Section 106 is Under Threat
Help protect the process that protects historic places.
Help protect the process that protects historic places.
Image: Grumblethorpe, Philadelphia, 2026 Pennsylvania Historic Preservation Award
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is facing threats on two fronts: proposed changes to the regulations that govern the process and new federal legislation that would substantially rewrite the law itself.
Preservation Pennsylvania has been closely following the proposed rewrite of the Section 106 regulations. Now, the situation has escalated.
Legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate would make significant changes to Section 106 itself – changing which federal actions are reviewed, how historic properties are identified, who participates in consultation, how adverse effects are considered, what mitigation may be required, and how federal decisions can be challenged.
Preservation Pennsylvania is participating in the national 106 Strong coalition and will use this page to share information and updates as both the congressional and regulatory processes move forward.
A new federal permitting bill would make substantial changes to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
The national 106 Strong coalition is currently focused on the congressional proposal while continuing to prepare for the separate regulatory changes proposed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
During an October 5 national coalition briefing, attorneys with Cultural Heritage Partners outlined the proposed statutory changes and identified the congressional effort as the most immediate threat to Section 106. At the same time, the coalition continues to analyze the proposed ACHP regulations, prepare for public comment, document potential impacts, and consider possible legal challenges.
This is a rapidly changing situation. Preservation Pennsylvania will update this page as additional information becomes available.
Until recently, much of the preservation community’s attention was focused on the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s proposed rewrite of the regulations implementing Section 106.
The new Senate proposal raises the stakes because it would change Section 106 itself.
According to the legal analysis presented to the 106 Strong coalition, some of the most consequential proposed changes include:
Fewer projects could be subject to Section 106 review
The legislation would significantly narrow the definition of a federal “undertaking.” Projects receiving federal financial assistance – including some grants, loans, loan guarantees and other forms of assistance – could fall outside Section 106 unless they meet a new test involving “substantial federal control and responsibility.”
That phrase is not clearly defined in the proposal, creating uncertainty about which projects would continue to receive review.
Identification of historic properties could be weakened
Section 106 currently requires agencies to make a reasonable and good-faith effort to identify historic properties that may be affected.
The proposed legislation would significantly alter that process and could place much greater reliance on existing inventories and databases. Historic and archaeological resources that have never been surveyed or formally recorded could therefore be especially vulnerable.
Consulting parties and the public could lose a meaningful role
One of Section 106’s greatest strengths is its consultation process. Property owners, preservation organizations, community groups, local advocates, and others with knowledge of affected historic resources can participate as consulting parties.
Under the proposed legislation, that broader consulting-party role would be substantially reduced. Preservation organizations, neighbors, historic-property stewards and other members of the public could lose their formal place in the process.
Fewer effects on historic properties could be considered
The proposal would also change how adverse effects are evaluated. Visual, atmospheric, audible and cumulative effects could receive less consideration, and the threshold for determining that a historic property has been adversely affected could become considerably higher.
Options for resolving harm could be reduced
Section 106 has traditionally created a collaborative process for avoiding, minimizing or mitigating adverse effects.
The proposed legislation would give federal agencies considerably greater discretion in deciding whether and how effects should be resolved and could restrict the use of off-site mitigation and negotiated agreements.
Judicial review could be restricted
The proposal would also change who may challenge federal decisions, how quickly a challenge must be brought, where cases may be filed, and what remedies a court can provide.
The October 5 coalition briefing noted that Section 106 litigation is already extremely rare compared with the number of federal undertakings reviewed each year.
Image: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
Section 106 touches preservation work across Pennsylvania every day.
It is part of the process used when federal funding, permits, licenses or other federal actions may affect historic resources. Those resources can include:
The importance of Section 106 is not that it automatically prevents change. It requires federal agencies to identify historic properties, understand how proposed actions may affect them, consult with people who have relevant knowledge and interests, and consider whether harm can be avoided, minimized or mitigated before a final decision is made.
That process matters because the best time to identify a historic property, archaeological site, burial ground or cultural landscape is before construction begins – not after an irreplaceable resource has been damaged or a conflict has become more difficult and expensive to resolve.
For Pennsylvania, where federally supported transportation, community development, infrastructure, and redevelopment projects intersect every day with an extraordinarily rich historic environment, changes to Section 106 could have significant consequences.
Image: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
The congressional proposal does not replace the separate regulatory issue Preservation Pennsylvania has been following. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has also proposed substantial revisions to 36 CFR Part 800, the regulations that implement Section 106.
The ACHP had previously anticipated action on the proposed regulations in September. According to the October 5 coalition briefing, that timetable has shifted, and the coalition continues to prepare for a public-comment period as well as possible litigation depending upon the final regulations.
This means the preservation community is now confronting two related but distinct questions:
Will Congress change Section 106 itself?
and
Will the regulations governing how Section 106 is implemented also be rewritten?
Preservation Pennsylvania will continue monitoring both.
Image: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
Preservation Pennsylvania is working with preservation organizations, Tribal Nations, cultural-resource professionals, local governments, and advocates across the country through the 106 Strong coalition.
Our role is also distinctly Pennsylvania-focused. We are:
The national coalition has grown rapidly and is building coordinated capacity in communications, congressional education, regulatory analysis, litigation, public education and fundraising.
Stay informed
This issue is developing quickly. Return to this page for updates from Preservation Pennsylvania and follow the work of the national 106 Strong coalition.
Learn what the legislation would change
Review the coalition’s analysis, presentation materials, and annotated resources to understand the proposed changes in greater detail.
Contact your members of Congress
Pennsylvanians can contact their U.S. senators and representative to share their views about the proposed changes to Section 106 and the importance they place on consultation, public participation, and consideration of historic resources in federal decision-making.
Find Your U.S. Representative https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member
Tell the story of Section 106 in Pennsylvania
Some of the strongest evidence for the value of Section 106 comes from the places where the process has worked.
Has Section 106 helped identify an important resource in your community? Did consultation improve a project? Was a historic bridge, archaeological site, neighborhood, building or landscape better understood because of federal review?
Preservation Pennsylvania wants to collect Pennsylvania examples that demonstrate what Section 106 has meant in practice.
Share a Pennsylvania Section 106 Story
October 15, 2026 marks the 60th anniversary of the National Historic Preservation Act.
The anniversary comes at an unusually important moment for the preservation movement.
The 106 Strong coalition is using the anniversary to increase public understanding of Section 106 and demonstrate how the law has helped communities and Tribal Nations participate in federal decisions affecting historic and culturally significant places.
The coalition’s goal is not simply to respond to the immediate proposals before Congress and the ACHP. It is also working to build a stronger long-term constituency for Section 106 and federal historic preservation.
Preservation Pennsylvania 106 Strong
The national coalition website includes current advocacy materials, congressional resources, legal analysis, media coverage and campaign updates.
The technical details of Section 106 can be complex. The principle behind it is not.
Before a federal decision damages or destroys a historic place, the government should understand what is there, consider what may be lost, and listen to the people who know and value that place.
For 60 years, Section 106 has provided the framework for doing that.
Preservation Pennsylvania believes that meaningful consideration, consultation and public participation must remain at the heart of the process.
We can win this fight. We will win this fight.
Please begin contacting your Senators and Representatives TODAY, and do not stop until they express their clear intent to vote NO on this terrible bill.