[House Report 119-395]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 119-395
=======================================================================
STANDARDIZING PERMITTING AND EXPEDITING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT
----------------
December 4, 2025.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
----------------
Mr. Westerman, from the Committee on Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 4776]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 4776) to amend the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 to clarify ambiguous provisions and facilitate a
more efficient, effective, and timely environmental review
process, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon
with an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do
pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Standardizing Permitting and
Expediting Economic Development Act'' or the ``SPEED Act''.
SEC. 2. NEPA REFORM.
(a) Purpose.--Section 2 of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The purposes'' and inserting ``(a) The
purposes''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) This Act is a purely procedural statute intended to ensure
Federal agencies consider the environmental impacts of their actions
during the decisionmaking process. This Act does not mandate particular
results, and only prescribes a process. Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to mandate any specific environmental outcome or result, nor
shall this Act be interpreted to confer substantive rights or impose
substantive duties beyond procedural requirements.''.
(b) Procedure for Determination of Level of Review.--Section 106 of
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4336) is
amended--
(1) in the heading, by inserting ``; scope of review'' after
``level of review'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or'';
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``action.'' and
inserting ``action;''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) the agency determines the proposed agency action is an
action for which such agency's compliance with another
statute's requirements serves the function of agency compliance
with this Act with respect to such action; or
``(6) the proposed agency action relates to a project or
action that has already been reviewed pursuant to a State
environmental review statute or a Tribal environmental review
statute, ordinance, resolution, regulation, or formally adopted
policy and the lead agency determines such review serves the
function of agency compliance with this Act.'';
(3) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``does not'' and
inserting ``is not likely to''; and
(B) in paragraph (3), by amending subparagraph (B) to
read as follows:
``(B) is not required to--
``(i) undertake new scientific or technical
research unless the new scientific or technical
research is essential to a reasoned choice
among alternatives, and the overall costs and
time frame of obtaining it are not
unreasonable; or
``(ii) undertake new scientific or technical
research after the receipt of an application,
as applicable, with respect to a proposed
agency action.''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Scope of Review.--In preparing an environmental document for a
proposed agency action, a Federal agency--
``(1) may consider only those effects that share a reasonably
close causal relationship to, and are proximately caused by,
the immediate project or action under consideration; and
``(2) may not consider effects that are speculative,
attenuated from the project or action, separate in time or
place from the project or action, or in relation to separate
existing or potential future projects or actions.
``(d) Certainty.--
``(1) Environmental documents.--A Federal agency may not
rescind, withdraw, amend, alter, or otherwise render
ineffective any environmental document completed under this Act
for a project or action where there is an applicant unless the
Federal agency has been so ordered by a court or the applicant
has agreed in writing to such rescission, withdrawal,
amendment, or alteration.
``(2) Authorizations.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in this
subsection or existing law, a Federal agency may not
revoke, rescind, withdraw, terminate, suspend, amend,
alter, or take any other action to interfere with an
authorization unless--
``(i) the Federal agency is required to take
such action by order of a court of competent
jurisdiction;
``(ii) the holder of the authorization has
materially breached the terms of the
authorization, or otherwise violated applicable
law;
``(iii) the authorization was obtained
through fraud, intentional concealment, or
material misrepresentation;
``(iv) such action is necessary to prevent
specific, immediate, substantial, and proximate
harm or damage to life, property, national
security, or defense that was not considered in
the underlying environmental review process or
final agency action for the authorization; or
``(v) the Federal agency has received a
request from the holder of the authorization or
project sponsor to take such action.
``(B) Requirement.--The actions described in
subparagraph (A) shall be, as appropriate and where
feasible, supported by clear and convincing evidence
and reasonably limited in duration and scope by the
agency to address the specific issue such action is
intended to address.
``(C) Notice.--Before an agency takes an action
described in subparagraph (A), the agency shall notify
the holder of the authorization and the project sponsor
in writing of such action, including by providing a
detailed explanation of the action, identifying the
statutory authority relied upon for the action, and
providing the evidence supporting the action.
``(D) Judicial review.--
``(i) In general.--An action described in
subparagraph (A) shall be subject to judicial
review under chapter 7 of title 5, United
States Code.
``(ii) Venue.--A person seeking judicial
review of an action described in subparagraph
(A) may only obtain review of such action in
the United States court of appeals for any
circuit wherein the project for which the
authorization was issued is located.
``(iii) Petitions by federal agencies.--No
Federal agency may petition a court for vacatur
or voluntary remand of an authorization unless
the holder of the authorization or the project
sponsor consents in writing to such a petition.
``(E) Savings clause.--Nothing in subparagraph (A)
shall be construed to provide any Federal agency new,
enhanced, or expanded authority, or to limit any
existing authority, concerning any authorization.
``(e) Presumption of Negative Impacts of Taking No Action Relating to
Tribal Trust Resources.--For any proposed agency action carried out on,
or directly affecting, tribal trust resources (including lands and
minerals) that is initiated by the federally recognized Indian Tribe
for which the United States holds the affected resources in trust, and
for which an environmental document was prepared that included
consideration of a no action alternative, there shall be a presumption
that the effects of taking no action will be negative for the federally
recognized Indian Tribe.
``(f) Effect of Threshold Determinations on Other Agencies.--If a
lead agency determines an environmental document is not required to be
prepared with respect to a proposed agency action under subsection (a),
another agency may not prepare an environmental document with respect
to such proposed agency action.''.
(c) Timely and Unified Federal Reviews.--
(1) Lead agency.--Section 107(a) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4336a(a)) is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``at the
earliest practicable time'' and inserting ``in
accordance with subsection (g)(2)'';
(ii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``carry
out the proposed agency action'' and inserting
``carry out the proposed agency action in
compliance with the deadlines outlined in
subsection (g)''; and
(iii) in subparagraph (E)--
(I) by striking ``a review'' and
inserting ``an environmental review'';
and
(II) by striking ``such review'' and
inserting ``such environmental
review''; and
(B) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by inserting ``(including counties,
boroughs, parishes, and other political
subdivisions of a State)'' after ``local
agency''; and
(ii) by adding at the end ``Such comments
from Federal cooperating agencies shall be
limited to matters relating to the proposed
agency action with respect to which such
Federal cooperating agency has jurisdiction by
law.''.
(2) One document.--Section 107(b) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4336a(b)) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``To the extent practicable,'' and
inserting the following:
``(1) Document.--To the extent practicable,''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Consideration timing.--
``(A) In general.--In preparing an environmental
document for a proposed agency action, no Federal
agency shall be required to consider any scientific or
technical research that becomes publicly available
after the earlier of, as applicable--
``(i) the date of receipt of an application
with respect to such proposed agency action;
and
``(ii) the date of publication of a notice of
intent or decision to prepare such
environmental document for such proposed agency
action.
``(B) Applicability to other law.--This paragraph
does not affect any review of information required
under subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United
States Code, with respect to comments received during
the public comment period as applicable.
``(C) Delay.--A Federal agency may not delay the
issuance of an environmental document or a final agency
action, including any decision or determination, on the
basis of awaiting new scientific or technical research
or information that was not available as of the earlier
of the dates described in subparagraph (A).''.
(3) Statement of purpose and need.--Section 107(d) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4336a(d))
is amended by striking ``action.'' and inserting ``action.
Where applicable, the statement of purpose and need shall meet
the goals of the applicant.''.
(4) Deadlines.--Section 107(g) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4336a(g)) is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as
paragraphs (3), (5), and (6), respectively;
(B) by inserting before paragraph (3) (as so
redesignated) the following:
``(1) Applications for authorizations.--
``(A) Notification of complete or incomplete
application.--Unless a shorter deadline is specified by
law, in connection with a proposed agency action for
which an applicant submitted an application for an
authorization to an agency, not later than 60 days
after the date on which the applicant submits the
application to the agency, the agency shall document
the receipt of the application and--
``(i) notify the applicant that the
application is complete; or
``(ii) notify the applicant that the
application is incomplete and request in
writing any additional information that the
agency needs to determine that the application
is complete and begin preparation of an
environmental document.
``(B) Agency determination.--
``(i) Complete determination.--If an agency
determines an application is complete under
subparagraph (A)(i), the agency shall, not
later than 60 days after the date on which the
agency makes such determination--
``(I) notify the applicant that the
agency has determined that the proposed
agency action is excluded pursuant to
one of the agency's categorical
exclusions, is not a major Federal
action, or that no further agency
action is required;
``(II) issue a notice of intent to
prepare an environmental impact
statement for such proposed agency
action; or
``(III) notify the applicant that the
agency has determined that preparation
of an environmental assessment is
necessary.
``(ii) Incomplete determination.--If the
agency requests additional information under
subparagraph (A)(ii), the deadline described in
clause (i) shall be based on the date on which
the agency receives the additional information
instead of the date on which the determination
is made.
``(2) Cooperating agencies.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 21 days after a
lead agency issues a notice of intent under paragraph
(1)(B)(i)(II) or notifies an applicant under paragraph
(1)(B)(i)(III) with respect to a proposed agency
action, the lead agency shall--
``(i) identify all agencies that are likely
to have environmental review, authorization, or
other responsibilities with respect to the
proposed agency action; and
``(ii) invite each such agency to become a
cooperating agency.
``(B) Deadline to accept invitation.--Not later than
21 days after an agency receives an invitation to
become a cooperating agency under subparagraph (A)(ii),
such agency shall accept or deny the invitation.
