ICLE Comments to FCC on CTIA Petition for Rulemaking
I. Introduction
We thank the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or “the Commission”) for the opportunity to offer comments on CTIA—The Wireless Association’s (CTIA) petition for rulemaking.[1] CTIA requests that the FCC update its rules implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to facilitate wireless-broadband deployment across the country. First, CTIA asks the Commission to revise its rules to explicitly state that wireless-facility deployments conducted under a geographic area license, and which do not necessitate antenna-structure registration with the FCC, should not be classified as “major federal actions” under the purview of NEPA. Second, the petition urges the Commission to implement additional reasonable reforms to its NEPA procedures. These reforms should include establishing clear timelines and predictable standards for the environmental review of any wireless facilities that remain subject to NEPA regulations.
ICLE supports CTIA’s petition. Our support is consistent with ICLE’s recently submitted comments to the Commission in its Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding, recommending:
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review for cell siting. Streamline exemptions and reduce oversight for cell-siting projects under 47 C.F.R. §§1.1301-1.1320. Routine environmental assessments for small-cell deployments are either redundant with state/local reviews, or outdated due to technological advancements. In either case, their elimination is justified under cost-benefit criteria. Expand categorical exclusions for low-impact projects—such as co-locations on existing structures—by revising §1.1306 to further limit environmental-assessment triggers. Delegate more NEPA-compliance responsibility to telecom providers through self-certification processes, aligning with the initiative’s goal of reducing administrative burdens.[2]
II. The Economic Benefits of Streamlined Wireless-Infrastructure Deployment
The deployment of robust and rapidly expanding wireless-broadband infrastructure yields significant positive economic impacts for the United States. The wireless industry plays an important role in American economic growth, contributing substantially to the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) and supporting millions of jobs across various sectors.[3] The accelerated deployment of 5G and subsequent generations of wireless services holds the potential to spark a new wave of entrepreneurship, foster innovation across industries, and generate substantial economic opportunities for communities throughout the country.10 As then-Commissioner Brendan Carr noted in 2018: “Winning the race to 4G added $100 billion to our GDP. It led to $125 billion in revenue for U.S. companies that could have gone abroad. It grew wireless jobs in the U.S. by 84 percent.”[4]
Alas, the existing NEPA regulatory framework, particularly as it applies to wireless-infrastructure deployment, can create unnecessary impediments, lead to significant delays, and impose substantial costs on the industry.[5]
III. Current Application of NEPA to Wireless-Broadband Deployment
For this matter, the FCC’s rules implementing NEPA are codified in 47 CFR Part 1, Subpart I, which outlines the procedures the agency follows to evaluate the environmental impact of its actions, including the licensing and authorization of wireless facilities. Under the current regulatory landscape, the deployment of wireless infrastructure—even those under broad geographic-area licenses—can be subject to NEPA review. As CTIA notes in its petition, this can lead to often lengthy and costly processes, potentially impeding the swift expansion of wireless broadband networks across the country.[6] Writing in the Harvard Journal on Legislation, Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) concludes:
As providers attempt to meet consumer demand for higher broadband speeds, greater wireless connectivity, and more robust fiber backhaul, NEPA and NHPA reviews risk becoming the long pole in the regulatory review process—both in terms of costs and timing.[7]
This situation underscores how the current application of NEPA can create regulatory barriers that slow the progress of broadband expansion, despite the critical role that wireless infrastructure plays in driving economic growth and innovation.
IV. Legal and Policy Rationale for Excluding Certain Deployments from NEPA as Non-Major Federal Actions
NEPA mandates the preparation of environmental-impact statements for all “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” The definition of what constitutes a “major federal action” is therefore central to determining the scope of NEPA’s applicability. The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA) introduced amendments to NEPA that provide a more specific definition of the term.[8] Under the FRA, a “major Federal action” is defined as an action that the relevant federal agency determines is subject to “substantial Federal control and responsibility.”[9] Importantly, the FRA also explicitly excludes from this definition non-federal actions that involve only minimal federal funding or involvement, particularly in situations where the federal agency lacks the authority to control the project’s ultimate outcome.[10]
In wireless-broadband deployment, the FCC’s role in issuing geographic-area licenses—without requiring individual antenna-structure registration for each subsequent facility—does not inherently equate to the level of “substantial” control and responsibility necessary to trigger NEPA review for every deployment. Geographic-area licenses primarily authorize spectrum use within a defined geographic region, granting licensees broad authority to operate without the need for FCC approval for each individual transmitter location.[11] CTIA correctly argues that, based on the FRA’s definition, these geographic-area deployments should not be categorized as major federal actions because the FCC does not maintain “substantial” control and responsibility over the specifics of each deployment.8 These deployments are driven primarily by private investment decisions, and the FCC does not dictate when or where a licensee chooses to construct its facilities within the licensed area.
This proposed exclusion aligns with the fundamental intent of NEPA, which is to focus environmental-review efforts on federal actions with the potential for truly significant environmental impacts. Recent actions by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) further support this approach. The CEQ issued a guidance memorandum[12] urging federal agencies to revise their NEPA procedures to ensure consistency with the FRA and Executive Order 14154,[13] which emphasizes the need to streamline permitting processes. This guidance specifically suggests that agencies should identify categories of activities that should not be subject to NEPA review.
By clarifying that wireless deployments under geographic-area licenses without individual antenna-structure registration (ASR) are not major federal actions, the FCC would align its regulations with both the letter and spirit of NEPA, as amended, and with current administration policy objectives.
V. The Critical Need for Clear Timelines and Predictable Standards in NEPA Review
As we note above, uncertainty and delays within the NEPA-review process can harm the timely deployment of essential wireless infrastructure, impeding progress in expanding broadband access. Furthermore, the lack of clear and predictable standards in the permitting process can hamper investment in wireless networks.[14] The absence of consistency and predictability in how various agencies and localities process permit applications creates an environment of uncertainty that can discourage or slow infrastructure development.
The FRA itself introduced statutory deadlines for the completion of environmental reviews, underscoring the bipartisan recognition of the need for a more efficient process.[15] The Wireless Infrastructure Association (WIA) also advocates establishing predictable application-process timelines.[16] It supports the concept of “deemed granted” relief when permitting authorities fail to act within the specified timeframes.
These proposed reforms are entirely consistent with recent presidential directives and actions undertaken by the CEQ to expedite infrastructure permitting. Executive Order 14154 explicitly directed federal agencies to “undertake all available efforts to eliminate all delays within their respective permitting processes.”[17] Correspondingly, the CEQ issued guidance “[t]o promote consistency and predictability,” emphasizing the critical need to expedite permitting approvals and adhere to the deadlines established by the FRA.[18]
VI. Promoting Competition and Fostering Innovation in the Wireless-Broadband Market
A more streamlined regulatory process for wireless-infrastructure deployment can play a vital role in reducing barriers to entry and expansion for wireless-service providers. By simplifying and expediting the approval process, the overall costs and complexities associated with deploying new infrastructure can be reduced significantly, thereby lowering the threshold for new entrants seeking to compete in the market.
A more efficient regulatory environment has the potential to foster increased innovation within the wireless technologies and services sector. As financial and human resources are no longer tied up in protracted and cumbersome regulatory processes, they can be redirected toward investments in research and development. This shift in focus can foster the deployment of thousands of new wireless facilities, ultimately expanding the reach of advanced wireless technologies and driving further innovation in the services they enable. The wireless industry’s ongoing investment in infrastructure is a key driver of technological advancements, and a streamlined regulatory approach could help to ensure these investments are made more efficiently, leading to a more dynamic and innovative marketplace.
Toward that end, we recommend that the FCC adopt the changes proposed in CTIA’s petition for rulemaking to modernize its NEPA framework and facilitate the rapid and efficient deployment of wireless-broadband infrastructure nationwide, thereby promoting economic growth, competition, and innovation in this vital sector.
[1] Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on CTIA Petition for Rulemaking, RM-12003 (Mar. 31, 2025), available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-25-290A1.pdf.
[2] Comments of the International Center for Law & Economics, In Re: Delete, Delete, Delete, FCC GN Docket No. 25-133 (Apr. 11, 2025), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10411193772947/1.
[3] Hector Lopez & Julien Martin, The Economic Impact of Each Additional 100 MHz of Mid-band Spectrum for Mobile, NERA (Jan. 22, 2025), available at https://api.ctia.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/The-economic-impact-of-allocating-mid-band-spectrum-to-mobile.pdf (reporting the wireless industry supporting as much as $825 billion in GDP and 4.5 million jobs annually).
[4] Statement of Commissioner Brendan Carr, Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WT Docket No. 17-79; Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84 (Sep. 26, 2018), available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-133A4.pdf.
[5] See, e.g., Second Report and Order, In the Matter of Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WT Docket No. 17-79 (Mar. 22, 2018) ¶ 11, available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-30A1.pdf; see also Statement of Commissioner Brendan Carr, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-30A5.pdf (“Our outdated approach to NEPA and NHPA, for instance, is costing Americans tens of millions of dollars per year and delaying the rollout of new services”).
[6] Petition for Rulemaking, In the Matter of Petition for Rulemaking to Update Part 1, Subpart I of the Commission’s Rules Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (Mar. 27, 2025), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10327619008336/1.
[7] Earl L. Carter, Federalism and the Digital Divide: How Smart Permitting Reforms Can Unleash Rural Broadband Access, 61 Harv. J. on Legis. 225, 234 (2024).
[8] Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, Pub. L. No. 118-5, 137 Stat. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 (2023).
[9] 42 U.S.C. § 4336e.
[10] Id.
[11] 47 CFR § 22.911.
[12] Mem. from Katherine R. Scarlett, Chief of Staff, Council on Environmental Quality, Re: Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (Feb. 19, 2025), available at https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq-regulations-and-guidance/CEQ-Memo-Implementation-of-NEPA-02.19.2025.pdf.
[13] E.O. 14154, Unleashing American Energy, 90 Fed. Reg. 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025).
[14] See, e.g., Brief for International Center for Law & Economics and Competitive Enterprise Institute as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, In Re: MCP No. 185; Federal Communications Commission, in the Matter of Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet, Declaratory Ruling, Order, Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 24-52, 89 Fed. Reg. 45404, Published May 22, 2024 (Aug. 19, 2024), available at https://laweconcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/ICLE-and-CEI-Amicus-Brief-As-Filed.pdf-134578253-v1.pdf (“Because of the well-known and widely accepted risk-return tradeoff, firms facing increased uncertainty in investment returns will demand higher expected returns from the investments they pursue.”).
[15] Supra note 8.
[16] A Roadmap to Unlocking Connectivity Everywhere in the Next Administration, Wirel. Infrastruct. Assoc. (Jan. 8, 2025), available at https://wia.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/WIA-Policy-Priorities-for-Next-Administration_January-2025.pdf.
[17] Supra note 13.
[18] Scarlett, supra note 12.