This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

7387 

Vol. 72, No. 31 

Thursday, February 15, 2007 

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION 

Final Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation Policy Statement on 

Affordable Housing and Historic 

Preservation 

AGENCY: Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation. 

ACTION: Notice of Final Policy Statement 

on Affordable Housing and Historic 

Preservation. 

SUMMARY: The Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (ACHP) adopted a 

‘‘Policy Statement on Affordable 

Housing and Historic Preservation,’’ on 

November 9, 2006. 

DATES: The final policy went into effect 

upon adoption on November 9, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Blythe Semmer, 202–606–8505. 

Electronic mail: 

affordablehousing@achp.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) is an independent 

Federal agency, created by the National 

Historic Preservation Act, that promotes 

the preservation, enhancement, and 

productive use of our Nation’s historic 

resources, and advises the President and 

Congress on national historic 

preservation policy. 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106), 16 

U.S.C. 470f, requires Federal agencies to 

consider the effects of their 

undertakings on historic properties and 

provide the ACHP a reasonable 

opportunity to comment with regard to 

such undertakings. 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. 

I. Background 

In 1995, the ACHP adopted its first 

‘‘Policy Statement on Affordable 

Housing and Historic Preservation’’ 

(1995 Policy) to serve as a guide for 

federal agencies and State Historic 

Preservation Offices (SHPOs) when 

making decisions about affordable 

housing projects during review of 

federal undertakings under Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation 

Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470f 

(Section 106), and its implementing 

regulations, ‘‘Protection of Historic 

Properties’’ (36 CFR Part 800). The 

ACHP adopted the policy to guide 

federal agencies and SHPOs at a time 

when conflicts between the dual goals 

of providing affordable housing and 

preserving historic properties was 

making the achievement either more 

difficult. After a decade, the provision 

of affordable housing has developed 

into an even more pressing national 

concern, prompting a reconsideration of 

the principles in the policy statement. 

In 2005, the ACHP Chairman 

convened an Affordable Housing Task 

Force to review this policy statement in 

light of changes to the Section 106 

regulations in 2001 and 2004 and other 

ACHP initiatives. Members of the Task 

Force included the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, the National Conference of 

State Historic Preservation Officers 

(NCSHPO), the National Trust for 

Historic Preservation, citizen member, 

Emily Summers, and expert member, 

John G. Williams, III, Chair. The U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) participated as an 

ACHP observer. 

The Task Force developed the Policy 

Statement with input from the public. 

An online survey of state and local 

government officials and affordable 

housing providers about their awareness 

of and use of the 1995 Policy was 

conducted in August-September 2005. 

Links to the survey were distributed to 

approximately 12,000 individuals 

representing State and Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officers, local historic 

preservation commission members, 

Certified Local Government staff, HUD 

staff and grantees, state community 

development agency staffs, and 

affordable housing providers. 

Following development of a draft, the 

ACHP posted the proposed revised draft 

policy statement in the Federal Register 

on July 17, 2006 (71 FR 40522), and 

comments from the public were 

accepted through August 16, 2006. 

Information about the July 17, 2006, 

Federal Register notice was distributed 

by members of the Task Force to their 

respective constituencies through 

electronic LISTSERVs including 

communities receiving HOME program 

and Community Development Block 

Grant funds from HUD, members of the 

National Trust for Historic 

Preservation’s Forum, and members of 

the NCSHPO. Additionally, the ACHP 

provided information about the 

comment period directly to Tribal 

Historic Preservation Officers, the 

National Alliance of Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officers, and over a dozen 

organizations with an interest in local 

community development activities and 

the provision of affordable housing, as 

well as on the ACHP Web site. 

Comments on the new policy 

statement generally supported the 

revision effort. Specific comments 

frequently requested detailed guidance 

on applying the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation 

and Guidelines for Rehabilitating 

Historic Buildings (Secretary’s 

Standards) to affordable housing 

projects. While the Task Force 

recognized that specific comments on 

the application of the Secretary’s 

Standards were outside the scope of its 

mandate, additional language 

highlighting the distinction between 

review for the Historic Rehabilitation 

Tax Credit and Section 106 compliance 

was included in the policy statement. 

Commenters further requested the 

development of case studies that would 

illustrate the successful integration of 

historic preservation and affordable 

housing on a variety of topics including 

accessibility, use of modern building 

materials, and lead paint abatement 

requirements. It is anticipated that such 

case studies will become an important 

component of materials developed by 

the ACHP and Task Force in 

implementing the revised policy 

statement. 

Responsiveness to local conditions 

emerged as a recurring theme in the 

Task Force’s deliberations. Members 

recognized that affordable housing can 

include housing for a specific 

constituency, such as Native American 

housing programs. Federal assistance for 

affordable housing can also be directed 

to specific geographic areas with 

distinctive physical characteristics. Just 

as affordable housing programs serve 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
7388 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices 

unique local needs, so should historical 

preservation reviews, since ‘‘one-sizefits-all’’ approaches are unlikely to 

produce a successful balance for these 

projects. Given our national diversity, 

the majority of Task Force members 

embraced and encouraged creativity in 

local solutions while federal agency 

members emphasized the value of 

consistency and predictability. 

