24 C.F.R. § 58.43

Dissemination and/or publication of the findings of no significant impact

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

(a) If the responsible entity makes a finding of no significant impact, it must prepare a FONSI notice, using the current HUD-recommended format or an equivalent format. As a minimum, the responsible entity must send the FONSI notice to individuals and groups known to be interested in the activities, to the local news media, to the appropriate Tribal, Federal, State, and local agencies to the Regional Offices of the Environmental Protection Agency having jurisdiction and to the HUD Field Office (or the State where applicable). The responsible entity may also publish the FONSI notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected community or on an appropriate Government website that is accessible to individuals with disabilities and provides meaningful access for individuals with Limited English Proficiency. If the notice is not published, it must also be prominently displayed in public buildings, such as the local Post Office and within the project area or in accordance with procedures established as part of the citizen participation process.

(b) The responsible entity may disseminate or publish a FONSI notice at the same time it disseminates or publishes the NOI/RROF required by § 58.70. If the notices are released as a combined notice, the combined notice shall:

(1) Clearly indicate that it is intended to meet two separate procedural requirements; and

(2) Advise the public to specify in their comments which “notice” their comments address.

(c) The responsible entity must consider the comments and make modifications, if appropriate, in response to the comments, before it completes its environmental certification and before the recipient submits its RROF. If funds will be used in Presidentially declared disaster areas, modifications resulting from public comment, if appropriate, must be made before proceeding with the expenditure of funds.

[61 FR 19122, Apr. 30, 1996, as amended at 89 FR 30913, Apr. 23, 2024]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Cornell Vill. Tower Condo. v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 750 F. Supp. 909 (N.D. Ill. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cornell Vill. Tower Condo. v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 750 F. Supp. 909 (N.D. Ill. 1990). · cites it 4× “17(b) no longer contain the notice specifications for the environmental review process, but the substituting regulations, 24 C.F.R. §§ 58.43 and 58.55 (1989), *927 include notice specifications that closely resemble those that they replace.”

Caddo Nation of Oklahoma v. Wichita & Affiliated Tribes, 877 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2017). “24 C.F.R. § 58.43 (a). According to HUD’s regulations for entities assuming HUD’s Environmental Policy Act obligations, the “responsible entity” must “[a]s a minimum .”

Soc'y Hill Towers Owners' Ass'n v. Rendell, 20 F. Supp. 2d 855 (E.D. Pa. 1998). · cites it 4× “24 C.F.R. §§ 58.43 , 58.70. Thereafter, there is a period for public comment.”

Castenson v. City of Harcourt, 86 F. Supp. 2d 866 (N.D. Iowa 2000). · cites it 3× “24 C.F.R. § 58.43 (a). As the Castensons correctly state, nowhere do the applicable regulations define who is an individual or group “known to be interested” in activities.”

Soc'y Hill Towers Owners'ass'n v. Rendell, 20 F. Supp. 2d 855 (E.D. Pa. 1998). · cites it 4× “24 C.F.R. §§ 58.43 , 58.70. Thereafter, there is a period for public comment.”

Soc'y Hill Towers Owners' Assn. v. Rendell, 210 F.3d 168 (3rd Cir. 2000). “24 C.F.R. § 58.43 . If considerable interest or controversy exists concerning a project, HUD requires that the public have 30 days to comment before the grant recipient can request release of funding.”

Claude Sakr, Laura Jackson, & Margaret Skenderian v. City of Portland, United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., Scott Turner, & Home Forward (D. Or. 2026). · cites it 2× “5 (e) and 24 C.F.R. §§ 58.43 , 58.45). Nonetheless, plaintiffs argue that defendants' efforts are still insufficient because the (1) City was poised to approve the Project before the EA was posted; (2) defendants were not responsive enough to public input; and (3) the posting's…”

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.