Sponsors
Need help making sense of this bill?
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Excludes 'Federal authorization' for a 'covered project' from being considered a 'major Federal action' under section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, thereby removing the applicability of that provision to such authorizations.
Provides that a 'covered project' may not be considered an 'undertaking' under section 300320 of title 54, thereby excluding covered projects from the NHPA 'undertaking' classification and related obligations under that provision.
Exempts communications projects that are located entirely inside floodplains from being treated as major federal actions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and from being considered "undertakings" under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). It also establishes definitions for terms used in the exemption, including the Commission, communications facility, covered project, and Federal authorization. The change narrows when federal environmental and historic-preservation reviews apply to certain communications projects in floodplain areas, which can speed project approvals but reduces the scope of federal environmental and cultural resource oversight and associated consultation and public-review processes.
A Federal authorization with respect to a covered project may not be considered a major Federal action under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
A covered project may not be considered an "undertaking" under section 300320 of title 54, United States Code (National Historic Preservation Act context).
Defines the term "Commission" to mean the Federal Communications Commission.
Defines "communications facility" by reference to section 6409(d) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (47 U.S.C. 1455(d)).
Defines "covered project" as a project for the deployment or modification of a communications facility that is carried out entirely within a floodplain (as defined in 44 C.F.R. §9.4 as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act) and for which a permit, license, or approval from the Commission is required or that is otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.
Who is affected and how:
Telecommunications and broadband providers and other developers of communications facilities: They receive a narrower set of federal procedural requirements for projects wholly inside floodplains, which can shorten permitting timelines and lower administrative costs.
Federal agencies that issue authorizations: Agencies that grant licenses, permits, or approvals for communications projects will no longer treat certain floodplain projects as major federal actions under NEPA or as NHPA undertakings, reducing their obligation to prepare NEPA documents or trigger NHPA review for those projects. This reduces agency workload on those specific procedural reviews but may shift some risk to agencies if litigation arises.
Tribal governments and historic-preservation stakeholders: Tribal interests, tribes, and other parties that typically rely on NHPA processes and consultation to identify and address impacts to historic properties may have fewer formal avenues for federal consultation and review when projects fall within the exemption.
Environmental and community stakeholders: Environmental groups, local residents, and communities in or near floodplains may see reduced opportunity for public comment and federal environmental review, which can limit assessment of ecological, cultural, or cumulative impacts.
Local governments and emergency planners: While the exemption targets review processes, it does not change floodplain-management rules at nonfederal levels; however, reduced federal review could affect the information available to local planners about project impacts in flood-prone areas.
Overall, the policy trades greater procedural speed and regulatory certainty for communications projects wholly inside floodplains against reduced federal environmental and historic-preservation oversight and fewer formal consultation and public-review steps. That trade-off could raise concerns about environmental protection, cultural-resource impacts, and community input, and it may increase the likelihood of legal challenges or calls for compensating state/local reviews.
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
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 for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced April 10, 2025 by Gus Bilirakis · Last progress April 10, 2025
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 for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House