Section 106 Regulations Under Threat: Specifics on the Technical Complexities

Welcome. Uh good afternoon everyone. Uh welcome to the National Trusts webinar section 106 regulations under threat. And this webinar will drill down and share specifics on the technical complexities of the proposed changes to the advisory council's regs. I'm Rob Nweg. I'm a senior vice president at the National Trust and um I'm hosting this webinar. Um we have uh an excellent pair of preservation leaders and subject matter experts to speak with you. We also will be answering questions uh that you may pose in the Q&A function. So bear that in mind. Chat function is open. Enjoy the exchange. Um we have allocated a segment later in the webinar to address questions. We are going to begin by addressing questions that were shared during our last webinar about this same topic. So we may start there and then go to questions posed today. We encourage you to communicate with all participants in the chat. Um, and you should know also that the closed captioning function is available during this webinar and you can enable it yourself or disable it um using the controls at the bottom of your own Zoom screen uh based upon which version of Zoom that you're using. Uh while you are participating in the chat, we ask everyone of course to be respectful of each other. um in your exchanges and to follow our code of conduct which I think Priya will um link to in the chat right now. Following the webinar, as we always do, we will send out a recording of this webinar to everyone who's registered. We'll use the web uh I'm sorry, we'll use the email address that you registered using um to communicate with you. And then all of our webinars are archived at the National Trust's YouTube channel chat. You can see here that we will hear from preservation leaders, subject matter experts Shaw Sprag of the National Trust and Betsy Merritt of the National Trust. Um let's dive straight into the specific technical complexities that are confronting us here. I'm passing the microphone to you Shaw. Um, thanks very much. >> Well, thank you, Rob. It's a pleasure to be with everybody today. I'm vice president of [clears throat] government relations, so that will be the focus of my comments today. U and it really is inspiring to see so many people from all around the country jumping on uh today. We we appreciate your attention. Uh, as Rob mentioned, this is a follow-up to our July 30th webinar on section 106. Uh, during which we received a number of communications that we wanted to respond to, including, you know, distinguishing between legislative and regulatory actions, what is concurrently happening on Capitol Hill around changes to section 106, and what you can do now to take action. Uh but before I turn the presentation over to Betsy Merritt, I I did want to describe the broader policy context and clarify some of the dynamics between statute and regulation uh before getting into the more technical concerns that uh we wanted to share with the proposed regulations. So quite simply uh a statute is a formal written law passed by uh the legislature a legislature uh and a regulation is the administrative rule created by the executive agency in this case a CHP uh under the power given to it by uh a statute in this case the national historic preservation act. So, uh, it's helpful to think of it like statutes setting broad policy goals while regulations add the specific details and processes to implement that. Both are binding laws, but regulations cannot go against the underlying statute that created them. So, uh, if this were to occur, uh, courts can invalidate a regulation and and strike it down as as lacking legal authority. Um, interestingly, uh, in June 2024, the Supreme Court in Loperbrite versus Raondo overturned the long-standing Chevron Chevron doctrine that established significant judicial difference to administrative interpretation of statutes where the intent of Congress was not entirely clear. So what this means is is that today courts have more flexibility to independently interpret the statute in question where legislative intent uh may may not be clear. So it's an interesting backdrop uh for this particular moment. Uh next slide please. Uh so we are today focused on the specific proposal that ACP approved on July 24th uh and is pending administrative review. But I also wanted to call attention to the bipartisan efforts in Congress to advance permitting reform legislation. And many of you, I'm sure, recall that last October the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee held a hearing examining NHPA section 106. uh in its attempt to uh identify ways to improve the process. Uh by our estimation, this is the first time a a Senate committee uh dedicated a full hearing to this specific issue. Uh so it's very much on the minds of of legislators right now. Um and they they are working on this. Uh the committee had set an informal goal to introduce legislation before the August recess uh just a few days ago. Uh so there were headlines that you may have seen um announcing that they were going to um not be able to introduce that uh legislation, the broader permitting bill uh legislation. But both sides of the aisle are are intent and focused on introducing legislation uh as soon as they can. So