C.F.R. » Title 23 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER H—RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ENVIRONMENT › PART 771—ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND RELATED PROCEDURES

23 C.F.R. § 771.133

Compliance with other requirements

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

(a) The combined final EIS/ROD, final EIS or FONSI should document compliance with requirements of all applicable environmental laws, executive orders, and other related requirements. If full compliance is not possible by the time the combined final EIS/ROD, final EIS or FONSI is prepared, the combined final EIS/ROD, final EIS or FONSI should reflect consultation with the appropriate agencies and provide reasonable assurance that the requirements will be met. Approval of the environmental document constitutes adoption of any Administration findings and determinations that are contained therein. FHWA's approval of an environmental document constitutes its finding of compliance with the report requirements of 23 U.S.C. 128.

(b) In consultation with the Administration and subject to Administration approval, an applicant may develop a programmatic approach for compliance with the requirements of any law, regulation, or executive order applicable to the project development process.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2010–2013 · leading case: Citizens for Smart Growth v. Sec'y of the Dep't of Transp., 669 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Citizens for Smart Growth v. Sec'y of the Dep't of Transp., 669 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2012). “Citizens's argument glosses over the "to the extent appropriate” caveat of that regulation and fails to acknowledge the instructions of 23 C.F.R. § 771.133 : "If full compliance [with other environmental regulations] is not possible by the time the final EIS .”
Hoosier Env't Council v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 722 F.3d 1053 (7th Cir. 2013). “§ 4332 (2)(C); 23 C.F.R. § 771.133 ; Simmons v. U.S. Army Corps of Engi *1060 neers, 120 F.”
Coalition for the Advancement of Reg'l Transp. v. Fed. High. Admin., 959 F. Supp. 2d 982 (W.D. Ky. 2013). “CART also claims that Defendants violated 23 C.F.R. § 771.133 , a regulation that does not appear to exist.”
Sierra Club North Star Chapter v. Lahood, 693 F. Supp. 2d 958 (D. Minnesota 2010). “23 C.F.R. § 771.133 . 3. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act ("WSRA") The WSRA was enacted in 1968 to preserve the free-flowing condition of certain rivers.”
Sierra Club North Star Chapter v. LaHood, 693 F. Supp. 2d 958 (D. Minnesota 2010). “23 C.F.R. § 771.133 . 3. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (“WSRA”) The WSRA was enacted in 1968 to preserve the free-flowing condition of certain rivers.”
Citizens for Smart Growth v. Sec'y, Dep't ot Transp. (11th Cir. 2012). “Citizens’s argument glosses over the “to the extent appropriate” caveat of that regulation and fails to acknowledge the instructions of 23 C.F.R. § 771.133 : “If full compliance [with other environmental regulations] is not possible by the time the final EIS .”
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.