Task: songer_usc2sect

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to identify the number of the section from the title of the second most frequently cited title of the U.S. Code in the headnotes to this case, that is, title 23. In case of ties, code the first to be cited. The section number has up to four digits and follows "USC" or "USCA".

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge:
I. BACKGROUND
This appeal involves the construction of an interstate highway project in Hawaii which has been the subject of litigation now spanning some sixteen years. The litigation began in 1972, when the Stop H-3 Association sought permanently to enjoin construction of the highway, known as the H-3 project, out of concern for its impact on the environment. That same year the parties worked out a stipulation providing that construction would proceed at both ends of H-3, but would cease in the central portion of the highway pending a trial on the merits. The district court accordingly issued a temporary injunction enjoining work on the project pending resolution of the action. C.R. 43.
The consolidated complaint of the environmental organizations, appellants here, raised a number of issues, two of which are relevant to this appeal. First, appellants contended that appellees had violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347 (“NEPA”), by filing a deficient Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Second, appellants maintained that appel-lees had not complied with section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 49 U.S.C. § 303, and section 18 of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1968, 23 U.S. C. § 138. These sections contain nearly identical language and are commonly referred to collectively as “section 4(f)” or the “4(f) statutes.” Under section 4(f), the Secretary
shall not approve any program or project which requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction thereof, or any land from an historic site of national, State, or local significance as so determined by such officials unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from such use.
The Secretary’s determination that the conditions of section 4(f) are satisfied is known as a “section 4(f) statement.”
The case went to trial in 1974. After the trial, the district court found that appellees had not violated NEPA, section 4(f), or any other federal, state or local provisions. As a result, it lifted the preliminary injunction. Stop H-3 Ass’n v. Brinegar, 389 F.Supp. 1102 (D. Hawaii 1974), rev’d. sub nom. Stop H-3 Ass’n v. Coleman, 533 F.2d 434 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 999, 97 S.Ct. 526, 50 L.Ed.2d 610 (1976). However, on appeal to this court, appellants sought and obtained reimposition of the preliminary injunction. Stop H-3 Ass’n v. Coleman, 533 F.2d 434 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 999, 97 S.Ct. 526, 50 L.Ed.2d 610 (1976). We held that appellees had failed to comply with section 4(f) before approving the release of federal funds for H-3. Id. at 445. Specifically, we held that the Moanalua Valley, through which H-3 would pass, was protected land; therefore we rejected the Secretary’s argument that section 4(f) did not apply. Id.
Appellees subsequently filed a 4(f) statement for Moanalua Valley, but the Secretary found reasonable alternatives to using that land and did not approve the project. Appellees then decided to reroute H-3 to the north, filing a supplemental EIS (SEIS) and 4(f) statement which the Secretary approved in 1981. In the meantime, the district court continued to enforce the preliminary injunction, holding that the new route was within the purview of the 1972 stipulation.
Appellants challenged the new proposal, raising forty-eight separate claims. Appellants were primarily concerned with the impact of the new route on two protected areas, the Pali Golf Course and Ho’omalu-hia Park. After a 1981 trial on the merits, the district court ruled in favor of appellees on nearly all counts. Most importantly, the district court affirmed the Secretary’s ’determination that there was no prudent alternative to the new proposal, and approved both the EIS and SEIS. Having identified only minor noncompliance with NEPA and section 4(f), the district court decided to lift the preliminary injunction. Stop H-3 Ass’n v. Lewis, 538 F.Supp. 149 (D.Hawaii 1982).
A second appeal to this court ensued, and we once again reimposed the preliminary injunction. We were not convinced that the “Makai Realignment” and the “No Build Alternative” were imprudent. We held that such a determination was an abuse of discretion on the record as it then existed, and remanded the matter to the Secretary for further consideration. We affirmed the district court in all other respects. Stop H-3 Ass’n v. Dole, 740 F.2d 1442 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1108, 105 S.Ct. 2344, 85 L.Ed.2d 859 (1985).
