The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) voted July 24 to advance proposed revisions to the rules that govern how federal agencies identify historic properties, assess project effects and consult with state and Tribal preservation officials before construction proceeds.

The proposal is currently undergoing White House review before its expected publication in the Federal Register, at which point the specific changes would become public and open for comment. Federal regulatory records classify the proposed rule as deregulatory.

The National Park Service offers a timely example of how Section 106 works in practice when it concluded Aug. 5 that Trump’s proposed Triumphal Arch at Memorial Circle near Arlington National Cemetery would adversely affect several historic resources. The agency found the project would alter the historic axial relationship linking Arlington House, Arlington Memorial Bridge and the Lincoln Memorial.

While the Triumphal Arch illustrates the rules now in place, pressure to revisit them predates the project’s review. At an October 2025 Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing, Andy McDonald, environmental compliance manager for Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., described inconsistent Section 106 interpretations that he said create uncertainty and delays for electric infrastructure projects.

McDonald cited a three-mile distribution-line reconstruction crossing land managed by two federal agencies. One agency limited the project’s area of potential effects to its own land, he said, while the other required review of the entire three-mile route, including private property where no federal approval was required.

Looking for quick answers on construction and engineering topics?
Try Ask ENR, our new smart AI search tool. Ask ENR →

“The implementing regulations define key terms broadly, and over time these terms have been interpreted inconsistently and sometimes expansively, creating confusion and unnecessary delays,” McDonald testified.

By February 2026, ACHP had formally taken up the matter and launched its own review, following a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing examining the Section 106 consultation process the prior October.

ACHP meeting materials said the administration and Senate committee members independently identified “lengthy and protracted reviews,” confusion over indirect and cumulative effects, burdensome requirements for long linear projects, difficulty resolving routine effects and unnecessary delays to critical projects.

The council said its review would examine whether Part 800—the regulations that prescribe how federal agencies carry out Section 106 reviews—could be “modified, clarified or streamlined.”

For clarity, existing regulations already allow agencies to combine multiple review steps, with the agreement of preservation officials, phase identification and evaluation for corridors and large land areas, and to use programmatic agreements or other alternatives in place of conventional project-by-project review.

Steven Concho, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Pueblo of Acoma in New Mexico, told the Senate committee that those existing tools, combined with greater Tribal preservation-office capacity, could improve permitting without reducing consultation.

“When proper consultation under Section 106 occurs, projects move forward in a way that protects cultural resources,” Concho testified. “Most projects proceed efficiently and collaboratively.” He added late or inadequate consultation can instead lead to disputes and delays when threatened resources are identified too late.

The National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (NATHPO), which represents Tribal preservation interests as a member of the ACHP, voted against advancing the proposed regulations. NATHPO Executive Director Ira L. Matt called the proposal “an affront to Tribal sovereignty.” The organization said many delays blamed on Section 106 instead result from inadequate staffing, incomplete identification work, poor planning or consultation that begins too late.

NATHPO says the unpublished draft would narrow what constitutes a federal undertaking and what qualifies as a historic property, reduce some consultation requirements and give federal agencies greater authority over review decisions. ACHP has not yet published the proposed rule, so those descriptions cannot yet be compared with the official regulatory text.

The broader push extends beyond the pending rulemaking. The White House has used its leverage through Executive action to get the revisions into the end zone.

A March 2026 executive order directed the ACHP chairman to develop guidance “maximally exempting, or reducing burdens on” housing construction and supporting infrastructure, including roads, water and sewer infrastructure, from Section 106 requirements to the extent permitted by law.

EPA Proposes Revamp of NEPA Reviews

For now, the existing statutory requirement remains unchanged, meaning federal agencies must take into account the effects of an undertaking on historic properties before approving federal expenditures or issuing a license, and must afford ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment. Part 800 remains in effect while the White House Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs reviews the draft.

For the Triumphal Arch and other projects now moving through federal review, those existing requirements continue to govern. Not so for another Trump project in the news: Congress expressly exempted the White House and its grounds from federal historic-preservation requirements, leaving the proposed ballroom outside Section 106 review.