HR 6398: RED Tape Act

HR 6398 in plain English: The RED Tape Act would eliminate a requirement that the EPA review and comment on major federal construction projects and other federal agency actions that already undergo environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as on proposed federal regulations.

Stated purpose

To remove the requirement that the EPA review and comment on newly authorized federal construction projects, major federal agency actions already subject to environmental review under NEPA, and proposed federal regulations, on the grounds that this review duplicates other existing environmental processes.

Key points

• Removes EPA's mandatory review and comment role for major federal projects already subject to NEPA environmental review
• Eliminates EPA review requirement for proposed federal regulations under the Clean Air Act
• Aims to reduce overlapping environmental review processes across federal agencies

Arguments supporters make

• When a project already goes through a full environmental review under NEPA, requiring a separate EPA review on top of that creates redundant paperwork and delays without adding meaningful protection.
• Streamlining overlapping review processes can speed up federal construction and infrastructure projects while still maintaining other environmental safeguards that remain in place.
• Reducing duplicative regulatory steps lowers costs for federal agencies and taxpayers without eliminating environmental review altogether.

Arguments opponents make

• The EPA's independent review under Section 309 acts as a separate check with air-quality expertise that NEPA reviews, conducted by the lead agency itself, may not fully replicate, so removing it could weaken environmental oversight.
• Eliminating EPA's ability to comment on proposed federal regulations removes a cross-agency safeguard that has historically caught air quality problems before rules take effect.
• What sponsors call 'duplication' critics see as complementary layers of review — each process looks at different aspects, and removing one could allow harmful projects to proceed with less scrutiny.

Tradeoffs

Reducing process steps can lower costs and speed up project approvals, but doing so removes a dedicated air-quality review by an expert agency, creating tension between regulatory efficiency and the depth of environmental oversight.

Current status in Congress: Passed House.

NewsClear — neutral news & congressional tracking · Bill of the Week