Airport Alert: House Natural Resources Committee Advances NEPA Reform Bill

November 20, 2025

Today, the House Natural Resources Committee advanced the “Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development Act,” known as the SPEED Act, during a committee markup by a vote of 25 to 18. The SPEED Act is a bipartisan bill that would make significant reforms to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and accelerate the review process for airport infrastructure projects. The bill would establish strict deadlines for the entire NEPA review process, including for processing categorical exclusions (CATEXs), and make clear when the “clock” starts on the preparation of environmental documents. The bill also narrows the scope of environmental effects considered during reviews and limits the judicial review of NEPA decisions.

Several of the key changes in the SPEED Act, particularly relating to review deadlines, align with AAAE’s “Commonsense Recommendations for Regulatory Reform,” which we developed earlier this year as a set of proposals to advance regulatory reform and streamlining at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). As a result, following the markup today, AAAE issued a statement applauding the work of the committee’s leaders to approve bipartisan legislation that “will allow airports to build and upgrade facilities more quickly to the benefit of travelers across the country.” We also urged its “speedy passage.”

During today’s session, the committee adopted a manager’s amendment offered by Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR), which made meaningful changes to the underlying bill. Two Democrats—Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME), an original cosponsor of the bill, and Rep. Adam Gray (D-CA)—joined Republicans to support the revised legislation. Over the course of a nearly six-hour markup, the committee rejected all but one of 26 amendments that Democrats offered. Although it is unclear when the bill may move to the House floor, Chairman Westerman stated last week the goal is to have a vote by the full House before the end of the year.

You can read the manager’s amendment to the SPEED Act, which was adopted today with minor amendments, here. Background information on NEPA and details on the revised SPEED Act are provided below.

Background

Any major actions undertaken by a federal agency, such as approving an airport layout plan (ALP) update, are subject to the NEPA review process. Unfortunately, over the past year, several major policy developments have created substantial uncertainty over NEPA reviews. On inauguration day, President Trump issued an executive order directing his administration to expedite NEPA reviews and revoking the authority of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which has been responsible for implementing NEPA across the federal government, to promulgate regulations dictating how agencies must comply with NEPA. In June, FAA released its updated NEPA guidance, Order 1050.1G, which had not been updated since 2015. However, there are many unanswered questions about how the new FAA order is being implemented.

Efforts to reform NEPA have not been limited to the administration. In May, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, which reaffirmed the “procedural nature” of NEPA and the limited scope of reviews. The Court also required lower courts to provide agencies with “substantial deference” when reviewing agency decision-making and whether an agency complied with its NEPA responsibilities. Shortly after, some progress was made in Congress on advancing bipartisan NEPA reform. In July, Rep. Westerman (R-AR) introduced the SPEED Act, which is intended to implement a range of changes to the NEPA statute and accelerate project delivery. So far, five Democrats have cosponsored the legislation.

Summary of Key Provisions from the SPEED Act

Setting Prescriptive NEPA Review Deadlines: Under the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, Congress established deadlines by which agencies must complete environmental documents. Agencies must complete an environmental assessment (EA) within one year and an environmental impact statement (EIS) within two years. However, in our “Commonsense Recommendations for Regulatory Reform,” AAAE has raised concerns that these deadlines are not being enforced, and FAA needs to set an objective “start date” for when the statutory period begins. The SPEED Act makes three notable changes to strengthen the deadlines:

Deadlines for Accepting Applications: Within 60 days of an application being submitted (or other request triggering NEPA), an agency would be required to (a) accept the application as complete or (b) deem it incomplete and identify what information must be provided to make it complete. The application would automatically be deemed complete when the applicant submits the required information identified by the agency.

Starting the “Clock” on Reviews: After an application is considered complete, the bill would require the reviewing agency to make one of three decisions within 60 days: (a) determine the proposed action is subject to a CATEX or not subject to NEPA; (b) issue a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS; or (c) notify the applicant the agency has determined to prepare an EA. This requirement would establish a new deadline for CATEX determinations and ensure a clear, objective starting point for the one- and two-year deadlines that already apply to EAs and EISs, respectively.

Applicants Must Approve Deadline Extensions: If an agency determines it cannot meet any of the deadlines described above, the agency may only extend a deadline if the applicant approves the extension. Under the current framework, an agency only needs to “consult with” the applicant in order to extend the one- and two-year deadlines for EAs and EISs, respectively.

The SPEED Act would establish a strict timeline for the completion of each NEPA review. AAAE has prepared a two-page overview of the prescriptive deadlines that agencies would have to follow to ensure deadlines are met.

Excluding Additional Actions from NEPA: Under NEPA, FAA must conduct environmental reviews for any “major Federal action” and prepare an environmental document—either an EA or EIS—unless the proposed action is excluded by a CATEX. The bill would exclude more actions from the definition, which would mean more projects are not subject to NEPA. Most notably, the bill would prohibit an agency from determining an action is a “major Federal action solely on the basis of the provision of Federal funds, including a grant, loan, loan guarantee, and funding assistance.”

Eliminating Overlap with State NEPA Laws: The bill would not require an agency to prepare an environmental document (EA or EIS) if the proposed action relates to a “project or action that has already been reviewed pursuant to a State environmental review statute,” and the agency determines such review serves the function of agency compliance with NEPA. AAAE has heard from a number of members who have been seeking this type of policy change, and implementation could eliminate many duplicative environmental reviews.

Limiting Use of New Research for NEPA Determinations: The bill would clarify that an agency, in making a determination on level of review (CATEX, EA, or EIS), is not required to undertake new scientific or technical research with respect to the proposed action except in cases where it is “essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives, and the overall costs and time frame of obtaining it are not unreasonable.” Agencies would also not be required to consider any scientific or technical research that becomes publicly available after the filing of an application or even earlier in some cases.

Narrowing Scope of Environmental Effects Considered: The scope of effects considered in a NEPA review has been subject to significant debate over the past decade. In the Seven County decision, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the scope of effects that agencies must evaluate. In a similar vein, the bill would require agencies to only consider “those effects that share a reasonably close causal relationship to, and are proximately caused by, the immediate project or action” being considered. Agencies would also not be permitted to 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.”

Relying on Previously Completed NEPA Reviews: AAAE has previously recommended the validity of EAs and EISs should be extended to eliminate unnecessary re-evaluations. The bill would allow an agency to rely on a previously completed EA, EIS, or CATEX determination if the agency determines (a) the new proposed action is “substantially the same” as the action subject to the prior EA, EIS, or CATEX determination or, if applicable, an alternative analyzed in the prior EA or EIS; and (b) if applicable, the effects of the new proposed action are “substantially the same as the effects” analyzed in the EA or EIS. Under some circumstances, previously completed reviews could still be used even if the actions are not substantially the same.

Limiting Judicial Review of NEPA Decisions: The bill would make significant changes to the judicial review of claims filed against a NEPA review and final agency action to ensure a more timely litigation process and to address frivolous claims being made against projects. The changes include the following, among others:

If a reviewing court determines a final agency action does not comply with NEPA, the court may only remand the decision back to the agency with instructions to correct the deficiencies, along with a reasonable schedule. The court cannot issue an injunction while the deficiencies are being corrected.
Claims against a final agency action must be filed within 150 days of the decision being made public. To be eligible to file a claim, the party must have, among other things, filed a “substantive and unique comment” during the public comment period and “suffered or imminently will suffer direct harm from the final agency action.”
A reviewing court must issue a final judgment on a claim “as expeditiously as practicable” but no later than 180 days “after the date on which the agency record for the review is filed with the reviewing court.”