PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 26, 2025
Wireless Resiliency and Flexible Investment Act of 2025
This bill makes certain changes to the process through which states, localities, and their instrumentalities must evaluate requests to modify existing wireless communications towers, base stations, and support structures.
Specifically, the bill provides statutory authority for the requirement that states and localities approve eligible modification requests within 60 days of their submission. A request is generally eligible if it proposes to add, replace, or remove transmission equipment in a manner that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of the existing structure.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
If a request is deemed ineligible, the state or locality must provide written notice and an explanation to the requesting party. If a state or locality fails to respond to a request, it is deemed to be approved. The bill sets out procedures and timelines for addressing incomplete requests and supplemental submissions.
Further, the bill provides statutory authority for the requirement that a request be considered submitted (thereby starting the 60-day clock) on the date the requesting party takes the first procedural step within its control to submit the request. The bill also limits the procedural steps and documentation requirements that states and localities may impose upon requesting parties.
A requesting party may enforce the requirements of the bill in any U.S. district court, and courts must consider actions brought by a requesting party on an expedited basis.
People & committees
Rep. Langworthy, Nicholas A. [R-NY-23] · R–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Feb 18, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1617 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1617 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1617 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1617 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-26 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill would require state and local authorities to approve qualifying changes to existing wireless facilities that do not substantially change their physical dimensions. Covered work would include adding, removing, or replacing transmission equipment and certain upgrades that improve resilience and directly benefit public safety. Requests would generally become approved automatically if authorities missed a 60-day deadline, with specified pauses allowed. These are proposed requirements, not evidence of enacted law.
a State or local government or instrumentality thereof may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower, base station, or eligible support structure that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such wireless tower, base station, or eligible support structure.
(i) collocation of new transmission equipment; (ii) removal of transmission equipment; (iii) replacement of transmission equipment; or (iv) placement, construction, or modification of equipment that— (I) improves the resiliency of the wireless tower, base station, or eligible support structure; and (II) provides a direct benefit to public safety
the request is deemed approved on the day after the date that is 60 days after the date on which the requesting party submits the request.
In addition to any tolling under subparagraph (C), the 60-day timeframe under subparagraph (A) may be tolled by mutual agreement between the State or local government or instrumentality thereof and the requesting party.
Section 1 would name the bill the Wireless Resiliency and Flexible Investment Act of 2025.
This Act may be cited as the Wireless Resiliency and Flexible Investment Act of 2025.
Qualifying requests would cover adding transmission equipment to an existing facility, removing or replacing equipment, and certain resilience upgrades. Resilience upgrades would need both to improve the facility's resilience and directly benefit public safety; examples include backup power, strengthening the structure, and more reliable connections. All qualifying modifications would remain subject to the restriction against substantially changing the facility's physical dimensions.
The term eligible facilities request means any request for a modification of an existing wireless tower, base station, or eligible support structure that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such wireless tower, base station, or eligible support structure and that involves— (i) collocation of new transmission equipment; (ii) removal of transmission equipment; (iii) replacement of transmission equipment; or (iv) placement, construction, or modification of equipment that— (I) improves the resiliency of the wireless tower, base station, or eligible support structure; and (II) provides a direct benefit to public safety, such as— (aa) providing backup power for the wireless tower, base station, or eligible support structure; (bb) hardening the wireless tower, base station, or eligible support structure; or (cc) providing more reliable connection capability using the wireless tower, base station, or eligible support structure.
An eligible support structure would include a structure that already supports transmission equipment or could support it when the request is submitted. The bill would use the federal regulation's definition of transmission equipment as it exists on the enactment date.
The term eligible support structure means a structure that, at the time when an eligible facilities request for a modification of such structure is submitted to a State or local government or instrumentality thereof, supports or could support transmission equipment.
The term transmission equipment has the meaning given such term in section 1.6100(b)(8) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of the enactment of this paragraph).
Subject to permitted pauses, a request submitted as eligible would automatically become approved the day after the 60-day deadline unless the authority approved it or both determined it was ineligible and provided the required written notice by that deadline.
If a State or local government or instrumentality thereof does not, before or on the date that is 60 days after the date on which a requesting party submits to the government or instrumentality a request as an eligible facilities request, approve the request or make the determination and provide the written notice described in subparagraph (B) with respect to the request, the request is deemed approved on the day after the date that is 60 days after the date on which the requesting party submits the request.
In addition to any tolling under subparagraph (C), the 60-day timeframe under subparagraph (A) may be tolled by mutual agreement between the State or local government or instrumentality thereof and the requesting party.
An authority deciding that a request is ineligible would have to give the applicant written reasons and cite the specific provision of the amended subsection or its implementing regulations supporting that decision.
The determination described in this subparagraph is a determination by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof that a request described in subparagraph (A) is not an eligible facilities request.
a written notice of the determination described in clause (i) provided by the government or instrumentality to the requesting party that clearly describes the reasons why the request is not an eligible facilities request and includes a citation to a specific provision of this subsection or the regulations promulgated under this subsection relied upon for the determination.