The importance of developing and 

utilizing tailored guidance also shaped 

the Task Force’s deliberations and its 

preparation of a set of recommendations 

for how the policy statement can be put 

into practice. Direction from both the 

ACHP and federal agencies was seen as 

critical to achieving the goals of the 

Task Force, but members recognized 

that private and non-profit partners with 

experience piecing together the 

resources required for planning and 

funding affordable housing projects 

could provide examples of success 

stories and best practices. 

The policy statement, which 

represents the conclusion of the 

research and public outreach efforts of 

the Affordable Housing Task Force and 

the deliberation of its members, was 

adopted by the ACHP on November 9, 

2006. The final text of the policy 

statement is provided in Section II of 

this notice. 

II. Text of the Policy 

The following is the text of the final 

policy statement: 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) Policy Statement 

on Affordable Housing and Historic 

Preservation 

Historic buildings provide affordable 

housing to many American families. 

Affordable housing rehabilitation can 

contribute to the ongoing vitality of 

historic neighborhoods as well as of the 

businesses and institutions that serve 

them. Rehabilitation can be an 

important historic preservation strategy. 

Federal agencies that help America meet 

its need for safe, decent, and affordable 

housing, most notably the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) and the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) 

Rural Development agency, often work 

with or near historic properties. 

The ACHP considers affordable 

housing for the purposes of this policy 

to be Federally-subsidized, single- and 

multi-family housing for individuals 

and families that make less than 80% of 

the area median income. It includes, but 

is not limited to, Federal assistance for 

new construction, rehabilitation, 

mortgage insurance, and loan 

guarantees. 

National policy encompasses both 

preserving historic resources and 

providing affordable housing. The 

National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) of 1966, as amended, directs the 

Federal government to foster conditions 

under which modern society and 

prehistoric and historic resources can 

exist in productive harmony and ‘‘fulfill 

the social, economic, and other 

requirements of present and future 

generations.’’ Similarly, affordable 

housing legislation like the CranstonGonzalez Act of 1990, which aims to 

‘‘expand the supply of decent, safe, 

sanitary, and affordable housing,’’

anticipates historic preservation as a 

tool for meeting its goals. Actively 

seeking ways to reconcile historic 

preservation goals with the special 

economic and social needs associated 

with affordable housing is critical in 

addressing one of the nation’s most 

pressing challenges. 

Providing affordable housing is a 

growing national need that continues to 

challenge housing providers and 

preservationists. 

In issuing this policy statement, the 

ACHP, consistent with Section 202 of 

the NHPA, offers a flexible approach for 

affordable housing projects involving 

historic properties. Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act 

Section 106 requires Federal agencies to 

take into account the effects of their 

actions on historic properties and afford 

the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to 

comment. This policy provides a 

framework for meeting these 

requirements for affordable housing. 

Federal tax incentives provide 

opportunities for historic preservation 

and affordable housing to work together, 

including the Low-Income Housing Tax 

Credit and the Historic Rehabilitation 

Tax Credit. Projects taking advantage of 

the Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit 

must be reviewed by the National Park 

Service (NPS) for adherence to the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

Rehabilitation and Guidelines for 

Rehabilitatinq Historic Buildinqs 

(Secretary’s Standards) in a separate and 

distinct process. Review of these 

projects is more comprehensive than 

Section 106 review and necessitates 

early coordination with NPS and the 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) since work must adhere to the 

Secretary’s Standards to obtain the tax 

credit. Nonetheless, coordination with 

Section 106 consultation and these 

reviews frequently occurs. 

In an effort to better focus Section 106 

reviews for affordable housing, the 

ACHP encourages Federal and State 

agencies, SHPOs, Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officers (THPOs), local 

governments, housing providers, and 

other consulting parties to use the 

following principles in Section 106 

consultation. 

Implementation Principles 

I. Rehabilitating historic properties to 

provide affordable housing is a sound 

historic preservation strategy. 

II. Federal agencies and State and local 

government entities assuming HUD’s 

environmental review requirements are 

responsible for ensuring compliance 

with Section 106. 

III. Review of effects in historic districts 

should focus on exterior features. 

IV. Consultation should consider the overall 

preservation goals of the community. 

V. Plans and specifications should adhere to 

the Secretary’s Standards when possible 

and practical. 

VI. Section 106 consultation should 

emphasize consensus building. 

VII. The ACHP encourages streamlining the 

Section 106 process to respond to local 

conditions. 

VIII. The need for archeological 

investigations should be avoided. 

I. Rehabilitating Historic Properties to 

Provide Affordable is a Sound Historic 

Preservation Strategy. 

Continued investment in historic 

buildings through rehabilitation and 

repair for affordable housing purposes 

and stabilization of historic districts 

through the construction of infill 

housing should be recognized as 

contributing to the broad historic 

preservation goals of neighborhood 

revitalization and retention. 

II. Federal Agencies and State and 

Local Government Entities Assuming 

HUD’s Environmental Review 

Requirements Are Responsible for 

Ensuring Compliance With Section 106. 

