HR 2289: American Broadband Deployment Act, Fees and Preemption

H.R. 2289, the American Broadband Deployment Act, is a Republican-sponsored House bill that would impose federal deadlines on local decisions about cell towers and broadband infrastructure, cap the fees cities and counties can charge for right-of-way access, and exempt certain wireless upgrades from environmental and historic preservation review. It cleared the House Energy and Commerce Committee on a party-line vote in December 2025 and was pulled from the House floor in April 2026 after a coalition of local government groups persuaded enough Republicans to withhold support.¹

Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) introduced the bill on March 24, 2025. It began as a narrow measure exempting routine wireless-tower upgrades from federal environmental review, but was expanded during the December 3, 2025 committee markup to absorb language from 21 other Republican broadband permitting bills. The committee approved the expanded version 26-24 and renamed it the American Broadband Deployment Act.² All 14 cosponsors are Republicans; no Democrats signed on.³

What the Bill Would Change

Federal Deadlines for Local Permit Decisions

The bill sets hard timelines, often called shot clocks, for state and local governments to act on infrastructure applications. Small cell requests would have to be decided within 60 days when the equipment is added to an existing structure, or 90 days for a new installation. Larger wireless facility requests get 90 days on existing structures and 150 days otherwise. Wired broadband gets 90 days on existing support infrastructure and 150 days for new builds. Modifications that don’t substantially change a structure’s dimensions must be resolved within 60 days.⁴

If a local government misses a deadline, the application is “deemed granted” once the applicant sends written notice. A locality can pause the clock by notifying the applicant within 10 to 30 days that the application is incomplete, or by mutual agreement for up to 30 days. Local moratoria on accepting or processing applications cannot toll the deadlines.⁴ Local officials warned that this structure could allow construction to begin without any local review if a permitting office falls behind.⁵

Limits on Local Fees

The bill amends Section 253 of the Communications Act of 1934 to require that fees for right-of-way access or permit processing be “competitively neutral, technology neutral, and nondiscriminatory,” disclosed in advance, and limited to the “actual and direct costs” of processing applications and repairing construction damage. Localities would have to distinguish between recurring and nonrecurring fees and between charges for new sites versus equipment placed on existing infrastructure.⁴ Local government groups said this replaces the longstanding “fair and reasonable compensation” standard with a far more restrictive formula that would force taxpayers to subsidize private use of public property.⁵

Environmental and Historic Preservation Exemptions

Title III declares that collocating, removing, or replacing transmission equipment on existing wireless towers and base stations is not a “major federal action” under the National Environmental Policy Act and not an “undertaking” under the National Historic Preservation Act. That eliminates the environmental assessments and Section 106 historic preservation consultations those modifications can currently trigger.¹ The bill also bars state and local governments from regulating facility placement based on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions, provided the facility complies with FCC emissions standards.⁶

Zoning, Aesthetics, and Federal Preemption

States and localities keep zoning authority, but their rules cannot discriminate among providers or “effectively prohibit” service. Aesthetic and concealment requirements, such as screening or painting equipment, are allowed if they are “objective, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory” and do not themselves block installation.⁴ Applicants denied permits or facing what they consider unreasonable local action could seek expedited federal court review. The FCC gets authority to preempt state or local regulations it deems inconsistent with the bill, and it would have to rule on preemption petitions within 120 days.⁶

Industry Support

A broad telecommunications coalition backed the bill, including the Wireless Infrastructure Association, CTIA, USTelecom, the Fiber Broadband Association, and NCTA, along with at least seven other industry groups. They argued that “persistent permitting barriers” threaten to delay deployment and undermine federal investments such as the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program, and they described the bill as codifying existing bipartisan FCC policies into a nationwide framework.⁷

Local Government Opposition

The National Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors filed a joint letter to the House Commerce Committee in November 2025 calling the bill “an unprecedented federal intrusion into established local decision-making processes, favoring large broadband, telecommunications, wireless, and cable companies at the expense of residents and taxpayers.”⁸ The National Association of Counties said stripping local permitting authority would “jeopardize the safety protocols and procedures” counties use to manage public rights-of-way.⁹

A wider coalition told House leadership the bill was “an unprecedented and dangerous usurpation of local governments’ authority to manage public rights-of-way and land use” and imposed “no obligations on cable, wireless and telecommunications companies to provide broadband to ‘unserved’ and ‘underserved’ Americans.”¹⁰ Denice Kulseth, town administrator for Friday Harbor, Washington, called the bill “an inappropriate encroachment on our authority and our responsibility” that “usurps our authority to protect the way the town develops.”¹¹

Why the Bill Was Pulled From the Floor

The Energy and Commerce Committee filed its report on April 15, 2026, and the bill went on the Union Calendar. The House Rules Committee scheduled a hearing for the afternoon of April 20 to set floor debate terms.¹² That hearing did not happen. Over the preceding weekend, local government groups mounted an intensive lobbying push, and by Monday morning House Republican leaders concluded they lacked the votes.

According to reporting by Communications Daily, lobbyists identified Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), Ronny Jackson (R-Texas), and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) as firm “no” votes, with Reps. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) and Chris Smith (R-N.J.) leaning against. About 20 Republican lawmakers voiced reservations during a caucus meeting. Gerry Lederer, a lawyer representing local governments, said the bill stalled because “too many members who believe in local government” refused to vote for legislation that limits the roles of cities, towns, and counties in approving connectivity projects, and he suggested leadership also wanted to protect vulnerable Republican incumbents heading into the November 2026 midterms.¹³

Where Things Stand

As of mid-2026, the House Rules Committee lists floor consideration as “postponed.” No Senate companion bill has been introduced.¹ Carter has said he expects the House to return to the measure before this Congress ends, telling reporters, “We’ll be back with it. We’ll get it done,” and acknowledging that concerns raised by local officials about permitting changes and fee restrictions “need to be addressed.”²

Even with the bill stalled, the FCC is pursuing similar changes through its own authority. In September 2025 the Commission opened a Notice of Inquiry titled “Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireline Deployments” (WC Docket No. 25-253), and by mid-2026 it had circulated a draft rulemaking proposing a 120-day shot clock on local right-of-way decisions, safe harbor fee levels tied to actual costs, restrictions on in-kind compensation demands, and standards drawn from the FCC’s 2018 Small Cell Order.¹⁴ The same local government coalition has objected to that proceeding, calling the FCC’s framing a “broad mischaracterization of local rights-of-way management.”⁸

1
Congress.gov. H.R.2289 – American Broadband Deployment Act of 2025
2
Communications Daily. Carter Confident House Will Resurrect American Broadband Deployment Act This Congress
3
GovTrack. H.R. 2289 Cosponsors
4
Congress.gov. H.R.2289 – Text
5
League of Minnesota Cities. Federal Update: House Pulls Broadband Permitting Bill After Local Government Opposition
6
House Rules Committee (Republicans). Rules Committee Print 119-24
7
Wireless Infrastructure Association. Advance American Broadband Deployment Act
8
NATOA. NLC, USCM, NACo, and NATOA Jointly Oppose Preemption Bills
9
National Association of Counties. Oppose Preemption of Local Broadband Permitting Authorities
10
Community Networks. Local Governments Strongly Oppose American Broadband Deployment Act
11
The Journal of the San Juan Islands. Federal Bill Threatens Local Control Over Cell Tower Placement
12
House Rules Committee (Republicans). H.R. 2289 – Rules Committee Hearing
13
Communications Daily. GOP Defections Prompt House Leaders to Pull American Broadband Deployment Act Vote
14
FCC. Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireline Deployments NPRM