Opinion ID: 164875
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Law to Apply

Text: 50 Lastly, we consider whether there is any meaningful law to apply. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, judicial review is unavailable where agency action is committed to agency discretion by law. 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2). As the Supreme Court has explained, the scope of this provision is narrow; it is only applicable when there is no law to apply or where there is no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency's exercise of discretion. Heckler, 470 U.S. at 830, 105 S.Ct. 1649. We have previously held law to apply can refer to administrative regulations as well as statutes. See McAlpine v. United States, 112 F.3d 1429, 1433 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 984, 118 S.Ct. 447, 139 L.Ed.2d 383 (1997). Likewise, the law to apply may be supplied by an executive order. See City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, 123 F.3d at 1166 (concluding there was law to apply when an executive order set objective standards). 51 Interior argues [t]he Executive Order and regulations provide[] no fixed standard. We disagree. The Executive Order provides that [e]xcept where such selection is otherwise prohibited, the process for meeting Federal space needs in urban areas shall give first consideration to a centralized community business area and adjacent areas of similar character, including other specific areas which may be recommended by local officials. Exec. Order No. 12,072 § 1-103. The Order instructs the Administrator of General Services to develop programs to implement the policies of this Order and to [i]ssue regulations, standards, and criteria for the selection, acquisition, and management of Federally owned and leased space. Id. at § 1-201(b). In following this directive, the Administrator issued a plethora of regulations. Among other things, the regulations in effect at the time of the procurement process in this case required: 52 In meeting space needs in urban areas First consideration shall be given to a centralized business area and adjacent areas of similar character in the central city ..., including other specific areas of a city recommended by the elected chief executive officer of the local government or a designee, except where this type of consider is otherwise prohibited. Space needs will be met outside the central business area of a central city ... only when one of the following circumstances exist: 53 (i) The service area of an activity is limited to a clearly defined sector of a city or a suburban or rural community, as is the case with satellite or branch offices; or where onsite activities are involved, such as inspection and/or maintenance operations at border stations, airports, seaports, or other similar activities; 54 (ii) Immediate compliance is not possible due to existing leasing commitments in areas outside the central business area ... In these cases, plans for the future compliance shall be made; i.e., the activity shall be relocated to the central business area upon expiration of the lease; 55 (iii) The proposed facility or the activity's use of a facility is not in compliance with local land use or zoning ordinances; or 56 (iv) The elected chief executive officer of the local government or a designee advises the agency that an activity or facility should be located in an area of the central city other than the [central business area]. 57 41 C.F.R. § 101-17.002(c)(1) (2000). The regulations additionally require the agency collect a variety of data to be used in reach[ing] a final decision on a proposed relocation into a central business area. 41 C.F.R. § 101-17.002(d)(4) (2000). We think it would be redundant to cite further from these lengthy regulations. Suffice it to say, the portions quoted above illustrate the regulations' specific nature. We conclude the regulations are sufficiently specific to allow a court to determine whether Interior abused its discretion in its site selection process. 10 58 Interior argues new regulations have replaced and give even greater discretion to agencies than the regulations in effect at the time of the procurement process at issue here. See General Services Administration Real Property Policies, 66 Fed.Reg. 5358 (Jan. 18, 2001); General Services Administration Real Property Policies Update, 67 Fed.Reg. 76820 (Dec. 13, 2002). Even assuming Interior's characterization of the new regulations is correct, 11 it is of little consequence in the case before us. We must consider this case only on the basis of the regulations in effect at the times material. Foster v. Udall, 335 F.2d 828, 830 (10th Cir.1964). To do otherwise would impermissibly give retroactive effect to the new regulations. See Greene v. United States, 376 U.S. 149, 160, 84 S.Ct. 615, 11 L.Ed.2d 576 (1964) (holding regulations affecting antecedent rights are not to be given retroactive effect absent an unequivocal manifestation the regulations were meant to be applied retroactively). The fact that current regulations might leave much to an agency's discretion does not mean prior regulations necessarily afforded the agency the same amount of discretion because an agency is free to change its method of meeting its statutory obligations. See KVK P'ship v. Hodel, 759 F.2d 814, 816 n. 2 (10th Cir.1985). 12 Consequently, we reaffirm our conclusion there is sufficient law for the court to apply in this case. 59 For the foregoing reasons, we think Executive Order 12,072 may be enforced under the Administrative Procedure Act. Having determined the Executive Order is enforceable in the courts, it is easy to conclude the City is within the zone of interests protected by the Executive Order. The Order itself explains: Federal facilities and Federal use of space in urban areas shall serve to strengthen the Nation's cities and to make them attractive places to live and work. Such Federal space shall conserve existing urban resources and encourage the development and redevelopment of cities. Executive Order No. 12,072 § 1-101. The mandate of Executive Order 12,072 clearly encompasses the City's challenge to Interior's selection process and the purported injury resulting therefrom. As the City's complaint states, the removal of Interior offices from Albuquerque's central business area will injure the City by weakening the City ... and discouraging development and redevelopment of the [central business area]. Because this injury is exactly the type of injury President Carter hoped to address with Executive Order 12,072, we conclude the City has standing to challenge Interior's actions. See H & F Enters., 973 F.Supp. at 176; City of Reading, 816 F.Supp. at 358.