23 C.F.R. § 771.115

Classes of actions

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

There are three classes of actions that prescribe the level of documentation required in the NEPA process. In selecting the class of action, the Administration may make use of any reliable data source and is not required to undertake new scientific or technical research unless the new scientific or technical research is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives, and the overall costs and time frame of obtaining it are not unreasonable. A programmatic approach may be used for any class of action.

(a) EIS. Actions that have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment require an EIS. The following are examples of actions that normally require an EIS:

(1) A new controlled access freeway.

(2) A highway project of four or more lanes on a new location.

(3) Construction or extension of a fixed transit facility (e.g., rapid rail, light rail, commuter rail, bus rapid transit) that will not be located primarily within an existing transportation right-of-way.

(4) New construction or extension of a separate roadway for buses or high occupancy vehicles not located within an existing transportation right-of-way.

(5) New construction or extension of a separate roadway for buses not located primarily within an existing transportation right-of-way.

(6) New construction of major railroad lines or facilities (e.g., terminal passenger stations, freight transfer yards, or railroad equipment maintenance facilities) that will not be located within an existing transportation right-of-way.

(b) CE. Actions that normally do not have a significant environmental effect are excluded from the requirement to prepare an EA or EIS. A specific list of CEs normally not requiring NEPA documentation is set forth in § 771.117(c) for FHWA actions or § 771.118(c) for FTA actions. When appropriately documented, additional projects may also qualify as CEs pursuant to § 771.117(d) for FHWA actions or pursuant to § 771.118(d) for FTA actions. FRA's CEs are listed in § 771.116.

(c) EA. Actions that do not have reasonably foreseeably significant effects on the quality of the human environment or for which the significance of the environmental impact is unknown. All actions that are not EISs or CEs are EAs. All actions in this class require the preparation of an EA to determine the appropriate environmental document required.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 39 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2023 · leading case: Nat'l Trust for Historic Pres. in the United States v. Elizabeth H. Dole, 828 F.2d 776 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nat'l Trust for Historic Pres. in the United States v. Elizabeth H. Dole, 828 F.2d 776 (D.C. Cir. 1987). · cites it 8× “23 C.F.R. § 771.115 (a) (1974). Actions in which the significance of the impact on the environment is “not clearly established,” are categorized Class III and require an environmental assessment (EA) to determine that significance.”

Aquifer Guardians in Urban Areas v. Fed. High. Admin., 779 F. Supp. 2d 542 (W.D. Tex. 2011). · cites it 7× “117 (a), (d); 23 C.F.R. § 771.115 (b). A review of the Administrative Record reflects the FHWA rationally determined the project will have no significant impact and otherwise qualified as a CE based upon the extensive analyses and documents in the record.”

Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir. 2002). “” 23 C.F.R. § 771.115 (a)(2). That, of course, precisely describes a portion of the Project: the expansion of 11400 South from 700 West to 1300 West.”

Florida Keys Citizens Coalition, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (S.D. Fla. 2005). · cites it 3× “See 23 C.F.R. § 771.115 . The Council on Environmental Quality’s (“CEQ”) NEPA regulations authorize the use of exclusions for those categories of actions “which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and which have been found to…”

Maiden Creek Assocs., L.P. v. United States Dep't of Transp., 823 F.3d 184 (3rd Cir. 2016). “23 C.F.R. § 771.115 . Finding that the Project satisfied the criteria for the Categorical Exclusion set out in 23 C.”

Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. Jacoby, 9 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (D. Or. 1998). · cites it 3× “23 C.F.R. § 771.115 . Class II, which are CEs, 26 are defined under 23 C.”

Citizens Against the Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta, 375 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2004). · cites it 5× “” 23 C.F.R. § 771.115 (a). “Class II” actions do not “have a significant environmental effect,” and thus do not require an EIS or an EA.”

Nat'l Trust for Historic Pres. in the United States v. Elizabeth H. Dole, 819 F.2d 1164 (D.C. Cir. 1987). · cites it 8× “23 C.F.R. § 771.115 (a) (1974). Actions in which the significance of the impact on the environment is “not clearly established,” are categorized Class III and require an environmental assessment (EA) to determine that significance.”

West v. Horner, 810 F. Supp. 2d 228 (D.D.C. 2011). · cites it 3× “See 23 C.F.R. § 771.115 ; 40 C.F.R. § 1507.3 (b).”

Twp. of Belleville v. Fed. Transit Admin., 30 F. Supp. 2d 782 (D.N.J. 1998). · cites it 6× “” 23 C.F.R. § 771.115 . (a) Class I (EIS s).”

Sw. Williamson Cnty. Cmty. Ass'n v. Slater, 243 F.3d 270 (6th Cir. 2001). “23 C.F.R. § 771.115 (b). Whether or not changes in access control are actions that meet the criteria in §§ 771.”

Sw. Williamson Cnty. Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. Rodney E. Slater, 173 F.3d 1033 (6th Cir. 1999). “23 C.F.R. § 771.115 . The state defendant, in cooperation with federal officials, chose to prepare EAs.”

Show all 39 citing cases →

— 23 C.F.R. § 771.115(25) — 2 cases

Friedman Bros. Inv. Co. v. Lewis, 676 F.2d 1317 (9th Cir. 1982).

— 23 C.F.R. § 771.115(c) — 1 case

Friends of Congaree Swamp v. Fed. High. Admin., 786 F. Supp. 2d 1054 (D.S.C. 2011).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.