In the opinion of the late President Ronald Regan, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” Among railroaders, the phrase rang painfully and expensively true for most of the 20th century when the former Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) regulated railroads into the years the locust hath eaten. Things they have been a changin’ under ICC successor Surface Transportation Board (STB).
Take, for example, the 1970 National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), whose intent is commendable but application often flawed.
Consider a 150-foot-wide main line right-of-way owned by a Class I railroad near an under-construction steel plant. Were the railroad asked to construct a connecting stub track over its land or that of the steel plant to serve the plant, neither Board approval nor environmental review would be required.
But what if the Class I wished to sell or lease to a short line that right-of-way from which the nearby steel plant requested the connecting stub? Under existing regulations written long ago by the ICC, an environmental assessment is required, typically taking a year and jointly paid for by the short line and taxpayers.
Or, consider a Class I branch line with no existing traffic but connected to a short line serving an auto plant. Were the Class I wishing to rehabilitate the line to facilitate new traffic from the short line, no environmental review would be required. But if the short line purchased or leased the unused branch line, an environmental review is required.
Clearly, partial railroad economic deregulation that commenced in the mid-1970s and accelerated in 1980 by the Staggers Rail Act wasn’t complete. But today, March 15, the STB removed another roadblock to railroad efficiency with a proposal to reform its permitting process to accelerate approval of rail infrastructure projects (Docket EP 779, Permitting Reform – Environmental Review Process) (download below). Public comment is sought. Under proposed revisions in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), certain reviews would be eliminated, while, for those specifically required under the law, the process would be considerably shorter and less expensive to railroads and taxpayers.
The unanimous vote by Republican Chairperson Patrick J. Fuchs, Republican Michelle A. Schultz and Democrat Karen J. Hedlund makes clear this is not a politically partisan decision but another overdue effort to reduce regulatory burdens and lower regulatory costs.
In crafting its 69-page proposed permitting reform, the STB says it took guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Supreme Court’s May 2025 decision in “Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County.” The Court held that the STB has discretion to determine the scope of environmental analysis, and the CEQ guidance prods agencies to reform their categorical exclusion process. The NPRM’s new categorical exclusion for connecting track along existing rail rights-of-way segments does that, allowing what the Board considers a more sensible approach.
The proposed permitting changes affect deadlines and page limits for environmental assessments where projects are unlikely to have significant environmental effects.
In a separate expression, Hedlund said, “Today’s NPRM proposed categorically to exclude abandonments from environmental review unless the abandoning carrier announces an intention to conduct salvage operations that would occur prior to consummation of the abandonment or entry into an interim trail use agreement. I encourage stakeholders to submit comments on this aspect of the NPRM, given that it proposes to reverse the Board’s prior understanding of governing law.”
Fuchs told Railway Age that “today’s proposed permitting reform would lead to more expeditious and cost-effective environmental review by focusing on appropriate analyses rather than unnecessary paperwork.”
