Overview
Title
To require the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information to submit to Congress a plan for the Assistant Secretary to track the acceptance, processing, and disposal of certain Form 299s, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 1343 wants to make sure the government keeps better track of paperwork needed for putting up new internet towers and equipment on public lands, so it's easier and quicker for those who build them to know what’s happening with their applications.
Summary AI
H.R. 1343 or the “Federal Broadband Deployment Tracking Act” aims to have the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information create a plan to manage the acceptance, processing, and disposal of Form 299s, which are used to authorize the placement of communications facilities on public and National Forest System lands. The bill outlines requirements for this plan, including improving transparency for applicants regarding the status of these forms and identifying barriers to implementation. This effort is to ensure efficient and transparent regulation of communications infrastructure development on federal lands.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
H.R. 1343, titled the "Federal Broadband Deployment Tracking Act," is a legislative proposal introduced to enhance the management of certain governmental forms, specifically Form 299, which is used for authorizations related to communication facilities on public and National Forest System lands. The bill mandates that the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information develop a plan to track and improve the acceptance, processing, and disposal of these forms. The primary goal is to ensure a more transparent and efficient process for applicants seeking permission to use these lands for communication purposes.
Significant Issues with the Bill
Several concerns arise from the proposed legislation:
Vague Implementation Criteria: The phrase "most expeditiously implement the plan" lacks clear criteria or timelines. This omission makes it difficult to assess how quickly or effectively the plan will be carried out, potentially leading to indefinite delays without accountability.
Financial Implications: The bill does not outline the costs or budgetary implications of implementing the tracking plan. This absence raises questions about the financial oversight and necessary resources for effective execution.
Transparency and Communication: The bill pledges additional transparency for applicants but does not specify how this will be achieved. This vagueness leaves room for subjective interpretation and may not improve the clarity of communication with applicants.
Oversight Mechanisms: The bill lacks provisions detailing oversight or accountability measures if the tracking plan is not implemented as intended or if there are significant delays. This absence might weaken the bill's effectiveness in enforcing the proposed changes.
Complexity and Reliance on Other Legislation: The bill references definitions and criteria from other acts and sections, which could complicate comprehension for those unfamiliar with the legislative landscape.
Potential Impact on the Public
The broad public might benefit from more efficient deployment of broadband infrastructure if the tracking and authorization process for communication facilities is improved. This could lead to better internet access and more robust communication networks, enhancing connectivity in under-served areas.
However, the lack of clear timelines and the potential for delays in implementation may result in slow progress, frustrating applicants and stakeholders alike. Moreover, the absence of detailed financial planning could lead to either insufficient allocation of resources or unnecessary expenditure of public funds.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Applicants and Communication Companies: These stakeholders may experience a streamlined application process, reducing wait times and increasing the predictability of outcomes. However, ambiguity in how transparency is to be achieved could hinder the expected benefits without precise execution.
Government Agencies: Implementation of this bill would require coordination and resource allocation from agencies like the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service. The lack of explicit budgetary provisions could strain these agencies if additional funds are not secured.
Public Lands and Environmental Stakeholders: Efficient tracking and authorization could influence the management of public and forest lands positively by better-organizing infrastructure deployment. However, stakeholders concerned with environmental impacts might worry about faster approval processes leading to less thorough reviews.
In conclusion, while the bill aims to improve the deployment of communication facilities effectively, several issues related to transparency, financial implications, and oversight could hinder its intended impact. Careful consideration and amendments might be needed to address these concerns thoroughly and ensure the bill's objectives are met successfully.
Issues
The lack of specific criteria or timelines for the term 'most expeditiously implement the plan' in Section 2(a)(1)(C) makes it difficult to measure the Assistant Secretary's performance and accountability, which could lead to delays in implementation without consequences.
The section introducing the tracking plan for Form 299 does not detail potential costs or budget implications, raising concerns about financial oversight and resource allocation necessary to implement the plan effectively.
Vague language regarding how 'additional transparency' will be provided to applicants as mentioned in Section 2(a)(1)(B) and how 'the process' will be managed leaves room for subjective interpretation and might not ensure effective communication with applicants.
There is no mention of oversight or accountability mechanisms in Section 2 in case the tracking plan is not implemented as specified or if delays occur, which could undermine the objectives of the bill.
The bill relies heavily on definitions from other Acts and sections without full context provided in Section 2(b), complicating understanding for those not familiar with the referenced legislation and potentially leading to misinterpretation.
Potential barriers to implementing the plan are acknowledged in Section 2(a)(2) but are not explored or listed, leading to uncertainty about what challenges might arise and how they might be addressed.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this Act states that it can be officially called the “Federal Broadband Deployment Tracking Act.”
2. Plan for assistant secretary to track the acceptance, processing, and disposal of certain form 299s Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill instructs the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information to submit a plan to Congress within 180 days to track and improve how Form 299s, used for communication use authorizations on public and National Forest System lands, are managed. The plan should include details on improving transparency for applicants, any barriers faced, and processes to efficiently authorize the use of these lands for communication facilities.