. The ACHP plans to 

issue implementing guidance on effect 

determinations under section 106, 

including addressing the potential 

adverse effects of housing projects to the 

interiors of historic buildings. 

a. Review of effects on historic 

districts made up of buildings should 

focus on effects to exterior features. 

Section 106 review of effects focuses on 

potential alterations to the 

characteristics that qualify a property 

for listing in the National Register. The 

significance of a historic district 

comprised of buildings is typically 

associated in large part with the exterior 

features of the buildings, which 

cumulatively convey the significance of 

the overall district and qualify it for 

inclusion in the National Register. 

Accordingly, unless a building in a 

district is listed or considered eligible 

for listing in the National Register as an 

individual property or specific interior 

elements contribute to maintaining a 

historic district’s character, review 

under section 106 should focus on 

proposed changes to the exteriors of the 

district’s buildings. 

b. Consultation should consider the 

overall preservation and housing goals 

of the community. When assessing, and 

negotiating the resolution of, the effects 

of housing projects on historic 

properties, consultation should focus 

not simply on individual buildings but 

on the historic preservation goals of the 

broader neighborhood or community. If 

the affected historic property is a 

historic district, the agency official 

should assess effects on the historic 

district as a whole. 

c. When possible, plans and 

specifications should adhere to the 

Secretary’s Standards, taking into 

account the economic and technical 

feasibility of the project. The Secretary’s 

Standards outline a consistent national 

approach to the treatment of historic 

properties that can be applied flexibly 

in a way that relates to local character 

and needs and project requirements. 

Plans and specifications for 

rehabilitation, new construction, and 

abatement of hazardous conditions in 

housing projects associated with 

historic properties should strive to 

adhere to the recommended approaches 

in the Secretary’s Standards when 

possible. However, the ACHP recognizes 

that there are mission-related, 

economic, or other circumstances when 

the Secretary’s Standards cannot be 

followed and that section 106 allows for 

the negotiation of other outcomes. 

When assessing effects during section 

106 review and seeking to avoid adverse 

effects for housing projects, priority 

should be given to consistency with the 

Secretary’s Standards for the exterior of 

buildings. Adverse effects to historic 

interior spaces and features may more 

frequently need to be accepted and 

resolved to facilitate reuse of the 

buildings for housing. This especially is 

the case for conversions of commercial 

or institutional buildings to housing and 

to address issues such as energy 

retrofitting, providing access for persons 

with disabilities, and hazard 

remediation. Projects taking advantage 

of the Federal historic tax credit must be 

reviewed by the National Park Service 

for adherence to the Secretary’s 

Standards in a separate and distinct 

process that benefits from early 

coordination. 

d. Section 106 consultation should 

emphasize consensus building. Section 

106 review strives to build consensus 

with affected communities in all phases 

of the process. Consultation with 

affected communities should be on a 

scale appropriate to that of the 

undertaking. Various stakeholders, 

including community members and 

neighborhood residents, should be 

included in the section 106 review 

process as consulting parties so that the 

full range of issues can be addressed in 

developing a balance between historic 

preservation and housing goals. See 

Policy Principle #10 regarding the 

importance on consultation with Indian 

Tribes and Native Hawaiian 

organizations, and engagement with 

disadvantaged and underserved 

communities, and communities with 

environmental justice concerns, 

including people with disabilities. 

e. The ACHP encourages streamlining 

the Section 106 process to respond to 

local conditions. The ACHP encourages 

participants to seek innovative and 

practical ways to streamline the section 

106 process that respond to unique local 

conditions related to the delivery of 

housing. Programmatic Agreements are 

one approach to enhance efficiency in 

section 106 reviews. Some such 

agreements delegate the section 106 

review role of the State Historic 

Preservation Officer to local 

governments, particularly where local 

preservation ordinances exist and/or 

where qualified preservation 

professionals are employed to improve 

the efficiency of historic preservation 

reviews. Such agreements may also 

target the section 106 review process to 

local circumstances that warrant the 

creation of exempt categories for routine 

activities, the adoption of ‘‘treatment 

and design protocols’’ for rehabilitation 

and new infill construction, and the 

development of design guidelines 

tailored to a specific historic district 

and/or neighborhood. 