On October 18, 1986, the Continuing Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1987, Pub. L. No. 99-500, 100 Stat. 1783 (later reenacted as Pub.L. No. 99-591, 100 Stat. 3341) became law. Section 114 of this bill, 100 Stat. 1783-349 (later reenacted as 100 Stat. 3341-349), ordered the Secretary to approve construction of H-3 “notwithstanding” section 4(f). On January 16,1987, the Secretary approved the section of H-3’s central portion lying between the Halawa and Kaneohe interchanges, but suspended approval for the small segment lying between the Kaneohe and Halekou interchanges.
Appellees then moved for dismissal of the complaint, arguing that section 114 had rendered moot all issues raised in appellants’ complaint that remained after this court’s 1984 decision. Appellees also moved for a lifting of the preliminary injunction, arguing that the requirements of the 1972 stipulation, NEPA and its regulations had all been complied with. The district court agreed with appellees, and on May 26, 1987 dismissed the complaint and lifted the preliminary injunction. C.R. 507, 508.
In this third appeal, appellants challenge the district court’s decision to dismiss the complaint and lift the preliminary injunction. Specifically, they argue that the requirements of the 1972 stipulation, NEPA, and the applicable regulations have not been satisfied. They also contend that section 114 is an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power, violating the Spending Clause, the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and the principle of separation of powers. Appellants seek reversal of the district court’s decision and reimposition of the preliminary injunction.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review de novo the district court’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss for mootness. See Sample v. Johnson, 771 F.2d 1335, 1338 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1019, 106 S.Ct. 1206, 89 L.Ed.2d 319 (1986). The district court’s decision to lift the preliminary injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Transgo, Inc. v. Ajac Transmission Parts Corp., 768 F.2d 1001, 1021 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1059, 106 S.Ct. 802, 88 L.Ed.2d 778 (1986).
III. DISCUSSION
A. NEPA and the Stipulated Injunction
Appellants argue that the district court erred in holding that appellees had complied with the terms of the stipulated injunction. According to appellants, the terms of the stipulation required that the court determine the adequacy of a Third Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, which appellees were in the process of preparing, before construction of H-3 could proceed. Because appellants were not given the opportunity to litigate the adequacy of the Third SEIS, they argue, the injunction should be reinstated.
Appellants also contend that appellees' decision to prepare a Third SEIS lengthened the EIS process beyond the approval of the 1982 EIS and thus rendered premature the district court’s dismissal of the action. According to appellants, the district court could not dismiss the action pri- or to its approval of the Third SEIS.
1. The Stipulation
In 1972, the parties entered into a stipulation that provided, in relevant part:
It is agreed that Defendants shall not permit construction, further acquisition of right of way, or further letting of contracts on the Moanalua-Haiku Segment until the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement is determined by this Court.
C.R. 34, at 3.
In 1980, PHWA approved a final SEIS for the North Halawa Valley alignment of the H-3 project. Together with the 1972 Moanalua Valley EIS (“1972 EIS”) and the 1973 Supplemental EIS (“1973 Preface”), the 1980 SEIS constituted the EIS for the North Halawa Valley alignment of the project. Location and design approval for the H-3 project was given on February 5, 1981. On April 10, 1981, appellants filed a 142 page, 48 count, Amended and Supplemental Complaint for Declaratory and In-junctive Relief, challenging the appellees’ decision to proceed with the H-3 project.
In its decision of April 8, 1982, the district court held that the 1972 EIS and 1973 Preface complied with the requirements of NEPA and were properly approved. Stop H-3 Ass’n v. Lewis, 538 F.Supp. 149, 183 (D. Hawaii 1982), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, 740 F.2d 1442 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1108, 105 S.Ct. 2344, 85 L.Ed.2d 859 (1985). The district court further held that the 1980 SEIS was properly prepared and circulated and adequately discussed the project’s impact upon North Ha-lawa Valley. Id. The court held that the EIS as a whole “sufficiently addresses the project’s socio-economic impacts and relationship to the Oahu General Plan.” Id. The district court however ordered appel-lees to prepare and circulate another supplemental EIS to reflect “new and significant” information that had arisen since the draft 1980 SEIS was circulated and not discussed in the North Halawa Valley EIS. Id. at 183, 184. The court also set aside the Secretary’s section 4(f) determination concerning Ho’omaluhia Park on the ground that “the 4(f) statement does not adequately support the finding that all possible measures have been taken to minimize harm to the park.” Id. at 183. The court however affirmed the Secretary’s conclusion that no feasible and prudent alternatives exist to the use of the park. Id. Finally, holding that conditions had changed sufficiently since imposition of the injunctions to justify terminating those injunctions and ordering new relief, the district court vacated the then-extant injunctions against the H-3 project and set aside the Secretary’s grant of location and design approval for the project. Id.