that can be September. Um it could happen, it could slip again and possibly occur during the lame duck session of Congress. Uh I think there's only a few weeks in September when when both chambers uh are back in session. Uh um so we'll we'll just have to see. But this is this is happening concurrently. So we want to make sure everybody's aware of that aspect uh going on in Washington right now as well. I'll just note the house has not uh is not as far along uh in its examination of of statutory reform around section 106. Um but it is important to understand how changes to statute would impact proposed regulations. Uh next slide please. So here I wanted to just dive into the understanding the relationship between statute and regulation a bit more. Uh so consider the the the following statutes are passed by Congress and signed by the president. They establish binding legal requirements that define the authority and limits of federal agencies and they can amend, supersede or constrain existing regulations. Regulations on the other hand are developed by an agency pursuant to the authority granted by Congress and they provide details and procedures for implementing the statute. Regulations must remain consistent with the statute and can generally be changed by a subsequent administration through the rulemaking process. The takeaway here is that regulations implement statutes. They do not replace them. Next slide, please. So here again uh a helpful breakdown of what regulations can and cannot do. Uh they can establish procedures, define how agencies conduct consultation, create timelines uh that are consistent with the statute and establish exemptions and alternatives were where authorized. What they cannot do is contradict the statute, eliminate statutory obligations, override congressional requirements, rewrite congressional authority, exercise authority that Congress did not grant, or supersede subsequent legislation. Uh in the case of ACP, Congress has given ACP substantial discretion to structure the 106 process uh which makes the boundaries and congressional direction uh that we do have all the more important to to understand. Uh next slide please. So why are the ACP's proposed regulations so significant? Regulatory reform can have a massive impact on the underlying statute. So the concern isn't necessarily that ACP can legally repeal section 106, but regulatory changes can substantially affect what projects receive review, what geographic area is considered, which historic properties are considered, who participates in consultation, how long this consultation might last, when consultation can be terminated, how agencies document these decisions, um and how tribal and community interests are incorporated in into that consultation. Uh on the right hand side I wanted to put the statement uh from the uh Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee ranking member Martin Heinrich and colleagues uh Democrat colleagues on that committee uh in the days following the uh uh ACP's an announcement of the proposed regulations asking them to uh go back to the drawing board and uh how they would reduce consultation for tribes, states and local communities. So it drew this immediate response from Capitol Hill. Uh an immediate response also from the ranking member of the House Natural Resource Committee. Uh so the Hill is is very much aware and taking notice of of this rule making and um uh and they have concerns. Uh next slide please. So point here is that Congress can change the equation. Congressional action can establish specific procedural requirements that an agency cannot simply change through subsequent rulemaking. So suppose Congress says uh in its subsequent legislation for projects affecting historic properties uh the agency shall consult with the shipo and affected tribes before making a final decision. Uh an agency regulation could not then issue regulations that say consultation is unnecessary when the agency determines that consultation would delay a project. Conversely, if Congress instead simply says agencies shall take historic properties into account, then it leaves considerable more discretion more discretion uh to the agency to determine how that obligation is implemented. The takeaway here is that the more specifically Congress legislates, the less room future administrations or current administration have to reinterpret the policy through regulation. Uh something that the preservation community needs to be thinking closely about. Uh next slide, please. So what what can advocates do? Uh if you attended our last webinar, many of these uh advocacy actions will will uh sound familiar, but we wanted to dive into a little bit more detail. Um one of our first requests is that uh organizations and stakeholders submit a meeting request with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIR. So under executive order 12866, OIRA meets on regulatory actions with any interested party to discuss issues on a rule under review. If you request the meeting, it does not necessarily mean you'll get that meeting, but uh your interests uh you have a right to be heard and understood and uh this is open to again any interested party. So, it's your right to request a meeting and you should do so. And we're also encouraging you to request that your governors also request these meetings. Uh on our website, we have a template letter that you can send to your governors uh to assist with that. Uh but that's an important message. We we want the governors to be aware of these issues and weighing in. Uh I wanted to point out here that the regulation identifier number the ren number assigned by OIR for ACP's amendments to the implementing regulations for section 106 is 3010- AA10. Next, um we're in the middle of our uh the congressional August recess. uh both the House and Senate uh are in recess, members are back home in their communities. Reach out to their district offices. Um ask for ask to meet with the members if if if you can, if you're comfortable with that. Meet with their staff. Meeting with staff is perfectly uh good way to communicate those concerns as well. It's also a great opportunity to meet um in a less hectic environment than than Capitol Hill. you often get a bit more time uh in a more relaxed atmosphere to to uh have those conversations. So, uh make that request, make those connections, meet meet the staff. It's it's really important and it's going to become increasingly important in the weeks and months ahead. Um we're also asking that you start to think about and prepare your comments. Uh in our last webinar, we asked uh that you uh weigh in during the public comment period uh for these regulations. It's important that the preservation community have a show of force and uh register concerns and and and those comments. It's it's a really important part of the process. I'm going to cover the timeline in just a moment here to to break that down in our best uh guess really as to when that might occur. [clears throat] But in the meantime, please be thinking about how your comments will uh you know what you want to say. Uh examples of of successful section 106 consultations in your community and how your community might be worse off without this ability to consult on on federal undertakings in your community. Uh, also please keep an eye out for the introduction of the federal permitting legislation. Again, it could happen in September, uh, or possibly in the lame duck session of Congress. Let your members know what you want to see in the bill and that you have an interest in in in shaping what that what what ultimately uh becomes part of the final bill. And lastly, uh, if you uh haven't tuned in to our National Preservation Summit in Washington DC would encourage you to to look into that. As part of that summit, there is an advocacy day on September 24th. Um, you should feel free to attend the summit of course, but you could, we certainly welcome you coming down just to uh participate in the advocacy on the 24th. It's really going to be an important opportunity to support historic preservation in our nation's capital. Uh and then finally at the bottom of the screen you can see the uh sorry previous slide for just a moment. I wanted to flag that um all this information and additional details temp letter templates can all be found at uh savingplaces.org uh backsection 106. So, make sure you're fairly regularly checking back at that website and um you'll have the most up-to-date information that that we are providing. Uh next slide, please. So, just walking through the timeline so people have that. Uh ACP vote as as folks will recall was on the 24th. uh that immediately goes to OIRA for uh review. There is no statutory deadline for OIRA to uh respond to the regulations perhaps in part that will be determined by how much interest they hear from from stakeholders, how many meetings they intend to hold uh around these regulations. Uh and again if you request a meeting it doesn't guarantee that you will get a meeting but uh we think it's important to register uh the interest from the community here. Uh but we don't know when that will come back uh to ACP but once it does ACP will then uh publish its notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register for public comment. Uh we are uh anticipating that the public comment period would be 30 days. Uh and what we are attempting to do is to be as prepared as we can as a community before that happens so that uh we can we can effectively advocate uh during that period. ACP will then review the input and comments it receives. Um it will then resubmit. it will potentially make changes depending on what instruction it receives back from OIR and how it wants to respond to comments. Uh that could require another vote by the ACP, but uh it will go back to OIR after that period. Um uh and then um um it will then uh looking at Ora here. It goes back to uh so there's there's a back and forth between the interim rule and then the final rule. Um uh before that you'll see tribal consultation occur [snorts] a a final vote on uh by a ACP final rule published in the federal register and once that occurs uh that would then uh potentially ripen into uh litigation should should uh parties pursue that route. Um but again we we don't have a precise uh uh grasp on the timing of all this. Uh it's a bit of uh uh it's a different process than we are accustomed to. Uh as you may recall the initial regulations uh uh were were voted on within a week of of being uh introduced. U so that is the timeline and now I will uh turn it over to my colleague Betsy