Opinion ID: 382838
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Compliance with Procedural Requirements of the Federal-Aid Highway Act and NEPA

Text: 54 The Coalition attacks the sufficiency of the 1969 and 1971 hearings, 6 contending that there was little or no discussion of social, economic, and environmental impacts of the proposed project as required by 23 U.S.C. § 128(a) and regulations thereunder in accordance with NEPA and the Federal-Aid Highway Act, as amended. The Coalition also asserts that a new corridor and design hearing was required before approval of the project because location approval was not requested within three years. 55 Policy and Procedure Memorandum (PPM) 20-8, P 6(e), in effect during all relevant times in this case, provided: 56 If location approval is not requested within 3 years after the date of the related corridor hearing held, or an opportunity for a hearing afforded, under this PPM, a new hearing must be held or the opportunity afforded for such a hearing. 57 23 C.F.R. 1.38 App.A (1971) (as amended and codified in 23 C.F.R. § 790.5(e) (1979)). 58 It is undisputed that location approval was requested more than three years after the September 1, 1971, hearing. Defendants argue, however, that the informational hearing of February, 1975, constituted substantial compliance with PPM 20-8. We disagree. PPM 20-8 unequivocally requires that a new hearing be held after three years and sets forth detailed hearing procedures. See PPM 20-8, P P 6-8. Significantly, a verbatim transcript of the hearing is required for the purpose of informing decisionmakers. No such transcript was made of the February, 1975, hearing. Although a brief written summary of the hearing was prepared by one official, we cannot say that this shows substantial compliance with the formal hearing requirements or provides decisionmakers with an adequate record upon which to base their decisions. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the important objectives of § 128(a) and NEPA. See City of Davis v. Coleman, 521 F.2d at 678-79. 59 Because we hold that a new hearing is required, we find it unnecessary to address the question whether the 1969 or 1971 hearings conformed to the requirements of 23 U.S.C. § 138(a) and regulations thereunder.