A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — 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.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The "Reducing Antiquated Permitting for Infrastructure Deployment Act" (RAPID Act) removes certain review requirements for deploying small personal wireless service facilities. It exempts these projects from being considered major Federal actions under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and exempts them from being undertakings under the National Historic Preservation Act. The bill also creates a presumption that an Indian Tribe has disclaimed interest in a project if they do not act on complete FCC Forms 620 or 621 within 45 days. Indian Tribes can overcome this presumption by demonstrating specific factors to the Commission or a court.
Yes· 3 of 21
- Scored +6
Does this get reliable internet to more people?
Speeds up the deployment of wireless facilities, increasing overall network availability.
- Scored +5
Would business owners be better off under this?
Reduces costs and time for deploying necessary business infrastructure.
- Scored +4
Would farmers be better off under this?
Better wireless infrastructure supports modern precision agriculture.
The opposite· 3 of 4
- Scored -7
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
Creates a presumption that Tribes have disclaimed interest in projects if they don't act within 45 days.
- Scored -6
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Exempts small wireless facility deployments from NEPA environmental reviews.
- Scored -4
Does this put more rules on large technology companies?
Reduces the regulatory burden on telecommunications companies.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Faster Deployment of Wireless Services: By removing requirements for environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and historical reviews under the National Historic Preservation Act, the deployment of small personal wireless service facilities may be streamlined (Section 2).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Reduced Environmental Oversight: The bill removes the requirement for projects to deploy small personal wireless service facilities to be considered major Federal actions under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, meaning these reviews will not be conducted (Section 2(a)).
-
Reduced Historical Preservation: The bill exempts small personal wireless service facility projects from being considered undertakings under section 300320 of title 54, United States Code, which relates to the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 2(b)).
-
Limited Tribal Input: If an Indian Tribe does not act on a complete FCC Form 620 or 621 within 45 days, it is presumed the tribe has disclaimed interest in the undertaking (Section 3(a)(2)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Reduces costs and time for deploying necessary business infrastructure. Would farmers be better off under this? — Better wireless infrastructure supports modern precision agriculture. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Reduces barriers to expanding wireless services into underserved rural areas. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Small cell deployment is primarily targeted at increasing density and capacity in urban areas. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Provides improved high-speed wireless connectivity. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Faster deployment of small cells can lead to better and more affordable wireless options. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Increases availability and reliability of wireless internet and phone services. Would students be better off under this? — Increased wireless access supports remote learning and educational research. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Increases access to high-speed wireless services frequently used by younger populations. Would billionaires be better off under this? — General improvement in technology infrastructure. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — General improvement in technology infrastructure. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Improves general wireless connectivity for professionals and homeowners. Would retired people be better off under this? — Better connectivity for communication and health monitoring. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Increases connectivity and potentially telehealth capabilities via better wireless coverage. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — General improvement in technology infrastructure. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Creates a presumption that Tribes have disclaimed interest in projects if they don't act within 45 days.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Reduces regulatory hurdles and costs for companies deploying small wireless facilities. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Faster deployment of telecommunications infrastructure typically supports broader economic productivity. Is this likely to create jobs? — Streamlining permitting for wireless infrastructure may encourage more deployment projects and related construction jobs.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Facilitates the expansion of wireless infrastructure, which is critical for rural connectivity. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Exempts small wireless facility deployments from NEPA environmental reviews. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Reduces historical preservation oversight under the National Historic Preservation Act.
- Education And Technology
- Does this get reliable internet to more people? — Speeds up the deployment of wireless facilities, increasing overall network availability. Does this put more rules on large technology companies? — Reduces the regulatory burden on telecommunications companies.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make it easier to do business across state lines? — Standardizes and accelerates infrastructure deployment across jurisdictions.
- 9/11/2025
- 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