Merritt. Greetings. Let's see. I've got to get my camera on. Oops. Sorry about that. Technical difficulties. Um, greetings. I'm Betsy Merritt. I'm deputy general counsel at the National Trust. And uh we warned you this was going to involve technical complexities, but we are delighted that so many of you are nonetheless willing to dive in with us. And I'm going to start by focusing on some of the specific ways in which the advisory council's proposal is directly in conflict with the language of the National Historic Preservation Act and therefore unlawful. A key part of our advocacy messaging at this stage is to make the point that this proposal is severely vulnerable to legal challenge. It will be challenged in court and after months or years of litigation, we believe the courts will conclude that the proposed regulations are unlawful. The chaos and uncertainty this would cause is not in the public interest and indeed would be extraordinarily harmful. And that chaos and uncertainty would be exacerbated by the proposed changes in the statute that you've heard about from Shaw. From the perspective of project developers and industry representatives who want to streamline the review process and make it more predictable, none of that is helpful. So we want to persuade the administration that the blatant contradictions between the advisory council's proposal and the statute make these proposed regulations so vulnerable that it would be wiser to withdraw the proposal altogether. We will first try to p persuade OIRA to reject the proposal and then if the proposal is published in the Federal Register, we will make the record through our comments collectively and if necessary, we will challenge the regulations in court and I know we will have lots of partners in that approach. So, let's get into the weeds here. Um, the language of section 106 itself on the screen is very brief and leaves lots of room for interpretation. Like the term take into account, the longstanding section 106 regulations spend 16 pages of fine print defining what this means and how it happens. As you'll see, most of the statutory inconsistencies between the advisory council's radical new proposal and the National Historic Preservation Act are violations of other National Historic Preservation Act provisions as opposed to section 106 itself. However, even some of the language of section 106 itself conflicts with the proposal and the highlighted words are some of the ones we'll be reviewing in more detail. Okay, next slide. This is the statutory definition of undertaking in the National Historic Preservation Act. The key thing here is that the undertaking is not the federal action. The undertaking is the project itself, which is often a state or local or private project that may require a federal permit or federal funding. So it then becomes federally licensed undertaking or federally assisted undertaking. But the undertaking itself is not the federal action. Next slide. Now I'm including some images from the redline document prepared by the advisory council so you can see uh firsthand how dramatic some of these changes are. Here's the revised language proposed by the advisory council. So, as you can see, they attempt to limit the definition of undertaking to federal undertakings only. And this is squarely inconsistent with the statutory language of the National Historic Preservation Act. And note also the sloppy grammatical error in their proposed language where it says a federal undertaking which section 106 analysis is required. Uh, next slide. >> [clears throat] >> Here's some additional language from the advisory council's proposed new definition of undertaking. So, here are some additional ways in which they're proposing to cut back in ways that violate the statute. So, these new provisions would eliminate from the scope of the undertaking any portion of the project that the federal agency doesn't have direct jurisdiction and control over. Even if the ultimate project would not be able to go forward but for the federal approval. Army Corps of Engineers permits are sort of the classic example of this kind of issue where it's very common for private development projects to require Army Corps permits for a very small portion of the project that may affect wetlands for instance. But the permit is essential for the project as a whole to go forward. Even in that case, the Army Corps is currently required to consider the impacts of the entire undertaking. But under the new advisory council proposal, they would only be required to look at adverse effects within the wetlands that are under their direct jurisdiction. Next slide. Um the language proposed by the advisory council also um says that if a state or local government is exercising delegated federal authority then no compliance with section 106 is required. Well, one of the key programs that would be exempted from historic preservation review altogether under this language would be HUD programs such as community development block grants, which are often delegated to local governments to manage. But in addition, nine states, the ones listed on this slide, have long-standing arrangements with the Federal Highway Administration where they have delegated legal authority to manage federally funded transportation projects. And under current