The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) recently voted to move forward with revisions to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act that would allegedly transform the process by which federal agencies engage with the historical preservation review process.

The draft of the alterations to 36 CFR Part 800 - the regulations under review - was circulated to Council members in late July and had not been made public at the time of publishing. Even so, many agencies and associations have raised concerns on the content and timing of this measure. Last month, a resolution was adopted with a timeline of 30 days for revision and 60 days for comment from Council members. That never happened. The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO) stated that demanding a vote with the rapid turnaround time of one week and no advanced notice "[abandoned] the previously outlined process" regarding "a fundamental rewrite" of the federal government's involvement in historic preservation.

 
In a letter of opposition addressed to ACHP Vice-Chairman Voyles - who was recently appointed to the Council in December 2025 by President Donald J. Trump - the Deputy General Counsel for the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) claimed, "It appears that ACHP staff and Council members, including the National Trust, had virtually no involvement in the development of this proposal, nor opportunity to participate in this dramatic revision of the regulations." The letter goes on to say that the proposed regulations are inconsistent with the National Historic Preservation Act as well as internally, "[violating] the Council's own rules and procedures" in addition to likely causing "enormous regulatory confusion."

Having been approved by the ACHP, the draft is under review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs before being published in the Federal Register for comment. It is worth noting that, as the revisions had not been made public at the time of publishing, there is a chance that they will change before being published in the Federal Register. Once published, the public will theoretically have 30 days to comment before the changes are made final, and many organizations have organized campaigns to encourage members to comment and connect them with their representatives. The NTHP hosted a webinar on the potential impacts of the proposed changes and what the public can do, with the recording and presentation slides available on their website.

The Proposed Changes
In the July Advocacy Report by the Los Angeles chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), chapter Director of Government & Public Affairs Will Wright revealed: "The definition of a 'historic property' is narrowed to places that are 'geographically compact' with 'tangible human improvements' - language that, on its face, writes whole landscapes out of protection." Multiple agencies noted that this rewording does not even protect locations whose need of historical preservation is seemingly obvious, like the Grand Canyon.

According to an analysis by the American Cultural Resources Association (ACRA), some of the changes include relegating historic preservation officers for a state (SHPO) or tribe (THPO) from being a required early consultant to an optional consultant after the fact, depending on the federal agency's determination whether early consultation would help or hinder the project timeline. Furthermore, the draft allegedly removes language requiring S/THPO consultation for adverse effects as well as the process by which these individuals can object to findings. Local governments are no longer entitled to comment, and the public will only be allowed to comment at the discretion of the federal agency involved.

ACRA also stated that - instead of undergoing a Section 106 process for each individual property - federal agencies would be allowed to prepare one "Section 106 Report" per agency on all related sites representing a "good-faith effort to identify an undertaking's potential effects on historic properties."

LASN will continue to monitor the situation.

As seen in LASN magazine, August 2026.