What Is Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act?

A brief introduction to Section and the current challenges facing this review process. Plus, what you can do to help.

By DHR Review and Compliance Division Staff

Sixty years ago, amid urban renewal and rapid expansion of the U.S. Interstate highway system, public outcry about the loss of America’s historic buildings and neighborhoods due to Federally funding infrastructure projects spurred the passing of the National Historic Preservation Act. The Act established policy that historic preservation was in the Nation’s interest and our historic and cultural heritage should be maintained and enriched for future generations of Americans. One part of the Act, Section 106, requires that Federal Agencies would take into consideration the effects of their actions on historic properties.

Section 106 has been the foundational requirement for federal agencies to consider historic preservation in their decision-making. Through its implementing regulations, Section 106 enables public participation and comment in the process and gives state, Tribal, and local governments a voice in the process. This review process, and its focus on consultation and outside input, helps guide informed decisions and encourages, but does not require, seeking agreement.

Now, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) has proposed extensive changes to the Section 106 regulations. Many of these changes are not consistent with National Historic Preservation Act. Beyond this, the proposed revised regulations will effectively eliminate local, state, and public input in Federal Agency decision-making that will impact historic properties, and empower Federal Agency officials to make unilateral decisions without any input.

Construction of the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike through Jackson Ward, 1956. Photo Credit: Library of Virginia Records of the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike Authority.

What does this mean?

In revising the regulations, the ACHP is changing how the law is enacted, a process that has been in place for almost 60 years. The ACHP and supporters of these changes argue that the process is outdated, overly burdensome, unpredictable for project proponents, and causes unnecessary and long delays in project implementation. The sweeping changes centralize decision-making with a Federal Agency official, make seeking public comments at the discretion of the Agency, and allow the Federal Agency to decide whether “other factors” outweigh the historic preservation goals of the National Historic Preservation Act.

DHR believes that the ACHP’s presumption that the current process is broken is not true. Over the course of the next few weeks, DHR will provide more posts, data, and stories in support of the current process and how it works (and works well) in Virginia. DHR acknowledges that improvements could be made to this process but the ACHP’s approach, a complete rewrite of the process, eliminates external input in the Federal Agencies’ decisions, reduces accountability, and silences the voices of people whose communities will be impacted by these projects. Furthermore, it will likely result in more unpredictability, more litigation, and more harm to historic properties. For brief talking points about the proposed revised regulations, go here.

Specifically in Virginia, DHR is concerned that significant Civil War battlefields, rural historic districts, and properties of cultural significance to Virginia Tribes may no longer be considered historic properties under the proposed revisions. Visual effects to some of our Nation’s most significant historic places may no longer be considered. Without meaningful input from the public, stakeholders, tribes, and State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) in review, decisions could be made without the full picture; it is DHR’s experience that local communities, historians, archaeologists, tribes, and property owners all possess knowledge about a place’s history that, when asked, can help ensure that family cemeteries, archaeological sites, buildings significant to a community’s history, and more are not left out of the discussion.

What is the current status?

The proposed revisions to the regulations were approved by the ACHP but must still go through several more steps before potentially being enacted. Currently they are under review with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). For more information about the OIRA review, click here.

After OIRA review the proposed revised regulations will be available for public comment via the Federal Register.

What can you do?

Request a meeting from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Contact your members of Congress.
Prepare public comments. While the Federal Register Notice and request for public comments has not been posted yet, it is likely to happen soon. Start thinking about what concerns you most about these changes and prepare written comments.
Stay Informed: Follow DHR and other preservation groups on social media for updates and see the links below for more information and other preservation groups following this issue.

To learn more about this issue, visit:

National Trust for Historic Preservation: https://savingplaces.org/section106

National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers: https://ncshpo.org/resources/section-106/

National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers: https://www.nathpo.org/july-2026-updates/

Cultural Heritage Partners: https://culturalheritagepartners.com/war-room-for-threats-to-section-106/

Legal Disclaimer:

EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.