law, those state DOS are specifically required to comply with federal environmental and preservation laws. And if a lawsuit is filed to enforce compliance, for example, the state attorney general is the one required to defend it. Under the proposed language, [clears throat] all federally funded transportation projects in these nine states could be completely exempt from section 106 review. That's pretty radical. Uh, next slide, please. Uh, [clears throat] in another attempt to eviscerate section 106 review, the advisory council's proposal would explicitly eliminate consideration of all visual, atmospheric, and audible effects, all reasonably foreseeable cumulative effects, and all effects that f fall outside the AY's regulatory jurisdiction. So, for a project like the president's proposed arch, which has been in the news a lot lately, even though the National Park Service has identified 37 different historic properties that would be adversely affected by the project and the consulting parties have identified many more, virtually all of those adverse effects would be visual and therefore not even required to be considered at fall under the proposed regulations. Next slide, please. [clears throat] Here's a slide that shows some of the new language introduced by the proposed regulations that would dramatically reduce the historic properties protected by section 106. It has to include in order to be considered tangible human improvements and it must be quote geographically compact. Now how do we define how do we define geographically compact? Sounds like an issue that would generate lots of litigation. Uh this also this suggests that civil war battlefields for example would be completely unprotected. Next slide. And then to twist the knife here on the right side is proposed language from the advisory council that says mountains, valleys, bodies of water or landscapes including ethnographic landscapes do not qualify as historic property under section 106. Uh so it would have the effect it would not have the effect of delisting them from the national register but adverse effects on these resources would not have to be considered at all. So if you have a massive industrial facility right next to the Grand Canyon for example uh no problem under section 106. Now, on the left side of this slide, I've inserted the statutory language from the National Historic Preservation Act, so you can see how inconsistent it is with the proposed regulations. This is one of the most dramatic contradictions. Uh, next slide. Now I also want to flag the dramatic reduction of the shipo role in consultation under the advisory council's proposal which again is directly contra contradicted by the statutory language. Shipos would only be involved in consultation at the discretion of the federal agency and only after the fact. Um, by contrast, here's the statutory language that describes the roles and responsibilities of the shipo. Advise and assist federal and state agencies in carrying out their historic preservation responsibilities. uh you know consult with appropriate federal agencies uh on federal undertakings that may affect historic property etc. And so now you've got a statute that says here go to the next slide please and you can see some of the language. So I want to include I wanted to include some of these actual red line um sections so you can see uh how dramatic some of the changes are. Um so uh in the first line it says the following parties may have consultative roles in the section 106 process whereas it used to say you know they have consultative roles. That's one change. And you notice they deleted the sentence that says the shipo reflects the interest of the state and its citizens in the preservation of their cultural heritage. Why is that deleted? Um anyway, this shows you that [clears throat] uh part of the provision that um dei that diminishes the role of the shipo and um and brings in shipos only at the discretion of and at a delayed timing uh as set by the federal agency. Okay, next slide. Okay. By cont uh now now we're going to go to the local governments. Um this is the statutory language. Um and local governments like shipos are now involved o would be involved if the advisory council's proposal goes through only at the discretion of the federal agency and uh at a later time in the process. Um so the statutory language says um the council's regulations shall provide for participation by local governments uh with respect to undertakings that affect the local governments. Um and so let's go to the next slide and I'll show you the here's the change in in the regulations. The agency official may invite a representative of a local government. It used to say that the local government was entitled to participate as a consulting party. No longer under this proposal. Next slide. Okay. Tribal consultation is another arena in which the advisory council's proposal would eviscerate the role and the role of tribes in the consultation process. Um and I wanted to show some of the shocking revisions to the language that are being proposed by the advisory council here. Um, as you can see, they have deleted, entirely deleted the sentence that says, "The agency officials shall acknowledge that Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations possess special