NRC Board Member Kevin Hicks testified on behalf of rail industry contractors and suppliers on Capitol Hill on May 6, 2025, in a hearing before the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee’s Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials.

The hearing, titled "America Builds: Improving the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal Rail Assistance," featured testimony from the following four industry stakeholders who detailed their experience and recommendations on rail funding programs, including the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program:

• Kevin Hicks, NRC Board Member and Principal and Senior Vice President of Rail and Freight-market Sector Leader at Gannett Fleming TranSystems (now known as GFT)
• Matthew Dietrich, Executive Director of the Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC)
• Garrett Eucalitto, Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Transportation and President of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
• Kristin Bevil, General Counsel and Chief Legal Officer at Pinsly Railroad Co., and an Executive Board Member of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA).

See here to watch the full proceedings.

See here for Progressive Railroading’s May 8, 2025, article recapping the Subcommittee proceedings.

proceedings.

Mr. Hicks’ opening statement before the Subcommittee focused on these key concerns: 1) Section process is slow, 2) Grants take too long to obligate, 3) Delays to project implementation, and 4) Additional recommendations for reforming the grants process.

His testimony, outlining key concerns and recommendations, is detailed below:

Selection Process is Slow - “Grant award selection takes about 6 months after the application is submitted. It takes FRA a long time to evaluate the large number of applications received as all the federal rail grant programs are vastly oversubscribed. This is a vicious spiral that forces FRA staff to be in a constant cycle of publishing a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), awarding grants, and then immediately drafting the next NOFO.

“With the influx of funding from the IIJA, the size and complexity of the NOFOs has increased which has also impacted the speed of selecting projects. These delays are especially felt by our NRC member contractors who are usually engaged at the end of this process. These delays result in changing budgets that jeopardize the projects and places additional risks onto contractors.

Recommendations:  “Congress should consider directing FRA to identify a “pre-approved” or at least a prior vetted pipeline of projects. FRA NOFOs should have more stringent requirements (e.g., require projects to have more burden of proof of readiness) and/or eligibility to shrink the applicant pool. FRA should consider further standardization of the grant applications, e.g., a more defined template, thereby reducing the effort required both in preparation and in review. FRA could also consider consolidating existing grant programs and having separate programs for preliminary engineering (PE) and NEPA versus final design and construction grants. For final design and construction grants, FRA should require PE/NEPA to be completed in order to be eligible for funding.”

Grants Take Too Long to Obligate – “It takes 6 to 18 months on average to obligate a grant after selection. It takes too long to deliver projects, and the waste due to delays in the form of administrative and planning costs, inflation, and lost opportunities for alternative use of the capital, hinder us from achieving our capacity expansion goals. The expediting of transportation projects can be accomplished while retaining all current environmental safeguards.

Next, I will detail several obligation-related issues in more detail:

• ‍Obligation prerequisite – NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act):  “It continues to take a very long time to obtain environmental clearances. The project sponsor is not able to engage with FRA or USDOT on the NEPA process until the grant application is selected. Many times, the project sponsor does not have the capacity to complete NEPA themselves, and it takes a few months to hire an environmental consultant.
  
  Recommendations: “FRA should establish a process to evaluate projects and allow them to proceed with NEPA before applying for a grant (e.g., establish a pipeline). FRA should also commit to an expedited NEPA process and eliminate NEPA requirements where states have existing or duplicative requirements, like in California or Washington. Sufficient and consistent FRA staffing would also help minimize the NEPA process timeframe. FRA should also require that project sponsors be ready to submit documentation within a certain timeframe (e.g., must submit environmental assessment within 1 month of selection) or consider having a separate grant or step in the grant program only for completing NEPA. This is similar to what the FRA Corridor ID program is attempting to establish, although that program has also moved in too slow of a manner. This would give the resulting project priority for funding, similar to the NEC inventory established in the FRA Federal-State Partnership program. Congress should also consider directing the FRA to establish a separate grant program, or step within existing programs, for projects to complete the NEPA process, and then require a completed NEPA document as proof of eligibility for funding for a final design/construction project. Finally, the FRA should allocate a larger percentage of its funding to agency staffing focused on expediting project delivery.

