Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 in the News
“The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s proposed changes to Section 106 will eviscerate the preservation of our shared civic and cultural heritage in the United States.”
~ Brent Leggs, President and CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, July 2026
What is Section 106?
For 60 years, Section 106 regulations, which interpret the law of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, have required projects involving federal funding, permit, approval, or action take into account how the project may affect properties that qualify for the National Register of Historic Places (the nation’s official list of significant historic properties); to work to avoid, minimize, and mitigate any adverse effect of the project; and to provide local communities, organizations, people, and tribes with a voice for these projects.
Protecting Historic Properties: A Citizen Guide to Section 106 Review provides an excellent overview of how Section 106 has operated to take significant historic resources into account for proposed projects, as well as to provide the public with the opportunity to comment on proposed projects and to offer suggestions to minimize and mitigate any effect on historic resources.
Why is Section 106 in the news?
On Friday, July 17, 2026, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Vice Chairman sent a draft revision of the Section 106 regulations in 36 C.F.R. Part 800 to members of the Council asking for their vote on these new regulations through email by July 24, 2026. Various organizations including the Cultural Heritage Partners posted the redlined version and the draft online to provide the general public and professionals in historic preservation an opportunity to review these proposed changes. On July 24, 2026, ACHP announced they had voted to approve the revised regulations and sent the draft to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review and publication.
The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO) has posted a general timeline of events that have occurred to date and anticipated next steps for the proposed new Section 106 regulations: https://ncshpo.org/2026/07/24/section-106-rulemaking-whats-next.
Where is more information on Section 106?
The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO) has posted several articles on the proposed changes to Section 106 and additional information about these important regulations: https://ncshpo.org/news.
“Positioned to fundamentally change how Section 106 operates, the proposed rule shifts authority away from the collaborative consultation framework Congress established, in favor of unilateral federal agency control over nearly every stage of the process. That includes determining whether Section 106 applies, identifying historic properties, evaluating effects, deciding whether mitigation is appropriate, and ultimately determining whether preservation concerns are outweighed by other considerations. Anyone who works in historic preservation understands that Section 106 has never been about stopping projects. To the contrary, countless hours have been spent finding practical ways to balance infrastructure, energy, housing, broadband, and disaster recovery with our nation’s irreplaceable historic and cultural assets. What makes the Section 106 consultation process effective is that informed decisions are made by leveraging differing expertise before projects are finalized. SHPOs bring statewide preservation expertise, Tribes provide knowledge not found in agency files, and local governments understand community priorities. Together, those perspectives (coupled with applicants’ practical solutions) lead to better federal decision-making and help avoid costly mistakes.”
The National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) has created a page on Section 106 Under Threat to provide an overview of Section 106, the proposed changes, links to webinars on the topic, and action steps.
“The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is advancing a sweeping and damaging proposal to rewrite the regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). If implemented, these new rules would dramatically diminish the effectiveness of the NHPA and the current legal protections for historic and cultural places. Since the enactment of NHPA 60 years ago, Section 106 has been the foundational requirement for federal agencies to “take into account” the effects of their actions on historic properties and places, enabling public participation and comment in the process, empowering state and local governments and Tribal communities to have a voice in the process, and often improving the project and enhancing the outcome. These new regulations will lead to more delays and more litigation as federal agencies and applicants try to navigate compliance without the well-known and well-used consultation process, which often leads to negotiated win-win outcomes. The preservation community and our partners across the country are mobilizing to fight this harmful proposal.”
Cultural Heritage Partners (CHP) has compiled information and articles on the proposed changes to Section 106 on their Defending Section 106 page, including links to webinars that they have hosted on the topic and a call for action for education about Section 106 and adverse effects of the proposed regulations.
“These revisions will devastate our ability to protect and preserve historic places and would dramatically curtail public participation in federal decisions that affect local communities. They strip the regulations of the language for meaningful consultation, change the definition of consultation, eliminate the requirements for “avoidance, minimization, and mitigation,” eliminate protections for Traditional Cultural Landscapes, and imperil thousands of significant cultural and historical sites who will not meet the new definition of “historic.” They are a betrayal of Congress’s intent when it passed the NHPA sixty years ago, and a betrayal of the government-to-government relationship with Tribal Nations.”