Appellees accordingly prepared a second SEIS, which FHWA approved on September 28, 1982. The Secretary of Transportation thereupon granted new location and design approvals for the H-3 project on November 12, 1982. Appellants did not challenge the validity of these actions; they have never contended that appellees failed to comply with the district court’s 1982 order.
Appellants however appealed from the district court’s 1982 decision. In 1984, we affirmed the district court’s 1982 ruling in respect to the adequacy of the 1980 EIS under NEPA. Stop H-3 Ass’n v. Dole, 740 F.2d 1442, 1465 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1108, 105 S.Ct. 2344, 85 L.Ed.2d 859 (1985). We reversed, however, the district court’s conclusion that the Secretary had correctly determined, under section 4(f), that there were no feasible and prudent alternatives to the “constructive use” of Ho’omaluhia Park. Id. at 1450-58. We therefore ordered the district court to reinstate the injunctions against further construction of H-3 pending the Secretary’s compliance with section 4(f) as the statute applied to Ho’omaluhia Park. Id. at 1465.
Following this court’s 1984 decision, therefore, the only obstacles remaining to construction of H-3 were the requirements of section 4(f) and the district court’s approval of the Final EIS. On October 18, 1986, President Reagan signed Public Law No. 99-500, 100 Stat. 1783. Section 114, 100 Stat. 1783-349, provides:
(a) The Secretary of Transportation shall approve the construction of Interstate Highway H-3 between the Halawa interchange to, and including the Halek-ou Interchange (a distance of approximately 10.7 miles), and such construction shall proceed to completion notwithstanding section 138 of title 23 and section 303 of title 49, United States Code [i.e., section 4(f)].
(b) Notwithstanding section 102 of this joint resolution the provisions of subsection (a) shall constitute permanent law.
The clear intent and effect of this statute is to exempt the H-3 project from the requirements of section 4(f). As we explain below, section 114 does not suffer from any of the constitutional infirmities advanced by appellants. Therefore, enactment of section 114 left only one impediment to construction of H-3: approval of a Final EIS for the project.
2. The Third SEIS
After enactment of section 114, appellees carried out a formal reevaluation of the H-3 project pursuant to 23 C.F.R. 771.-129(c)(2). This regulation requires such reevaluations when major steps to advance a project have not occurred within three years after the approval of the final EIS. Based on this reevaluation, defendants began to prepare a Third SEIS, to consider the impact of the highway on archaeological resources and banana farmers in the vicinity of the proposed Kaneohe Interchange (the Luluku area). A draft Third SEIS was made available to the public on January 29, 1987, and official notice of its availability was published in the Federal Register on February 6,1987. 52 Fed.Reg. 3856 (1987).
On January 16, 1987, based on the re-‘ evaluation, the Acting Division Administrator of FHWA approved the H-3 project, authorizing detailed design and construe- ■ tion work. At the same time, however, the' Acting Division Administrator suspended his approval insofar as it would have authorized design and other project-related work in the vicinity of the proposed Kaneohe Interchange, pending completion of the Third SEIS.
On February 11, 1987, appellees filed a joint motion to dismiss thé action, on the grounds that the unchallenged issuance and FHWA approval of the 1982 SEIS satisfied the requirements of both NEPA and the district court’s 1982 decision and order, and that passage of section 114 had rendered moot any issues remaining in the litigation. C.R. 494. In their opposition to the motion, appellants argued that dismissal was unwarranted because the stipulation required that the adequacy of the Third SEIS be litigated prior to dismissal of the action. C.R. 495.
