FCC NPRM Examining Changes to NEPA Expected to Get Quick Action
The FCC NPRM looking at potential changes to the commission’s enforcement of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) has numerous changes between it and the draft Chairman Brendan Carr circulated. Industry officials expect the FCC to move quickly since NEPA reform has been a top focus of the Donald Trump administration, they said Friday.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The NPRM was posted in Friday’s Daily Digest, the last of the items released from the August meeting (see 2508070052), and was approved 3-0. Commissioner Anna Gomez said at the time that she was able to get a few changes to the NPRM, which led to her yes vote. Comments will be due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, replies 15 days later. The commission stuck with the timeline for comments proposed in the draft.
“At every turn,” Carr “has understood the unique challenges faced by wireless and broadband builders,” NATE President Todd Schlekeway said Friday. NATE expects the FCC to move forward “as soon and expeditiously as possible,” he said. “Given that it seems like almost a direct order from Trump, I'd expect it to have a high priority and move fairly quickly,” said Summit Ridge Group President Armand Musey.
Jeffrey Westling, American Action Forum director of technology and innovation policy, also said he anticipates a speedy process. One of the biggest challenges providers face to get “shovels in the ground is that regulatory reviews and approvals are costly and time-consuming, especially when a project needs a myriad of permits,” Westling said in an email. “NEPA review is only one of these, but streamlining this process and limiting its applicability will have an immediate impact."
Some changes could prove controversial. When the FCC took comment earlier this year on a CTIA petition seeking rules changes, attorneys general from nine states, the National Congress of American Indians, tribal historic preservation officers, various tribes, and officials from state historic preservation offices were among those raising concerns (see 2505010019 and 2505160035).
Among the changes of note from the draft, the first sentence now says the NPRM takes a “fresh look at our environmental rules” in light of amendments to NEPA under the 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) and an executive order from Trump. The draft discussed “a fresh look at whether we should revise our environmental rules.”
The final version adds questions about how to determine that a project is a major federal action (MFA) requiring NEPA review. “Irrespective of that determination, we seek comment generally on whether the Commission, as a matter of policy, should add these actions to the Commission’s list of categorical exclusions” in its rules. “If the Commission determines these actions are categorically excluded, are there extraordinary circumstances that apply which might require further environmental review?” the NPRM now asks. “Overall, would these findings respect the goals of NEPA and NHPA, while balancing the Administration’s efficiency goals?”
The final version also asks whether there are “instances where action pursuant to fulfilling the buildout requirements of a geographic area license brings the project within the meaning of an MFA and thus subject to environmental review.” In an added sentence, the final version notes that the commission “has always considered NEPA as inapplicable to unlicensed wireless facilities” and proposes to “codify that practice into our rules.”
The approved version adds a paragraph looking at a rule that NEPA requirements only apply to final agency actions and asks what that means for actions that staff on delegated authority take. “Is this statutory provision altered by the new definition of “major federal action” in the 2023 FRA?” the NPRM now asks. “May Bureaus or Offices, on delegated authority, properly require applicants to file” an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement? the NPRM asks.
If the commission “determines that towers built pursuant to geographic licenses are MFAs, should the Commission adopt a categorical exclusion that applies specifically to these towers, and, if so, should the Commission also describe any extraordinary circumstances that might apply to geographically licensed towers such that environmental review would be necessary?” says another added question.
All three commissioners filed written comments that were attached to the NPRM.