Summary
- What happened: Consistent with actions of other agencies, the Surface Transportation Board (STB) proposed a rule to clarify, update, and streamline its NEPA regulations (the Proposed Rule).
- Context: Recent legislative amendments, executive branch actions, and Supreme Court decisions have upended NEPA and spurred agencies to modify their regulations accordingly.
- Who this affects: Companies and states subject to STB’s jurisdiction, including rail carriers, track owners, and solid waste rail transfer facilities.
- What you can do: Submit comments on the Proposed Rule by April 24, 2026 and stay informed of any changes in the final rule.
Introduction
In recent years, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has been the subject of legislative, regulatory, and judicial changes to overhaul and streamline environmental reviews. Congress amended NEPA through two statutes – the 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act and the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act – both of which streamlined and clarified environmental review procedures and tightened deadlines. In the 2025 Seven County case, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced that courts owe broad discretion to agencies in NEPA reviews. On January 9, 2026, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued a final rule withdrawing its regulations implementing NEPA and replacing them with guidance. Several individual agencies have followed suit with their own NEPA procedures.
On March 24, 2026, STB—an independent agency that is not part of the U.S. Department of Transportation—published the Proposed Rule to “conform its regulations to current practices and changes in the law[,] support government-wide consistency in the NEPA process,” and codify some of STB’s existing practices.
If enacted, the Proposed Rule would expand the list of actions not subject to NEPA, expand and modify actions eligible for categorical exclusions (CEs) from more detailed NEPA reviews, and streamline procedures for Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). However, the Proposed Rule also seeks to increase the stringency of noise and vibration analyses and would require EISs for solid waste rail transfer facilities.
STB’s Proposed Rule Streamlines NEPA Review
One of the most significant proposed changes would delegate STB’s authority over NEPA-related decisions specifically to the Director of the Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) with the goal of accelerating reviews and decision-making. The proposed changes would delegate authority to determine whether to impose, modify, or remove historic and environmental conditions, and to issue Findings of No Significant Impact in certain instances, while providing the Director with the authority to reject applicant-prepared materials, EAs, and EISs.
To clarify when NEPA does not apply at all, STB’s Proposed Rule provides a non-exhaustive list of actions that do not meet the definition of a “major federal action.” This list includes: rail line improvements, routine maintenance, operational changes, or other proposals that are not subject to the Board’s licensing authority; substitution of applicant and name changes; orders that are purely procedural in nature; and others (proposed 49 CFR 1105.5(b)).
The rule also establishes five new CEs, modifies certain existing CEs, and removes three CEs. A CE is an action that is excluded from environmental review, generally based on the STB’s determination that the action is unlikely to have significant environmental effects. Proposed CE changes include:
New CEs:
- Proceedings related to the use of rail carriers’ facilities and services by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) under 49 U.S.C. 24308.
- Abandonments and discontinuances without traffic diversions that exceed the Board’s environmental thresholds and, in the case of abandonments, where salvage will not occur prior to the consummation of abandonment authority or entry into an interim trail use agreement.
- Construction of connecting track within an existing right-of-way or on land owned by the connecting railroads or the applicant.
- Offers of financial assistance (currently codified at 49 CFR 1105.5(c)(3)).
- Reciprocal switching agreements.
Modifications to Existing CEs:
- Revises the existing categorical exclusion at current 49 CFR 1105.6(c)(2) to include adjudications regarding “practices and service.”
- Maintains the current categorical exclusion for discontinuances of trackage rights where the affected line will continue to be operated and adds, for clarity, the phrase “within Board jurisdiction.”
- Revises current 49 CFR 1105.6(c)(1)(i) to include “feeder line” sales.
- Adds section (iii) to the current 49 CFR 1105.6(c)(1), which states “A consolidation, merger, or acquisition of control under 49 U.S.C. 11323 or 14303, that does not fall under § 1105.8(b)(1).”
CEs Recategorized as Not Major Actions or Lacking STB Jurisdiction:
- Declaratory orders, interpretations, or clarifications of operating authority, substitution of an applicant or name changes, and termination of freight service under modified certificates from the categorical exclusion category.
- Determinations of the fact of competition (which applied to water carriers).
- Discontinuance of rail freight service under a modified certificate issued pursuant to 49 CFR 1150.21.
Notably, the Proposed Rule rejects STB’s previous policy on abandonment, which required compliance with environmental conditions for post-abandonment salvage. Instead, the Proposed Rule acknowledges that once a railroad finalizes an abandonment, the STB no longer has jurisdiction—and thus authority or control—over the privately owned rail property or any later salvage activities.
Furthermore, the Proposed Rule would streamline procedures for EAs and EISs to align with NEPA as amended by limiting EAs to 75 pages and EISs to 150 pages, and setting publication goals of one and two years, respectively. It also eliminates the need for drafts of EAs or EISs and, in some instances, allows applicants to prepare EAs or EISs, subject to approval and OEA oversight.
STB’s Proposed Rule Tightens Some NEPA Procedures
While the Proposed Rule largely streamlines STB’s NEPA regulations, it proposes more stringent environmental review in several areas. For instance, the rule proposes making noise and vibration analyses more stringent by following the Federal Transit Administration’s guidelines. Instead of calculating the number of receptors exposed to higher decibels, this approach would measure the level of impact on each receptor. As a result, for example, noise exposure would be calculated based on its environmental impact, regardless of the number of trains anticipated on a certain track.
STB’s proposal would also require solid waste rail transfer facilities seeking a land-use exemption under the Clean Railroads Act to prepare an EIS. STB’s view is that these facilities have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts. Under an EIS, these facilities would be subject to in-depth environmental reviews and required to provide extensive information, which can be costly and time-consuming.
Next Steps
Although the Proposed Rule claims to be largely deregulatory, some changes may create greater procedural burdens on companies and states subject to STB jurisdiction. Therefore, parties should evaluate the risks and opportunities associated with contemplated projects subject to STB jurisdiction and consider submitting comments to protect their interests by April 24, 2026.
