C.F.R. » Title 36 » CHAPTER VIII—ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION › PART 800—PROTECTION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES › Subpart A—Purposes and Participants

36 C.F.R. § 800.1

Purposes

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Purposes of the section 106 process. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and afford the Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The procedures in this part define how Federal agencies meet these statutory responsibilities. The section 106 process seeks to accommodate historic preservation concerns with the needs of Federal undertakings through consultation among the agency official and other parties with an interest in the effects of the undertaking on historic properties, commencing at the early stages of project planning. The goal of consultation is to identify historic properties potentially affected by the undertaking, assess its effects and seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties.

(b) Relation to other provisions of the act. Section 106 is related to other provisions of the act designed to further the national policy of historic preservation. References to those provisions are included in this part to identify circumstances where they may affect actions taken to meet section 106 requirements. Such provisions may have their own implementing regulations or guidelines and are not intended to be implemented by the procedures in this part except insofar as they relate to the section 106 process. Guidelines, policies, and procedures issued by other agencies, including the Secretary, have been cited in this part for ease of access and are not incorporated by reference.

(c) Timing. The agency official must complete the section 106 process “prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license.” This does not prohibit agency official from conducting or authorizing nondestructive project planning activities before completing compliance with section 106, provided that such actions do not restrict the subsequent consideration of alternatives to avoid, minimize or mitigate the undertaking's adverse effects on historic properties. The agency official shall ensure that the section 106 process is initiated early in the undertaking's planning, so that a broad range of alternatives may be considered during the planning process for the undertaking.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 69 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: Friends of the Atglen-Susquehanna Trail, Inc. v. Surface Transp. Bd. & United States of Am., 252 F.3d 246 (3rd Cir. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Friends of the Atglen-Susquehanna Trail, Inc. v. Surface Transp. Bd. & United States of Am., 252 F.3d 246 (3rd Cir. 2001). · cites it 3× “§ 470f; 36 C.F.R. § 800.1 (a); see also Concerned Citizens, 176 F.”
California Wilderness Coalition v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 631 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “See 36 C.F.R. §§ 800.1 (c); 800.3(a); 800.16(y).”
Natl Mining Assn v. Fowler, John, 324 F.3d 752 (D.C. Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “In 2000, following a seven-year rulemak-ing process, the Council promulgated a regulation (now codified at 36 C.F.R. § 800.1 et seq.) which “implemented the 1992 amendments to the .”
Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Fed. Aviation Admin. William Withycombe, Reg'l Adm'r, Faa, 161 F.3d 569 (9th Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “In consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (“SHPO”), the official responsible for representing the interests of the State and its citizens, 36 C.F.R. § 800.1 (c)(1)(h), the agency “shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties…”
Winnemem Wintu Tribe v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 725 F. Supp. 2d 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2010). · cites it 4× “§ 470f; 36 C.F.R. §§ 800.1 ; 800.2(d)(l)-(2). The Code of Federal Regulations interpret Section 106 to require federal agencies to “seek and consider the views of the public” and to “provide the public with information about an undertaking and its effects on historic properties…”
Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Env't v. Bernhardt, 923 F.3d 831 (10th Cir. 2019). “See 36 C.F.R. § 800.1 (a). In general, the Section 106 process involves four steps.”
Narragansett Indian Tribal Historic Pres. Off. v. FERC, 949 F.3d 8 (D.C. Cir. 2020). “’” 36 C.F.R. § 800.1 (c) (quoting 54 U.S.C. § 306108 ).”
Bonnichsen v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (D. Or. 2002). · cites it 3× “16 USC § 470f; 36 CFR § 800.1 (0). 68 An “undertaking” is “any project, activity, or program that can result in changes in the character or use of historic properties.”
Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone v. United States Dep't of Interior, 608 F.3d 592 (9th Cir. 2010). “In addition, the Tribe has made no showing that it would have provided new information had it been consulted again earlier in the Amendment’s approval process.”
Nulankeyutmonen Nkihtaqmikon v. Impson, 462 F. Supp. 2d 86 (D. Me. 2006). · cites it 3× “See 36 C.F.R. §§ 800.1 (c), 800.8; Navajo Nation v.”
In re: Tennant, Jame, 359 F.3d 523 (D.C. Cir. 2004). “36 C.F.R. § 800.1 (c)(l)(i) (1995). During the Section 106 process, an agency (or its designee) consults with a State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to determine whether a proposed undertaking will affect a registered site.”
Mid States Coalition for Progress v. Surface Transp. Bd., 345 F.3d 520 (8th Cir. 2003). “” 36 C.F.R. § 800.1 (a). This process may be conducted separately, or, as in this case, in conjunction with an environmental review under NEPA.”
Show all 69 citing cases →
— 36 C.F.R. § 800.1(a) — 2 cases
Frank D. Unger v. Roane Cnty. Comm'n (2025).
Maverick Cnty., City of Eagle Pass, Maverick Cnty. Hosp. Dist., Maverick Cnty. Env't & Pub. Health Ass'n, & George Baxter v. R.R. Comm'n of Texas, Dos Republicas Coal P'ship, Camino Real Fuels, LLC & North Am. Coal Co. (Tex. App. 2015).
— 36 C.F.R. § 800.1(b)(3) — 1 case
Nat'l Indian Youth Council v. Andrus, 501 F. Supp. 649 (D.N.M. 1980).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.