The Administration must determine, prior to granting any new approval related to an action or amending any previously approved aspect of an action, including mitigation commitments, whether an approved environmental document remains valid as described in this section.
(a) The applicant must prepare a written evaluation of the draft EIS, in cooperation with the Administration, if an acceptable final EIS is not submitted to the Administration within three years from the date of the draft EIS circulation. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine whether or not a supplement to the draft EIS or a new draft EIS is needed.
(b) The applicant must prepare a written evaluation of the final EIS before the Administration may grant further approvals if major steps to advance the action (e.g., authority to undertake final design, authority to acquire a significant portion of the right-of-way, or approval of the plans, specifications and estimates) have not occurred within three years after the approval of the final EIS, final EIS supplement, or the last major Administration approval or grant.
(c) After the Administration issues a combined final EIS/ROD, ROD, FONSI, or CE designation, the applicant must consult with the Administration prior to requesting any major approvals or grants to establish whether or not the approved environmental document or CE designation remains valid for the requested Administration action. These consultations will be documented when determined necessary by the Administration.
(d) For tiered EAs or EISs, if the second tier occurs 5 or more years after the first tier document, the applicant in consultation with the Administration, must re-evaluate the analysis and any underlying assumptions of the first tier EIS or EA to ensure reliance on the analysis remains valid.
Notes of Decisions
Senville v. Peters, 327 F. Supp. 2d 335 (D. Vt. 2004).
· cites it 3× “Re-Evaluation under 23 C.F.R. § 771.129 The FHWA requires a written evaluation of a final EIS before further approvals may be granted if more than three years have passed since the last major FHWA approval or grant.”
North Idaho Cmty. Action Network v. United States Dep't of Transp., 545 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “1997); 23 C.F.R. § 771.129 (a) (1988). The Agencies concluded that the dredging would not have significant environmental impacts beyond those already considered, and thus that neither a SEIS nor a supplemental EA was required.”
Jersey Heights Neighborhood Ass'n v. Glendening, 174 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 1999).
“” 23 C.F.R. § 771.129 . If a new circumstance “present[s] a seriously different picture of the environmental impact of the proposed project from what was previously envisioned,” the FEIS must be supplemented.”
Ass'n Concerned About Tomorrow, Inc. v. Dole, 610 F. Supp. 1101 (N.D. Tex. 1985).
· cites it 2× “The entire route of the SH 161 project was re-evaluated in 1984 by FHWA, pursuant to 23 C.F.R. 771.129. The Reevaluation concluded that changes in the *1107 project since the FEIS was approved for the west leg of Loop 9 in 1971 were minimal and that no new significant impacts…”
Sierra Club v. Marsh, 714 F. Supp. 539 (D. Me. 1989).
· cites it 2× “23 C.F.R. § 771.129 (d). The only evidence relating to the FHwA decision not to prepare a supplemental EIS are the statements contained in the affidavit of William Richardson: A meeting was held on December 1, 1987, among the FHWA, cooperating agencies, MDOT and respective…”
Vine Street Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Dole, 630 F. Supp. 24 (E.D. Pa. 1985).
· cites it 3× “See also 23 CFR 771.129 (1985). The “significance” of new circumstances or information is to be determined based on considerations of context and intensity: Context.”
Cnty. of Bergen v. Dole, 620 F. Supp. 1009 (D.N.J. 1985).
“23 C.F.R. § 771.129 (1981). 23 . Because of my conclusion in this regard, I need not discuss the substantial changes and significant new information in detail.”
— 23 C.F.R. § 771.129(b) — 3 cases
Vine Street Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Dole, 630 F. Supp. 24 (E.D. Pa. 1985).
“See also 23 CFR 771.129 (1985). The “significance” of new circumstances or information is to be determined based on considerations of context and intensity: Context.”
— 23 C.F.R. § 771.129(c)(2) — 2 cases
Ass'n Concerned About Tomorrow, Inc. v. Dole, 610 F. Supp. 1101 (N.D. Tex. 1985).
“The entire route of the SH 161 project was re-evaluated in 1984 by FHWA, pursuant to 23 C.F.R. 771.129. The Reevaluation concluded that changes in the *1107 project since the FEIS was approved for the west leg of Loop 9 in 1971 were minimal and that no new significant impacts…”
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.