``(C) Convening of cooperating agencies.--Not later
than 7 days after the deadline described in
subparagraph (B) has passed for each agency that
received an invitation to become a cooperating agency
under subparagraph (A)(ii), the lead agency that sent
each such invitation shall convene each agency that
accepts such an invitation to coordinate on developing
the schedule under subsection (a)(2)(D) for the
applicable proposed agency action.
``(D) Unidentified agencies.--In the event that an
agency that has jurisdiction by law or special
expertise with respect to any environmental impact
involved in a proposed agency action is not identified
under subparagraph (A)(i), the lead agency with respect
to the proposed agency action shall--
``(i) invite such unidentified agency to
become a cooperating agency by not later than 7
days after becoming aware that the agency has
jurisdiction by law or special expertise; and
``(ii) if such agency accepts the invitation,
incorporate such agency into the schedule
developed under subsection (a)(2)(D) and update
such schedule accordingly by not later than 14
days after the date on which such agency
accepts the invitation.'';
(C) in paragraph (3) (as so redesignated)--
(i) by striking ``In general'' and inserting
``Review timeline''; and
(ii) by striking ``(2)'' and inserting
``(5)'';
(D) by inserting after paragraph (3) (as so
redesignated) the following:
``(4) Deadline for final agency action.--For any proposed
agency action for which an applicant submitted an application
for an authorization to an agency, not later than 30 days after
completing an environmental impact statement or an
environmental assessment for the proposed agency action, the
lead agency, and any cooperating agency, shall issue a final
agency action. The agency issuing such final agency action
shall include in the final agency action a performance schedule
for the completion of any other outstanding authorizations.'';
(E) in paragraph (5) (as so redesignated)--
(i) by striking ``the deadline described in
paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``a deadline
described in this subsection''; and
(ii) by striking ``, in consultation with the
applicant, to'' and inserting ``if the
applicant approves such extension. If the
applicant approves such extension, the lead
agency shall'';
(F) in paragraph (6) (as so redesignated)--
(i) by striking ``A project sponsor may'' and
inserting ``Except as provided in subparagraph
(C), a project sponsor may''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Exception.--A project sponsor that approved an
extension of a deadline under paragraph (5) may not
obtain judicial review of a failure to act in
accordance with such deadline under subparagraph (A)
unless the lead agency fails to meet the new deadline
or is delaying for reasons other than those necessary
to complete its review.''; and
(G) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Concurrent review.--In carrying out an environmental
review, the lead agency and each cooperating agency shall carry
out the obligations of that agency under other applicable laws
concurrently, and in conjunction, with other required reviews
for the proposed agency action, pursuant to the requirements of
applicable law, including, if applicable, under this Act.''.
(d) Programmatic Environmental Documents.--Section 108 of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4336b) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``When an agency prepares'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) Programmatic Environmental Documents.--When an agency
prepares'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``5'' and inserting ``10'';
(3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``5'' and inserting ``10'';
and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Reliance on Previously Completed Environmental Reviews.--
``(1) Actions that are substantially the same.--A lead agency
may satisfy the requirements of this Act with respect to a
major Federal action by relying on an environmental assessment,
environmental impact statement, or a categorical exclusion
determination that the lead agency, another Federal agency, or
a project sponsor under the supervision of a Federal agency
completed for another major Federal action if the lead agency
determines that--
``(A) the new major Federal action is substantially
the same as the other major Federal action or, if
applicable, an alternative analyzed in such
environmental assessment or environmental impact
statement; and
``(B) if applicable, the effects of the new major
Federal action are substantially the same as the
effects analyzed in such environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement.
``(2) Actions that are not substantially the same.--If a new
major Federal action is not substantially the same as another
major Federal action or an alternative analyzed in an
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement
completed by the lead agency, another Federal agency, or a
project sponsor under the supervision of a Federal agency, the
lead agency may modify or augment any such previously completed
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement as
necessary to satisfy the requirements of this Act with respect
to the new major Federal action. The lead agency shall make
such modified environmental assessment or environmental impact
statement publicly available as a new environmental assessment
or environmental impact statement.''.
(e) Adoption of Categorical Exclusions.--Section 109 of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4336c) is amended in the
text preceding paragraph (1), by inserting ``, or that was
legislatively enacted by Congress,'' after ``procedures''.
(f) Definitions.--Section 111 of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4336e) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (13) as
paragraphs (2) through (14), respectively;
(2) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated)
the following:
``(1) Authorization.--The term `authorization' means any
lease, right-of-way, easement, license, permit, approval,
finding, determination, or other administrative decision issued
by an agency or any interagency consultation that is required
or authorized under Federal law in order to construct, modify,
or operate a project.'';
(3) in paragraph (2) (as so redesignated), by inserting ``,
or Congress deems by statute,'' after ``Federal agency has
determined'';
(4) in paragraph (11) (as so redesignated)--
(A) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) in clause (iii)--
(I) by inserting ``grants (including
capitalization grants), cost share
awards,'' after ``loan guarantees,'';
(II) by striking ``sufficient'' and
inserting ``complete''; and
(III) by striking ``subsequent use of
such financial assistance or the'';
(ii) by redesignating clauses (iv) through
(vii) as clauses (vi) through (ix),
respectively; and
(iii) by inserting after clause (iii) the
following:
``(iv) farm ownership loans and operating
loan guarantees by the Farm Service Agency
pursuant to sections 305 and 311 through 319 of
the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act;
``(v) the issuance of an authorization by an
agency where the effects of the action or
project being permitted or authorized were
previously evaluated by another agency in
compliance with this Act;''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Additional exclusions.--An agency action may
not be determined to be a major Federal action solely
on the basis of the provision of Federal funds,
including a grant, loan, loan guarantee, and funding
assistance.''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(15) Reasonably foreseeable.--The term `reasonably
foreseeable', with respect to environmental effects of a
proposed agency action--
``(A) means effects that share a reasonably close
causal relationship to, and are proximately caused by,
the immediate project or action under consideration;
and
``(B) does not include effects that are--
``(i) speculative;
``(ii) attenuated from the proposed agency
action;
``(iii) separate in time or place from the
proposed agency action; or
``(iv) in relation to separate existing or
potential future projects.''.
(g) Duties.--Section 204 of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4344) is amended in paragraph (4) by inserting
``energy,'' after ``health,''.
SEC. 3. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Title I of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4331 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 112 as section 110A and moving
such section so as to appear after section 110; and
(2) by inserting before section 111 the following:
``SEC. 110B. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
``(a) Role of the Court.--In reviewing a claim of whether a final
agency action complies with the requirements of this Act, a court--
``(1) shall afford substantial deference to the agency; and
``(2) may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency
regarding the environmental effects included in the final
agency action or included in the environmental document.
``(b) Remand.--
``(1) In general.--If a court holds, under section 706(2)(A)
of title 5, United States Code, that a final agency action does
not comply with the requirements of this Act, the only remedy
the court may order, notwithstanding chapter 7 of title 5,
United States Code, is to remand, without vacatur or
injunction, the final agency action to the agency with--
``(A) specific instruction to correct the errors or
deficiencies found by the court; and
``(B) a reasonable schedule and deadline to correct
such errors or deficiencies, which such deadline may
not exceed--
``(i) with regard to an order entered on or
after the date of enactment of this section,
the date that is 180 days after the date on
which the order was entered; and
``(ii) with regard to an order entered before
the date of enactment of this section, the date
that is 180 days after the date of enactment of
this section.
``(2) Continued effect of final agency action.--A final
agency action remanded under paragraph (1) shall remain in
effect while the Federal agency corrects any errors or
deficiencies found by the court.
``(c) Limitations on Claims.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
(except as provided in subparagraph (A) with respect to a
shorter deadline), a claim described in subsection (a) shall be
barred unless--
``(A) such claim is filed not later than 150 days
after the final agency action is made public, unless a
shorter deadline is specified under law;
``(B) in the case of a final agency action for which
there was a public comment period on an environmental
document, such claim--
``(i) is filed by a party that submitted a
substantive and unique comment during such
public comment period by the noticed comment
deadline for the environmental document and
such comment was sufficiently detailed to put
the applicable Federal agency on notice of the
issue upon which the party seeks review; and
``(ii) concerns the same subject matter
raised in the comment submitted during the
public comment period;
``(C) such claim is filed by a party that has
suffered or imminently will suffer direct harm from the
final agency action; and
``(D) such claim does not challenge the establishment
of a categorical exclusion.
``(2) Supplemental environmental documents.--If an agency
issues a supplemental environmental document in response to a
court order remanding a final agency action, the deadline
described in paragraph (1)(A) shall be the date on which the
agency makes public the agency action for which the
supplemental environmental document is prepared. A claim for
review of such final agency action shall be limited to
information contained in the final supplemental environmental
document that was not contained in a previous environmental
document for the final agency action.
``(3) Actions for use of tribal trust resources.--For any
final agency action that authorizes or affects the use of
lands, minerals, or other resources already held in trust at
the time of the final agency action by the United States for
the benefit of a federally recognized Indian Tribe--
``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), there
shall be no administrative or judicial review of such
final agency action based on a claim of failure to
comply with the requirements of this Act; and
``(B) subparagraph (A) shall not apply to actions for
administrative or judicial review--
``(i) brought by the federally recognized
Indian Tribe for which the United States holds
the lands, minerals, or other resources in
trust; or
``(ii) that involve reasonably foreseeable
effects of the final agency action that occur
outside the lands, minerals, or other resources
held in trust by the United States for the
benefit of a federally recognized Indian Tribe.