expertise in assessing the eligibility of historic properties that may possess religious and cultural significance to them." Completely deleted. Um and again like with local governments and shipos um the agency uh determines whether and when to consult with tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. And notice also that it has the agency itself making the determination essentially unilaterally whether properties are eligible for the national register. >> [clears throat] >> Uh so next slide. Uh we also wanted to highlight the um dramatic reduction of the role of the public in the consultation process. And this is of special concern to the National Trust because of the fact that our congressional charter requires us to facilitate public participation. And so this is an issue that we're especially troubled by. Um and here you can see again um some of the dramatic revisions to [clears throat] the language um in in in reducing public involvement and leaving it completely up to the agency to determine sort of how and when and whether to involve the public. and and suggesting that the agency engage in a balancing exercise where if there would be costs involved or other interests that might weigh against public involvement that those be um that those would affect the agency's decision as to how much weight to give the public the public comments. So, and I know this is a lot of fine print here, but we'll be sharing the um slides after the fact if you want to sort of go back and take a close look at some of these pretty shocking revisions. Next slide, please. [clears throat] Here's some additional language um about uh the limited role uh the more limited role of the public. So for example, in developing programmatic agreements, the agency may consult with shipos, tippos, tribes, and the public um in in developing programmatic agreements. And notice the provision that is deleted completely. The agency official shall arrange for public participation appropriate to the subject matter and scope of the program. Completely deleted. Uh so we you know that's another example that we just wanted to highlight of uh radical radical revisions being proposed here. Next slide. So the bottom line is that and there are many other inconsistencies that um uh we we haven't gone through because we do want to save time for questions. But the bottom line is that the uniquely effective dynamic of consultation under section 106 which has been so successful in leading to um so many win-win outcomes, so many agreements where through modifications and alternatives to projects that have the effect of avoiding or minimizing their adverse effects through the consultation process that dynamic would now become purely optional and there's no incentive for the agency to reach agreement. Instead, the agency would make its own unilateral determinations and then submit a section 106 report after the fact afterwards for comment and then, you know, receive comments from the parties, but there's no there's there's not the same level of um incentive to reach agreement. And so so many of the fundamental aspects of the section 106 consultation process that has been so successful would be completely obliterated by this by these proposed changes. Um so at this point um I w can I will hand the um mic back over to Rob I believe and and we can take some questions that I think have been coming in on the website. But thank you again for uh walking through walking through the uh these technical complexities with us and we look forward to continuing this conversation. >> Uh Betsy, thank you and and thank you to Shaw as well. Um good Shaw, Betsy both up. I want to share questions that have been asked in the chat now. Um and also some compiled from our last webinar on the same topic. Um know that if we don't address your questions here live, we're working on a frequently asked questions online function that can be helpful. Okay. So, uh Betsy and Shaw both and don't hold back. Um, if the proposed rule changes are approved, talk to us about how those changes would affect projects, project consultation currently in process, but also how might those changes in the regs impact existing programmatic agreements or existing memorandum of me memoranda of agreement address that please either of you >> I can I'll take a stab at it there is a provision in the proposal that says um a any consultation that started before the the new regulations go into effect will uh continue under the old regulations unless the project sponsor requests for the the evaluation the consultation to proceed under the new regulations. So it does give the project sponsor the option to um you know switch over to the new regulations which would pretty much eliminate the consultation presumably. Um and it says um uh for one year after the effective date, a project proponent may elect to undertake consultations. Um uh I guess the under the old regulations, it's a little unclear. The language is a little unclear. And I actually think that this will be one source of significant controversy and conflict, confusion about um consultations that are are incomplete and where applicants and project proponents will want to switch to the new, you know, get out of jail free card, >> right? And how about uh MOA or PAS that are already signed