Federal agencies, notably USDA Rural 

Development and HUD, provide 

important funding for affordable 

housing. These Federal agencies, and 

funding recipients assuming HUD’s 

environmental review requirements, 

must comply with Section 106. SHPOs, 

THPOs, and local historic preservation 

commissions provide expert opinions 

and advice during consultation. 

Consultation should be concluded and 

outcomes recorded prior to the 

expenditure of funds. 

III. Review of Effects in Historic 

Districts Should Focus on Exterior 

Features. 

Section 106 review of effects focuses 

on the characteristics that qualify a 

property for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places. The 

significance of historic districts is 

typically associated with exterior 

features. Accordingly, unless a building 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Notices 7389 

is listed or considered eligible for listing 

in the National Register as an individual 

property or specific interior elements 

contribute to maintaining a district’s 

character, review under Section 106 

should focus on proposed changes to 

the exterior. In all cases, identifying the 

features that qualify a property for 

inclusion in the National Register 

defines the scope of Section 106 review. 

IV. Consultation Should Consider the 

Overall Preservation Goals of the 

Community. 

When assessing, and negotiating the 

resolution of, the effects of affordable 

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. Proposals to demolish historic 

properties for new replacement housing 

should be based on background 

documentation that addresses the 

broader context of the historic district 

and evaluates the economic and 

structural feasibility of rehabilitation 

that advances affordable housing. 

V. Plans and Specifications Should 

Adhere to the Secretary’s Standards 

When Possible and Practical. 

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. Plans and 

specifications for rehabilitation, new 

construction, and abatement of 

hazardous conditions in affordable 

housing projects associated with 

historic properties should adhere to the 

recommended approaches in the 

Secretary’s Standards when possible 

and practical. 

Projects taking advantage of the 

Historic Rehabilitation 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. The ACHP recognizes that 

there are instances when the Secretary’s 

Standards cannot be followed and that 

Section 106 allows for the negotiation of 

other outcomes. 

VI. 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 affordable housing 

goals. 

VII. 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 affordable 

housing. Programmatic Agreements 

often delegate the Section 106 review 

role of the SHPO 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. 

VIII. The Need for Archaeological 

Investigations Should Be Avoided. 

Archaeological investigations should 

be avoided for affordable housing 

projects limited to rehabilitation and 

requiring minimal ground disturbance. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 470j 

Dated: February 12, 2007. 

Ralston Cox, 

Acting Executive Director. 

[FR Doc. 07–703 Filed 2–14–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–K6–M 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Office of the Secretary 

Notice of the National Agricultural 

Research, Extension, Education, and 

Economics Advisory Board Meeting 

AGENCY: Research, Education, and 

Economics, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, the 

United States Department of Agriculture 

announces a meeting of the National 

Agricultural Research, Extension, 

Education, and Economics Advisory 

Board. This meeting is open to the 

general public. 

DATES: The National Agricultural 

Research, Extension, Education, and 

Economics Advisory Board will meet 

March 7–9, 2007. 

The public may file written comments 

before or up to two weeks after the 

meeting with the contact person. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place 

at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, 1330 

Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, 

DC 20024. Written comments from the 

public may be sent to the Contact 

Person identified in this notice at: The 

National Agricultural Research, 

Extension, Education, and Economics 

Advisory Board; Research, Education, 

and Economics Advisory Board Office, 

Room 344–A, Jamie L. Whitten 

Building, United States Department of 

Agriculture, STOP 2255, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–2255. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph A. Dunn, Executive Director, 

National Agricultural Research, 

Extension, Education, and Economics 

Advisory Board; telephone: (202) 720–

3684; fax: (202) 720–6199; or e-mail: 

JADunn@csrees.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

Thursday, March 8, 2007, from 8 a.m.–

5:30 p.m. the full Advisory Board 

Meeting will meet beginning with 

introductory remarks provided by the 

Chair of the Advisory Board, and the 

Under Secretary for Research, 

Education, and Economics (REE), 

USDA. This meeting will have two 

focus sessions, one on ‘‘Farm Bill’’

topics and the other on the subject of 

‘‘Food Safety and Human Health’’. An 

evening session beginning at 6:30 p.m., 

and adjourning at 8:30 p.m. with a guest 

speaker who will present remarks on 

food safety. On Friday, February 9, 

2006, the meeting will reconvene at 9 

a.m. to hear recap highlights from the 

previous day’s focus sessions followed 

by overall Board discussions. You will 

hear remarks from within and outside 

the USDA pertaining to the agency 

prospective on the individual topics. An 

opportunity for public comment will be 

offered after the meeting wrap-up. The 

Advisory Board Meeting will adjourn by 

12 (noon). 

Written comments by attendees or 

other interested stakeholders will be 

welcomed for the public record before 

and up to two weeks following the 

Board meeting (by close of business 

Friday, March 21, 2007). All statements 

will become a part of the official record 

of the National Agricultural Research, 

Extension, Education, and Economics 

Advisory Board and will be kept on file 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES