The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) has announced plans to consider changes to the 800 regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
According to the agenda for the ACHP’s February 12 meeting, ACHP Vice Chair Travis Voyles is directing ACHP members to “carry out a review and consider potential revisions to the existing Section 106 regulations at 36 CFR Part 800.” This is being done “[i]n accordance with the Trump Administration’s policy to review existing environmental review regulations” and following the October 2025 Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on Section 106 consultation.
According to the agenda, ACHP members “will be asked for their input on a strategy for further engagement with the Members and external stakeholders on this initiative; a process for moving potential revisions to the existing Section 106 regulations forward; and a proposed timeline for rulemaking action.”
The memo indicates that the effort is intended to address “challenges that stakeholders are encountering in the use of the current Section 106 regulations,” including “lengthy and protracted reviews; confusion on addressing indirect and cumulative effects; burdensome requirements for long, linear projects; difficulty reaching agreement on routine effects to historic properties; and the unnecessary delay to critical projects that serve the American people.”
Voyles directs the members to consider these questions:
- Could the Section 106 regulations, or any portion thereof, be streamlined to more effectively achieve the statutory objectives of the NHPA? If so, what changes should be made?
- Is there any portions of the Section 106 regulations that are difficult to interpret or have become unnecessary, ineffective, or ill-advised? If so, please identifying [sic] them.
- Have the Section 106 regulations, or any portion thereof, become outdated? If so, how can they be modernized to better accomplish the statutory objectives of the NHPA?
- Can any new technologies be leveraged to modify or streamline the Section 106 regulations? If so, please identify them.
- What additional information should the ACHP collect regarding the Section 106 process? Should the collection of such data be directed in the regulations?
- Are the Section 106 regulations, or any portions thereof, inconsistent with any E.O.s or directives issued by the President? If so, what modifications would ensure consistency with the orders and applicable law?
A timeline for action is not spelled out, but the agenda suggests fast action; it asks ACHP members to declare “interest in participating in a ACHP committee to review the Section 106 regulations” by February 20, and to provide “any written feedback on the points and questions raised” by February 27.
The 800 regulations form the backbone of how federal agencies implement Section 106, and any changes could have significant impacts on the 106 process. ACRA’s Executive Committee and Government Relations Committee are developing an action plan and consulting with their allies in the preservation community, as well as with champions on Capitol Hill, to ensure that the voices of the CRM industry are heard in this process.
ACRA will provide more information as it becomes available. In the meantime, any questions or comments about this issue should be directed to info@acra-crm.org.
Strengthen them! Trump and his cohorts are destroying this once great country.
In 1981, the National Park Service developed 36CFR60 to regulate the National Register process. Except for a 1983 tweak, they have been largely unchanged. In 1992, the National Historic Preservation Act was amended. Most notably, it emphasized the importance of Tribal historic places in the National Register, noting that “Property of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization may be determined to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register.” (§ 302706[a]). The 1992 revisions also directed NPS to “establish a program and promulgate regulations to assist Indian tribes in preserving their historic property.” (§ 302701[a]). This would imply that NPS would need to revisit and probably revise its implementing regulations in effect at the time, including 36CFR60. Although 36CFR800 has been revised numerous times since 1992, 36CFR60 has not. Perhaps the ACHP should work on 36CFR60 before tackling 36CFR800.
Excellent observations and to the heart of the matter (IMO). What is a NRHP property is a more practical place to start any consideration of “improving” or “streamlining” the broader process.
Given the administration’s demonstrated stewardship of historic properties like the White House East Wing and Kennedy Center, this does not seem to be the group of stakeholders with the expertise, knowledge, or investment in any of the principal’s that unpin the NHPA. The questions Boyle poses are leading and provide insight into what is coming. Especially the last bullet that pits federal regulations like the NHPA against the whims of an executive order.
I am very worried these revisions will hurt especially those of Native American sites like the Monument Hill in Arizona for a boarder wall, unknown sites yet to be rediscovered, and sacred sites along with NPS and other public lands. This Administration seems to like destroying historical properties like the White House East Wing, now the Kennedy Center, putting in roads on federal lands where there are Sacred Sites, building walls destroying sites, and more just to let Corporations save time as they do not care that they will harm and destroy these places and this includes our Environment and Ecological Habitats.
We, Native Americans have always been at the bottom of the ladder, barrel, the same as with our Cultural Sites.
Considering the Trump administration demolished an entire historic wing of the White House- which does not belong to him- without due process, we as a country need to push back on this. Unlike other resources, historic properties do not grow back and cannot be replaced. They belong to every man, woman, and child who calls the USA home- not an individual man who has already proven a willingness to destroy OUR heritage, and replace it with a gaudy 400 million dollar ballroom he expects us to pay for with our tax money.
Trump will be gone in 3 years; don’t let him take any more of our heritage with him.