f. Archaeological investigations 

should be avoided or minimized for 

rehabilitation projects with minimal 

ground disturbance. No archaeological 

investigations should be carried out for 

housing projects limited to 

rehabilitation or energy retrofitting that 

require no ground disturbance. In those 

circumstances where minimal ground 

disturbance may be necessary to carry 

out rehabilitations, archaeological 

investigations should be minimized and 

proportional to the potential effects of 

such disturbance. Guidance on 

archaeological investigations in this 

context can be found in the ACHP’s 

section 106 Archaeology Guidance. For 

all other projects, archaeological 

investigation may be needed, to be 

determined and carried out in 

consultation with State and/or Tribal 

Historic Preservation Officers. 

Inadvertent discoveries related to any 

housing project once construction has 

begun should be addressed in 

accordance with the section 106 

regulations, the ACHP’s Policy 

Statement on Burial Sites, Human 

Remains, and Funerary Objects, 

applicable state burial laws, and the 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (if applicable). 

10. During planning, permitting, and 

environmental reviews (including 

section 106 reviews) for housing 

projects, Federal, state, and local 

governments should consult and 

engage—beginning early in the 

process—with Indian Tribes, Native 

Hawaiian organizations (NHOs), 

disadvantaged and underserved 

communities, and communities with 

environmental justice concerns, 

including people with disabilities, and 

should explore capacity building 

options for supporting their 

participation in consultation. The 

section 106 process under the NHPA 

already requires Federal agency 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Notices 11853 

8Studies should not conflate rehabilitation and 

adaptive use with restoration (defined as accurately 

restoring a building to its appearance at a particular 

point in time). The latter generally is more 

expensive and is not necessary for effective reuse 

of historic buildings for housing. 

consultation with Indian Tribes, NHOs, 

and other consulting parties regarding 

the impact of projects on historic 

properties. Here, the ACHP would like 

to emphasize the importance of 

consultation and engagement—whether 

or not section 106 applies—with Indian 

Tribes, NHOs, disadvantaged and 

underserved communities, and 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns, including people with 

disabilities, all of whom are 

disproportionately impacted by the 

housing supply shortfall. Soliciting and 

considering their views on reuse of 

historic buildings for housing and the 

impacts of housing projects on historic 

properties should be done proactively, 

early in planning, and throughout 

environmental reviews and permitting 

processes. 

In some cases, limited resources may 

constrain the active participation of 

disadvantaged and underserved 

communities and communities with 

environmental justice concerns in 

consultation. Federal, state, and local 

government entities should consider 

options for strategic financial 

investments or other assistance to help 

with needed capacity development. The 

ACHP previously has recommended 

capacity-building support for consulting 

parties pursuant to the agency’s 

‘‘Guidance on Assistance to Consulting 

Parties in the section 106 Review 

Process.’’ Since many Indian Tribes 

have been incorporating consideration 

of housing issues into their 

environmental reviews and permitting 

processes for decades, housing-related 

project planning should seek to adopt or 

align with existing practices and 

standards, where feasible. On trust land, 

Tribes should control how housing is 

developed and its location, whether as 

new construction or rehabilitation. 

Gather Information 

11. Public-serving institutions should 

work collaboratively to research and 

share information with each other, 

policymakers, the private sector, and 

the public about the costs, benefits, 

incentives, and disincentives associated 

with rehabilitating historic buildings for 

housing. To maximize reuse of historic 

buildings, ongoing research and study 

are needed in order to identify 

opportunities, document benefits, shape 

guidance development, and disseminate 

best practices. Public-serving 

institutions should undertake such 

research; recommended areas for study 

and dissemination of information 

include those below. Consistent with 

their missions and authorities, Federal 

agencies should provide funding and 

technical assistance to support state, 

Tribal, local, and nongovernmental 

research efforts. 

Existing Government Programs 

—Survey laws and financial incentives 

at the Federal, state, Tribal, and local 

levels that address rehabilitation of 

historic buildings for housing and 

assess the impact of such laws and 

incentives on housing supply, 

housing affordability, mixed-use 

development (including housing 

above ground-floor commercial), and 

equitably distributed development; 

and determine if such policies should 

be updated, modified, or expanded to 

ensure they are applied and 

interpreted in a flexible manner 

allowing for housing production. 

—Study how well Federal programs are 

helping to meet the housing needs of 

Indian Tribes and disadvantaged and 

underserved communities, as well as 

communities with environmental 

justice concerns, while encouraging 

the reuse and protection of historic 

properties, and what changes may be 

needed to make the application 

process for Federal assistance more 

inclusive and easier to navigate. 

Historic Properties and Neighborhoods 

—Assemble information about the 

location, size, condition, quality of 

features, and occupancy of historic 

buildings in localities and assess 

those against local housing needs. 

—Evaluate any links between historic 

designation and housing affordability, 

and between historic designation and 

displacement of residents in 

disadvantaged and underserved 

communities, and in communities 

with environmental justice concerns. 

—Explore impacts of institutional real 

estate investment in owner-occupied 

housing for rental use and (in some 

communities) an increase in shortterm rentals, seasonally occupied 

homes, and second homes in historic 

neighborhoods. 

Rehabilitation of Existing Properties for 

Housing 

—Study the costs of rehabilitating 

historic buildings for housing relative 

to new construction, considering 

intangible and environmental costs 

and benefits in addition to monetary 

cost.8

—Study the climate impacts of 

rehabilitating historic buildings for 

housing, including decarbonization; 

improved operational energy 

efficiency; climate resilience; 

decreased emissions through reduced 

urban sprawl; and responding to 

housing needs following disasters. 

Preservation Workforce 

—Survey the current and anticipated 

future state of the public sector 

preservation workforce and its 

expertise and capacity to handle 

environmental reviews, including 

section 106 reviews, of housing 

projects in a timely manner. 

—Survey the current and anticipated 

future state of the private sector 

preservation workforce, including its 

ability to rehabilitate existing 

buildings for housing and conduct 

energy efficiency retrofits. 

Educate 

12. Public-serving institutions should 

educate policymakers, housing 

advocates, developers, the media, and 

the public about the benefits of reusing 

historic buildings in housing 

development and debunk 

misperceptions regarding historic 

preservation as a barrier to addressing 

the housing supply shortfall. With 

increasing attention being paid to 

reusing existing buildings to help 

address the housing shortage, 

consciousness raising efforts are needed 

regarding the role historic buildings can 

play. Outreach is needed to explain: 

why historic building rehabilitation for 

housing is a sound financial investment 

and what incentives are available; how 

modern housing needs (including 

accessibility for people with disabilities) 

can be accommodated in historic 

buildings without sacrificing their 

historic qualities; and how 

rehabilitation of historic buildings for 

housing also has intangible and 

environmental benefits for 

communities. 

Countering misperceptions of historic 

preservation review as a barrier to 

addressing the housing shortage also is 

critical. Preservation regulations that 

require review of housing projects 

affecting historic properties help to 

preserve what makes the properties 

historically significant and give local 

citizens a voice in project planning. 

However, such review can be—and 

should be—approached flexibly, 

consistently, and expeditiously, taking 

into consideration the economic and 

technical feasibility of each project. 

Public-serving institutions overseeing 

preservation reviews should embrace 

this imperative and actively work to 

educate all stakeholders, the media, and 

the public on how the historic 

preservation review process balances 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
11854 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Notices 

consideration of housing needs and 

preservation of the community’s historic 

places. 

Collaborate 

13. Public-serving institutions and the 

private sector should cooperate and 

form partnerships across agencies, 

between levels of government, and 

within communities to enhance the 

implementation of each of the 

principles discussed above. The impacts 

of America’s housing supply shortfall 

are so wide-ranging that collaboration 

among public-serving institutions, 

developers, financial institutions, 

philanthropic organizations, and others 

in the private sector is essential. 

Cooperation and forging of partnerships 

will enhance implementation of each of 

the principles discussed above. Federal 

agencies can take a leadership role in 

this regard through their own 

collaborative work and by encouraging 

such work through funding and 

technical assistance. 

Adopted December 22, 2023. 

(END OF DOCUMENT) 

Authority: 54 U.S.C. 304102(a). 

Dated: February 12, 2024. 

Javier E. Marques, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03164 Filed 2–14–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–K6–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

[Docket ID FEMA–2024–0002] 

Changes in Flood Hazard 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: New or modified Base (1- 

percent annual chance) Flood 

Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, 

Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) 

boundaries or zone designations, and/or 

regulatory floodways (hereinafter 

referred to as flood hazard 

determinations) as shown on the 

indicated Letter of Map Revision 

(LOMR) for each of the communities 

listed in the table below are finalized. 

Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance 

Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases 

the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, 

currently in effect for the listed 

communities. 

DATES: Each LOMR was finalized as in 

the table below. 

ADDRESSES: Each LOMR is available for 

inspection at both the respective 

Community Map Repository address 

listed in the table below and online 

through the FEMA Map Service Center 

at https://msc.fema.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick 

Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services 

Branch, Federal Insurance and 

Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 

C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–7659, or (email) 

patrick.sacbibit@fema.dhs.gov; or visit 

the FEMA Mapping and Insurance 

eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.

floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_

main.html. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) makes the final flood hazard 

determinations as shown in the LOMRs 

for each community listed in the table 

below. Notice of these modified flood 

hazard determinations has been 

published in newspapers of local 

circulation and 90 days have elapsed 

since that publication. The Deputy 

Associate Administrator for Insurance 

and Mitigation has resolved any appeals 

resulting from this notification. 

The modified flood hazard 

determinations are made pursuant to 

section 206 of the Flood Disaster 

Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, 

and are in accordance with the National 

Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 

4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65. 

The currently effective community 

number is shown and must be used for 

all new policies and renewals. 

The new or modified flood hazard 

information is the basis for the 

floodplain management measures that 

the community is required either to 

adopt or to show evidence of being 

already in effect in order to remain 

qualified for participation in the 

National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP). 

This new or modified flood hazard 

information, together with the 

floodplain management criteria required 

by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that 

are required. They should not be 

construed to mean that the community 

must change any existing ordinances 

that are more stringent in their 

floodplain management requirements. 

The community may at any time enact 

stricter requirements of its own or 

pursuant to policies established by other 

Federal, State, or regional entities. 

This new or modified flood hazard 

determinations are used to meet the 

floodplain management requirements of 

the NFIP. The changes in flood hazard 

determinations are in accordance with 

44 CFR 65.4. 

Interested lessees and owners of real 

property are encouraged to review the 

final flood hazard information available 

at the address cited below for each 

community or online through the FEMA 

Map Service Center at https://

msc.fema.gov. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 

97.022, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) 

Nicholas A. Shufro, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Risk 

Management, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

State and county Location and case 

No. 

Chief executive 

officer of community 

Community map 

repository 

Date of 

modification 

Community 

No. 

Colorado: 

Adams 

(FEMA Docket No.: 

B–2391). 

City of Federal Heights 

(23–08–0183P). 

The Honorable Linda S. Montoya, 

Mayor, City of Federal Heights, 

2380 West 90th Avenue, Federal Heights, CO 80260. 

City Hall, 2380 West 90th Avenue, 

Federal Heights, CO 80260. 

Jan. 12, 2024 ................. 080240 

Denver 

(FEMA Docket No.: B– 

2386). 

City and County of 

Denver (23–08– 

0074P). 

The Honorable Mike Johnston, 

Mayor, City and County of Denver, 1437 North Bannock Street, 

Room 350, Denver, CO 80202. 

Department of Public Works, 201 

West Colfax Avenue, Denver, 

CO 80202. 

Jan. 19, 2024 ................. 080046 

El Paso (FEMA 

Docket No.: B– 

2386). 

City of Colorado 

Springs (23–08– 

0612X). 

The Honorable Yemi Mobolade, 

Mayor, City of Colorado 

Springs, 30 South Nevada Avenue, Colorado Springs, CO 

80903. 

El Paso County Pikes Peak Regional Building Department, 

Floodplain Management Office, 

2880 International Circle, Colorado Springs, CO 80910. 

Jan. 22, 2024 ................. 080060 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES