FCC 公布 NEPA 环境审查规则现代化「报告与命令」草案事实清单，拟豁免频谱授权与卫星/太空部署的重大联邦行为认定，仍待 2026 年 9 月 30 日全会审议

September 9, 2026 FCC FACT SHEET* Modernizing the Commission’s National Environmental Policy Act Rules Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – WT Docket No. 25-217 Background: This Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would overhaul the Commission’s outdated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) rules, which have long stood as a costly and time- consuming barrier to the deployment of communications infrastructure. Industry projections estimate that, without the reforms in this item, the Commission’s legacy NEPA rules would result in over $2 billion in permitting costs over the next decade. The reforms in the Report and Order would clarify and limit the scope of Commission actions subject to environmental review and streamline and expedite the review process for those projects that continue to be subject to NEPA, unlocking billions of dollars in economic activity that would otherwise be stuck in red tape. What the Report and Order Would Do: • Codify the statutory definition of major Federal action (MFA) in the Commission’s rules and confirm that the Commission’s NEPA requirements apply only to activities determined to constitute Commission MFAs. • Determine that spectrum authorizations issued by the Commission—including deployments of facilities in connection with geographic area spectrum licenses, site-based spectrum licenses, unlicensed or licensed-by-rule wireless services, and satellite earth stations—do not constitute MFAs to the extent the deployments do not require antenna structure registration. • Determine that actions associated with space-based operations—including the launch, deployment, and operation of space stations—are not MFAs. • Adopt reforms to streamline other aspects of the Commission’s NEPA rules, including the requirements for categorical exclusions, environmental assessments, environmental impact statements, joint agency actions, and emergency situations. What the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Would Do: • Seek additional comment on the Commission’s National Historic Preservation Act framework, including how the Commission’s licensing of spectrum relates to the definition of an “undertaking,” which is the statutory trigger for federal historic preservation review. • Seek comment on potential changes to the Commission’s historic preservation rules to improve efficiency. ∗ This document is being released as part of a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding. Any presentations or views on the subject expressed to the Commission or its staff, including by email, must be filed in WT Docket No. 25-217, which may be accessed via the Electronic Comment Filing System (https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/). Before filing, participants should familiarize themselves with the Commission’s ex parte rules, including the general prohibition on presentations (written and oral) on matters listed on the Sunshine Agenda, which is typically released a week prior to the Commission’s meeting. See 47 CFR § 1.1200 et seq. Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2609-01 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Modernizing the Commission’s National ) WT Docket No. 25-217 Environmental Policy Act Rules ) REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING* Adopted: [] Released: [] Comment Date: 30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register Reply Comment Date: 45 days after date of publication in the Federal Register By the Commission: TABLE OF CONTENTS Heading Paragraph # I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 5 A. NEPA and Related CEQ Regulations ............................................................................................... 5 B. The Commission’s Current Environmental Rules ........................................................................... 8 III. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................... 18 A. Commission Actions Subject to Environmental Review ............................................................... 18 1. Defining Commission MFAs ................................................................................................... 21 2. Privately Funded Deployments ............................................................................................... 30 3. Wireless Deployments ............................................................................................................. 33 4. Satellite and Space Deployments ............................................................................................ 59 5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 76 B. Streamlining the Commission’s Review Procedures ..................................................................... 77 1. Commission’s Categorical Exclusion and Extraordinary Circumstances Rules ..................... 77 2. Part 17 Environmental Notification and Other Processes for ASR Applications .................. 130 3. Procedures for Determining Lead and Cooperating Agency ................................................. 143 4. Federal Agency Exception ..................................................................................................... 146 * This document has been circulated for tentative consideration by the Commission at its September 30, 2026 open meeting. The issues referenced in this document and the Commission’s ultimate resolution of those issues remain under consideration and subject to change. This document does not constitute any official action by the Commission. However, the Chair has determined that, in the interest of promoting the public’s ability to understand the nature and scope of issues under consideration, the public interest would be served by making this document publicly available. The FCC’s ex parte rules apply and presentations are subject to “permit-but-disclose” ex parte rules. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1206, 1.1200(a). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission’s ex parte rules, including the general prohibition on presentations (written and oral) on matters listed on the Sunshine Agenda, which is typically released a week prior to the Commission’s meeting. See 47 CFR §§ 1.1200(a), 1.1203. 1 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2609-01 5. Other Changes to NEPA Procedures ..................................................................................... 151 C. Modernizing the Commission’s EA and EIS Requirements ........................................................ 154 1. Updated EA Requirements .................................................................................................... 154 2. Updated EIS Requirements ................................................................................................... 164 D. Commission’s Emergency Procedures for Environmental Review ............................................. 171 IV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ................................................................... 181 A. Definition of Undertaking under NHPA ...................................................................................... 182 1. Licensing of Spectrum and “Undertaking” ........................................................................... 183 2. Section 106 Efficiencies ........................................................................................................ 186 V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS .............................................................................................................. 198 VI. ORDERING CLAUSES ..................................................................................................................... 212 Appendix A: FINAL RULES Appendix B: FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS Appendix C: INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS Appendix D: LIST OF COMMENTERS Appendix E: REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Report and Order (Order) and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice), the Commission takes action to cut through outdated and unnecessary burdens that have slowed deployment of critical communications networks. These reforms restore balance to the Commission’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementation by providing clear and predictable rules to ensure NEPA serves as a tool for informed decision-making rather than a barrier to investment, innovation, and connectivity. 2. These updates to our NEPA rules answer the call from all three branches of government. Congress recognized the need for reform by amending the NEPA statute to codify core definitions, exempt certain actions from review, and expedite agency action.1 In implementing these changes to the amended NEPA statute, President Trump directed agencies to streamline their procedures for environmental review and to “prioritize efficiency and certainty.”2 And the Supreme Court in Seven County provided what it described as a “course correction” to lower courts, affirming the amended NEPA’s status as a “purely procedural statute.”3 3. The burdens associated with the NEPA regulatory regime have long been one of the biggest obstacles to new infrastructure builds, and the record in this proceeding confirms that NEPA- related costs and delays associated with NEPA compliance continue to deter needed infrastructure deployment, even as projects pose no or minimal risk of environmental harm.4 One study, for example, 1 See 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.; Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, Pub. L. No. 118-5, 137 Stat. 10 (2023) (FRA). 2 Unleashing American Energy, Exec. Order No. 14154, 90 Fed. Reg. 8353, 8355 (Jan. 29, 2025) (E.O. 14154). We also note that, in addition, on April 15, 2025, President Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum entitled “Updating Permitting Technology for the 21st Century,” which directs agencies to “properly leverage technology to effectively and efficiently evaluate environmental permits.” Updating Permitting Technology for the 21st Century, Presidential Memorandum (Apr. 15, 2025). 3 Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, 605 U.S.168,184, (2025) (Seven County Infrastructure Coalition) (quoting Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 377 (1989)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 4 See, e.g., AT&T Reply at 4–6 (noting that AT&T’s “annual NEPA and NHPA compliance costs vary based on build plan but have recently totaled as much as $6.5 million); CCA Comments at 7 (stating that “[i]n addition to significant monetary costs, the delays involved in the environmental review process are sometimes so lengthy that carriers have entirely abandoned sites—or refrained from even attempting to build a project . . .” and that some members have reported “delays measured in years, rather than weeks or months, eating up critical resources in areas (continued….) 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2609-01 indicates that compliance adds “an estimated five-month delay in deploying new technologies and service upgrades,” that under the Commission’s legacy environmental rules, “mobile wireless providers would spend in excess of $2.2 billion on regulatory compliance over the next decade alone,” and that the “overall economic harm from the current policies amounts to at least $7.5 billion in welfare and economic activity loss over the next ten years.”5 Conversely, the record demonstrates that reducing the excessive costs and delays associated with burdensome NEPA reviews would yield substantial consumer and public benefits, accelerating the roll-out of new technologies and expanding access to more communities faster.6 4. Today, the Commission does its part to streamline its environmental review process, promote efficiency, and encourage deployment of infrastructure that results in more competition and technological innovation. We adopt our proposal to codify the statutory definition of major Federal action (MFA), the prerequisite to trigger federal agencies’ NEPA obligations, in the Commission’s rules, and we clarify which Commission actions are MFAs.7 We adopt reforms to streamline other aspects of our NEPA rules, including the Commission’s requirements for categorical exclusions (CEs), environmental assessments (EAs), environmental impact statements (EISs), joint agency actions, and emergency situations. We also make changes to our rules to separate NEPA requirements from our National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) rules to account for the revisions to environmental review rules in this Order. Throughout, we clarify the Commission’s role with respect to other statutory responsibilities, as these may have intersected with its NEPA work in the past. We issue a Further Notice seeking additional comment on our NHPA framework. Taking these actions to expedite, simplify, and reduce the costs of environmental review will help clear the way for faster and more infrastructure builds across the country and deliver significant benefits to the American public. II. BACKGROUND A. NEPA and Related CEQ Regulations 5. NEPA was signed into law on January 1, 1970, and requires federal agencies to determine whether any proposed MFAs will significantly affect the quality of the human environment and, if so, to assess those environmental impacts.8 The statute created the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), (Continued from previous page) [] that remain unserved or underserved.”); T-Mobile Comments at 4 (stating that “T-Mobile has spent millions of dollars on NEPA compliance fees and other expenses” and that these costs “divert capital resources away from other needed deployments and network enhancements when they do not deter deployment altogether. For example, in order to complete all NEPA, NHPA and other state and federal environmental reviews, costs can range from $2,000 up to $50,000 each, taking an average of three to six months to prepare.”); NATE Comments at 1 (“The current process imposes substantial costs and operational uncertainty, even in the many cases where projects pose minimal or no environmental risk.”). 5 Letter from Amy E. Bender, Vice Pres. Reg. Affairs, CTIA to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 25-217 (filed Jan. 22, 2026) Attach. NERA “Quantifying the Opportunity of Reforming the Federal Communications Commission’s National Environmental Policy Act and National Historical Preservation Act Rules” at 2, 14 (CTIA Jan. 22, 2026 Ex Parte) (describing impact of “legacy regulatory NEPA and NHPA frameworks”). 6 CTIA Jan. 22, 2026 Ex Parte, Attach. at 11, 14; WIA Reply at 7 (noting that the proposed rule changes “will further spur key wireless network deployments, including densification, that will help deliver 5G—and soon 6G— services to all Americans.”). 7 Modernizing the Commission’s National Environmental Policy Act Rules CTIA Petition for Rulemaking on the Commission’s National Environmental Policy Act Rules, WT Docket No. 25-217, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 40 FCC Rcd 6377 (2025) (NEPA NPRM). 8 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2609-01 which assists with NEPA implementation across the federal government.9 Federal agencies issue their own NEPA implementing procedures in consultation with CEQ.10 6. Recent developments have significantly altered NEPA’s framework. First, Congress amended NEPA in June 202311 to promulgate a statutory definition of MFA, specify relevant exclusions to that definition, and codify various aspects of the environmental review process, including CEs, EAs, and EISs.12 Then, in an interim final rule issued in February 2025, CEQ rescinded its longstanding interagency NEPA regulations, and affirmed the recission in a final rule in January 2026.13 CEQ later issued guidance and a template to assist federal agencies in structuring agency-specific NEPA rules and procedures.14 In April of 2026, CEQ issued guidance to assist federal agencies in establishing, revising, adopting, and applying categorical exclusions in accordance with the NEPA, replacing initial guidance on the same subject issued in 2010.15 7. Finally, the Supreme Court confirmed that that an agency implementing NEPA makes “fact-dependent, context-specific, and policy-laden choices about the depth and breadth of its inquiry” within “a broad zone of reasonableness” and need not consider the environmental effects of a “project separate from the one under NEPA review by virtue of temporal or geographic distance.”16 B. The Commission’s Current Environmental Rules 8. The structure and history of the Commission’s current environmental rules, as set forth in greater detail in the NPRM, establish procedures to comply with statutory obligations that pertain to environmental and historic resources.17 These rules were designed to support the Commission’s compliance with NEPA, among other statutory obligations. 9. The Commission meets its NEPA obligations through its regulations, which impose enforceable duties on its licensees, applicants, and registrants, such as commercial licensees, utilities, public safety entities, and others, and relies upon those entities to make the initial evaluation of potential environmental effects.18 Tower owners that are neither licensees nor applicants must also follow these rules if they intend their towers to host antennas supporting Commission-licensed services.19 9 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321, 4332(2)(B), 4342, 4344. 10 Id. § 4332(2)(B). 11 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.; FRA. 12 See, e.g., id. §§ 4332(C)(i)–(iii), 4336(a)(2), (b)(2), 4336a(e), (g)(1)–(2), 4336(c). Congress subsequently amended NEPA in 2025, to provide a process for project sponsors to pay opt-in fees for expedited environmental reviews, which will be addressed at a later time. See 42 U.S.C. § 4336f, enacted by One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Pub. L. No. 119-21, § 60026, 139 Stat. 1 (2025). 13 Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations, 90 FR 10610-01 (Feb. 25, 2025); Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations, 91 FR 618-01 (Jan. 8, 2026). 14 Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act, Memorandum from Katherine R. Scarlett, Chairman, CEQ, to Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies, (Sept. 29, 2025) (CEQ Sept. 2025 Guidance Memo), available at https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq-regulations-and-guidance/Agency-NEPA-Implementation-Guidance.pdf. 15 Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act Guidance, 91 Fed. Reg.18836 (Apr, 13, 2026). 16 Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, 605 U.S. at 182–83, 187. 17 See 47 CFR §§ 1.1301–1.1320. 18 47 CFR § 1.1307(a); see, e.g., FCC, Tower and Antenna Siting (June 29, 2022), https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/competition-infrastructure-policy-division/tower-and-antenna-siting. 19 47 CFR § 17.4(a). 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2609-01 10. The Commission’s NEPA rules currently contain an overarching CE framework by which Commission actions generally “are deemed individually and cumulatively to have no significant effect on the quality of the human environment and are categorically excluded from environmental processing.”20 The regulation describes the limited instances, commonly referred to as extraordinary circumstances,21 under which additional environmental processing is required.22 This broad CE applies to both new actions as well as modifications to existing or authorized facilities and equipment.23 If one of the enumerated extraordinary circumstances is present,24 then applicants are generally required to prepare an EA.25 The Commission’s rules also require the preparation of an EA if an interested person files a written petition alleging that a particular action, otherwise categorically excluded, will have a significant environmental effect and the Commission, through the responsible Bureau, determines that the action may have a significant environmental impact.26 In addition, the Commission’s rules require the preparation of an EA if the responsible Bureau determines on its own motion that a particular action, otherwise categorically excluded, may have a significant environmental impact.27 11. When an applicant submits an EA, the Commission reviews the EA and makes an independent finding as to whether the proposed action will or will not have a significant environmental 20 Id. §§ 1.1306(a), 1.1307. A categorical exclusion is a category of actions that a federal agency has determined normally does not significantly affect the quality of the human environmental within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). 42 U.S.C. § 4336e(1). 21 While section 1.1307 does not use the term “extraordinary circumstances,” the Commission has commonly referred to this list of enumerated circumstances as extraordinary circumstance and will continue to do so herein when referring both to the former and newly adopted rules. See 47 CFR § 1.1307; 47 CFR § 1.1306(b); see also, e.g., NEPA NPRM at 40 FCC Rcd at 6381, 6383, 6393–6399, paras.12, 19, 51–69. 22 These extraordinary circumstances currently include facilities that: (i) are to be located in an officially designated wilderness area or in an officially designated wildlife preserve; (ii) may affect listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitats, are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any proposed endangered or threatened species, or are likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitats, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA); (iii) may affect districts, sites, buildings, structures or objects, significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture, that are listed, or are eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places and are subject to review pursuant to section 1.1320 and have been determined through that review process to have adverse effects on identified historic properties; (iv) construction of will involve significant change in surface features (e.g., wetland fill, deforestation or water diversion); (v) are equipped with high intensity white lights which are to be located in residential neighborhoods, as defined by applicable zoning law; or (vi) cause human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) emissions that exceed the limits in the Commission’s rules. See 47 CFR § 1.1307(a)(1)–(8) and (b). The Commission provides further guidance on applying these extraordinary circumstances in its NEPA Checklist. The Commission’s NEPA Checklist can be found via the link to “NEPA Checklist with EA Checklist (Last Updated June 2022)” on its Tower and Antenna Siting web page at https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau- divisions/competition-infrastructure-policy-division/tower-and-antenna-siting. In addition, sections 1.1307(c) and (d) provide a process for considering extraordinary circumstances not identified by the applicant or otherwise enumerated that require preparation of an EA, if the Bureau reviewing a proposed action determines that the action may have a significant environmental impact. Id. §1.1307(c)–(d). 23 47 CFR § 1.1306(b). In addition to the overarching CE in section 1.1306(b) of the rules, there are additional targeted exclusions in our rules dealing with specific scenarios. See, e.g., id. § 1.1306(c), Note 1 (specifically addressing particular scenarios regarding the mounting of antennas and related equipment and the deployment of wire or cable); Note 3 (defining an antenna farm as “an area in which similar antenna towers are clustered, whether or not such area has been officially designated as an antenna farm”). 24 Id. § 1.1307(a). 25 Id. § 1.1308(c). 26 Id. § 1.1307(c). 27 Id. § 1.1307(d). 5 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2609-01 effect requiring additional environmental processing in the form of an EIS.28 If the responsible Bureau or the Commission determines that the proposal will not have a significant impact, it will make a finding of no significant impact (FONSI).29 After the issuance of a FONSI, the application will be processed.30 The Commission must issue a FONSI before a proposed action for which an EA has been submitted may be implemented.31 The Commission’s rules require the applicant to provide local public notice of the FONSI “[p]ursuant to CEQ regulations” after it is issued.32 If the responsible Bureau or the Commission determines that the proposal will have a significant environmental impact upon the quality of the human environment, it will so inform the applicant, and the applicant will have an opportunity to amend its application so as to reduce, minimize, or eliminate environmental problems.33 If the matter is not resolved by an application amendment, the rules provide that the Bureau will prepare a draft EIS and a Final EIS.34 12. The Commission’s rules related to historic preservation are located in sections 1.1307(a)(4) and 1.1320 of the Commission’s current environmental rules.35 Commission undertakings are addressed through the Commission’s historic preservation review procedures, which includes application of the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas and the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Review Process (collectively the NPAs).36 These provisions and NPAs implement section 106 of the NHPA, which requires federal agencies to consider the effects of federal undertakings on historic properties.37 13. Finally, the Commission’s Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) rules can be found in part 17 of the Commission’s regulations.38 These rules contain environmental notification provisions, which must be completed by all ASR applicants unless an exception applies or a waiver is granted.39 The environmental notification process applies to new tower registrations and to certain modifications of registered towers that may have a significant environmental effect.40 Under the ASR rules, interested persons may submit a request for further environmental review within 30 days of the national notice date 28 Id. § 1.1308. 29 Id. § 1.1308(d). 30 Id. 31 The FONSI incorporates any conditions necessary to the finding of no significant impact; generally, these conditions are imposed from outside the Commission and are voluntarily agreed to by the applicants to avoid or mitigate potential significant effects. 32 47 CFR § 1.1308(d). 33 Id. §§ 1.1308(c), 1.1309. 34 Id. § 1.1314(a). 35 Id. §§ 1.1307(a)(4), 1.1320. 36 Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas, 47 CFR pt. 1, app. B (Collocation NPA); Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Review Process, 47 CFR pt. 1, app. C (Wireless NPA) (collectively, NPAs). 37 Id. § 1.1320(a). 38 47 CFR pt. 17. 39 Id. § 17.4(c). The owner of any proposed or existing antenna structure that requires notice of proposed construction to the FAA due to physical obstruction must register the structure with the Commission. Id. § 17.4(a). Generally, and absent an exception, towers more than 200 feet above ground level or located near an airport require notice to the FAA and ASR system registration with the FCC. See id. § 17.7(a)–(e). 40 Id. § 17.4(c). 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2609-01 alleging that the proposed facility or modification may have a significant environmental effect.41 The responsible Bureau will issue a decision as to whether further environmental processing in the form of an EA, submitted by the applicant, is required.42 If an EA is required, the responsible Bureau will review the EA and, if the responsible Bureau determines there will be a significant environmental effect, give the applicant an opportunity to amend its application so as to reduce, minimize, or eliminate environmental problems43 and then determine whether to issue a FONSI or advise the applicant that an EIS is required.44 14. On March 27, 2025, CTIA—The Wireless Association (CTIA) filed a Petition for Rulemaking for the Commission to revise its rules to provide that wireless facility deployments pursuant to a geographic area license that do not require antenna structure registration are not MFAs under NEPA.45 CTIA also asked the Commission to amend its NEPA rules to provide more definitive timelines and concrete standards of review. 15. In August 2025, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (N E PA NPRM) seeking comment on the CTIA petition, along with a broad array of proposals discussed in greater detail below, to update our environmental review rules and procedures to ensure they comport with NEPA’s amendments and accelerate infrastructure deployment.46 Given their historic interplay within the Commission’s rules, we asked for comment on the NHPA framework and what rule changes, if any, might be appropriate.47 16. The Commission held a series of opportunities for federally-recognized Tribal Nations and Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) to consult with the Commission regarding the Commission’s review of its NEPA rules. On July 15, 2025, the Commission held a nation-wide virtual Tribal consultation and listening session on the CTIA Petition.48 In total, there were 109 attendees representing 57 Tribal Nations49 and 11 Tribal entities.50 On July 28, 2025, Tribal consultation was conducted with the 41 Id. § 17.4(c)(5). 42 Id. § 17.4(c)(8). 43 Id. § 1.1308(c). 44 Id. § 17.4(c)(8). 45 Petition of CTIA for Rulemaking to Update Part 1, Subpart I of the Commission’s Rules Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, RM 12003 (filed Mar. 27, 2025), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search- filings/results?q=(filers.name:(%22CTIA%22)+AND+date_received:[2025-03-27%20TO%202025-03-28]) (CTIA Petition). 46 NEPA NPRM, 40 FCC Rcd at 6384–85, paras. 18–19. The Commission incorporated the record for rulemaking proceeding RM-12003 into the NEPA NPRM and terminated RM-12003. Id. at 6419, para. 116. 47 NEPA NPRM, 40 FCC Rcd at 6391, para. 36. Today we issue a Further Notice seeking additional comment on whether changes are needed to the Commission’s NHPA framework. 48 As noted above, the Commission incorporated the record for CTIA Petition RM-12003 into the NEPA NPRM and terminated RM-12003. 49 Absentee Shawnee of Indians of Oklahoma, Ak-Chin Indian Community, Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria, Blackfeet Nation, Catawba Nation, Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indians Tribes of Alaska, Cherokee Nation, Chickaloon Village Traditional Council, Cocopah Indian Tribe, Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Delaware Nation, Forest County Potawatomi Community. Gila River Indian Community, Gun Lake Tribe, Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, Karuk Tribe, Knik Tribe, Lytton Rancheria, Mescalero Apache Tribe, Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Native Village of Dot Lake, Navajo Nation, Navajo Nation Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (NNTRC), Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Arapaho, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Oneida Nation (Wisconsin), Organized Village of Kasaan, Osage Nation, Pascua Yaqui, Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma, Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, Pueblo de San Ildefonso, Pueblo of Acoma, Quapaw Nation, Rappahannock Tribe of Virginia, Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa, Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, Santa Ynez (continued….) 7 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2609-01 Osage Nation on the CTIA Petition. On September 8–9, 2025, the Commission conducted Tribal consultation on the NEPA NPRM and CTIA Petition in Reno, NV, which included separate, in-person consultation meetings with the Pit River Tribe and the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake. On September 11, 2025, the Commission held an FCC Tribal Workshop at the Coalition of Large Tribes Quarterly Meeting in Prior Lake, MN. The workshop addressed a variety of Commission initiatives that support the deployment of communications infrastructure and services nationwide, including on Tribal lands, and included an overview of proposed changes to the Commission’s NEPA rules. Following the presentation, Commission staff provided an opportunity for COLT and other Tribes to consult and heard from the Blackfeet Nation, the Oglala Sioux Tribe, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, and Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate. The Commission also held virtual tribal consultations to discuss proposed changes to the NEPA rules on December 11, 2025, and January 14, 2026.51 During these consultations Tribes expressed concerns about maintaining their ability to review wireless facility deployments. We have considered these concerns in making the determinations in this Order as described more fully herein. 17. In response to the NEPA NPRM, service providers, including AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon, utilities, space operators, tower builders, and related trade associations support streamlining the Commission’s environmental review rules, which, in their view, impose significant costs and delays on their efforts to deploy infrastructure facilities.52 Advocacy organizations, like bird conservation organizations and astronomical organizations, along with Tribal governments, historic preservation offices, and attorneys general from several states, oppose changes that, in their view, would reduce federal oversight of infrastructure deployments and their adverse effects.53 (Continued from previous page) Band of Chumash Indians, Seminole Tribe of Florida, Shawnee Tribe, Shoshone Bannock Tribes of Idaho, Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Stockbridge-Munsee Community, Suquamish Indian Tribe, Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians (SYBCI), Taos Pueblo, The Chickasaw Nation, The Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma, Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), Yakutat Tlingit Tribe. 50 Ahtna Intertribal Resource Commission, American Indian Policy Institute, Arizona State University, Association on American Indian Affairs (AAIA), Coalition of Large Tribes (COLT), NANA Regional Corporation, Inc., National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (NATHPO), National Congress of American Indians, United South & Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund, Gila River Telecommunications, Inc., Mescalero Apache Telecommunications, Inc./National Tribal Telecommunications Association, San Carlos Apache Telecommunications Utilities, Inc. 51 See Letter from Bambi Kraus, Chief, Office of Native Affairs and Policy, FCC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 25-217, (filed Feb. 25, 2026) (submitting list of attendees and transcript of December 11, 2025, consultation and listening session); Letter from Bambi Kraus, Chief, Office of Native Affairs and Policy, FCC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 25-217 (filed Mar. 4, 2026) (submitting list of attendees and transcript of January 14, 2026 consultation and listening session). 52 See, e.g., AT&T Reply at 4; Commercial Space Federation Comments at 4; Crown Castle Reply at 2–5; CTIA Comments at 12–13; NATE Comments at 2–3; T-Mobile Comments at 4; Utilities Technology Council (UTC) Comments at 4; Verizon Reply at 1–2; WIA Reply at 1; WISPA Comments at 1–2; WISPA Reply at 7. 53 See, e.g., American Bird Conservancy and Maryland Ornithological Society Comments at 4; Attorneys General of New York, California, Washington, Massachusetts, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and District of Columbia; and the Harris County, Texas Attorney (States Attorneys General) Comments at 8–11; Dark Sky International Comments at 1–5; Dynamic Environmental Comments at 7–8; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe Comments at 5; Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Comments at 2; Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) Comments at 2; Wired Broadband Inc., et al. (Wired Broadband) Comments at 5–7; National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (NATHPO)/National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) Reply at 4. 8 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2609-01 III. DISCUSSION A. Commission Actions Subject to Environmental Review 18. We restructure our NEPA rules as proposed to align with recent statutory and judicial precedent. Historically, the Commission presumed, without any analysis, that certain activities constituted MFAs and then categorically excluded them unless an enumerated circumstance (as defined in our rules) required an EA.54 Commenters contend that NEPA requires agencies to make a threshold determination about whether an action qualifies as an MFA before being subject to environmental processing.55 We agree. We therefore revise our rules to first consider whether a proposed action constitutes an MFA. To that end, we codify the statutory definition of MFA and its exclusions. If the proposed action is an MFA, only then will our revised rules determine whether it is categorically excluded. We retain our existing CE to the extent a proposed action constitutes an MFA.56 19. We also establish bright-line rules that independently operate from each other and clarify when certain actions fall outside NEPA applicability altogether.57 First, we find that the issuance of a spectrum license does not in itself create “substantial federal control and responsibility” over facilities deployed in connection with that license.58 Next, we conclude that private infrastructure builds are not MFAs to the extent Commission funding is not directed towards them.59 We also find that our spectrum- licensing functions for earth stations and space stations do not give rise to MFAs. We independently confirm, for the reasons detailed below, that deployments in connection with geographic area spectrum licenses are not MFAs, to the extent they do not require antenna structure registration.60 20. We do not alter the substance of the Commission’s existing radiofrequency (RF) human- safety requirements for equipment and operations deployed in connection with spectrum licenses.61 We also maintain the Commission’s registration and compliance rules for antenna structures that require antenna structure registration. We find that these rules remain independently authorized under the Communications Act. 54 NEPA NPRM, 40 FCC Rcd at 6385–86, para. 21. As we noted in the NEPA NPRM, the Commission has never taken the position that every form of license or authorization demonstrates a sufficient federal nexus to qualify as a federal undertaking or MFA. Id.; see, e.g., Wireless Broadband Deployment Second R&O, 33 FCC Rcd 3102, 3135, para. 84 (Wireless Broadband Deployment Second R&O); see also id., 33 FCC Rcd at 3135, para. 84 n.170 (noting that “for instance, the FCC has never treated the authorized use of signal boosters or wi-fi deployments as enough to transform the deployment of those facilities into federal undertakings or major federal actions” despite their use of FCC-authorized spectrum). 55 See, e.g., WISPA Comments at 1–2. 56 See infra Section III.B.1. 57 For the reasons described herein, the rules adopted in this Report and Order support the Commission’s goal of streamlining its environmental review process, promoting efficiency, and encouraging deployment of infrastructure that results in more competition and technological innovation. Though complementary, each of the separate rules serves its own distinct and specific purpose to promote that goal. It is our intent that each of these rules adopted in this Report and Order shall be severable. If any of the rules are declared invalid or unenforceable for any reason, we find that the remaining portions of the regulatory framework continue to fulfill our goal of streamlining environmental review, promoting efficiency, and encouraging deployment of infrastructure that results in more competition and technological innovation, and that any remaining rules not deemed invalid or unenforceable shall remain in effect and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law. 58 42 U.S.C. § 4336e(10)(A). 59 42 U.S.C. § 4336e(10)(B). 60 See infra para. 53. Under the Commission’s rules, only towers that require notification to the FAA due to physical obstruction, as set forth in section 17.7, must be registered with the Commission. 47 CFR §§ 17.4, 17.7. 61 See infra Section III.B.1. 9 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2609-01 1. Defining Commission MFAs 21. We codify in the Commission’s rules the statutory definition and exceptions for MFAs set forth in NEPA, as initially proposed.62 A number of commenters supported our proposal.63 As we previously noted, the Commission has traditionally borrowed from relevant definitions in CEQ’s regulations implementing NEPA.64 Given CEQ’s recission of those regulations, we find that codifying the contours of NEPA’s definition into our rules will provide necessary clarity. We adopt these provisions nearly wholesale, with slight modifications, to make clear that they pertain to the Commission’s actions. 22. We also supplement our MFA definition with bright-line rules that provide upfront clarity regarding the most common deployment scenarios that the Commission and regulated entities have encountered over the years. These rules are discussed in the sections that follow. Important principles of statutory and constitutional law guide our consideration of these scenarios, and we find them necessary to clarify here. 23. First, NEPA does not enlarge an agency’s powers or enable an agency to take decisions that are otherwise unauthorized or unlawful. NEPA only applies to actions or outcomes over which federal agencies have preexisting statutory authority. Agencies like the Commission “have only those powers given to them by Congress, and enabling legislation is generally not an open book to which the agency [may] add pages and change the plot line.”65 Agencies must interpret statutes through the lens of separation of powers and “a practical understanding of legislative intent,” for “Congress intends to make major policy decisions itself, not leave those decisions to agencies.”66 Congress does not “hide elephants in mouseholes” by “alter[ing] the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or ancillary provisions.”67 NEPA contains no grant of regulatory authority.68 Rather, as the Supreme Court recently 62 NEPA NPRM, 40 FCC Rcd at 6385, para. 21. 42 U.S.C. § 4336e(10)(A), (B). The new definition limits MFAs to those actions that “the agency carrying out such action determines is subject to substantial federal control and responsibility.” 42 U.S.C. § 4336e(10)(A); see also Appendix A, § 1.1302. Because our focus is on the scope of Commission MFAs, we find it unnecessary to incorporate the text of 42 U.S.C. § 4336e(10)(B)(iv), pertaining to business loan guarantees provided by the Small Business Administration. 63 See, e.g., Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) Comments at 2; UTC Comments at 4, but see Center for Regulatory Freedom Comments at 3–4 (urging the Commission to “[d]efine what is not a major Federal action”). In the discussion below, we address application of the amended NEPA’s definition in the context of the Commission’s rules. 64 NEPA NPRM, 40 FCC Rcd at 6385, para. 21. 65 West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2609 (2022) (West Virginia) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); see also FCC v. Midwest Video Corp., 440 U.S. 689 (1979) (Commission rules which are not “reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of the Commission’s various responsibilities [ ] are not within the FCC’s statutory authority.”) (quoting United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 178 (1968), internal citations omitted); Motion Picture Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. FCC, 309 F.3d 796, 806 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (It is not sufficient for Commission rules to advance a valid communications policy goal in the public interest. “The FCC cannot act in the ‘public interest’ if the agency does not otherwise have the authority to promulgate the regulations at issue. An action in the public interest is not necessarily [ ] authorized by the Act. The FCC must act pursuant to delegated authority before any ‘public interest’ inquiry is made”.); Am. Libr. Ass’n v. FCC, 406 F.3d 689, 692–93 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (To regulate under its ancillary jurisdiction, “the subject of the regulation must be covered by the Commission’s general grant of jurisdiction under [the Act]” and must be reasonably ancillary to Commission’s duties.); Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 600 F.3d 642, 658 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (In vacating the Commission’s order against Comcast, the court rejected the Commission’s reliance on broad policy statements and public-interest goals and reaffirmed that the Commission’s ancillary authority must be linked to a statutory grant of regulatory authority); and Nat’l Religious Broadcasters v. FCC, 138 F.4th, 282, 293 (“[T]he FCC’s authority to act in the ‘public interest’ does not extend outside of the statutorily prescribed tasks that Congress has instructed the FCC to carry out”). 66 Id. (quoting U.S. Telecom II, 855 F.3d at 419 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc)). 67 Whitman v. American Trucking Association, 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001). 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2609-01 reaffirmed, NEPA is a “purely procedural” requirement that does not affect the operation of or authority granted by the agency’s “governing statute and any relevant substantive environmental laws.”69 NEPA is a “procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock.”70 Agencies “are not required to analyze the effects of projects over which they do not exercise regulatory authority.”71 24. Nothing in the Communications Act or any other statute gives the Commission authority over the construction of infrastructure deployed by its licensees. Courts have rejected the suggestion that building construction falls within the Commission’s authority over activities that substantially affect communications, noting approvingly that the Commission has found it lacked authority “to regulate in any way the construction of buildings.”72 After all, it would be quite odd if the Commission had authority to regulate the particulars of the Sears Tower’s construction.73 The Commission also lacks express authority to regulate the terrestrial impacts from space launches.74 Nor do we have express authority to address environmental issues relating to thermal, optical, and other emissions that use electromagnetic spectrum outside frequencies suitable, from a technical standpoint, for radiocommunications that the Commission otherwise regulates, for example, to prevent harmful interference. Rather, the Commission’s relevant authorities requiring consideration of environmental effects extend to spectrum-based radiation (Continued from previous page) 68 Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations, 90 FR 10610–01 (Feb. 25, 2025); see generally 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. 69 Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, 605 U.S. at 173. 70 Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, 605 U.S. at 173. 71 Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, 605 U.S. at 188. 72 Illinois Citizens Committee for Broadcasting v. FCC, 467 F.2d 1397, 1400 (7th Cir. 1972) (Illinois Citizens Committee) 73 Illinois Citizens Committee for Broadcasting v. FCC, 467 F.2d 1397 (7th Cir. 1972) (no ancillary authority over the Sears Tower construction as it affected broadcast reception). 74 Cf. 51 U.S.C. § 50905(B)(2)(b) (giving such authority to the FAA); see also Illinois Citizens Committee, 467 F.2d at 1401 (holding that the Commission’s authority to regulate to prohibit signal interference is limited to signal transmission facilities and the Commission has no explicit or implied authority to regulate building construction to prohibit signal interference. The court contrasts this against “the Federal Aviation Agency, [which] does have some responsibility in this area, particularly when building heights threaten to obstruct air navigation routes, these duties have been authorized by Statute”.). 11 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2609-01 that may pose a hazard to human health,75 along with a limited category of antenna structures deemed a “menace to air navigation.”76 25. Second, NEPA’s “purely procedural” requirements attach to actions undertaken by the federal government. Indeed, Congress intended NEPA as a “responsibility of the Federal Government.”77 And by its express terms, NEPA governs “Federal” action. Each “agency carrying out such action” is individually responsible for its own NEPA compliance and must “determine” if that action constitutes an MFA. 78 In this regard, the relevant question before us is whether Commission action constitutes an MFA, as relevant to discharge our statutory obligations under NEPA. On the other hand, “non-Federal action” falls outside an agency’s NEPA responsibilities unless the agency provides enough funding or exercises enough control.79 26. The Commission lacks authority to construct and operate communications infrastructure facilities like towers and earth stations and does not direct where such infrastructure should be placed by others. It generally does not direct funding towards the construction of specific infrastructure facilities but instead directs it toward the provision of service and rules respecting the service offered. Consequently, these facilities tend to be purely privately built, entirely with non-Commission funding, and we regulate their radiofrequency emissions directly or indirectly by virtue of our authority to issue spectrum licenses. 27. Third, agency action is subject to NEPA only if the agency finds that it has “substantial Federal control and responsibility.”80 This new substantiality requirement heightens the MFA standard. 75 47 U.S.C. §§ 301 (“It is the purpose of this chapter . . . to maintain control of the United States over all the channels of radio transmission. . . . No person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio . . . except under and in accordance with this chapter[.]”), 302a (authorizing the Commission to, “consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, make reasonable regulations” governing devices “capable of emitting radio frequency energy by radiation, conduction, or other means[,]” and prohibiting the “manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section.”), 303 (granting the Commission authority to, among other things, “assign frequencies”, “determine the power which each station shall use”, “regulate the kind of apparatus to be used with respect to its external effects and the purity and sharpness of the emissions”, require retention of records of “transmission of energy”, and to make rules, regulations, restrictions, and conditions “as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter”), 307 (authorizing the Commission to grant a station license “if public convenience, interest, or necessity will be served thereby”), 332 (providing that state and local governments may not regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of RF emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s RF rules); Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, Title VII, § 704(b), 110 Stat. 56, 152 (directing the Commission to “prescribe and make effective rules regarding the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions”). 76 47 U.S.C. § 303(q). We refer to these statutory responsibilities for illustrative purposes and do not intend for this to be an exhaustive list. 77 42 U.S.C. § 4336e(10)(A). 78 42 U.S.C. § 4336e(10)(A). 79 42 U.S.C. § 4336e(10)(B)(i) (excluding from the definition of MFA a non-Federal action “with no or minimal Federal funding” or “with no or minimal Federal involvement where a Federal agency cannot control the outcome of the project.”). 80 42 U.S.C. § 4336e(10)(A). 12 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2609-01 Before the FRA’s passage, NEPA did not define MFA and the definition of MFA in CEQ’s now-rescinded regulations did not contain a substantiality requirement.81 28. Here, our analysis will “presume that Congress is knowledgeable about existing law pertinent to interpreting the legislation it enacts”82 and “when Congress enacts statutes, it is aware of relevant judicial precedent.”83 With the substantiality qualifier now added to NEPA, we infer congressional intent to limit NEPA’s applicability to Federal actions. Our review of our NEPA rules will therefore give the inclusion of “substantial” due weight. 29. Finally, NEPA vests in the agency considerable discretion to find that an action is not an MFA. NEPA “does not mandate particular results, but simply prescribes the necessary process.”84 If an agency reasonably “determines,” as a factual matter, that its level of control and responsibility is not “substantial,” then that is the end of the matter. But this discretion does not flow equally in both directions. As noted above, the Commission may not treat its actions as MFAs if doing so would exceed the agency’s statutory authorities. 2. Privately Funded Deployments 30. Because nearly all towers and communications infrastructure are privately built without targeted Commission funding, we proposed to clarify the contours of the MFA exclusion for “non-Federal actions” with “no or minimal Federal funding” and incorporate them into our rules. 31. We confirm, as proposed, that there is “no or minimal Federal funding”85 for deployments for our purposes unless Commission funding is expressly directed towards and conditioned on the construction of the particular communications facility in question.86 Commenters such as CTIA, UTC, and WISPA support this interpretation.87 We likewise confirm, as proposed, that Commission funding for unspecified private deployments or operator expenses is insufficient to give rise to an MFA.88 We reject the contrary position, which implies that Commission funding for overall operator expenses would transform an inchoate set of infrastructure projects into Commission MFAs.89 32. We expect our findings as to private deployments to be outcome determinative for many infrastructure projects at issue.90 As the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held, under 81 Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, Final Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. 43304, at 43375, 40 CFR § 1508.1(q) (July 16, 2020) (defining MFA as “an activity or decision subject to Federal control and responsibility . . . .”). 82 Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller, 486 U.S. 174, 184–85 (1988). 83 Merck & Co., Inc. v. Reynolds, 559 U.S. 633, 648 (2010) 84 Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U. S. 332, 350 (1989)); see also Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, 605 U.S. 168, 177–78 (citing additional authorities). 85 42 U.S.C. § 4336e(10)(B)(i)(I). 86 NEPA NPRM, 40 FCC Rcd at 6386, para. 22. 87 See, e.g., CTIA Comments at 13; UTC Comments at 5; WISPA Comments at 2–4. 88 NEPA NPRM, 40 FCC Rcd at 6386, para. 22. 89 See, e.g., ENTELEC Comments at 4–5; Wired Broadband Comments at 3; Wired Broadband Reply at 8–9; PEER Comments at 8–9. 90 We also decline, as proposed, to specify at this time what level of funding is “minimal.” With little experience and few relevant examples before us, we find this issue unnecessary to resolve now and best handled on a case-by- case basis when it arises. In calling for a safe harbor based on “a dollar amount or percentage of project cost provided by federal funding,” CCA claims that our proposed approach would “neither simplify nor expedite permitting.” CCA Comments at 4–5. We disagree. We provide clarity for a significant number of private deployments without targeted Commission funding. To the extent that providers may receive federal funding under (continued….) 13 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2609-01 NEPA’s “plain text, either the absence of federal funding or the absence of federal control is sufficient to take a project outside the definition of ‘major federal action.’”91 Our conclusion applies with equal force to the wireless, satellite, and space deployments discussed below. 3. Wireless Deployments 33. We sought extensive comment on whether wireless infrastructure deployments in connection with Commission-issued spectrum licenses give rise to an MFA.92 We also asked commenters to address Commission rules subjecting certain licensees to minimum buildout and coverage requirements, including whether such rules, and the Commission’s ability to enforce them, give the Commission substantial control and responsibility over the deployment of the facilities needed.93 Many parties have argued that common private infrastructure deployments are not MFAs because they lack the requisite Federal nexus.94 34. We first consider the Commission’s general spectrum licensing activities. We then examine considerations specific to geographic and site-based licenses. In addressing these issues, we note some ambiguity in how our analysis should proceed. On one hand, the relevant “action” might be characterized as “Federal” in view of the Commission’s spectrum licensing. Under this framing, the relevant question is whether the Commission exercises “substantial Federal control and responsibility.” On the other, the relevant “action” might be characterized as “non-Federal” given the primary role of private companies in building their wireless facilities. Here, the relevant question is whether there is “no or minimal [Commission] involvement where [the Commission] cannot control the outcome of the project.”95 No matter how posed, the existence of “control” spans both framings and we examine that common issue below. 35. Spectrum Licensing Generally. We find that spectrum authorizations issued by the Commission do not constitute MFAs or give rise to MFAs. They do not condition Commission authorization on subsequent non-Federal infrastructure deployments so as to require the Commission to consider the environmental effects of such deployments (if any) in a NEPA review before issuing a spectrum authorization.96 We determine that our spectrum-licensing activities are too legally, factually, and causally attenuated from wireless deployments or their effects to create the requisite level of “control” for an MFA.97 36. First, as commenters correctly observe, a Commission spectrum license is legally unrelated to subsequent infrastructure deployment.98 As defined by statute, a “license” allows for “the use (Continued from previous page) existing programs related to deploying service in underserved areas across the country, that funding is not tied directly to specifically placing facilities and therefore the deployment of those facilities is excluded from the MFA definition based on the plain language of the statute. 91 Friends of the Everglades, Inc. v. Sec’y of United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 2025 WL 2598567, at *6 (11th Cir. Sept. 4, 2025) (emphasis in original) (Friends of the Everglades, Inc.) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 4336e(10)(B)(i)). 92 NEPA NPRM, 40 FCC Rcd at 6386–89, paras. 23–29. 93 NEPA NPRM, 40 FCC Rcd at 6387, para. 25. 94 See, e.g., AT&T Reply at 10; CCA Comments at 3; Crown Castle Reply at 2