The Federal Communications Commission has put local governments on notice. A new rulemaking proceeding could impose a FCC wireline permitting shot clock on cities and counties, requiring permit decisions within 120 days or triggering a federal presumption that the municipality has violated the Telecommunications Act. For local governments already navigating complex broadband deployments in their public rights-of-way, the stakes are significant and the comment window is short. Coastal Tower Law represents local governments throughout California on wireline encroachment and right-of-way matters, and this rulemaking sits squarely in that territory.
The proposal is contained in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireline Deployments (WC Docket No. 25-253), scheduled for a vote at the FCC’s June 25, 2026, Open Commission Meeting. The proceeding targets what the Commission describes as excessive permitting delays and above-cost fees charged by state and local governments for wireline telecommunications infrastructure in public rights-of-way.
What Section 253 Authorizes
To understand why local permit programs are in the Commission’s crosshairs, it helps to understand the statute the FCC is leaning on. Section 253(a) of the Telecommunications Act prohibits any state or local government from imposing requirements that effectively prohibit the provision of telecommunications services. Section 253\(c\) simultaneously preserves local authority to manage public rights-of-way on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis. The core question driving this proceeding is whether permitting timelines or above-cost fees can, standing alone, constitute an effective prohibition under subsection (a) and trigger federal preemption of local government action.
What the NPRM Proposes
The rulemaking puts forward four distinct proposals. The first and most consequential is the 120-day shot clock, addressed in detail below. The second is a fee cap limiting authorization charges to a reasonable approximation of the government’s actual, direct costs of managing the right-of-way. Third, any in-kind compensation a local government requires must count toward those capped amounts, effectively reducing the non-monetary terms a municipality can negotiate. Fourth, local governments may not impose additional requirements on wireline deployments simply because a provider commingles other services on its network. On this last point, the FCC has tentatively concluded that Section 253 applies whenever a provider deploys infrastructure that enables the provision of telecommunications services, regardless of what other services ride on the same network. That is a broader reading than many municipalities have assumed, and its implications extend beyond fee disputes.
California’s Existing Fee Framework
As Coastal Tower Law outlined in its earlier analysis of fiber encroachment on public roads, California municipalities already operate under significant legal constraints on what they can charge and require for wireline public right-of-way access. Under Public Utilities Code Section 7901, qualifying telephone corporations hold a statutory right to use public rights-of-way, and local governments are generally prohibited from charging franchise fees or demanding in-kind contributions in exchange for that access. California’s constitutional cost-recovery principles, applied to encroachment, construction, and electrical permits, already prohibit fees that exceed the reasonable cost of processing the permit.
Where the FCC’s proposal goes further is in looking to establish specific “safe harbor” fee levels as presumptive benchmarks. Fees above those thresholds would be treated as presumptive Section 253 violations, introducing federal enforcement exposure even for fee schedules that localities consider already cost-based and legally defensible under state law.
The 120-Day Shot Clock in Detail
The shot clock is the NPRM’s centerpiece. Under the proposal, failure to act on all required authorizations for a wireline deployment within 120 days of the first application would trigger a rebuttable presumption that the local government has effectively prohibited the provision of telecommunications services in violation of Section 253(a). As currently proposed, that window covers every authorization a municipality might require for a single deployment: ROW agreements, encroachment permits, construction permits, road closure permits. All of them must be acted on within the same 120-day period, although the FCC may include certain exceptions to this potential requirement.
The FCC is also seeking comment on whether 120 days is the right threshold, whether different timelines should apply to different types of authorizations, how the rule applies to batched applications covering multiple simultaneous deployments, and whether Section 253 even gives the Commission authority to impose shot-clock style deadlines at all. That last question is notable because the FCC is openly acknowledging legal uncertainty about its own proposal.
An important limitation applies to enforcement. The FCC is not proposing a “deemed granted” remedy, under which a permit would be automatically approved once the deadline passes. Enforcement would instead run through preemption petitions filed with the FCC by individual providers. The Communications Act does not grant the FCC express authority to issue injunctions, and courts addressing Section 253 remedies have generally held that the appropriate remedy is an injunction or writ of mandate ordering a government to issue the permits.
That enforcement structure reduces the immediate operational risk for public works departments. A provider would have to file a petition and win before any permit issuance obligation is triggered. But the litigation exposure would be real, and the preemption petition model could move quickly if the FCC so chooses.
What Local Governments Are Saying
A joint coalition of major municipal associations, including the National League of Cities, the United States Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, and NATOA, has filed in opposition to the rulemaking. Their central argument is that the industry’s portrayal of local permitting as an obstacle to broadband deployment is factually wrong. They also argue that industry conduct has contributed to the very safety problems that careful permitting review is meant to prevent. One media investigation tallied more than 12,000 gas line strikes attributable to telecom deployments from 2021 through 2023, a figure the coalition cites as evidence that faster permitting without adequate review makes communities less safe, not more connected.
The coalition also raises a legal objection grounded in statutory text. Section 332, which governs wireless facility permitting, expressly directs localities to act on applications within a “reasonable period of time,” giving the FCC a clear statutory hook for its wireless shot clock rules. Section 253 has no equivalent language, and the municipal groups argue that omission was intentional. If Congress wanted Section 253 to authorize shot clocks, it would have said so.
Procedural Posture and What Comes Next
If the Commission adopts the NPRM at the June 2026 Open Commission Meeting, it will be published in the Federal Register. Initial comments will be due 45 days after publication, and reply comments 90 days after. That comment window is the primary opportunity for cities, counties, and other local governments to develop a record, raise legal arguments, and document the operational realities of right-of-way management in their communities. Whether or not this rulemaking survives the legal challenges that are likely to follow, the current administration has made clear that accelerating broadband wireline deployment is a policy priority it intends to pursue through regulatory means.
Local governments already operate under a constrained and evolving legal environment for wireline right-of-way management, and that environment is tightening. Cities and counties that review their encroachment permit programs, broadband ordinances, and permit fee schedules in the near term are better positioned to respond to whatever rules ultimately take effect. Contact Coastal Tower Law to discuss how your municipality can evaluate and strengthen its right-of-way management program before the next deadline arrives.