Federal preservation rules face a proposed rewrite
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation voted July 24, 2026, to advance a proposed rewrite of the federal rules used to review historic properties and culturally significant places. The vote moved the rulemaking process forward, but it did not change the rules now in effect.
The draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or NPRM, is now undergoing interagency review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the White House Office of Management and Budget. It must be reviewed before the proposal can be published in the Federal Register. Formal public comments have not opened.
What the rules cover
The regulations, known as 36 CFR Part 800, implement Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Section 106 generally applies when a federal agency funds, permits, licenses or carries out an undertaking that may affect historic properties.
The review can involve federal agencies, state historic preservation offices, Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, federally recognized Tribes, local governments, property owners and members of the public. The process is intended to identify historic properties, assess potential effects and consider ways to avoid, minimize or resolve harm before a covered federal action proceeds.
Why ACHP says it wants changes
ACHP says the current process can produce lengthy or complex reviews. Its February 2026 meeting book identified concerns about indirect and cumulative effects, long linear projects such as transportation and utility corridors, disagreements over routine effects and delays affecting projects the administration considers critical.
The council has described the effort as an attempt to clarify and streamline the regulations while preserving the statutory objectives of the National Historic Preservation Act. The February meeting book outlined goals and questions for the review, but it was not the complete text of the proposed rule.
Why Tribal preservation officials object
The National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers opposed advancing the proposal. NATHPO said the draft could weaken Tribal consultation, narrow consideration of places with religious or cultural significance and expand unilateral federal agency decision-making under Section 106.
NATHPO also objected to the process, saying council members received a substantially completed rewrite shortly before the vote and had limited time to review it. Those are the organization’s concerns about the proposal and its development; they are not findings that a final rule will contain those provisions.
Why state officials object
The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers also opposed the proposal. NCSHPO described the process as accelerated and reported that the July 24 vote was 16 in favor, five opposed and two abstentions.
State historic preservation officers are among the parties that may participate in Section 106 reviews. NCSHPO’s objections focus on both the proposed direction of the regulations and the process used to advance them.
What happens next
OIRA review comes before the proposed rule can be published in the Federal Register. If the NPRM is published, it would include the proposed regulatory text, a formal comment period, a deadline for submissions and details about consultation with Tribes, states and other interested parties.
ACHP would then consider comments and consultation before preparing a final rule. A final regulation would require a second OIRA review and another Federal Register publication before it could take effect. The timeline can change, and no specific effective date has been established.
What readers should watch
The next visible milestones are an ACHP or Federal Register notice announcing publication of the NPRM, the full proposed text, the comment deadline and any revisions made after Tribal, state and public input.
For now, property owners, communities, Tribes and project developers should treat the current Section 106 regulations as unchanged. The July 24 vote began another stage of a rulemaking process; it did not enact a new preservation standard.
Sources
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