The district court, in its Decision and Order of May 8, 1987, granted appellees’ motion to dismiss, and terminated the injunctions in force. C.R. 507. The court held that the adequacy of the Final EIS had been determined by the court and that the issues in the lawsuit had all been resolved. Id. at 12. The court further held that “the formal reevaluation and subsequent preparation of the Third SEIS do not change the status of the Final EIS approved in 1982.”' Id. The district court concluded that because appellees had complied with NEPA and the terms of the stipulation, and because the enactment of section 114 had rendered moot any issues based on section 4(f), there was no further need to enjoin construction of H-3.
We agree with the district court’s reasoning. As discussed above, the district court in 1982 had determined that the North Ha-lawa Valley EIS was adequate except for its failure to discuss certain “new and significant” information which had arisen following circulation of the draft 1980 EIS. Stop H-3 Ass’n v. Lewis, 538 F.Supp. at 183-84. This court affirmed that determination in 1984. Stop H-3 Ass’n v. Dole, 740 F.2d at 1465. Appellees accordingly prepared a Second SEIS discussing the new information; FHWA approved the Second SEIS in September 1982. Appellants have never challenged the adequacy of the SEIS ordered by the district court in 1982. The district court, therefore, could correctly find that the 1982 EIS constituted a “final” and “adequate” EIS for the H-3 project, notwithstanding appellees’ decision to prepare a Third SEIS.
Moreover, there is no authority for the proposition that the decision to prepare a Supplemental EIS after a Final EIS has been approved requires that work outside the area affected by the Supplemental EIS be halted. Appellants cite in their brief a number of cases which, they argue, constitute such authority. See Conservation Society of Southern Vermont, Inc. v. Secretary of Transportation, 531 F.2d 637 (2d Cir.1976); Ecology Center of Louisiana, Inc. v. Coleman, 515 F.2d 860 (5th Cir.1975); Conservation Society of Southern Vermont, Inc. v. Secretary of Transportation, 508 F.2d 927 (2d Cir.1974), vacated and remanded, 423 U.S. 809, 96 S.Ct. 19, 46 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975), on remand, 531 F.2d 637 (2d Cir.1976); Sierra Club v. Stamm, 507 F.2d 788, 793 (10th Cir.1974); Citizens for Balanced Environment & Transportation, Inc. v. Volpe, 503 F.2d 601 (2d Cir.1974), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 870, 96 S.Ct. 135, 46 L.Ed.2d 100 (1975); Sierra Club v. Callaway, 499 F.2d 982, 990 (5th Cir.1974); Indian Lookout Alliance v. Volpe, 484 F.2d 11, 19 (8th Cir.1973); Jones v. Lynn, 477 F.2d 885 (1st Cir.1973); Named Individual Members of San Antonio Conservation Society v. Texas High way Department, 446 F.2d 1013 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 933, 92 S.Ct. 1775, 32 L.Ed.2d 136 (1972); Appalachian Mountain Club v. Brinegar, 394 F.Supp. 105, 115 (D.N.H.1975); Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Callaway, 382 F.Supp. 610 (D.D.C.1974); Movement Against Destruction v. Volpe, 361 F.Supp. 1360, 1384 (D.Md.1973), aff'd per curiam, 500 F.2d 29 (4th Cir.1974); James River v. Richmond Metropolitan Authority, 359 F.Supp. 611, 635 (E.D.Va.1973), aff'd, 481 F.2d 1280 (4th Cir.1973); Committee to Stop Route 7 v. Volpe, 346 F.Supp. 731, 740 (D.Conn.1972). However, none of these cases present a situation where, as here, a Final EIS has already been prepared and approved. Instead, the cases cited by appellants all concern the appropriate scope of an initial EIS; the cases stand only for the proposition that a single project cannot be artificially subdivided into a number of separate projects for which separate EIS’s may be prepared. In this case, appellees have not attempted to segment the H-3 project into separate projects. Rather, appellees acknowledge that the H-3 project as a whole required approval of a Pinal EIS before construction could commence. They argue, correctly, that the 1982 EIS fulfilled this function.