``(d) Deadline for Resolution.--
``(1) In general.--A court shall issue a final judgment on a
claim described in subsection (a)--
``(A) as expeditiously as practicable; and
``(B) unless a shorter deadline is specified under
Federal law, not later than the date that is 180 days
after the date on which the agency record for the
review is filed with the reviewing court, which shall
not be more than 60 days after the filing of the claim.
``(2) Accelerated deadlines.--Nothing in this subsection may
be construed to prevent a court from further expediting review
of a claim described in subsection (a).
``(3) Appeals.--
``(A) Filing.--A notice of appeal of a final judgment
described in this subsection shall be filed not later
than 60 days after such final judgment is issued. In
the case of a final agency action remanded under
subsection (b), the agency and, if applicable, the
applicant, shall have the right to appeal during the
pendency of the remand.
``(B) Deadline for review.--A court shall issue a
final decision on an appeal filed under subparagraph
(A)--
``(i) as expeditiously as practicable; and
``(ii) not later than the date that is 180
days after the date on which the appeal is
filed.
``(e) No Effect on Review of Compliance With Other Deadlines.--This
section shall not affect the right to obtain review under section
107(g)(3).''.
Purpose of the Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 4776 is to amend the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to clarify ambiguous
provisions and facilitate a more efficient, effective, and
timely environmental review process.
Background and Need for Legislation
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) establishes
parameters for assessing and publicly disclosing the
environmental impact of all ``major federal actions,''\1\ which
encompass a broad range of governmental activities that impact
the American economy. Originally intended to strike an
appropriate balance between protecting the environment and
promoting economic development, the NEPA process has become
increasingly complex, resulting in unwieldy NEPA documents,
excessive timelines, and an increase in frivolous
litigation.\2\ These delays have imposed significant time and
cost burdens, with environmental analysis adding an estimated
average of $4.2 million to project costs.\3\ The Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) recently found that Federal Highway
Administration projects, for example, take more than 7 years to
get from a notice of intent to the issuance of a Record of
Decision (ROD).\4\ This data contrasts sharply with CEQ's 1981
prediction that agencies would be able to complete EISs in
twelve months or less.\5\ Adding to this complexity is the fact
that NEPA is the ``most frequently litigated environmental
statute,'' according to the Department of Justice.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Pub. L. 91-190; 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended
by Pub. L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, and Pub.
L. 97-258, Sec. 4(b), September 13, 1982.
\2\Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities, 2020.
\3\NEPA Modernization 101: An Outdated Environmental Law the is
Impeding Clean Energy Developments, C3 SOLUTIONS, https://
www.c3solutions.org/policy-paper/nepa-modernization-101/.
\4\Council on Environmental Quality, Update to the Regulations
Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act, July 16, 2020, https://www.federalregister .gov/documents/
2020/07/16/2020-15179/update-to-the-regulations-implementing-the-
procedural- provisions-of-the-national-environmental#footnote-2-p43305.
\5\Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National
Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026, March 23, 1981,
https://www.energy.gov/nepa/downloads/forty-most-asked-questions-
concerning-ceqs-national-environmental-policy-act.
\6\Nina M. Hart & Linda Tsang, ``National Environmental Policy Act:
Judicial Review and Remedies,'' Congressional Research Service,
September 22, 2021, IF11932.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 2, 2023, President Biden signed into law the Fiscal
Responsibility Act (FRA),\7\ which included the first
significant NEPA reforms in over 40 years. Those reforms
defined ambiguous terms in the statute and set time and page
limits for NEPA documents. Unfortunately, rather than abide by
the FRA's significant NEPA and permitting reforms intended to
streamline construction in America, speed up timelines for
critical infrastructure projects, and reduce the burden on
taxpayers by creating efficiencies in the permitting process,
the Biden administration largely ignored the FRA's changes,
instead choosing to weaponize the NEPA process to delay
critical domestic energy projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Press Release, THE WHITE HOUSE, Bills Signed: H.R. 346, H.R.
3746, June 3, 2023, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefingroom/
legislation/2023/06/03/press-release-bills-signed-h-r-346-h-r-3746/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court strongly reaffirmed
NEPA's procedural nature and finite scope with its unanimous
decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle
County (Seven County).\8\ In the decision, the Supreme Court
held that courts must afford agencies substantial deference
when examining whether an agency acted reasonably in
determining the appropriate scope and content of an
environmental document prepared under NEPA. The Court explained
that a NEPA analysis for a given project need not consider the
broad effects of separate projects if an agency determines that
those upstream and downstream effects are remote in both time
and place.\9\ The decision also admonished lower courts not to
``substitute [their] judgment for that of the agency as to the
environmental consequences of its actions.''\10\ Seven County
was a significant milestone in returning common sense to the
NEPA process and in providing long-sought clarity that NEPA
review should focus on the project under consideration rather
than broader, indirect impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\605 U.S. ___ (2025), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/
24pdf/23-975_m648.pdf.
\9\Id.
\10\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 4776, led by Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and Jared
Golden (D-ME), would build on the FRA reforms and further
improve NEPA, including building on key aspects of the Seven
County decision. The bill clarifies that NEPA is a ``purely
procedural statute''\11\ that ``does not mandate particular
results, but simply prescribes the necessary process,''\12\
borrowing language from the Supreme Court's decisions in Seven
County and Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council. The
legislation prevents duplication of efforts by allowing federal
agencies to utilize environmental reviews conducted under other
federal or state environmental statutes, so long as they meet
the requirements of NEPA. In addition to using state or federal
reviews, agencies may utilize or adapt previously completed
environmental reviews for new projects, provided that the
previously completed reviews were for substantially similar
projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Id.
\12\Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350
(1989), https://supreme. justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/332/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since its enactment, NEPA has failed to provide project
applicants with the clarity and certainty they need. H.R. 4776
establishes clear procedural deadlines and requirements for
agencies to communicate with applicants and other agencies
involved in the review process. On top of increased
communication requirements, the bill provides certainty that
approved agency actions will not be revoked or otherwise
modified unless required by courts or allowed under a limited
set of clearly defined circumstances. These changes will
provide project applicants with the long-term stability and
assurance they require to invest in America.
One of the most glaring issues with NEPA is that it does
not clearly explain which effects an agency must consider in a
review. This omission has led to bloated environmental
documents and egregiously long timelines. H.R. 4776 rectifies
this issue by clarifying that agencies may consider only those
effects proximately caused by major federal actions and may not
consider effects that are speculative or separate in time or
place from the underlying action. By mandating that the
alternatives considered in a given NEPA document meet the
applicant's purpose and need, the bill also ensures that
agencies cannot use NEPA to significantly change proposed
projects they disfavor.
As previously discussed, NEPA establishes parameters for
assessing and publicly disclosing the environmental impact of
all ``major federal actions.'' This term was not defined until
the passage of the FRA in 2023. Unfortunately, that definition
was not comprehensive enough, as the Biden administration
largely ignored the changes. H.R. 4776 would clarify the
definition of major federal action by explaining once and for
all that agencies may not determine an action to be a major
federal action based solely on the provision of federal funds.
The bill also addresses frivolous NEPA claims in several
key ways. First, the bill codifies the Seven County decision by
ensuring that courts do not improperly substitute their
judgments for those made by the agencies. Second, the bill
clarifies that the only remedy available to courts in deciding
NEPA cases is to remand the action back to the lead agency;
they may not enjoin or vacate the challenged action. Because
NEPA is a purely procedural statute that establishes a process,
it stands to reason that if an agency erred in its process, it
should go back and complete it, without the underlying action
being disqualified or cancelled. Third, important protections
are given to Tribal projects, limiting outside groups' ability
to stop Tribes from completing projects affecting resources
held in trust. Finally, the bill requires that NEPA claims be
filed within 150 days after the action is made public and, if a
comment period was provided, must be filed by claimants who
submitted a comment during the public comment period, have a
claim related to their comment, and have been, or imminently
will be, harmed by the proposed action. This provision
facilitates a timelier litigation process and ensures that
agencies are, at the very least, given the opportunity to
address deficiencies before being sued.
Committee Action
H.R. 4776 was introduced on July 25, 2025, by
Representative Bruce Westerman (R-AR). The bill was referred to
the Committee on Natural Resources. On September 10, 2025, the
Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing on the bill. On
November 20, 2025, the Committee on Natural Resources met to
consider the bill. Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR) offered an
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated
Westerman_042 ANS. The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute,
as amended, was agreed to by voice vote. Rep. Jeff Hurd (R-CO)
offered an amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute designated Hurd_032. The amendment was agreed to by
voice vote. Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) offered an amendment to
the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated
Golden_02. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. Ranking
Member Jared Huffman (D-CA) offered an amendment to the
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated Huffman #1.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 yeas
to 24 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ranking Member Jared Huffman (D-CA) offered an amendment to
the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated Huffman
#3. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 18
yeas to 23 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ranking Member Jared Huffman (D-CA) offered an amendment to
the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated Huffman
#13. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16
yeas to 25 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ranking Member Jared Huffman (D-CA) offered an amendment to
the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated Huffman
#26. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17
yeas to 24 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ranking Member Jared Huffman (D-CA) offered an amendment to
the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated Huffman
#30. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17
yeas to 24 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-NM) offered an amendment to
the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated Leger
Fernandez #15. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call
vote of 16 yeas to 25 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-NM) offered an amendment to
the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated Leger
Fernandez #16. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call
vote of 17 yeas to 24 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Rep. Dave Min (D-CA) offered an amendment to the Amendment
in the Nature of a Substitute designated Min #17. The amendment
was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 yeas to 24 nays, as
follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-OR) offered an amendment to the
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated Dexter #23.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 19 yeas
to 24 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-OR) offered an amendment to the
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated Dexter #29.