A request would count as submitted when the applicant takes the first procedural step within its control under the authority's application procedures. If no specific procedures exist, the relevant step would involve the filing normally used to begin review of a similar facility or structure. Authorities could not require a preliminary meeting or other process before treating the request as submitted.
a request described in paragraph (2)(A) shall be considered submitted on the date on which the requesting party takes the first procedural step within the control of the requesting party— (i) to submit such request in accordance with the procedures established by the government or instrumentality for the review and approval of such a request; or (ii) in the case of a government or instrumentality that has not established specific procedures for the review and approval of such a request, to submit to the government or instrumentality the type of filing that is typically required to initiate a standard review for a similar facility or structure.
A State or local government or instrumentality thereof may not require a requesting party to undertake any process, meeting, or other step prior to or as a prerequisite to a request being considered submitted.
Authorities could require application information only if it reasonably relates to deciding eligibility and is required by a publicly available rule, regulation, or standard they have issued. They could not require other information or documents with the request.
A State or local government or instrumentality thereof may require a requesting party submitting a request as an eligible facilities request to submit information (including a form or other document) with such request only to the extent that such information is reasonably related to determining whether such request is an eligible facilities request and is identified in a publicly available rule, regulation, or standard issued by the government or instrumentality requiring that such information be submitted with such a request. A State or local government or instrumentality thereof may not require a requesting party to submit any other documentation or information with such a request.
For an incomplete initial request, an authority could pause the 60-day clock by providing the required written notice within 30 days after submission. The pause would last until the applicant submits a supplemental response.
If, not later than 30 days after the date on which a requesting party submits to a State or local government or instrumentality thereof a request described in subparagraph (A), the government or instrumentality provides to the requesting party a written notice described in clause (iii) with respect to the request, the 60-day timeframe under subparagraph (A) is tolled until the date on which the requesting party submits to the government or instrumentality a supplemental submission in response to the notice.
If a supplemental response remained incomplete, the authority could pause the clock again by providing the required notice within 10 days after receiving that response. Each further pause would last until the applicant submits another response.
If, not later than 10 days after the date on which a requesting party submits to a State or local government or instrumentality thereof a supplemental submission in response to a written notice under clause (i) with respect to a request described in subparagraph (A) or a written notice under this clause with respect to a subsequent supplemental submission, the government or instrumentality provides to the requesting party a written notice described in clause (iii) with respect to the supplemental submission, the 60-day timeframe under subparagraph (A) is further tolled until the date on which the requesting party submits to the government or instrumentality a subsequent supplemental submission in response to the notice.
An incompleteness notice would have to identify the missing information and cite the specific publicly available rule, regulation, or standard requiring it.
(I) stating that all of the information (including any form or other document) required by the government or instrumentality to be submitted for the request to be considered complete has not been submitted; (II) identifying the information described in subclause (I) that was not submitted; and (III) including a citation to a specific provision of a publicly available rule, regulation, or standard issued by the government or instrumentality requiring that such information be submitted with such a request.
An initial incompleteness notice demanding information prohibited by the bill's documentation limits would be treated as never provided. A later notice would likewise be ineffective if it identified missing information that was not identified in the preceding notice to which the applicant responded.
If a written notice provided by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to a requesting party under clause (i) with respect to a request described in subparagraph (A) identifies as not having been submitted any information that the government or instrumentality is prohibited by paragraph (5) from requiring to be submitted, such notice shall be treated as not having been provided to the requesting party.
If a written notice provided by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to a requesting party under clause (ii) with respect to a supplemental submission identifies as not having been submitted any information that was not identified as not having been submitted in the prior written notice under clause (i) or (ii) in response to which the supplemental submission was submitted, the subsequent written notice shall be treated as not having been provided to the requesting party.
The applicant and the reviewing authority could also agree to pause the 60-day clock, in addition to pauses for incomplete submissions.
In addition to any tolling under subparagraph (C), the 60-day timeframe under subparagraph (A) may be tolled by mutual agreement between the State or local government or instrumentality thereof and the requesting party.
Applicants could sue in federal district court to enforce the amended subsection. Courts would have to consider those cases on an expedited basis, meaning faster review.
A requesting party may bring an action in any district court of the United States to enforce the provisions of this subsection.
A district court of the United States shall consider an action under subparagraph (A) on an expedited basis.
The bill would replace a reference to “paragraph (1)” in existing paragraph (3) with “this subsection.” The supplied text does not reproduce paragraph (3), so the substantive effect of that broader reference cannot be explained from this bundle alone.
(3) in paragraph (3), by striking paragraph (1) and inserting this subsection
The Federal Communications Commission would have to issue final rules implementing the amendments within 180 days after enactment.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall issue final rules to implement the amendments made by subsection (a).
The amendments would apply to eligible requests submitted on or after enactment, using the bill's rule for when submission occurs. This applicability would begin at enactment rather than at the later deadline for final rules.
The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to any eligible facilities request described in paragraph (1) of section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (47 U.S.C. 1455(a)) that is submitted (as determined under paragraph (4) of such section, as added by subsection (a)) by a requesting party on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall issue final rules to implement the amendments made by subsection (a).
The supplied actions snapshot, updated February 18, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on February 26, 2025. It does not establish what happened after those recorded actions.
Source snapshot updated 2026-02-18T20:34:59Z. 2025-02-26: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2025-02-26: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-26. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential exception beyond the main policy's intended coverage was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Feb 18, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI