| OCR Text |
Show 401 U.S. 402 CITIZENS TO PRESERVE OitonsOl S 2. United States C=>82 Secretary of Transportation was not required to make formal findings prior to authorizing use of federal funds to finance construction of expressway through public park, with respect to reasons for concluding that there were no feasible and prudent alternative routes or why design changes could not be made to reduce the harm to the park. Department of Transportation Act, § 4(f), 49 U.S.C.A. § 1653(f); 23 U.S.C.A. § 138. 3. Administrative Law and Procedure <S=701 United States C=>82 Decision of Secretary of Transportation authorizing use of federal funds to finance construction of expressway through public park did not fall within exception to reviewability under Administrative Procedure Act for action "committed to agency discretion," and Secretary's decision was subject to judicial review. Department of Transportation Act, §§ 4(f), 6(h), 49 U.S.C.A. §§ 1653 (f), 1655(h); 23 U.S.C.A. § 138; 5 U.S.C.A. § 706. 4. United States C=82 Under sections of Department of Transportation Act and Federal-Aid Highway Act providing that Secretary of Transportation shall not approve any project requiring use of public parkland unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative and such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such park, although Secretary should not ignore cost and disruption of the community, the protection of parkland is to be given paramount importance. Department of Transportation Act, § 4(f), 49 U.S.C.A. § 1653(f); 23 U.S.C.A. § 138. 5. Statutes C=>217.4 Where legislative history is ambiguous, court will look to the statutes themselves to find the legislative intent. 6. Administrative Law and Procedure <S=>791 Review under the substantial evidence test is authorized only when the OVERTON PARK, INC. v. VOLPE gl5 Ct.KU (1971) agency action is taken pursuant to a rulemaking provision of the Administrative Procedure Act itself, or when the agency action is based on a public adjudicatory hearing. 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 553, 556, 557, 706(2) (A-F). 7. United States C=>82 Decision of Secretary of Transportation to allow expenditure of federal funds to build expressway through public park was not in exercise of a rule-making function and neither the substantial evidence standard nor a de novo review to determine if Secretary's action was unwarranted by the facts was applicable 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 553, 556, 557, 706(2) (A-F). 8. Administrative Law and Procedure C=>744 De novo review to determine if agency action was unwarranted by the facts is authorized when the action is adjudicatory in nature and the agency fact-finding procedures are inadequate and when issues that were not before the agency are raised in a proceeding to enforce nohadjudieatory agency action. 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 706, 706(2) ( F ) ; 23 U.S. CA. § 128. 9. United States <2=>82 Court reviewing action of Secretary of Transportation authorizing use of federal funds for construction of expressway through public park was required to decide whether Secretary acted within scope of his authority and whether Secretary could have reasonably believed that there were no feasible alternative routes or that alternatives involved unique problems and was required to determine whether decision was based on consideration of the relevant factors and whether there had been a clear error of judgment. Department of Transportation Act, § 4(f), 49 U.S.C.A. § 1653(f); 23 U.S.C.A. §§ 128, 138; 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 706, 706(2) (F). 10. Evidence ©=>83(1) Decision of Secretary of Transportation authorizing use of federal funds for construction of expressway through pub- |