• ‍Obligation prerequisite – NEPA Categorical Exclusions (CEs):  “Many rail projects, particularly those on short line or regional railroads, consist of ordinary ties, rail, ballast, and surfacing type work that falls under a NEPA Categorical Exclusion (CE). The FRA requires a CE worksheet to prove, with a “legally defensible evidentiary record,” that the project qualifies for a CE. This requires significant work, including resource mapping and appendices, to prove eligibility for a CE.
  
  “In addition, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to consider the effects on historic properties of projects they carry out, assist, fund, permit, license, or approve throughout the country. If a federal or federally assisted project has the potential to affect historic properties, a Section 106 review will take place. This requires a Secretary of the Interior (SOI) qualified archeologist and State Historic Preservation Office consultation to be completed before the FRA can approve the CE worksheet. This process causes many delays to rail projects attempting to receive a CE.
  
  Recommendation: “The CE process should be streamlined to a simple grantee self-certification for an ordinary track rehabilitation project. Regarding Section 106, Congress should consider the creation of a national rail network that can be recognized for its historical importance, but only certain elements require compliance with Section 106, exempting the national rail network from Section 106 the same way the Interstate Highway System is exempt. At a minimum, Congress should expand the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)issued Section 106 Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties Within Rail Rights-of-Way to cover a broader list of activities, such as construction of additional yard or industrial tracks within the footprint of an existing yard or industrial facility.

• ‍Obligation prerequisite – Preliminary Engineering (PE) – ”It takes a while for project sponsors to have PE, cost estimates, and stakeholder concurrence ready for FRA review. Many times project sponsors do not even hire a consultant to complete PE until the grant is awarded and sometimes sponsors struggle with getting stakeholder concurrence, which can add to project delays.
  
  Recommendation:  “The FRA should require PE, cost estimates, and stakeholder concurrence with grant applications. Again, project sponsors should complete PE/NEPA before being awarded a final design or construction grant. For stakeholder concurrence, a sign-off form or letter template would make it easier for the FRA to collect and verify stakeholder concurrence. Short of that, the FRA should at a minimum define the stakeholder concurrence requirements and define the format required.

• ‍Obligation prerequisite – 49 U.S.C. § 22905 –“Project sponsors often struggle with obtaining the 22905-railroad agreement with the host railroad. It often gets caught up as a provision within a larger design, construction, or maintenance agreement.
  
  Recommendation: “The FRA already provides simple template language which could be extracted as a separate 1-page agreement. If the host railroads would be willing to sign a 22905-only agreement, separate from the larger overarching agreements and the FRA would require 22905 agreement with the grant application, this could potentially speed up the project timeline.

Delays to Project Implementation – “Numerous factors impact project readiness, including railroad coordination and approvals, utility coordination and relocations, right of way acquisition, permitting and additional funding.

Recommendation: “Most if not all of these factors are outside of the FRA’s control, but the FRA could do more to avoid future delays by having project sponsors better define the status of these factors in advance of obligation. The FRA could also conduct risk reviews later in the grant process based on project scope, readiness, and budget.

Additional Recommendations for Reforming the Grants Process – “Finally, as this committee begins the process of reauthorizing surface transportation programs, Congress should direct the FRA to speed up and streamline the discretionary grant process to reduce waste, cost overruns, and unnecessary project delays. The NRC offers the following broad grants recommendations that we suggest will help America build and improve the federal rail discretionary grant process:

• Standardize environmental approval processes across USDOT modal agencies.
• Provide pre-award spending authority for advance construction and pre-construction activities across funding programs available to rail infrastructure projects. USDOT should provide clear and consistent guidance to grant recipients.
• Provide each successful grantee with a target date for a completed grant agreement.
• Responsibility for meeting a target date would be shared by USDOT and the grantee.
• FRA should model its grant management system after FTA’s Transit Award Management System (TrAMS).
• Make the grant process easier for smaller entities by establishing a page limit for NOFOs and grant applications. The complexity of NOFOs has grown and has disproportionately impacted smaller entities with less resources and personnel.
• Codify authority for flexing and transferring funds between USDOT modal agencies when appropriate.”

About the NRC - The NRC is a U.S. trade association that advances the mutual interests of railway contractors and suppliers who construct, maintain and supply freight railroads and rail-transit and passenger lines. Founded in1978, the NRC connects members with other railway industry professionals and government officials and policy makers. The NRC collaborates with its members, government, and industry leaders to create a positive business climate and to make railway construction and maintenance safer and more efficient.