Witnesses tell House subcommittee NEPA and grant rules slow rail projects; call for pre-award authority and state role

Witnesses at a House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee hearing on rail said federal permitting and grant-administration processes are adding years to rail projects and driving up costs.

"This work could be avoided if the FRA would accept other modal agencies' standards and processes, especially when it comes to NEPA," said Matthew Dietrich, executive director of the Ohio Rail Development Commission. Dietrich told the subcommittee that providing pre-award authority letters with award notifications and creating a tiered grant-administration approach would let states advance project development while federal paperwork proceeds.

Garrett Yukolito, commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Transportation and president of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, told lawmakers predictable, sustained funding is also necessary to plan multi-decade rail work. Kevin Hicks, senior vice president at Gannett Fleming Transystems, said the selection and obligation timeline has lengthened since the IIJA: "The grant award selection can take around 6 months after the application is submitted," and obligations can take "6 to 18 months on average." He recommended a two-stage pipeline (preliminary engineering/NEPA, then final design/construction) and stronger FRA staffing so project managers can make timely decisions.

Witnesses and several members of the subcommittee described examples where duplicative federal reviews slowed projects and increased costs. Dietrich said granting states NEPA assignment or prequalifying states to administer certain discretionary grants—similar to existing NEPA-assignment arrangements—would reduce duplicate reviews and speed delivery. He and others urged FRA to accept other modal agency processes and to standardize grant documentation and stakeholder-concurrence templates.

Committee members pressed witnesses on concrete reforms: faster categorical-exclusion handling for routine, in-place track work; clearer pre-award authority language; and allocation of limited program funds for state-led project development so applications arrive construction-ready. Witnesses cautioned these administrative changes would not remove environmental review obligations where they are necessary, but would reduce redundant procedural delays.

Lawmakers from both parties pressed for quicker execution because delays increase contractor costs and can push work past seasonal windows. Several witnesses warned that reduced FRA staffing or pauses in grant processing would compound problems by creating backlogs at other permitting agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps and resource agencies, further extending timelines.

The subcommittee did not adopt legislation at the hearing. Members and witnesses repeatedly asked the FRA and Congress to consider: clearer, scalable grant templates; preapproved project pipelines; expanded NEPA assignment to qualified states; and stronger, consistent FRA staffing to reduce administrative friction.