Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case fo…
The bill amends 47 U.S.C. 1455(a)(3) to state that Federal authorizations for "eligible facilities requests" are not ‘‘major Federal actions’’ under NEPA and that such requests are not ‘‘undertakings’’ under the National Historic Preservation Act. It also defines "Federal authorization" to include permits, certifications, opinions, and other required Federal approvals related to eligible facilities requests.
Progressives emphasize environmental and historic preservation losses.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise substantive amendment that clearly identifies the statute to be changed and supplies specific operative language and a definition to implement the change, but it omits explanatory findings, fiscal/resourcing discussion, edge-case protections, and oversight measures.
The bill amends 47 U.S.C. 1455(a)(3) to state that Federal authorizations for "eligible facilities requests" are not ‘‘major Federal actions’’ under NEPA and that such requests are not ‘‘undertakings’’ under the National Historic Preservation Act.
It also defines "Federal authorization" to include permits, certifications, opinions, and other required Federal approvals related to eligible facilities requests.
The change effectively exempts routine wireless facility modification requests from NEPA and NHPA review.
Clear, narrow regulatory change favored by industry but touches sensitive preservation/environmental protections; short text helps, but Senate and stakeholder opposition reduce prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise substantive amendment that clearly identifies the statute to be changed and supplies specific operative language and a definition to implement the change, but it omits explanatory findings, fiscal/resourcing discussion, edge-case protections, and oversight measures.
Progressives emphasize environmental and historic preservation losses.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize environmental and historic preservation losses.
Likely skeptical or opposed.
Supports broadband deployment but worries the bill removes environmental and historic-preservation safeguards and reduces public and tribal review.
Sees risk to conservation, cultural sites, and local input.
Mixed view: appreciates streamlining and less regulatory delay for telecom, but concerned about removing safeguards entirely.
Would weigh tradeoffs and prefer targeted limits, oversight, or time‑limited pilots.
Likely supportive.
Views bill as pro-infrastructure, reducing federal overreach and regulatory barriers to broadband deployment.
Emphasizes faster private investment and fewer delays from federal environmental reviews.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Clear, narrow regulatory change favored by industry but touches sensitive preservation/environmental protections; short text helps, but Senate and stakeholder opposition reduce prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize environmental and historic preservation losses.
Clear, narrow regulatory change favored by industry but touches sensitive preservation/environmental protections; short text helps, but Sen…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise substantive amendment that clearly identifies the statute to be changed and supplies specific operative language and a definition to implement the change…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.