The amendment was withdrawn. Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI) offered
an amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
designated Magaziner #6. The amendment was withdrawn. Rep. Seth
Magaziner (D-RI) offered an amendment to the Amendment in the
Nature of a Substitute designated Magaziner #7. The amendment
was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 19 yeas to 24 nays, as
follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI) offered an amendment to the
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated Magaziner
#8. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 19
yeas to 24 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI) offered an amendment to the
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated Magaziner
#9. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 19
yeas to 24 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Rep. Emily Randall (D-WA) offered an amendment to the
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated Randall #20.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 19 yeas
to 24 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Rep. Emily Randall (D-WA) offered an amendment to the
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated Randall #22.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 20 yeas
to 23 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Rep. Emily Randall (D-WA) offered an amendment to the
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated Randall #31.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 yeas
to 26 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ranking Member Jared Huffman (D-CA) offered an amendment to
the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated Ansari
#9. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 18
yeas to 25 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Rep. Luz Rivas (D-CA) offered an amendment to the Amendment
in the Nature of a Substitute designated Rivas #11. The
amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 20 yeas to
23 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Rep. Luz Rivas (D-CA) offered an amendment to the Amendment
in the Nature of a Substitute designated Rivas #12. The
amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 20 yeas to
23 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) offered an amendment to the
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated Grijalva
#14. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17
yeas to 26 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Rep. Julia Brownley (D-CA) offered an amendment to the
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated Brownley #24
revised. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of
18 yeas to 25 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Rep. Julia Brownley (D-CA) offered an amendment to the
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated Brownley
#25. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 18
yeas to 25 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Rep. Susie Lee (D-NV) offered an amendment to the Amendment
in the Nature of a Substitute designated Lee #2. The amendment
was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 19 yeas to 24 nays, as
follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ranking Member Jared Huffman (D-CA) offered an amendment to
the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated Huffman
#28. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 18
yeas to 25 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The bill, as amended, was ordered favorably reported to the
House of Representatives by a roll call vote of 25 yeas to 18
nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Hearings
For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6) of House rule XIII, the
following hearing was used to develop or consider this measure:
hearing by the Committee on Natural Resources held on September
10, 2025.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title
Names the bill the ``Standardizing Permitting and
Expediting Economic Development Act'' or the ``SPEED Act.''
Section 2. NEPA reform
Clarifies that NEPA is a purely procedural statute
that does not mandate particular results but simply prescribes
the necessary process.
Prevents duplication by allowing federal agencies
to utilize environmental reviews conducted under other federal,
state, or Tribal environmental statutes, so long as they meet
the requirements of NEPA.
Stipulates that agencies may consider only those
effects that are proximately caused by the major federal action
and may not consider effects that are speculative or separate
in time or place from the major federal action.
Prohibits agencies from revoking or modifying
previously issued authorizations unless required by a court
order or for other narrowly defined reasons.
Requires the alternatives considered in the
environmental document to meet the purpose and need of the
applicant, ensuring that agencies cannot use NEPA to change the
purpose of a proposed project.
Defines ``major federal action'' under NEPA,
clarifying that agencies may not determine an action to be a
major federal action based solely on the provision of federal
funds.
Establishes a presumption that when a Tribe-
sponsored project affecting trust resources requires the
exploration of a no action alternative, the effects of the no
action alternative will be negative for the Tribe.
Requires agencies to notify applicants within 60
days of receiving a project application whether the application
received is complete. If the application is complete, agencies
then have 60 days to either begin the environmental review
process or inform the applicant that their project is exempt
from NEPA.
Creates a process whereby lead agencies must
identify other agencies that are likely to have
responsibilities related to environmental reviews,
authorizations etc. relating to the proposed agency action and
invite them to act as cooperating agencies. The lead agency is
then required to convene with cooperating agencies and develop
a coordinated schedule for the purpose of streamlining the
review process.
Requires the lead agency and any cooperating
agency to issue, not later than 30 days after completing an
environmental review, a final agency action along with a
performance schedule for any outstanding authorizations.
Requires the project applicant's approval for an
agency to extend the deadlines in this section.
Directs the lead agency and cooperating agencies
to carry out necessary reviews and other obligations related to
the proposed action concurrently and in conjunction with one
another.
Allows lead agencies to use or adapt a previously
completed environmental assessment, environmental impact
statement, or categorical exclusion for a new project, so long
as the new project is substantially the same as the one already
reviewed.
Section 3. Judicial review
Directs the courts to afford substantial deference
to agencies when determining whether a final agency action
complied with NEPA.
Mandates that the only remedy available to courts
in deciding NEPA cases is to remand the action back to the lead
agency; courts may not enjoin or vacate the agency action under
NEPA. Gives agencies 180 days to address any deficiencies upon
remand.
Requires that NEPA claims be filed within 150 days
after the action is made public and that the claimant must have
submitted a ``unique and substantive'' comment during the
public comment period in relation to the claim. Additionally,
to file a lawsuit, plaintiffs must show that they have been, or
imminently will be, directly harmed by the action.
Requires any lawsuit filed on a supplemental
environmental document to be based on new information in the
supplemental document.
Unless a case is filed by a federally recognized
Indian Tribe, parts of major federal actions that solely affect
resources held in trust for Tribes are not subject to
administrative or judicial review on the basis of failure to
comply to with NEPA.
Directs courts to resolve NEPA-related cases
within 180 days and requires appeals to be filed within 60 days
of a decision. Courts must resolve such appeals within 180
days.
Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
Performance Goals and Objectives
As required by clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general
performance goal or objective of this bill is to amend the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to clarify ambiguous
provisions and facilitate a more efficient, effective, and
timely environmental review process.
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority,
and Tax Expenditures
In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its
own the estimate of new budget authority, entitlement
authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
Congressional Budget Office Estimates
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of House rule XIII, the
Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Earmark Statement
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of the Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.
Existing Programs
Directed Rule Making. This bill does not contain any
directed rule makings.
Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
not included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
98-169) as relating to other programs.
Applicability to Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
Preemption of State, Local or Tribal Law
Any preemptive effect of this bill over state, local, or
tribal law is intended to be consistent with the bill's
purposes and text and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the
U.S. Constitution.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969
* * * * * * *
purpose
Sec. 2. [The purposes] (a) The purposes of this Act are: To
declare a national policy which will encourage productive and
enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote
efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the
environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare
or man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems
and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish
a Council on Environmental Quality.
(b) This Act is a purely procedural statute intended to
ensure Federal agencies consider the environmental impacts of
their actions during the decisionmaking process. This Act does
not mandate particular results, and only prescribes a process.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to mandate any specific
environmental outcome or result, nor shall this Act be
interpreted to confer substantive rights or impose substantive
duties beyond procedural requirements.
TITLE I--DECLARATION OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY
* * * * * * *
SEC. 106. PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION OF LEVEL OF REVIEW; SCOPE OF
REVIEW.
(a) Threshold Determinations.--An agency is not required to
prepare an environmental document with respect to a proposed
agency action if--
(1) the proposed agency action is not a final agency
action within the meaning of such term in chapter 5 of
title 5, United States Code;
(2) the proposed agency action is excluded pursuant
to one of the agency's categorical exclusions, another
agency's categorical exclusions consistent with section
109 of this Act, or another provision of law;
(3) the preparation of such document would clearly
and fundamentally conflict with the requirements of
another provision of law; [or]
(4) the proposed agency action is a nondiscretionary
action with respect to which such agency does not have
authority to take environmental factors into
consideration in determining whether to take the
proposed [action.] action;
(5) the agency determines the proposed agency action
is an action for which such agency's compliance with
another statute's requirements serves the function of
agency compliance with this Act with respect to such
action; or
(6) the proposed agency action relates to a project
or action that has already been reviewed pursuant to a
State environmental review statute or a Tribal
environmental review statute, ordinance, resolution,
regulation, or formally adopted policy and the lead
agency determines such review serves the function of
agency compliance with this Act.
(b) Levels of Review.--
(1) Environmental impact statement.--An agency shall
issue an environmental impact statement with respect to
a proposed agency action requiring an environmental
document that has a reasonably foreseeable significant
effect on the quality of the human environment.
(2) Environmental assessment.--An agency shall
prepare an environmental assessment with respect to a
proposed agency action that [does not] is not likely to
have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the
quality of the human environment, or if the
significance of such effect is unknown, unless the
agency finds that the proposed agency action is
excluded pursuant to one of the agency's categorical
exclusions, another agency's categorical exclusions
consistent with section 109 of this Act, or another
provision of law. Such environmental assessment shall
be a concise public document prepared by a Federal
agency to set forth the basis of such agency's finding
of no significant impact or determination that an
environmental impact statement is necessary.
(3) Sources of information.--In making a
determination under this subsection, an agency--
(A) may make use of any reliable data source;
and
[(B) is not required to undertake new
scientific or technical research unless the new
scientific or technical research is essential
to a reasoned choice among alternatives, and
the overall costs and time frame of obtaining
it are not unreasonable.]
