Airport Alert: Senate Leaders Release Bipartisan Permitting and NEPA Reform Bill

September 30, 2026

This afternoon, leaders from two key Senate committees released a bipartisan bill, called the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA), that would make significant reforms to the federal environmental review and permitting processes for the purpose of expediting project delivery, including airport infrastructure projects. The bill would establish strict deadlines for the entire National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process and make clear when the “clock” starts on the preparation of environmental documents. The bill also reaffirms the procedural nature of NEPA (rather than dictating outcomes) and limits the judicial review of NEPA decisions.

The 417-page permitting reform bill was released today by U.S. Senators Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee; Mike Lee (R-Utah), Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources (ENR) Committee; Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ranking Member of the EPW Committee; and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the ENR Committee. The four senators held a press conference today to highlight the importance of permitting reform, the bipartisan nature of the negotiated bill, and the Trump administration’s involvement in the discussions.

The Senate’s permitting reform bill shares many similarities with the SPEED Act, which is the House’s version of bipartisan NEPA reform that the chamber passed in December 2025. Both BAAJA and the SPEED Act align with AAAE’s “Commonsense Recommendations for Regulatory Reform,” particularly relating to review deadlines, which we developed last year as a set of proposals to advance regulatory reform and streamlining at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). While the SPEED Act focuses exclusively on NEPA reform, BAAJA would make significant changes to NEPA, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Further details on specific provisions in BAAJA are provided below.

Over the past few months, with energy costs continuing to increase, both parties appear motivated to take action that would relieve some of those rising costs and improve affordability. With bipartisan support from key Senate leaders, BAAJA is expected to receive consideration in the Senate when the chamber returns after the mid-term elections. However, some challenges remain, including an uncertain fate in the House and the desire of some Democrats for more assurances that the Trump administration will approve clean energy projects under the bill if passed. AAAE will be supporting the bill and continuing to advocate for commonsense permitting reform to accelerate airport project delivery.

You can read the text of BAAJA here, a two-page summary of the bill here, and the Senate EPW and ENR Committees’ press release here.

Summary of Key Provisions from the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act

BAAJA makes significant changes to four different environmental statutes: NEPA, the Clean Water Act, ESA, and NHPA. While AAAE is still evaluating the 417-page bill, which was only released this afternoon, below are some of the highlights from our initial review.

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, 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. Similar to the SPEED Act, BAAJA would make 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 effectively 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 the deadlines for completing the EA or EIS, 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.

Excluding Certain 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 exclude from the definition of “major Federal action,” among others, (1) a proposed action, the effects of which were previously evaluated by another agency under NEPA, and (2) grants and cost-share awards where a federal agency does not exercise predominant control and responsibility over the subsequent use of such assistance or the environmental effect of the action.

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 been reviewed pursuant to a State environmental review statute,” and the agency determines such review “serves a similar function as Federal 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 is not required to consider any scientific or technical research that becomes publicly available after the date of publication of an NOI or decision to prepare an environmental document. Federal agencies would also be prohibited from delaying the issuance of an environmental document or authorization beyond the one- or two-year deadlines for EAs and EISs, respectively, on the basis of awaiting new scientific or technical research or information.

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

Claims against an agency’s action must be filed within 150 days of the applicable agency authorization being made public. To be eligible to file a claim, the party must (1) have filed a detailed, substantive comment during the public comment period and (2) allege “actual or imminent injury in fact amounting to a direct harm.”

A reviewing court must issue a final judgment on a claim “as expeditiously as possible.” Unlike the SPEED Act, no specific deadline for a decision is included in the bill.

If a reviewing court determines an agency authorization does not comply with NEPA, the court may only issue instructions to the agency to correct the deficiencies and provide up to 180 days for the agency to make such corrections. The court may only issue injunctions to stop a project under limited circumstances.

BAAJA specifies that a reviewing court must “afford substantial deference to the agency relating to the scope and contents of an environmental document.” This is designed to prevent the court from second-guessing an agency’s decision.

Extending Term of NPDES Permits: Under the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implements the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, which requires permits for any person or organization, including airports, to discharge a limited amount of pollutants into waters of the United States. Current law prohibits EPA and delegated states from issuing an NPDES permit with a term longer than five years. The bill would allow for a maximum term limit of 10 years.

Reforming Section 7 Consultations Under the ESA: Under the ESA, a federal agency must ensure any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency does not jeopardize the continued existence of listed endangered species or destroy their critical habitats. If an agency’s action “may affect” a listed species or its designated critical habitat, the agency must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), known as Section 7 Consultations. Over the years, AAAE has heard many concerns over lengthy consultation periods and the lack of coordination between FAA and USFWS and NMFS.

BAAJA would make several reforms to Section 7 Consultations. First, the bill would shorten the required timeframe for the agency to conduct the consultation from 90 days to 60 days except in limited circumstances. In addition, the bill would not allow the consultation to extend beyond the deadline for the agency to complete any applicable EA or EIS under NEPA. Second, the bill would define “best scientific and commercial data available” to clarify the scope of information that may be used to determine the impacts of an action on listed species. Third, the bill would allow states to handle the consultations under certain conditions.

Reforming NHPA Requirements: Under section 106 of the NHPA, a federal agency must account for the effect of their “undertakings” on any historic properties before funding or approving such undertaking. This evaluation, known as the Section 106 process, requires the agency to identify historic properties, assess potential adverse effects, and actively consult with state, local, and tribal experts to develop appropriate mitigation measures before an undertaking may proceed. Similar to NEPA and the ESA, the NHPA consultation process has created challenges for airport sponsors seeking to carry out certain infrastructure projects.

BAAJA would establish an entirely new framework for this process. First, the bill would more clearly define the scope of an agency’s assessment and narrow the circumstances when mitigations are necessary. Second, the bill would set strict deadlines for the Section 106 process that are aligned with the completion of environmental documents under NEPA. Third, the bill would impose limitations on the judicial review of challenges to agency undertakings under the NHPA, including setting a 150-day deadline for filing a lawsuit and limiting the circumstances when an injunction may be issued to stop a project.