FCC Adopts Major Changes to NEPA Review for Wireless and Satellite Projects

On September 30, 2026, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) adopted a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Order and FNPRM, respectively) that substantially narrows the communications infrastructure subject to environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The Order requires the FCC to determine at the outset whether an action constitutes a "major Federal action" (MFA) subject to NEPA. Applying that test, the FCC concluded that most spectrum authorizations and related infrastructure deployments do not trigger NEPA when the facilities do not require Antenna Structure Registration (ASR). The same general conclusion applies to earth station licenses and space-based operations.

The Order removes a significant federal review requirement for many wireless and satellite projects. It does not, however, eliminate all environmental, historic preservation, or safety requirements. ASR review, radiofrequency (RF) exposure limits, Endangered Species Act (ESA) obligations, and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 review continue to apply independently, although the FNPRM asks for comment on whether ESA and Section 106 review should also be narrowed.

The Order and revised sections 1.1301 and 1.1302 take effect 30 days after Federal Register publication, or November 18, 2026. The remaining rule amendments are delayed pending any required Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and publication of a Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (the Bureau) notice announcing the applicable effective date. Amendments requiring changes to the ASR system will take effect 30 days after the Bureau announces that those system changes have been implemented.

Comments on the FNPRM are due November 18, 2026, and reply comments are due December 3, 2026.

Why the Order Matters for Operators and Infrastructure Providers

The Order changes the starting point for FCC environmental review.

Under the existing framework, FCC actions generally receive a categorical exclusion from detailed NEPA review, but specified environmental circumstances can trigger an Environmental Assessment. Under the framework the Order adopts, the FCC first asks whether the Commission exercises sufficient control and responsibility over the underlying project for it to constitute an MFA. If not an MFA, NEPA does not apply at all.

For wireless and satellite operators and infrastructure providers, the principal implications are:

• Most non-ASR wireless facilities fall outside NEPA. This includes deployments associated with geographic-area licenses, site-based licenses, and unlicensed or licensed-by-rule services, as well as "mixed-use" facilities serving both geographic-area and site-based licensees, provided the facility does not require ASR.
• Earth stations and space-based operations generally fall outside NEPA. The FCC found that earth station licensing does not give the Commission sufficient control over associated construction and that space operations qualify for NEPA's exclusion for extraterritorial activities.
• ASR remains the principal dividing line for FCC environmental review. New or modified towers generally require ASR if they are more than 200 feet above ground level or are located near an airport, although the precise Federal Aviation Administration and FCC criteria are more detailed.
• Certain borderline projects may require closer analysis. The Order treats most non-ASR deployments as outside NEPA altogether rather than as categorically excluded from being considered MFAs, while projects involving targeted FCC funding or unusual Commission involvement may require a project-specific assessment of federal control.
• Other federal requirements still apply. A project outside NEPA may remain subject to RF exposure limits, ESA obligations, Section 106 review, and other federal, state, Tribal, and local requirements. The Order also notes that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act continue to apply beyond any question of whether NEPA applies to any MFA.

The remainder of this alert explains which projects are likely to benefit from these changes, which obligations remain, and what operators and infrastructure providers should consider before adjusting project schedules or diligence procedures.

A New Threshold for FCC Environmental Review

Congress amended NEPA in 2023 to define MFA as an action subject to substantial federal control and responsibility. Since then, the Administration has pursued a broader effort to streamline federal permitting and reduce regulatory burdens, while the Council on Environmental Quality has directed agencies to revise their NEPA procedures in light of the statutory amendments. Separately, the Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado emphasized the substantial discretion agencies have in determining the scope of NEPA review and held that agencies generally need not analyze the effects of separate projects removed in time or place from the action under review.

The FCC's old rules did not begin with an MFA inquiry. Instead, the Commission presumed, without analysis, that certain activities were MFAs but were generally categorically excluded from detailed review unless an "extraordinary circumstance" identified in the rules was present, such as potential adverse effects on listed species or their habitat, historic properties, Tribal religious sites, floodplains, or RF exposure (47 CFR § 1.1307).

The Order introduces a threshold inquiry that was not explicit in the old rules. The Commission first determines whether the relevant action is an MFA. Only if it is does the FCC then determine whether a categorical exclusion applies or whether further environmental review is required. The Order also removes effects on historic properties and Indian religious sites from the NEPA extraordinary circumstances. Those issues are now handled only through Section 106.

Most Spectrum-Related Deployments Do Not Trigger NEPA

The Order concludes that FCC spectrum authorizations generally do not constitute MFAs and do not make related infrastructure deployments MFAs.

According to the Order, the connection between spectrum licensing issued by the Commission and the siting or construction of an individual facility is too attenuated to give the FCC substantial control and responsibility over the facility. Although some licenses contain buildout requirements, those requirements generally establish performance standards rather than mandate the construction of a particular facility. A licensee may satisfy them through existing towers, collocation, or other means. This determination applies to facilities associated with:

• geographic-area licenses;
• site-based licenses;
• unlicensed operations; and
• licensed-by-rule wireless services.

The exclusion applies only when the facility does not require registration in the ASR database.

The Order also relies on the absence of federal funding as an independent basis for excluding many projects. Privately financed towers and communications facilities generally fall outside NEPA unless Commission funding is specifically directed to and conditioned on construction of the particular facility. The Order adds that funding from existing programs that support service in underserved areas is not tied to specific facilities, so it does not by itself create an MFA.

Most Earth Stations and Space Operations Also Avoid NEPA Review

The Order applies similar reasoning to satellite infrastructure so long as the facilities do not require ASR.

Earth station licenses are not treated as MFAs because the FCC's licensing authority does not give it substantial control over the siting and construction of an individual earth station. Space-based activities, including the launch, deployment, and operation of space stations, also fall outside NEPA under the statute's exclusion for extraterritorial activities.

The FCC rejected arguments that concerns such as light pollution or orbital debris establish a sufficient connection between Commission licensing and the resulting environmental effects, characterizing those effects as too attenuated for NEPA purposes. The Order states that this does not change satellite operators' obligations under the FCC's orbital debris, end-of-life disposal, and casualty-risk rules. It also makes conforming changes to the new Part 100 space rules.

ASR Facilities Remain Subject to Review

The most important dividing line for terrestrial operators and infrastructure providers is whether a tower requires ASR.

ASR generally applies to towers more than 200 feet above ground level and to some shorter towers located near airports. Under the Order, registered towers remain subject to the FCC's environmental notification and review process.

The FCC preserves that process under its separate Communications Act authority to regulate antenna structures that may pose a hazard to air navigation, regardless of whether registration itself constitutes an MFA under NEPA.

The Order also streamlines ASR procedures. Among other things, it eliminates the local public notice requirement, retains a 30-day national notice period, and reduces the period for seeking further review of a completed Environmental Assessment from 30 days to 20 days.

Important Requirements Remain

Removal from NEPA does not mean that a project is free from federal environmental or related review.

• RF exposure: The FCC's RF exposure limits continue to apply to all regulated facilities, including projects that no longer undergo NEPA review. The Order amends the rules to make clear that those limits rest on the Commission's Communications Act authority, independent of NEPA, and apply to MFAs and non-MFAs alike.
• Endangered species: The Order does not categorically eliminate ESA review for facilities that fall outside NEPA. It clarifies that ESA consultation remains required for activities that qualify as an "action" under the ESA, regardless of whether the activity is an MFA under NEPA. That clarifying rule text is adopted on an interim basis. The FNPRM, however, asks whether construction associated with an FCC spectrum authorization qualifies as an ESA agency action in the first place. Pending resolution of that question, operators should continue existing ESA compliance procedures, subject to the Order's express clarification that collocations on existing buildings, antenna towers, or other man-made structures do not trigger ESA review. The Order also delegates authority to the Bureau to provide further ESA compliance guidance.
• Historic preservation: The Order separates NEPA review from the FCC's Section 106 framework and moves the FCC's Section 106 rules into a new Subpart HH (Sections 1.90000-1.90002), without changing the scope of Section 106 review. The new rules carry forward the existing Section 106 exclusions for wire and cable in existing aerial or underground corridors, and for new submarine cable systems. The FCC's Nationwide Programmatic Agreements and related Section 106 procedures remain in effect.

As a result, a project falling outside NEPA could still require Tribal consultation and historic preservation review. For many non-ASR deployments, Section 106 may therefore remain the most significant federal review process affecting project schedules.

Unsupported Third-Party Challenges Face a Higher Bar

The Order tightens the standard for seeking additional environmental review of an MFA that otherwise qualifies for a categorical exclusion. A requesting party must provide specific evidence showing that an action is likely to have a reasonably foreseeable significant environmental effect. The FCC also adopted page limits and other procedural requirements intended to discourage unsupported or open-ended challenges.

FNPRM: Historic Preservation and Endangered Species Review Are the Next Major Questions

The FNPRM addresses a central issue left unresolved by the Order: whether historic preservation and endangered species review should also be narrowed to align with the more confined scope of NEPA review laid out in the Order for spectrum licensing. In other words, should constructing facilities that require spectrum licensing (the FCC issues licenses authorizing the use of spectrum, not permits approving the construction of specific facilities) continue to qualify as a federal "undertaking" under Section 106 and as an "agency action" under the ESA? The FNPRM therefore seeks comment on whether the connection between spectrum licensing and facility deployment remains sufficient to trigger Section 106 of the NHPA and the ESA.

The FNPRM also asks whether any clarification should apply only to future projects or also to existing facilities, including those built before 2005. Separately, it asks whether the earlier finding that geographic-area licenses are "undertakings" still holds now that the Order eliminates the "limited approval authority" on which that finding rested. The FCC further seeks comment on possible improvements to historic preservation review, including batching submissions, addressing noncompliant towers, refining Tribal notification areas, streamlining emergency deployments, and improving consultation timelines.

Changes resulting from the FNPRM could have substantial scheduling and compliance implications for operators and infrastructure providers. Such changes are only proposals at this time and are not part of the Order.

What Operators and Infrastructure Providers Should Do Now

The Order materially reduces federal environmental review for wireless and satellite infrastructure, but stakeholders should not assume that a project is exempt until the relevant rules take effect.

Companies planning deployments should consider:

• identifying projects that do and do not require ASR;
• evaluating whether any FCC funding is directed to a particular facility;
• maintaining existing RF, ESA, and Section 106 compliance procedures, noting that collocations on existing structures do not require ESA review, and watching for Bureau ESA guidance;
• assessing whether current development schedules include time for NEPA review that may no longer be necessary once revised S Section 1.1302 takes effect;
• tracking OMB approval and the Bureau's notices, which set the effective dates for the remaining rule changes, including the ASR process changes; and
• submitting comments on the FNPRM where Section 106 or ESA procedures materially affect deployment plans.

Until the new rules take effect, operators and infrastructure providers should continue to follow the FCC's existing environmental and historic preservation requirements.

+++

Molly Barker is counsel in DWT's Seattle office, Paul Powell is of counsel in the firm's Portland office, and Elaine Albrich is a partner in our Portland office. DWT's communications and energy, natural resources & environmental teams advise clients on FCC environmental and historic preservation review and related regulatory requirements affecting wireless, satellite, and infrastructure deployments. We are monitoring the proceeding and are available to help clients evaluate how the Draft Order may affect planned facilities or prepare comments on the Further Notice. For more information, please contact the authors or another member of communications and environmental teams and sign up for our alerts.