(B) is not required to--
(i) undertake new scientific or
technical research unless the new
scientific or technical research is
essential to a reasoned choice among
alternatives, and the overall costs and
time frame of obtaining it are not
unreasonable; or
(ii) undertake new scientific or
technical research after the receipt of
an application, as applicable, with
respect to a proposed agency action.
(c) Scope of Review.--In preparing an environmental document
for a proposed agency action, a Federal agency--
(1) may consider only those effects that share a
reasonably close causal relationship to, and are
proximately caused by, the immediate project or action
under consideration; and
(2) may not consider effects that are speculative,
attenuated from the project or action, separate in time
or place from the project or action, or in relation to
separate existing or potential future projects or
actions.
(d) Certainty.--
(1) Environmental documents.--A Federal agency may
not rescind, withdraw, amend, alter, or otherwise
render ineffective any environmental document completed
under this Act for a project or action where there is
an applicant unless the Federal agency has been so
ordered by a court or the applicant has agreed in
writing to such rescission, withdrawal, amendment, or
alteration.
(2) Authorizations.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in this
subsection or existing law, a Federal agency
may not revoke, rescind, withdraw, terminate,
suspend, amend, alter, or take any other action
to interfere with an authorization unless--
(i) the Federal agency is required to
take such action by order of a court of
competent jurisdiction;
(ii) the holder of the authorization
has materially breached the terms of
the authorization, or otherwise
violated applicable law;
(iii) the authorization was obtained
through fraud, intentional concealment,
or material misrepresentation;
(iv) such action is necessary to
prevent specific, immediate,
substantial, and proximate harm or
damage to life, property, national
security, or defense that was not
considered in the underlying
environmental review process or final
agency action for the authorization; or
(v) the Federal agency has received a
request from the holder of the
authorization or project sponsor to
take such action.
(B) Requirement.--The actions described in
subparagraph (A) shall be, as appropriate and
where feasible, supported by clear and
convincing evidence and reasonably limited in
duration and scope by the agency to address the
specific issue such action is intended to
address.
(C) Notice.--Before an agency takes an action
described in subparagraph (A), the agency shall
notify the holder of the authorization and the
project sponsor in writing of such action,
including by providing a detailed explanation
of the action, identifying the statutory
authority relied upon for the action, and
providing the evidence supporting the action.
(D) Judicial review.--
(i) In general.--An action described
in subparagraph (A) shall be subject to
judicial review under chapter 7 of
title 5, United States Code.
(ii) Venue.--A person seeking
judicial review of an action described
in subparagraph (A) may only obtain
review of such action in the United
States court of appeals for any circuit
wherein the project for which the
authorization was issued is located.
(iii) Petitions by federal
agencies.--No Federal agency may
petition a court for vacatur or
voluntary remand of an authorization
unless the holder of the authorization
or the project sponsor consents in
writing to such a petition.
(E) Savings clause.--Nothing in subparagraph
(A) shall be construed to provide any Federal
agency new, enhanced, or expanded authority, or
to limit any existing authority, concerning any
authorization.
(e) Presumption of Negative Impacts of Taking No Action
Relating to Tribal Trust Resources.--For any proposed agency
action carried out on, or directly affecting, tribal trust
resources (including lands and minerals) that is initiated by
the federally recognized Indian Tribe for which the United
States holds the affected resources in trust, and for which an
environmental document was prepared that included consideration
of a no action alternative, there shall be a presumption that
the effects of taking no action will be negative for the
federally recognized Indian Tribe.
(f) Effect of Threshold Determinations on Other Agencies.--If
a lead agency determines an environmental document is not
required to be prepared with respect to a proposed agency
action under subsection (a), another agency may not prepare an
environmental document with respect to such proposed agency
action.
SEC. 107. TIMELY AND UNIFIED FEDERAL REVIEWS.
(a) Lead Agency.--
(1) Designation.--
(A) In general.--If there are two or more
participating Federal agencies, such agencies
shall determine, by letter or memorandum, which
agency shall be the lead agency based on
consideration of the--
(i) magnitude of agency's
involvement;
(ii) project approval or disapproval
authority;
(iii) expertise concerning the
action's environmental effects;
(iv) duration of agency's
involvement; and
(v) sequence of agency's involvement.
(B) Joint lead agencies.--In making a
determination under subparagraph (A), the
participating Federal agencies may appoint such
State, Tribal, or local agencies as joint lead
agencies as the involved Federal agencies shall
determine appropriate. Joint lead agencies
shall jointly fulfill the role described in
paragraph (2).
(2) Role.--A lead agency shall, with respect to a
proposed agency action--
(A) supervise the preparation of an
environmental document if, with respect to such
proposed agency action, there is more than one
participating Federal agency;
(B) request the participation of each
cooperating agency [at the earliest practicable
time] in accordance with subsection (g)(2);
(C) in preparing an environmental document,
give consideration to any analysis or proposal
created by a cooperating agency;
(D) develop a schedule, in consultation with
each cooperating agency, the applicant, and
such other entities as the lead agency
determines appropriate, for completion of any
environmental review, permit, or authorization
required to [carry out the proposed agency
action] carry out the proposed agency action in
compliance with the deadlines outlined in
subsection (g);
(E) if the lead agency determines that [a
review] an environmental review, permit, or
authorization will not be completed in
accordance with the schedule developed under
subparagraph (D), notify the agency responsible
for issuing [such review] such environmental
review, permit, or authorization of the
discrepancy and request that such agency take
such measures as such agency determines
appropriate to comply with such schedule; and
(F) meet with a cooperating agency that
requests such a meeting.
(3) Cooperating agency.--The lead agency may, with
respect to a proposed agency action, designate any
Federal, State, Tribal, or local agency (including
counties, boroughs, parishes, and other political
subdivisions of a State) that has jurisdiction by law
or special expertise with respect to any environmental
impact involved in a proposal to serve as a cooperating
agency. A cooperating agency may, not later than a date
specified in the schedule established by the lead
agency, submit comments to the lead agency. Such
comments from Federal cooperating agencies shall be
limited to matters relating to the proposed agency
action with respect to which such Federal cooperating
agency has jurisdiction by law.
(4) Request for designation.--Any Federal, State,
Tribal, or local agency or person that is substantially
affected by the lack of a designation of a lead agency
with respect to a proposed agency action under
paragraph (1) may submit a written request for such a
designation to a participating Federal agency. An
agency that receives a request under this paragraph
shall transmit such request to each participating
Federal agency and to the Council.
(5) Council designation.--
(A) Request.--If the participating Federal
agencies are unable to agree on the designation
of a lead agency within 45 days of the request
under paragraph (4), then the Federal, State,
Tribal or local agency or person that is
substantially affected by the lack or a
designation of a lead agency may request that
the Council designate a lead agency. Such
request shall consist of--
(i) a precise description of the
nature and extent of the proposed
agency action; and
(ii) a detailed statement with
respect to each participating Federal
agency and each factor listed in
paragraph (1) regarding which agency
should serve as lead agency.
(B) Transmission.--The Council shall transmit
a request received under subparagraph (A) to
each participating Federal agency.
(C) Response.--A participating Federal agency
may, not later than 20 days after the date of
the submission of a request under subparagraph
(A), submit to the Council a response to such
request.
(D) Designation.--Not later than 40 days
after the date of the submission of a request
under subparagraph (A), the Council shall
designate the lead agency with respect to the
relevant proposed agency action.
(b) One Document.--[To the extent practicable,]
(1) Document._To the extent practicable, if a
proposed agency action will require action by more than
one Federal agency and the lead agency has determined
that it requires preparation of an environmental
document, the lead and cooperating agencies shall
evaluate the proposal in a single environmental
document.
(2) Consideration timing.--
(A) In general.--In preparing an
environmental document for a proposed agency
action, no Federal agency shall be required to
consider any scientific or technical research
that becomes publicly available after the
earlier of, as applicable--
(i) the date of receipt of an
application with respect to such
proposed agency action; and
(ii) the date of publication of a
notice of intent or decision to prepare
such environmental document for such
proposed agency action.
(B) Applicability to other law.--This
paragraph does not affect any review of
information required under subchapter II of
chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, with
respect to comments received during the public
comment period as applicable.
(C) Delay.--A Federal agency may not delay
the issuance of an environmental document or a
final agency action, including any decision or
determination, on the basis of awaiting new
scientific or technical research or information
that was not available as of the earlier of the
dates described in subparagraph (A).
(c) Request for Public Comment.--Each notice of intent to
prepare an environmental impact statement under section 102
shall include a request for public comment on alternatives or
impacts and on relevant information, studies, or analyses with
respect to the proposed agency action.
(d) Statement of Purpose and Need.--Each environmental
document shall include a statement of purpose and need that
briefly summarizes the underlying purpose and need for the
proposed agency [action.] action. Where applicable, the
statement of purpose and need shall meet the goals of the
applicant.
(e) Page Limits.--
(1) Environmental impact statements.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (B), an environmental impact
statement shall not exceed 150 pages, not
including any citations or appendices.
(B) Extraordinary complexity.--An
environmental impact statement for a proposed
agency action of extraordinary complexity shall
not exceed 300 pages, not including any
citations or appendices.
(2) Environmental assessments.--An environmental
assessment shall not exceed 75 pages, not including any
citations or appendices.