We hold that the district court correctly determined that FHWA's decision to prepare a Third Supplemental EIS did not deprive the 1982 EIS of its status as a Final EIS. Because the district court’s approval of the 1982 EIS satisfied the requirement of the 1972 stipulation, and because NEPA permits work on those parts of a project unrelated to a Supplemental EIS to go forward when the project is already the subject of an adequate Final EIS, we affirm the district court’s decision that neither NEPA nor the stipulation barred dissolution of the injunction and dismissal of the action.
B. Spending Clause
Appellants argue that by exempting the H-3 project from the requirements of section 4(f), section 114 exceeds Congress' power under the Spending Clause of the Constitution. Section 114 violates the Constitution, according to appellants, because the Spending Clause permits expenditures only for “national” purposes, yet the H-3 project, appellants argue, serves only “local” purposes.
As support for their contention that the H-3 project is of “local” and not “national” significance, appellants point to the fact that the proposed highway is contained entirely within the state of Hawaii, and could only carry vehicles from one point in Hawaii to another. In addition, they note that a report issued in 1982 by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) describes the highway as having “local” rather than “national” importance. Congressional Budget Office, The Interstate Highway System: Issues and Options, Table C-l (June 1982).
In response, appellees argue, first, that section 114 does not represent an exercise of Congress’ power under the Spending Clause because section 114 does not itself authorize the expenditure of funds. Thus, appellees imply, section 114.cannot violate the requirements of the Spending Clause. Second, appellees contend that even if section 114 were construed as an exercise of the spending power, the provision is a valid exercise of that power because the H-3 project is of “national” not “local” importance.
We find it unnecessary to decide whether section 114 is a spending measure, because it is clear that the H-3 project, whose construction section 114 mandates, is of national and not merely local importance and was intended to serve the general welfare. As the district court observed, H-3 is a part, of an interstate highway system which serves important defense functions. Decision and Order, C.R. 507 at 5. Therefore, even if we were to accept appellants’ characterization of section 114 as a spending measure, we would conclude that the provision falls comfortably within the scope of the spending power.
Congress has declared that prompt completion of the entire Interstate System is a matter of national importance. In the Federal-Aid Highway Act, Congress stated:
It is hereby declared to be in the national interest to accelerate the construction of the Federal-aid highway systems, including the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, since many of such highways, or portions thereof, are in fact inadequate to meet the needs of local and interstate commerce, for the national and civil defense.
It is hereby declared that the prompt and early completion of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, so named because of its primary importance to the national defense and hereafter referred to as the “Interstate System”, is essential to the national interest and is one of the most important objectives of this Act.
23 U.S.C. § 101(b)) (1988). Congress’ explicit policy articulation demonstrates that completion of the entire interstate system, including construction of component highways either between or within individual states, is a matter of national importance.
As the district court correctly stated, the mere fact that H-3 is contained entirely within Hawaii does not negate the fact that it is part of a national system of highways. Decision and Order, C.R. 507 at 5. Nor does the CBO’s denomination of H-3 as a project of “local” importance supercede Congress’ own statement, in section 101(b), that the Interstate System of which H-3 is a part is of national importance.
Finally, we believe that appellants’ Spending Clause objection to section 114 is answered by the Supreme Court’s directive in Buckley v. Valeo:
Appellants’ “general welfare” contention erroneously treats the General Welfare Clause as a limitation upon congressional power. It is rather a grant of power, the scope of which is quite expansive, particularly in view of the enlargement of power by the Necessary and Proper Clause.... It is for Congress to decide which expenditures will promote the general welfare.
424 U.S. 1, 90, 96 S.Ct. 612, 668-69, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) (emphasis added). See also South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 107 S.Ct. 2793, 2796, 97 L.Ed.2d 171 (1987) (“In considering whether a particular expenditure is intended to serve general public purposes, courts should defer substantially to the judgment of Congress.”). Because Congress’ statement in section 101(b) of the Federal-Aid Highways Act makes it clear that Congress considered completion of the Interstate System a matter of national importance, and because section 114 was enacted to expedite the System’s completion, we must defer to Congress’ determination that any spending to implement section 114 will promote the general welfare.
C. Equal Protection
Appellants ask this court to hold that section 114 violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. They argue, first, that legislation which is alleged to harm the environment should be subjected to heightened judicial scrutiny because the right to a healthy environment is an “important” individual right and because Congress violated constitutional principles of federalism in enacting a provision which, according to appellants, invidiously discriminates against citizens of Hawaii. According to appellants, we must strike down section 114 under heightened scrutiny because the statute is not substantially related to achievement of an important governmental purpose. Second, appellants contend that section 114 is constitutionally defective even when reviewed for rationality using minimum scrutiny, because it creates an arbitrary classification by denying residents of Hawaii the environmental protections provided by the 4(f) statutes.
The district court rejected appellants’ arguments. The court observed, first, that no court has found that there is a fundamental right to a healthy environment. Decision and Order, C.R. 507 at 7. Therefore, heightened judicial scrutiny of section 114 was inappropriate. Next, the district court held that Congress had a rational basis for passage of section 114. The court stated:
In addition to the rising costs of the [H-3] project over the past 14 years, Congress has the power to overturn judicial decisions which they feel are based on an interpretation of a statute [i.e., section 4(f) ] inconsistent with the intent of Congress when the law was passed. That is what Congress has done here.
Id. at 7-8.
Appellants contend that the district court erred in applying the “rational basis” test to resolve their equal protection claim. The court, according to appellants, should have employed an “intermediate” level of scrutiny for two reasons. First, appellants argue that intermediate scrutiny of a statute affecting the environment is appropriate because such statutes impinge on the “important” individual right to a healthy environment. Section 114, appellants maintain, denies residents of Hawaii this right, and thereby violates their right to equal protection of the laws. Second, appellants contend that intermediate scrutiny of section 114 is required because the legislation rests on a distinction between citizens and non-citizens of Hawaii, a distinction which violates the constitutional principle of federalism.
Intermediate scrutiny is only employed when “concerns sufficiently absolute and enduring can be clearly ascertained from the Constitution and [Supreme Court] cases_” Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. at 218 n. 16, 102 S.Ct. at 2895 n. 16. Appellants argue that their interest in having a “clean and healthful environment” rises to this level. Appellants concede that no court has yet found that preservation of a healthy environment constitutes a concern of constitutional magnitude deserving heightened judicial scrutiny in the context of equal protection challenges to legislation alleged to degrade the environment. They nonetheless argue, with some force, that the right to a healthy environment is one this court should recognize because of its great importance to the well-being of all persons.
We agree that it is difficult to conceive of a more absolute and enduring concern than the preservation and, increasingly, the restoration of a decent and livable environment. Human life, itself a fundamental right, will vanish if we continue our heedless exploitation of this planet’s natural resources. The centrality of the environment to all of our undertakings gives individuals a vital stake in maintaining its integrity.
However, we need not decide here whether the importance of a healthful environment gives rise to a right of constitutional magnitude. Even assuming, arguendo, that enjoyment of a healthful environment is an important right for purposes of equal protection analysis, section 114 satisfies the requirements for validation of legislation under the intermediate level of scrutiny appellants urge this court to apply-
First of all, we have found no authority forbidding Congress in all instances from carving out a local exception to a national policy. To the contrary, many decisions approve such action. See, e.g., Friends of the Earth v. Weinberger, 562 F.Supp. 265, 270 (D.D.C.1983), appeal dismissed without opinion, 725 F.2d 125 (D.C.Cir.1984) (“Jackson amendment” exempting Executive branch report on how MX missiles were to be based from NEPA requirements); Sequoyah v. TVA, 480 F.Supp. 608 (E.D.Tenn.1979), aff'd, 620 F.2d 1159 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 953, 101 S.Ct. 357, 66 L.Ed.2d 216 (1980) (provision of Energy and Water Development Act authorizing Tennessee Valley Authority to impound Tellico River notwithstanding requirements of Endangered Species Act or “any other law”). In Sequoyah v. TVA, the court stated that “[tjhere is no question... that Congress has the power to make exceptions to rights it or state legislatures have created by statute, as long as such exceptions are not invidiously discriminatory.” 480 F.Supp. at 610-11. Finding nothing invidiously discriminatory in Congress’ decision to exempt the Tellico Dam project from otherwise applicable legal requirements, the Sequoyah court rejected plaintiffs’ equal protection argument. Id. at 612.
