Opinion ID: 772447
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Agency Control or Responsibility for Outcome

Text: 38 Pursuant to our second test, which we use as an alternative basis of analysis, we evaluate whether the FHWA and other federal agencies have sufficient control or responsibility over the construction of Route 840 South to influence the outcome of the project. We focus first on the FHWA's jurisdiction over the state project because the Association seeks to compel the FHWA to assume responsibility for assessing all environmental consequences of the highway corridor construction. FHWA clearly has jurisdiction over the four interchanges where Route 840 South intersects with federal highways. According to 23 U.S.C. §111(a), a provision in the Federal-Aid Highways Act which governs the FHWA's authority with respect to state highway projects, [a]ll agreements between the Secretary and the State highway department for the construction of projects on the Interstate System shall contain a clause providing that the State will not add any points of access to, or exit from, the project in addition to those approved by the Secretary in the plans for such project, without the prior approval of the Secretary. Thus, the FHWA is required to approve any state-proposed construction of interchanges with a federal highway. See 23 U.S.C. §103(c)(3). 39 Moreover, it is clear that agency approval of the interchanges must conform with NEPA procedures. FHWA regulations stipulate that NEPA and the CEQ regulations apply to actions where the Administration exercises sufficient control to condition the permit or project approval. 23 C.F.R. §771.109(a)(1). An action in turn is defined as an activity such as changes in access control ... which may or may not involve a commitment of Federal funds. 23 C.F.R. §771.107(b). On a plain reading of the regulations, agency review of changes in access control, i.e. interchanges, invokes NEPA procedures; interchange construction must therefore be a major federal action which requires the federal agency to issue either a FONSI or an EIS when approving it. 11 Cf. West, 206 F.3d at 926 n.6 (concluding that FHWA's obligation to approve changes to interstate interchanges constitutes major federal action). 40 No part of the statute confers jurisdiction on the FHWA, however, to oversee the construction of the highway corridor that runs between the interchanges unless the state attempts to comply with federal regulations in order to seek federal reimbursement for construction costs. Importantly, the Association no longer claims that the state is seeking federal funding for Route 840 South. See Southwest III, 67 F. Supp. 2d at 885. Indeed, should the state seek federal funding in the future, absent a change in the federal regulations, its failure to comply with NEPA would make it ineligible to receive such funding. 12 See Ross v. FHWA, 162 F.3d 1046, 1048 (10th Cir. 1998) (States seeking federal highway funds must submit to FHWA a list of proposed transportation projects .... Upon final approval of the project and compliance with applicable federal laws and regulations, including NEPA, FHWA reimburses the state for a portion of the project's cost.); Save Barton Creek Ass'n v. FHWA, 950 F.2d at 1134 n.6 (In addition to being part of an FHWA approved federal-aid highway system ..., a project must also meet the requirements of environmental regulations to qualify as an FHWA project.). Thus, there is no statutory basis to establish FHWA authority over the highway corridor. 41 This case presents facts similar to those in North Carolina v. City of Virginia Beach, in which North Carolina sought to compel FERC to conduct an environmental review of all potential effects of the City's pipeline construction, including any effects which fell outside FERC's decision-making jurisdiction. The Fourth Circuit engaged in a review of FERC's jurisdiction and noted that the FERC has no licensing power or veto power over those parts of the pipeline that fall outside of ... the hydropower facility at Lake Gaston[]. Virginia Beach, 951 F.2d at 604. The court further noted that FERC did not contribute any funds to the construction of the pipeline. While FERC was free to conduct an environmental review of any part of the pipeline project it chose, the court found that NEPA did not require the agency to review any other portion of the project other than the part over which it exercised control. See id. at 604-05. As the court noted, [a]lthough a review of environmental impact by FERC of areas outside of its required jurisdiction might be desirable, NEPA case law requires only that an agency comply with the 'statutory minima.' Id. at 605 (quoting Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 548 (1978)). 42 Because no federal agency has jurisdiction over the non-federal project, 13 we must conclude that, as in Virginia Beach, the federal defendants lack sufficient control or responsibility over the state highway to influence the project's outcome. 14 Although the district court did not explicitly so state, the crucial distinction between the Association's claims and those in Gilchrist, which the Association urges us to follow, is that the relevant federal agencies in Gilchrist had not yet had the opportunity to issue their environmental review of the county's proposal prior to the initiation of the highway's construction, despite the fact that the agencies had or would have jurisdiction over certain sections of the highway. 15 Concerned that the federal agencies' hands would be tied if the state were permitted to continue constructing the highway, the Gilchrist court determined that the aggregate of the federal approvals needed for the project was sufficient to federalize the highway so that the court could enjoin state construction in order to allow the federal agencies time to fulfill their NEPA obligations. 43 The situation we are confronted with is not one in which the Association seeks to enjoin state ... action on an entire project ... until the federal agencies that must approve particular portions of the project have complied with NEPA.Macht, 916 F.2d at 18. This case would be different if the Association sought an injunction because FHWA had refused or had not yet had the opportunity to review the interchange EAs, or the Army Corps of Engineers had not yet responded to the state's wetland EAs. As the district court found, however, all applicable federal agencies fulfilled or were fulfilling their duty, pursuant to their respective statutory jurisdictions, to issue the appropriate environmental documentation. 16 Instead, the Association seeks to enjoin the state and halt construction of the entire non-federal project so that the FHWA can review the environmental impact of the project, despite the fact that the federal agency lacks jurisdiction over the highway corridor. As the district court stated, the Association is free to contest the agencies' responses as insufficient under NEPA, should it so choose. No court has ever approved the kind of injunction the Association requests. 17 Because we conclude, pursuant to our second test, that the relevant federal decision-makers do not have authority to exercise sufficient control or responsibility over Route 840 South so as to influence the outcome of the project, we agree no preliminary injunction should issue. 18