(f) Sponsor Preparation.--A lead agency shall prescribe
procedures to allow a project sponsor to prepare an
environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement
under the supervision of the agency. Such agency may provide
such sponsor with appropriate guidance and assist in the
preparation. The lead agency shall independently evaluate the
environmental document and shall take responsibility for the
contents.
(g) Deadlines.--
(1) Applications for authorizations.--
(A) Notification of complete or incomplete
application.--Unless a shorter deadline is
specified by law, in connection with a proposed
agency action for which an applicant submitted
an application for an authorization to an
agency, not later than 60 days after the date
on which the applicant submits the application
to the agency, the agency shall document the
receipt of the application and--
(i) notify the applicant that the
application is complete; or
(ii) notify the applicant that the
application is incomplete and request
in writing any additional information
that the agency needs to determine that
the application is complete and begin
preparation of an environmental
document.
(B) Agency determination.--
(i) Complete determination.--If an
agency determines an application is
complete under subparagraph (A)(i), the
agency shall, not later than 60 days
after the date on which the agency
makes such determination--
(I) notify the applicant that
the agency has determined that
the proposed agency action is
excluded pursuant to one of the
agency's categorical
exclusions, is not a major
Federal action, or that no
further agency action is
required;
(II) issue a notice of intent
to prepare an environmental
impact statement for such
proposed agency action; or
(III) notify the applicant
that the agency has determined
that preparation of an
environmental assessment is
necessary.
(ii) Incomplete determination.--If
the agency requests additional
information under subparagraph (A)(ii),
the deadline described in clause (i)
shall be based on the date on which the
agency receives the additional
information instead of the date on
which the determination is made.
(2) Cooperating agencies.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 21 days after
a lead agency issues a notice of intent under
paragraph (1)(B)(i)(II) or notifies an
applicant under paragraph (1)(B)(i)(III) with
respect to a proposed agency action, the lead
agency shall--
(i) identify all agencies that are
likely to have environmental review,
authorization, or other
responsibilities with respect to the
proposed agency action; and
(ii) invite each such agency to
become a cooperating agency.
(B) Deadline to accept invitation.--Not later
than 21 days after an agency receives an
invitation to become a cooperating agency under
subparagraph (A)(ii), such agency shall accept
or deny the invitation.
(C) Convening of cooperating agencies.--Not
later than 7 days after the deadline described
in subparagraph (B) has passed for each agency
that received an invitation to become a
cooperating agency under subparagraph (A)(ii),
the lead agency that sent each such invitation
shall convene each agency that accepts such an
invitation to coordinate on developing the
schedule under subsection (a)(2)(D) for the
applicable proposed agency action.
(D) Unidentified agencies.--In the event that
an agency that has jurisdiction by law or
special expertise with respect to any
environmental impact involved in a proposed
agency action is not identified under
subparagraph (A)(i), the lead agency with
respect to the proposed agency action shall--
(i) invite such unidentified agency
to become a cooperating agency by not
later than 7 days after becoming aware
that the agency has jurisdiction by law
or special expertise; and
(ii) if such agency accepts the
invitation, incorporate such agency
into the schedule developed under
subsection (a)(2)(D) and update such
schedule accordingly by not later than
14 days after the date on which such
agency accepts the invitation.
[(1) In general.--] (3) Review timeline._ ._Except as
provided in paragraph [(2)] (5), with respect to a
proposed agency action, a lead agency shall complete,
as applicable--
(A) the environmental impact statement not
later than the date that is 2 years after the
sooner of, as applicable--
(i) the date on which such agency
determines that section 102(2)(C)
requires the issuance of an
environmental impact statement with
respect to such action;
(ii) the date on which such agency
notifies the applicant that the
application to establish a right-of-way
for such action is complete; and
(iii) the date on which such agency
issues a notice of intent to prepare
the environmental impact statement for
such action; and
(B) the environmental assessment not later
than the date that is 1 year after the sooner
of, as applicable--
(i) the date on which such agency
determines that section 106(b)(2)
requires the preparation of an
environmental assessment with respect
to such action;
(ii) the date on which such agency
notifies the applicant that the
application to establish a right-of-way
for such action is complete; and
(iii) the date on which such agency
issues a notice of intent to prepare
the environmental assessment for such
action.
(4) Deadline for final agency action.--For any
proposed agency action for which an applicant submitted
an application for an authorization to an agency, not
later than 30 days after completing an environmental
impact statement or an environmental assessment for the
proposed agency action, the lead agency, and any
cooperating agency, shall issue a final agency action.
The agency issuing such final agency action shall
include in the final agency action a performance
schedule for the completion of any other outstanding
authorizations.
[(2)] (5) Delay.--A lead agency that determines it is
not able to meet [the deadline described in paragraph
(1)] a deadline described in this subsection may extend
such deadline[, in consultation with the applicant, to]
if the applicant approves such extension. If the
applicant approves such extension, the lead agency
shall establish a new deadline that provides only so
much additional time as is necessary to complete such
environmental impact statement or environmental
assessment.
[(3)] (6) Petition to court.--
(A) Right to petition.--[A project sponsor
may] Except as provided in subparagraph (C), a
project sponsor may obtain a review of an
alleged failure by an agency to act in
accordance with an applicable deadline under
this section by filing a written petition with
a court of competent jurisdiction seeking an
order under subparagraph (B).
(B) Court order.--If a court of competent
jurisdiction finds that an agency has failed to
act in accordance with an applicable deadline,
the court shall set a schedule and deadline for
the agency to act as soon as practicable, which
shall not exceed 90 days from the date on which
the order of the court is issued, unless the
court determines a longer time period is
necessary to comply with applicable law.
(C) Exception.--A project sponsor that
approved an extension of a deadline under
paragraph (5) may not obtain judicial review of
a failure to act in accordance with such
deadline under subparagraph (A) unless the lead
agency fails to meet the new deadline or is
delaying for reasons other than those necessary
to complete its review.
(7) Concurrent review.--In carrying out an
environmental review, the lead agency and each
cooperating agency shall carry out the obligations of
that agency under other applicable laws concurrently,
and in conjunction, with other required reviews for the
proposed agency action, pursuant to the requirements of
applicable law, including, if applicable, under this
Act.
(h) Report.--
(1) In general.--The head of each lead agency shall
annually submit to the Committee on Natural Resources
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report
that--
(A) identifies any environmental assessment
and environmental impact statement that such
lead agency did not complete by the deadline
described in subsection (g); and
(B) provides an explanation for any failure
to meet such deadline.
(2) Inclusions.--Each report submitted under
paragraph (1) shall identify, as applicable--
(A) the office, bureau, division, unit, or
other entity within the Federal agency
responsible for each such environmental
assessment and environmental impact statement;
(B) the date on which--
(i) such lead agency notified the
applicant that the application to
establish a right-of-way for the major
Federal action is complete;
(ii) such lead agency began the
scoping for the major Federal action;
or
(iii) such lead agency issued a
notice of intent to prepare the
environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement for the
major Federal action; and
(C) when such environmental assessment and
environmental impact statement is expected to
be complete.
SEC. 108. PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT.
[When an agency prepares] (a) Programmatic Environmental
Documents._When an agency prepares a programmatic
environmental document for which judicial review was available,
the agency may rely on the analysis included in the
programmatic environmental document in a subsequent
environmental document for related actions as follows:
(1) Within [5] 10 years and without additional review
of the analysis in the programmatic environmental
document, unless there are substantial new
circumstances or information about the significance of
adverse effects that bear on the analysis.
(2) After [5] 10 years, so long as the agency
reevaluates the analysis in the programmatic
environmental document and any underlying assumption to
ensure reliance on the analysis remains valid.
(b) Reliance on Previously Completed Environmental Reviews.--
(1) Actions that are substantially the same.--A lead
agency may satisfy the requirements of this Act with
respect to a major Federal action by relying on an
environmental assessment, environmental impact
statement, or a categorical exclusion determination
that the lead agency, another Federal agency, or a
project sponsor under the supervision of a Federal
agency completed for another major Federal action if
the lead agency determines that--
(A) the new major Federal action is
substantially the same as the other major
Federal action or, if applicable, an
alternative analyzed in such environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement;
and
(B) if applicable, the effects of the new
major Federal action are substantially the same
as the effects analyzed in such environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement.
(2) Actions that are not substantially the same.--If
a new major Federal action is not substantially the
same as another major Federal action or an alternative
analyzed in an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement completed by the lead
agency, another Federal agency, or a project sponsor
under the supervision of a Federal agency, the lead
agency may modify or augment any such previously
completed environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement as necessary to satisfy the
requirements of this Act with respect to the new major
Federal action. The lead agency shall make such
modified environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement publicly available as a new
environmental assessment or environmental impact
statement.
SEC. 109. ADOPTION OF CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS.
An agency may adopt a categorical exclusion listed in another
agency's NEPA procedures, or that was legislatively enacted by
Congress, for a category of proposed agency actions for which
the categorical exclusion was established consistent with this
paragraph. The agency shall--
(1) identify the categorical exclusion listed in
another agency's NEPA procedures that covers a category
of proposed actions or related actions;
(2) consult with the agency that established the
categorical exclusion to ensure that the proposed
adoption of the categorical exclusion to a category of
actions is appropriate;
(3) identify to the public the categorical exclusion
that the agency plans to use for its proposed actions;
and
(4) document adoption of the categorical exclusion.
* * * * * * *
SEC. [112.] 110A. PROJECT SPONSOR OPT-IN FEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEWS.
