23 C.F.R. § 771.119

Environmental assessments

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

(a)(1) The applicant must prepare an EA in consultation with the Administration for each action that does not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment, or if the significance of such effect is unknown, unless the agency finds that the proposed action is a CE and does not clearly require the preparation of an EIS.

(2) For FTA, the contractor's scope of work for the preparation of the EA should not be finalized until the early coordination activities or scoping process found in paragraph (b) of this section is completed (including FTA approval, in consultation with the applicant, of the scope of the EA content).

(b) For actions that require an EA, the applicant, in consultation with the Administration, must, at the earliest appropriate time, begin consultation with interested agencies and others to advise them of the scope of the project, including project's purpose and need, and alternatives to achieve the following objectives: Determine which aspects of the proposed action have potential for reasonably foreseeable social, economic, or environmental impacts; identify alternatives and measures that might mitigate adverse environmental impacts; and identify other environmental review and consultation requirements that should be performed concurrently with the EA. The applicant must accomplish this through early coordination activities or through a scoping process. The applicant must summarize the public involvement process and include the results of agency coordination in the EA.

(c) The Administration must approve the EA before it is made available to the public as an Administration document.

(d) The applicant does not need to circulate the EA for comment, but the document must be made available for public inspection at the applicant's office and at the appropriate Administration field offices or, for FRA at Headquarters, for 30 days and in accordance with paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section. The applicant must send the notice of availability of the EA, which briefly describes the action and its impacts, to the affected units of Federal, Tribal, State and local government. The applicant must also send notice to the State intergovernmental review contacts established under Executive Order 12372. To minimize hardcopy requests and printing costs, the Administration encourages the use of project websites or other publicly accessible electronic means to make the EA available.

(e) When a public hearing is held as part of the environmental review process for an action, the EA must be available at the public hearing and for a minimum of 15 days in advance of the public hearing. The applicant must publish a notice of the public hearing in local newspapers announcing the availability of the EA and where it may be obtained or reviewed. Any comments must be submitted in writing to the applicant or the Administration during the 30-day availability period of the EA unless the Administration determines, for good cause, a different period is warranted. Public hearing requirements are as described in § 771.111.

(f) When a public hearing is not held, the applicant must place a notice in a newspaper(s) similar to a public hearing notice and at a similar stage of development of the action, advising the public of the availability of the EA and where information concerning the action may be obtained. The notice must invite comments from all interested parties. Any comments must be submitted in writing to the applicant or the Administration during the 30-day availability period of the EA unless the Administration determines, for good cause, a different period is warranted.

(g) If no significant impacts are identified, the applicant must furnish the Administration a copy of the revised EA, as appropriate; the public hearing transcript, where applicable; copies of any comments received and responses thereto; and recommend a FONSI. The EA should also document compliance, to the extent possible, with all applicable environmental laws and executive orders, or provide reasonable assurance that their requirements can be met.

(h) When the FHWA expects to issue a FONSI for an action described in § 771.115(a), copies of the EA must be made available for public review (including the affected units of government) for a minimum of 30 days before the FHWA makes its final decision. This public availability must be announced by a notice similar to a public hearing notice.

(i) If, at any point in the EA process, the Administration determines the action is likely to have a significant impact on the environment, the preparation of an EIS will be required, unless the Administration imposes mitigation measures or modifies the action to avoid the significant effects.

(j) If the Administration decides to apply 23 U.S.C. 139 to an action involving an EA, then the EA must be prepared in accordance with the applicable provisions of that statute.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2023 · leading case: Coalition on Sensible Transp. Inc. v. Dole, 642 F. Supp. 573 (D.D.C. 1986).
Coalition on Sensible Transp. Inc. v. Dole, 642 F. Supp. 573 (D.D.C. 1986). “The EA therefore must, inter alia, define the scope of the proposed project, identify alternatives, and determine which aspects of the project have potential for environmental impact. Id. § 771.119(b). Plaintiffs assert that the 1-270 EA and FONSI performed none of these…”
Riverdale Env't Action Comm. Along Hudson—R.E.A.C.H. v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 638 F. Supp. 99 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). · cites it 6× “115 (c); see also 23 C.F.R. § 771.119 . In this case, UMTA required an environmental assessment, rather than an environmental impact statement.”
North Idaho Cmty. Action Network v. United States Dep't of Transp., 545 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2008). “In these documents, the Agencies considered the changes to the Project and the impacts of those changes. Although the changes would have somewhat different impacts from those previously analyzed in the 1999 EIS, the Agencies determined that those impacts were not significant or…”
Senville v. Peters, 327 F. Supp. 2d 335 (D. Vt. 2004). “23 C.F.R. § 771.119 (a). An EA must determine which aspects of the proposed action have potential for social, economic, or environmental impact; identify alternatives and measure which might mitigate adverse environmental impacts; and identify other environmental review and…”
Pub. Interest Rsch. Grp. of New Jersey, Inc. v. Fed. High. Admin., 884 F. Supp. 876 (D.N.J. 1995). “23 C.F.R. § 771.119 ; Hamby Declaration at ¶ 2.”
Dickman v. City of Santa Fe, 724 F. Supp. 1341 (D.N.M. 1989). · cites it 2× “23 C.F.R. § 771.119 (a) (1988). If upon preparation of an EA the proposed project is found to have no significant impact, an environmental impact statement is not required.”
Lakes Region Legal Def. Fund, Inc. v. Slater, 986 F. Supp. 1169 (N.D. Iowa 1997). “23 C.F.R. § 771.119 (a) (1997). The "applicant" here is the Iowa Department of Transportation.”
Twp. of Belleville v. Fed. Transit Admin., 30 F. Supp. 2d 782 (D.N.J. 1998). “23 C.F.R. § 771.119 . After following numerous steps to inform the public of its action, and after conducting a thorough environmental analysis to determine the potential for social, economic, or environmental impact, if no significant impacts are identified, the applicant is to…”
Citizen Advocates for ResponSible Expansion, Inc. v. Dole, 770 F.2d 423 (5th Cir. 1985). “23 C.F.R. § 771.119 (1985); see also 23 C.”
West v. Sec'y of the Dep't of Transp., 206 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2000). “Although the FHWA conducted some environmental review of the project, it failed to comply with NEPA’s review requirements.”
233 East 69th Street Owners Corp. v. Lahood, 797 F. Supp. 2d 326 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). · cites it 2× “23 C.F.R. § 771.119 (b) (agency required to consider reasonable alternatives when conducting an environmental assessment); 23 C.”
Riverdale Environ. Action Comm. v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 638 F. Supp. 99 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). · cites it 6× “115 (c); see also 23 C.F.R. § 771.119 . In this case, UMTA required an environmental assessment, rather than an environmental impact statement.”
— 23 C.F.R. § 771.119(a)(1) — 1 case
— 23 C.F.R. § 771.119(f) — 1 case
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.