CLOSE THE GAP Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 15, 2026
Bottom line
The bill seeks to accelerate broadband deployment on federal lands by reducing regulatory hurdles and empowering federal agencies with dedicated resources and streamlined processes.
What it actually does
This bill, the CLOSE THE GAP Act, aims to significantly streamline the permitting process for broadband infrastructure on Federal land by requiring federal agencies to standardize and expedite application reviews, establish online portals, and create new categorical exclusions and exemptions from environmental review laws. It also designates communications projects as high-priority 'covered projects' under the FAST Act and allows federal land management agencies to retain cost recovery fees for broadband-related activities.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is crucial for expanding broadband access to unserved and underserved rural areas, enhancing public safety through improved communication facilities, and modernizing outdated federal permitting processes. They contend that current bureaucratic delays hinder critical infrastructure development and that these reforms will close the digital divide more efficiently.
Opponents contend
Critics may contend that the bill's broad exemptions from environmental review laws, such as NEPA and NHPA, could lead to adverse impacts on federal lands, including natural habitats and historical sites, without adequate public input or environmental safeguards. Concerns might also be raised about the potential for reduced oversight and the implications of designating all communications projects as high-priority under the FAST Act.
The bill is relatively concise and its provisions are clearly laid out, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core impacts within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 3
Promulgation of Streamlining Regulations
This section mandates that the Secretary concerned (e.g., Interior, Agriculture) promulgate regulations within one year to standardize and unify the permitting process for communications facilities on federal land. These regulations must ensure competitive and technology-neutral consideration of applications, base cost recovery fees solely on processing and construction oversight, and provide for minimum lease terms of 30 years. It also requires public tracking of application statuses and reasons for denial.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that standardized regulations will reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies, provide clarity for applicants, and accelerate the deployment of critical broadband infrastructure, especially in rural and remote areas. The 30-year lease term provides necessary long-term stability for investments.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the concept of standardization itself, but concerns might arise if the regulations are perceived to overly favor industry at the expense of environmental or public land management considerations, or if cost recovery fees are insufficient to cover agency costs.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire for efficient broadband deployment with the need for responsible management of federal lands and fair cost recovery for administrative services.
Section 4
Data Collection and Reporting on Permit Delays
This section requires federal land management agencies to establish standardized procedures for tracking data related to broadband project permit applications, including the number of applications pending, approved, denied, or withdrawn, both by and after established deadlines. Within one year of establishing these procedures, the Secretaries concerned must submit a report to Congress analyzing delays and recommending solutions to accelerate broadband permitting.
Section 5
Designation of Communications Projects as High Priority
This section amends the FAST Act to include 'communications projects' as a new category of 'covered projects,' which are designated as high priority for federal permitting and review. Crucially, it lowers the investment threshold for communications projects to 'any amount' to qualify as a covered project, whereas other covered projects require an investment of more than $200,000,000. This ensures that even smaller broadband projects on federal land receive expedited review.
Section 6
New Categorical Exclusion for Public Safety Projects
This section directs the Secretary concerned to establish a new categorical exclusion (CE) from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for projects involving existing communications facilities that improve public safety on federal land. Examples include providing backup power, improving supporting infrastructure, or enhancing connection capabilities. Alternatively, agencies can adopt an existing CE from another agency for such projects.
Section 7
Exemption from Environmental Review for Previously Analyzed Federal Land
This section states that NEPA and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) review requirements shall not apply to applications for communications use authorizations if the equipment is located in or on existing infrastructure, or if the facility is located on 'previously analyzed Federal land.' It further specifies that agencies are not required to reinitiate consultation under these acts for previously analyzed land, even if new information becomes available.
Section 10
Collection and Retention of Cost Recovery Fees
This section requires the Treasury to establish special accounts for each federal land management agency to deposit cost recovery fees related to communications use authorizations. These fees must be collected annually, based solely on agency costs for processing applications and overseeing construction, and imposed on a competitively neutral, technology-neutral, and nondiscriminatory basis. The retained fees can be used by agencies for various activities related to communications use authorizations and sites, including administration, needs assessments, management plans, training, site improvement, and hiring personnel to streamline permitting.
This provision amends the FAST Act's definition of a 'covered project' by changing the investment threshold for 'communications projects' to 'any amount,' while retaining the '$200,000,000' threshold for all other types of covered projects.
Section 5(b)(3)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for amending existing statutes, but the specific impact of changing a numerical threshold can be easily overlooked amidst other technical changes.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this ensures all communications projects, regardless of their individual dollar value, receive the expedited review status under the FAST Act, recognizing the critical importance of even small-scale broadband deployments in closing the digital divide.
Case against: Critics might argue that this change could disproportionately prioritize smaller communications projects over much larger, more economically significant infrastructure projects in other sectors, potentially straining the FAST Act's review capacity and delaying other critical developments.
Estimated impact: Significantly broadens the scope of communications projects eligible for expedited federal permitting under the FAST Act.
This provision explicitly states that the Secretary concerned is not required to reinitiate consultation under NEPA or NHPA for communications use authorizations on 'previously analyzed Federal land,' even if new information concerning that land becomes available.
Section 7(b)
Why it matters:While part of a larger streamlining effort, this specific clause significantly limits future environmental and historical review, which could be seen as a deliberate attempt to prevent new data from triggering additional scrutiny.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this prevents endless cycles of review and re-review, providing regulatory certainty and preventing new, potentially minor, information from indefinitely delaying critical broadband projects on lands already deemed suitable.
Case against: Opponents would argue that this clause is highly problematic as it explicitly allows agencies to disregard new scientific or historical information, potentially leading to adverse impacts on federal lands and resources that were not fully understood during initial reviews.
Estimated impact: Eliminates a key safeguard in environmental and historical preservation by preventing agencies from acting on new information for certain projects.
This section strikes paragraph (3) from Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (47 U.S.C. 1455(a)). This paragraph defined what constitutes a 'substantial change' to an existing wireless tower or base station.
Section 8
Why it matters:This is a technical amendment that significantly alters the regulatory landscape for wireless facility modifications without explicitly stating the new standard or its effects within the bill itself. It could be seen as a way to broaden the scope of modifications that are not subject to local review.
Case for: Proponents would argue that removing the 'substantial change' definition simplifies the process for modifying existing wireless facilities, reducing ambiguity and accelerating upgrades to broadband infrastructure without requiring new, extensive reviews for minor alterations.
Case against: Critics would argue that by removing this definition, the bill eliminates a crucial standard that allowed local governments and communities to review and potentially reject modifications deemed 'substantial.' This could lead to significant changes to wireless facilities without adequate local oversight, impacting aesthetics, property values, and environmental concerns.
Estimated impact: Removes a key regulatory definition, potentially broadening the types of wireless facility modifications that can proceed without local review or under streamlined federal processes.