(a) Process.--
(1) Project sponsor.--A project sponsor that intends
to pay a fee under this section for the preparation, or
supervision of the preparation, of an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement for a
project shall submit to the Council--
(A) a description of the project; and
(B) a declaration of whether the project
sponsor intends to prepare the environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement
under section 107(f).
(2) Council on environmental quality.--Not later than
15 days after the date on which the Council receives
information described in paragraph (1) from a project
sponsor, the Council shall provide to the project
sponsor notice of the amount of the fee to be paid
under this section, as determined under subsection (b).
(3) Payment of fee.--A project sponsor may pay a fee
under this section after receipt of the notice
described in paragraph (2).
(4) Deadline for environmental reviews for which a
fee is paid.--Notwithstanding section 107(g)(1)--
(A) an environmental assessment for which a
fee is paid under this section shall be
completed not later than 180 days after the
date on which the fee is paid; and
(B) an environmental impact statement for
which a fee is paid under this section shall be
completed not later than 1 year after the date
of publication of the notice of intent to
prepare the environmental impact statement.
(b) Fee Amount.--The amount of a fee under this section shall
be--
(1) 125 percent of the anticipated costs to prepare
the environmental assessment or environmental impact
statement; and
(2) in the case of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement to be prepared in whole
or in part by a project sponsor under section 107(f),
125 percent of the anticipated costs to supervise
preparation of, and, as applicable, prepare, the
environmental assessment or environmental impact
statement.
SEC. 110B. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) Role of the Court.--In reviewing a claim of whether a
final agency action complies with the requirements of this Act,
a court--
(1) shall afford substantial deference to the agency;
and
(2) may not substitute its judgment for that of the
agency regarding the environmental effects included in
the final agency action or included in the
environmental document.
(b) Remand.--
(1) In general.--If a court holds, under section
706(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code, that a final
agency action does not comply with the requirements of
this Act, the only remedy the court may order,
notwithstanding chapter 7 of title 5, United States
Code, is to remand, without vacatur or injunction, the
final agency action to the agency with--
(A) specific instruction to correct the
errors or deficiencies found by the court; and
(B) a reasonable schedule and deadline to
correct such errors or deficiencies, which such
deadline may not exceed--
(i) with regard to an order entered
on or after the date of enactment of
this section, the date that is 180 days
after the date on which the order was
entered; and
(ii) with regard to an order entered
before the date of enactment of this
section, the date that is 180 days
after the date of enactment of this
section.
(2) Continued effect of final agency action.--A final
agency action remanded under paragraph (1) shall remain
in effect while the Federal agency corrects any errors
or deficiencies found by the court.
(c) Limitations on Claims.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law (except as provided in subparagraph (A) with
respect to a shorter deadline), a claim described in
subsection (a) shall be barred unless--
(A) such claim is filed not later than 150
days after the final agency action is made
public, unless a shorter deadline is specified
under law;
(B) in the case of a final agency action for
which there was a public comment period on an
environmental document, such claim--
(i) is filed by a party that
submitted a substantive and unique
comment during such public comment
period by the noticed comment deadline
for the environmental document and such
comment was sufficiently detailed to
put the applicable Federal agency on
notice of the issue upon which the
party seeks review; and
(ii) concerns the same subject matter
raised in the comment submitted during
the public comment period;
(C) such claim is filed by a party that has
suffered or imminently will suffer direct harm
from the final agency action; and
(D) such claim does not challenge the
establishment of a categorical exclusion.
(2) Supplemental environmental documents.--If an
agency issues a supplemental environmental document in
response to a court order remanding a final agency
action, the deadline described in paragraph (1)(A)
shall be the date on which the agency makes public the
agency action for which the supplemental environmental
document is prepared. A claim for review of such final
agency action shall be limited to information contained
in the final supplemental environmental document that
was not contained in a previous environmental document
for the final agency action.
(3) Actions for use of tribal trust resources.--For
any final agency action that authorizes or affects the
use of lands, minerals, or other resources already held
in trust at the time of the final agency action by the
United States for the benefit of a federally recognized
Indian Tribe--
(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B),
there shall be no administrative or judicial
review of such final agency action based on a
claim of failure to comply with the
requirements of this Act; and
(B) subparagraph (A) shall not apply to
actions for administrative or judicial review--
(i) brought by the federally
recognized Indian Tribe for which the
United States holds the lands,
minerals, or other resources in trust;
or
(ii) that involve reasonably
foreseeable effects of the final agency
action that occur outside the lands,
minerals, or other resources held in
trust by the United States for the
benefit of a federally recognized
Indian Tribe.
(d) Deadline for Resolution.--
(1) In general.--A court shall issue a final judgment
on a claim described in subsection (a)--
(A) as expeditiously as practicable; and
(B) unless a shorter deadline is specified
under Federal law, not later than the date that
is 180 days after the date on which the agency
record for the review is filed with the
reviewing court, which shall not be more than
60 days after the filing of the claim.
(2) Accelerated deadlines.--Nothing in this
subsection may be construed to prevent a court from
further expediting review of a claim described in
subsection (a).
(3) Appeals.--
(A) Filing.--A notice of appeal of a final
judgment described in this subsection shall be
filed not later than 60 days after such final
judgment is issued. In the case of a final
agency action remanded under subsection (b),
the agency and, if applicable, the applicant,
shall have the right to appeal during the
pendency of the remand.
(B) Deadline for review.--A court shall issue
a final decision on an appeal filed under
subparagraph (A)--
(i) as expeditiously as practicable;
and
(ii) not later than the date that is
180 days after the date on which the
appeal is filed.
(e) No Effect on Review of Compliance With Other Deadlines.--
This section shall not affect the right to obtain review under
section 107(g)(3).
SEC. 111. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Authorization.--The term ``authorization'' means
any lease, right-of-way, easement, license, permit,
approval, finding, determination, or other
administrative decision issued by an agency or any
interagency consultation that is required or authorized
under Federal law in order to construct, modify, or
operate a project.
[(1)] (2) Categorical exclusion.--The term
``categorical exclusion'' means a category of actions
that a Federal agency has determined, or Congress deems
by statute, normally does not significantly affect the
quality of the human environment within the meaning of
section 102(2)(C).
[(2)] (3) Cooperating agency.--The term ``cooperating
agency'' means any Federal, State, Tribal, or local
agency that has been designated as a cooperating agency
under section 107(a)(3).
[(3)] (4) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the
Council on Environmental Quality established in title
II.
[(4)] (5) Environmental assessment.--The term
``environmental assessment'' means an environmental
assessment prepared under section 106(b)(2).
[(5)] (6) Environmental document.--The term
``environmental document'' means an environmental
impact statement, an environmental assessment, or a
finding of no significant impact.
[(6)] (7) Environmental impact statement.--The term
``environmental impact statement'' means a detailed
written statement that is required by section
102(2)(C).
[(7)] (8) Finding of no significant impact.--The term
``finding of no significant impact'' means a
determination by a Federal agency that a proposed
agency action does not require the issuance of an
environmental impact statement.
[(8)] (9) Participating federal agency.--The term
``participating Federal agency'' means a Federal agency
participating in an environmental review or
authorization of an action.
[(9)] (10) Lead agency.--The term ``lead agency''
means, with respect to a proposed agency action--
(A) the agency that proposed such action; or
(B) if there are 2 or more involved Federal
agencies with respect to such action, the
agency designated under section 107(a)(1).
[(10) ] (11) Major federal action.--
(A) In general.--The term ``major Federal
action'' means an action that the agency
carrying out such action determines is subject
to substantial Federal control and
responsibility.
(B) Exclusion.--The term ``major Federal
action'' does not include--
(i) a non-Federal action--
(I) with no or minimal
Federal funding; or
(II) with no or minimal
Federal involvement where a
Federal agency cannot control
the outcome of the project;
(ii) funding assistance solely in the
form of general revenue sharing funds
which do not provide Federal agency
compliance or enforcement
responsibility over the subsequent use
of such funds;
(iii) loans, loan guarantees, grants
(including capitalization grants), cost
share awards, or other forms of
financial assistance where a Federal
agency does not exercise [sufficient]
complete control and responsibility
over the [subsequent use of such
financial assistance or the] effect of
the action;
(iv) farm ownership loans and
operating loan guarantees by the Farm
Service Agency pursuant to sections 305
and 311 through 319 of the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act;
(v) the issuance of an authorization
by an agency where the effects of the
action or project being permitted or
authorized were previously evaluated by
another agency in compliance with this
Act;
[(iv)] (vi) business loan guarantees
provided by the Small Business
Administration pursuant to section 7(a)
or (b) and of the Small Business Act (
U.S.C. 636(a)), or title V of the Small
Business Investment Act of 1958 (15
U.S.C. 695 et seq.);
[(v)] (vii) bringing judicial or
administrative civil or criminal
enforcement actions;
[(vi)] (viii) extraterritorial
activities or decisions, which means
agency activities or decisions with
effects located entirely outside of the
jurisdiction of the United States; or
[(vii)] (ix) activities or decisions
that are non-discretionary and made in
accordance with the agency's statutory
authority.
(C) Additional exclusions.--An agency action
may not be determined to be a major Federal
action solely on the basis of the provision of
Federal funds, including a grant, loan, loan
guarantee, and funding assistance.
[(11)] (12) Programmatic environmental document.--The
term ``programmatic environmental document'' means an
environmental impact statement or environmental
assessment analyzing all or some of the environmental
effects of a policy, program, plan, or group of related
actions.
[(12)] (13) Proposal.--The term ``proposal'' means a
proposed action at a stage when an agency has a goal,
is actively preparing to make a decision on one or more
alternative means of accomplishing that goal, and can
meaningfully evaluate its effects.
[(13)] (14) Special expertise.--The term ``special
expertise'' means statutory responsibility, agency
mission, or related program experience.
(15) Reasonably foreseeable.--The term ``reasonably
foreseeable'', with respect to environmental effects of
a proposed agency action--
(A) means effects that share a reasonably
close causal relationship to, and are
proximately caused by, the immediate project or
action under consideration; and
(B) does not include effects that are--
(i) speculative;
(ii) attenuated from the proposed
agency action;
(iii) separate in time or place from
the proposed agency action; or
(iv) in relation to separate existing
or potential future projects.
TITLE II--COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 204. It shall be the duty and function of the Council--
(1) to assist and advise the President in the
preparation of the Environmental Quality Report
required by section 201;
(2) to gather timely and authoritative information
concerning the conditions and trends in the quality of
the environment both current and prospective, to
analyze and interpret such information for the purpose
of determining whether such conditions and trends are
interfering, or are likely to interfere, with the
achievement of the policy set forth in title I of this
Act, and to compile and submit to the President studies
relating to such conditions and trends;
(3) to review and appraise the various programs and
activities of the Federal Government in the light of
the policy set forth in title I of this Act for the
purpose of determining the extent to which such
programs and activities are contributing to the
achievement of such policy, and to make recommendations
to the President with respect thereto;
(4) to develop and recommend to the President
national policies to foster and promote the improvement
of environmental quality to meet the conservation,
social, economic, health, energy, and other
requirements and goals of the Nation;
(5) to conduct investigations, studies, surveys,
research, and analyses relating to ecological systems
and environmental quality;
(6) to document and define changes in the natural
environment, including the plant and animal systems,
and to accumulate necessary data and other information
for a continuing analysis of these changes or trends
and an interpretation of their underlying causes;
(7) to report at least once each year to the
President on the state and condition of the
environment; and
(8) to make and furnish such studies, reports,
thereon, and recommendations with repect to matters of
policy and legislation as the President may request.
* * * * * * *
DISSENTING VIEWS
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
federal government to consider the environmental effects of
proposed major federal actions, ensuring federal projects and
permitting decisions are informed and transparent to the
public. NEPA also requires agencies to evaluate alternatives
and public input, publicly disclose this information before
taking final action, and provides a structure for coordinating
permitting decisions. Committee Democrats believe any reforms
to NEPA must prioritize a permitting process that is efficient,
effective, and accelerates clean energy development and other
essential infrastructure, while respecting communities, public
input, tribal sovereignty, and tribal consultation.
Since President Nixon signed NEPA into law in 1970, NEPA
has democratized the federal decision-making process, giving
the public a chance to influence actions that shape the
environment in which Americans live, work, and play. The NEPA
public input process has improved myriad projects in small and
large ways. Members of the public, tribes, local governments,
and organizations have suggested useful alternatives and
identified critical errors in underlying data or analysis.\1\
Research shows that public comment plays a meaningful role in
shaping federal decision-making, substantively altering
decisions in 62 percent of analyzed environmental impact
statements; federal decision-makers credited public comment as
the reason every time they modified a mitigation plan or
selected a new preferred alternative.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Environmental Law Institute, Nepa Success Stories: Celebrating
40 Years of Transparency and Open Government (August 2010).
\2\Ashley Stava et al, Quantifying the substantive influence of
public comment on United States federal environmental decisions under
NEPA, Environmental Research Letters (June 10, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NEPA process has measurably improved major
infrastructure projects across the country. Examples include
improving port operational efficiency (Choctaw Point Shipping
Terminal, Alabama); lowering project costs, saving time, and
reducing environmental disturbances (Crenshaw/LAX Transit
Corridor, California); and improving public safety (I-70
Mountain Corridor, Colorado).\3\ To quote the Environmental Law
Institute, ``because of NEPA, bad decisions have sometimes been
avoided and good decisions often have been made better.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\NRDC, Never Eliminate Public Advice: NEPA Success Stories
(February 1, 2015).
\4\Supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projects that experience significant NEPA delays are the
exception, not the norm. According to numerous studies, when
delays occur, the most common causes are agency capacity,
including staff, expertise, funding, or technology; delays
attributable to the project applicant, including waiting for
information, changed plans of operation, and shifting
priorities; and compliance with other laws and coordination
with other permitting authorities, including state and local
governments.\5\ Litigation can cause additional delays at the
end of a permitting process, but NEPA-related claims are also
rare compared to challenges under other statutes: a 2020 study
found that only one in every 450 NEPA reviews is ever
challenged in court.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\House Committee on Natural Resources, Testimony of Dr. Jamie
Pleune, ``The Biden Administration's Executive Overreach and its Impact
on American Energy Independence,'' 118th Cong. (May 11, 2023).
\6\Lewis and Clark Law School, Measuring the NEPA Litigation
Burden, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEPA and the permitting process have already undergone
significant changes in the last two years, including statutory
changes through enactment of the 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act
(FRA), major regulatory changes during President Trump's second
term, and judicial changes related to the Supreme Court case
Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County. Notably,
the FRA amendments added 1- and 2-year judicially enforceable
timelines for completing an environmental assessment and an
environmental impact statement (EIS), respectively.
Under the previous administration, Committee Democrats
championed a historic investment of over $1 billion for federal
permitting offices across several federal agencies through the
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). This investment had a
significant positive impact on federal environmental reviews
and addressed legitimate, evidence-based challenges. According
to the Biden administration, as of January 2025, the $1 billion
investment, along with the utilization of other commonsense
authorities, reduced the median time needed to complete an EIS
(from notice of intent to final EIS) by 28 percent compared to
the first Trump administration. The median time was 2.2 years
in 2024, compared to 3.6 years in 2019.\7\ Despite the clear
benefits of adequately funding our agencies, Republicans want
to continue slashing funding while avoiding proper analysis and
community input. The recently enacted H.R. 1 rescinded unspent
funds appropriated through the IRA, including for permitting
staff and technology upgrades. Additionally, agency reductions-
in-force and voluntary resignations appear to be having a
significant impact on permitting, with project developers
reporting significant frustration over the lack of agency
staffing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\CEQ, Environmental Impact Statement Timelines, January 13, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On top of these recent changes, the Trump administration's
regulatory chaos has created significant uncertainty in the
permitting process, including by repealing the unifying Council
on Environmental Quality NEPA regulations that helped provide
consistent NEPA procedures across the federal government, and
using a legally dubious ``energy emergency'' and other claims
to skirt essential permitting requirements. Many of these
actions are facing litigation, and the Trump administration is
losing in court, adding to further uncertainty and chaos. In
May, 15 state Attorneys General sued the Trump administration
over its ``energy emergency'' declaration, arguing the order's
direction to bypass federal review is illegal. And in August, a
federal judge ordered the Governor of Florida and the Trump
administration to begin dismantling the so-called Alligator
Alcatraz detention center based on their failure to conduct
NEPA analysis and other violations of law.
Despite all these changes, the majority's oversight of NEPA
has been virtually non-existent, even while pursuing a major
overhaul of this foundational law. Furthermore, they have not
been able to answer basic questions raised by Democrats about
the impact of the SPEED Act, should it become law. For example,
the bill, as written, could waive NEPA requirements for all
Department of Transportation federal highway projects, and the
majority has not shared whether this is the intent or even
whether they understand the potential impact. Before NEPA,
federal highways cut through many low-income communities and
communities of color, often without input from the people who
lived there. NEPA was passed in part to stop that pattern by
ensuring the federal government considers these environmental
justice impacts and gives communities a voice before proceeding
with major projects. Waiving this review is a shortsighted step
in the wrong direction and will actively put vulnerable
communities in harm's way.
The SPEED Act further undermines NEPA by shifting its focus
away from informed, balanced decision-making. The bill
fundamentally restructures NEPA to reduce the number of
projects that trigger NEPA review, narrow the quality of
environmental analysis and public input that remain, and
sharply limit judicial oversight, making it harder to challenge
unlawful decisions and easier for polluters to advance harmful
projects. Specifically, the legislation makes judicial review,
the only avenue for accountability, essentially meaningless--
both by preventing courts from stopping projects even when
agencies rely on faulty or non-existent analysis and by
imposing overly restrictive standing requirements that shut
affected communities out of the process while possibly even
lengthening and complicating litigation. The bill's efforts to
limit the scope of environmental analysis go far beyond Seven
County Infrastructure. Its limitations on considering new
science put blinders on agency analysis, leading to poor
decision-making and likely increased legal risk. Democrats
offered amendments to correct many of these problems, but they
were all rejected by Republicans.
While undermining core safeguards for communities, the
SPEED Act also fails to provide meaningful permitting certainty
for virtually all clean energy projects that are currently
being stalled or blocked by the Trump administration. I
appreciate efforts to improve the legislation throughout the
process, but the SPEED Act still does not address the many ways
the Trump administration is stopping renewable energy projects
from being permitted in the first place. Amendments added in
hopes of ensuring previously enacted permits cannot later be
revoked will still not make a meaningful difference for clean
energy deployment in the first place, and do not help projects
that have already had permits overturned by this
administration.
For these reasons, I strongly oppose the SPEED Act.
Jared Huffman,
Ranking Member.
[all]