Appellants argue that this case, unlike Sequoyah, presents an example of “invidiously discriminatory” legislation. They contend that in enacting section 114 Congress singled out Hawaii and its citizens for unique and onerous treatment. According to appellants, the “legislative classification” embodied in section 114 is between the entire population of Hawaii, whose interaction with and enjoyment of the environment will be diminished by H-3, and all other United States citizens. This alleged imposition on citizens of Hawaii of a disadvantage not shared by citizens of the other states, appellants maintain, invidiously discriminates against Hawaiians based on their state citizenship in violation of the constitutional principle of federalism. Federalism principles, as appellants point out, forbid the federal government from treating any state as the inferior of any other state, regardless of its order of entry into the Union. Appellants contend that section 114 has precisely this effect, because it allegedly subjects Hawaii and its citizens to a burden which no other state must bear. Appellants conclude that this court should strike down section 114 because the statute imposes hardships on a group whose membership is determined by reference to a classification, state citizenship, which undermines federalism’s precept that all states in the federal Union stand on an equal footing.
We do not accept appellants’ analysis. First, section 114 does not, as appellants believe, rest on a legislative distinction between Hawaii and the other 49 states. Section 114 by its terms refers only to the H-3 project. The statute does not exempt all federal highway construction projects in Hawaii from the requirements of section 4(f); rather, it exempts one project located in Hawaii from the 4(f) statutes. Even when we look beyond its terms to its effect, section 114 does not affect the state of Hawaii as a whole, to the exclusion of the rest of the nation. Instead, the effects of section 114 will be felt by any United States citizen whose use and enjoyment of Hawaii’s environment is affected by H-3, regardless of that person’s state of residence. Thus in depicting citizens of Hawaii as a disadvantaged “class” for purposes of equal protection analysis, appellants include people who will not be affected by construction of H-3, and overlook others who will. In short, it cannot be said that section 114 rests on a state-based classification simply because it refers to a project located in Hawaii.
Even if we were to accept appellants’ contention that section 114 creates a legislative classification which subjects citizens of Hawaii to treatment different from that accorded to citizens of the other states, we could not conclude that the statute invidiously discriminates against citizens of Hawaii in violation of the principles of federalism. Contrary to appellants’ assertion, it is simply not true that Congress may not create exemptions from generally applicable statutes in order to authorize state-specific projects. See, e.g., Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act, Pub.L. 93-153, 87 Stat. 576 (amending the Mineral Lands Leasing Act, 30 U.S.C. § 185 [1970 ed.], to overcome that Act’s width limitation for pipelines and thereby permit construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline). See also Izaak Walton League of America v. Marsh, 655 F.2d 346, 367 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092, 102 S.Ct. 657, 70 L.Ed.2d 630 (1981).
We note, also, that appellants have not alleged that Congress was motivated by discriminatory animus against Hawaii or its citizens when it enacted section 114. Nor is there any evidence in the record that Congress intended to harm the people of Hawaii by exempting the H-3 project from the 4(f) statutes. To the contrary, there is evidence that Congress was partly motivated by its belief that the highway would benefit Hawaii. See H.R.Rep. No. 99-1005, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 784 (1986) (“The conferees also take note of the fact that H-3 has been the subject of litigation for more than 14 years. During that time,... the people of Hawaii have been deprived of a much needed highway.”). The Supreme Court has stated, in the context of claims of gender discrimination, that while the disparate impact of a facially neutral statute provides the “starting point” for review, “purposeful discrimination is ‘the condition that offends the Constitution.’” Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Fee ney, 442 U.S. 256, 274, 99 S.Ct. 2282, 2293-94, 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979). Discriminatory purpose, the Court explained, implies more than an awareness of consequences. Id. at 279, 99 S.Ct. at 2296. “It implies that the decisionmaker... selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part ‘because of,’ not merely ‘in spite of,’ its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.” Id. Appellants’ allegations would have' to meet this standard in order to establish an equal protection violation because section 114 does not on its face refer to the state or people of Hawaii, and because appellants argue

Question: What is the number of the section from the title of the second most frequently cited title of the U.S. Code in the headnotes to this case, that is, title 23? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 138