23 C.F.R. § 771.127

Record of decision

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

(a) When the final EIS is not combined with the ROD, the Administration will complete and sign a ROD no sooner than 30 days after publication of the final EIS notice in the Federal Register or 90 days after publication of a notice for the draft EIS, whichever is later. The ROD will present the basis for the decision, summarize any mitigation measures to be incorporated in the project, and document any required Section 4(f) approval in accordance with part 774 of this chapter. To minimize hardcopy requests and printing costs, the Administration encourages the use of project websites or other publicly accessible electronic means to make the ROD available.

(b) If the Administration subsequently wishes to approve an alternative not identified as the preferred alternative but fully evaluated in the draft EIS, combined FEIS/ROD, or final EIS, or proposes to make substantial changes to the mitigation measures or findings discussed in the ROD, a revised or amended ROD must be subject to review by those Administration offices that reviewed the final EIS under § 771.124(a) or § 771.125(c). To the extent practicable, the approved revised or amended ROD must be provided to all persons, organizations, and agencies that received a copy of the final EIS.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: Wyoming v. United States Dep't of Agric., 661 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2011).
Wyoming v. United States Dep't of Agric., 661 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2011). “2010) (citing 23 C.F.R. § 771.127 ). The requirements of NEPA “have been augmented by longstanding regulations issued by the Council on Envi *1238 ronmental Quality (‘CEQ’).”
Gov't of the Province of Manitoba v. Zinke, 849 F.3d 1111 (D.C. Cir. 2017). “10 (b)(2); 23 C.F.R. § 771.127 (a). The issuance of a ROD constitutes final agency action.”
North Carolina All. for Transp. Reform, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Transp., 151 F. Supp. 2d 661 (M.D.N.C. 2001). “10 (b); 23 C.F.R. § 771.127 (a). This thirty day period allows the public and other agencies to comment on *670 the FEIS prior to agency approval of the proposed project.”
North Carolina All. for Transp. Reform, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Transp., 713 F. Supp. 2d 491 (M.D.N.C. 2010). “10 (b)(2); 23 C.F.R. § 771.127 (a). This thirty day period allows the public and other agencies to comment on the FEIS prior to agency approval of the proposed project.”
Biodiversity Conservation All. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 608 F.3d 709 (10th Cir. 2010). “23 C.F.R. § 771.127 . B. Administrative Background 1.”
Coalition for the Advancement of Reg'l Transp. v. Fed. High. Admin., 576 F. App'x 477 (6th Cir. 2014). “23 C.F.R. § 771.127 (b). On March 27, 1998, the FHA published the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS based on the ORMIS recommendation.”
Cnty. of Bergen v. Dole, 620 F. Supp. 1009 (D.N.J. 1985). “, FHWA Division Administrator, in accordance with 23 C.F.R. § 771.127 . A.R. Vol. 25, Item 114.”
Lakes & Parks All. of Minneapolis v. Fed. Transit Admin., 928 F.3d 759 (8th Cir. 2019). “It is the FTA who enters the final ROD, see 23 C.F.R. 771.127, and without the FTA present, the Council cannot itself invalidate the ROD and reinitiate environmental review.”
Corridor H Alternatives, Inc. v. Slater, 982 F. Supp. 24 (D.D.C. 1997). “23 C.F.R. § 771.127 . 2 . The lands relevant to this case are parks and wildlife preserves — which must be publically owned — and historic sites, which can be public or private.”
Piedmont Env't Council v. United States Dep't of Transp., 159 F. Supp. 2d 260 (W.D. Va. 2001). “; see also 23 C.F.R. § 771.127 (b) (stating that a revised ROD is necessary when FHWA “subsequently wishes to approve an alternative which was not identified as the preferred alternative but was fully evaluated in the final EIS, or proposes to make substantial changes to the…”
Coalition for the Advancement of Reg'l Transp. v. Fed. High. Admin., 959 F. Supp. 2d 982 (W.D. Ky. 2013). “23 C.F.R. § 771.127 (b). B. On March 27, 1998, the FHA published the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS based on the ORMIS recommendation.”
Defenders of Wildlife v. North Carolina Dep't of Transp., 971 F. Supp. 2d 510 (E.D.N.C. 2013). “91986; 23 C.F.R. § 771.127 . The ROD summarizes the environmental issues that were encountered; the numerous bridge, ferry, and no action alternatives that were considered; the coordination undertaken with the public and federal, state, and local agencies; and mitigation…”
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.