existing ones? >> I don't see anything in in here about um revoking um existing agreements, although most of them do have termination provisions in them. And so we might see situations like what the army is starting to do where they're just terminating every single agreement they have all across the country by invoking the existing termination provision. That's that's one um option. >> Okay. Thank you. And Rob, I might just also just add on that, you know, that >> could be one of the things that uh is addressed um through the current OIR uh process. So uh there was a question about meeting with OIRA. uh questions to o IRA could include uh status of existing uh agreements uh and and a request to address those more specifically. So uh it could be something that um over the course of the coming weeks is is more specifically addressed before a final rule is published. >> Okay. Shaw started by saying let's say you're a local government. Let's say you have the ear of your governor. get that local government or get that governor to request an OIRA meeting. There was a good question in the Q&A about well if you got that meeting what would you ask? We'll be providing more insights into that. Lots of questions on how would if they were um um enacted established how would these new rags impact other kinds of historic preservation protections? section 110, section 4F. Um, let's take on uh let's take on section 110 first. Somebody want to answer? >> Well, they don't directly change um section 110. You know, the statute would of course remain the same unless Congress modifies it. But um uh any projects that um an agency a property management agency undertakes that would affect uh for example landscape type historic properties would not have to go through section 106 consultation even though you'd have the vague the general stewardship responsibility um that would remain in place, but you wouldn't have to go through consultation for um you know, for a project that would have that under current regulations would have adverse effects on historic properties. [clears throat] >> Thank you. Lots of conversation in the chat, but also in Q&A about impacts to section 4F. Do you want to take that on? Uh well 4F [laughter] might be our saving grace um because it you know it wouldn't be eliminated by these regulations. However there there are provisions in here that say if you've got for example a categorical exclusion under NEPA then you can skip section 106. And so, um, there might, uh, there's nothing that directly addresses section 4F, but I'm sure there would be efforts to try to, um, eliminate that as well. >> Thank you. So Shaw to you um help us to understand clarify what what could Congress do? What say does Congress have regarding the the approval of the the proposed new regs? >> Right. So uh this is an agency action uh and so Congress would need to uh its primary primary response it would be legislative in nature. Uh so that is the primary way that um that uh congressional offices have been thinking about this. uh other other thoughts of of ways they might respond. Um uh they they uh the appropriations process uh often will include um uh different um riders and communications about how uh it it wants to see um agencies carry out regulations. um um they have the power of the purse that that presents opportunities. You see that being discussed in other sectors. You see uh uh efforts to um introduce legislation to nullify regulations. um those I think have a difficult path to enactment but they can still serve an important purpose in the in the current environment. Um but really um I think their options are limited in terms of stopping a regulatory uh action from from going into effect short of passing legislation. >> Okay. Um, shifting gears somewhat, Betsy, to you. Um, last time question, this time question. Are you concerned that these very significant changes to section 106 would impact state and local statutes and regs that mirror section 106? Um, yes. What are the ripples? >> Yes, definitely. Um, we would there are many state and local governments that um do rely on the federal section 106 regulations as sort of a model either literally or um indirectly for their programs. And we do worry that it would um that it would undermine many state and local uh regulatory uh frameworks, regulatory setups for historic preservation. >> So um likelihood of harm to state and to local. Um, other thoughts, uh, HPE protections, other thoughts about how these proposed changes might impact certified local governments? >> Well, the the [clears throat] fact that local governments no longer would be entitled to participate in section 106 consultation and would be sort of notified after the fact. Um, is would be devastating. and um on on many levels and and so their rights would be dramatically dramatically curtailed. >> Um so a role for local government, a role for state government in this advocacy about the ACP proposed regs. Is there something specific that we might be asking our state historic preservation officers to do at this time, Shaw? Well, certainly the the shipos are uh deeply engaged in in uh in the rule making uh the national conference of state historic preservation officers has a a uh voting voting role on the ACP and is represented there of course but in terms of like individual uh shipo offices uh uh they are part of their state governments. And um I think if if governor's offices are hearing from constituents about these concerns, uh those governor governors are more likely to call on their shipo for uh greater clarification and understanding of of the impact of the proposed regulations. uh and give give individual shipos uh perhaps more more uh opportunity to weigh in with specific concerns with their governor's offices. So they they'll play a very key role in in educating uh uh uh state leaders on on how and if they weigh in. Shaw, could could those impacts to our state historic preservation office include loss of funding, loss of staffing, even the existence of a a shipo? if this proposal is um established, >> you know, the I I think to Betsy's earlier point, if if these regulations are to go into effect, uh the the chaos and the confusion that would ensue would would be significant. Uh, of course, Shabbo offices are are funded both uh uh through grant funding at the federal level and the state level. Um uh the federal appropriations process is separate and we continue to advocate for strong funding for SHIPO and TIPPOS at the federal level. But in terms of uh how states respond to a more limited role in the Shibbo office office uh that that is um I think that remains to be seen. Okay, Rhonda, I don't know if you can go backwards and show that timeline slide. And then my question to Shaw and to Betsy is upcoming. We have a few minutes upcoming there opportunities for public comment es so it's fundamentally when it's in the federal register. Yes, >> that's correct. Um, and I uh Betsy, I'll let you weigh in in with more detail here, but but we're anticipating a 30-day uh public comment period. I think what we're asking the community to do is to be prepared for an even shorter public comment period uh should uh the the process not proceed as it [clears throat] might normally proceed. Um but that is that is why we're asking everybody to think about that now and and prepare for when when the public uh the uh um public comment period opens. >> Okay. And it's likely let's say it's 30 days. That's the one bite at the apple. Well, so we we've seen some some comments about um the uh uh interim uh proposed rule and a and a final uh proposed rule and some concern and we've heard this expressed from from the outset that u could could ACP and the administration move directly to a final proposed rule uh with a 30-day public comment period um That is not how ACP has described uh the process to the council. They have described it as uh uh um having you know a 30-day public comment period for the proposed rule and another 30 well we don't know the number of days but another public comment period uh after the final rule is published. So two bites at the apple is is what how it's been explained but um again um uh you don't have complete certainty in in this. >> Okay. >> And based first of all uh this webinar has been recorded. This webinar will be sent back out to you using the email that you registered by and it will become archived. Um but we fundamentally have two things going on in our preservation world. One is legislative initiatives to um change 106 permitting reform. Yes, Shaw. And the other is the ACP proposed really radical evisceration of section 106 that Betsy pointed to. I like the question in the Q&A about a section bysection analysis of what is being proposed. U we're working as fast as we can. Look at our web page for uh online resources and on our web page we cross link to other sources of information that you can draw from. We're all in the middle of this. We're all trying to figure out what is going on and how we can be effective strategic advocates for section 106 and we have heard all these great questions about the ripple effects and the other things that can happen because of this change. Um we're happy to have hosted everybody. Next slide please. Um upcoming webinars hosted by the National Trust. Take a look at these. You can go to our web page to see upcoming webinars that are coming. You'll see that on August 24th at 2 p.m. Eastern, we intend to have a third webinar about section 106 regs under threat. And that one would focus, we hope, on guidance for advocates and guidance for activists who want others to advocate on these very complex topics. There are other great webinars also happening. If you want to learn about upcoming programming, savingplaces.org upcoming webinars. That makes perfect sense. Click to the next slide, please. Um, for a real deep dive, come to the National Preservation Law Conference, October 19th. Make your hotel reservations. Next slide, please. Um, thank you. Thank you to Betsy and thank you to Shaw. Thank you to everyone in the chat and thank you to those of you in the Q&A. you know, we conserve both the chat and we conserve the Q&A. We have the frequently asked questions um coming to you and we also look at what you're calling for. What are the needs in the preservation movement to be able to respond strategically to what is happening? Um, thank you for coming out. Thank you to Priya. Thank you to Rhonda and everybody behind the scenes who make these webinars happen. If you have questions, get in touch with us at forumsavingplaces.org. That's it. We are ajourned.