Opinion ID: 615771
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cooperating-Agency Status

Text: In February of 2000, early in the NEPA process, Wyoming requested the Forest Service to grant it cooperating agency status under the CEQ Regulations. The Forest Service never responded, thereby impliedly rejecting or denying Wyoming's request. The district court concluded that, although administrative agencies generally have the discretion to grant or deny the states cooperating agency status, the Forest Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying Wyoming's request because [t]here is not one good reason in the administrative record before the Court explaining why cooperating-agency status was denied to the ten most affected states, including Wyoming. Wyoming, 570 F.Supp.2d at 1334-35. On appeal, the Forest Service and the Environmental Groups argue that the district court erred because the Forest Service's decision to grant or deny a request for cooperating-agency status is committed solely to the agency's discretion and not subject to judicial review under the APA. We agree. All agency actions are presumed reviewable under the APA. Payton v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 337 F.3d 1163, 1167 (10th Cir.2003). However, there is a narrow exception to this otherwise strong presumption, found in 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2), which precludes review if the statute is drawn so that a court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency's exercise of discretion. Id. at 1168 (quoting Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 830, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985)) (internal quotation marks omitted). In such a case, the statute (`law') can be taken to have `committed' the decisionmaking to the agency's judgment absolutely. City of Colo. Springs v. Solis, 589 F.3d 1121, 1129 (10th Cir.2009) (quoting Heckler, 470 U.S. at 830, 105 S.Ct. 1649) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, where the statutory and regulatory frameworks yield no law to apply, there can be no judicial review under the APA. Id. (citing Thomas Brooks Chartered v. Burnett, 920 F.2d 634, 642 (10th Cir.1990)). In ascertaining whether there is law or a meaningful standard to apply to a challenged action, the court may look to the applicable statutes, regulations, or other binding agency rules. E.g., Solis, 589 F.3d at 1129-30; McAlpine v. United States, 112 F.3d 1429, 1433 (10th Cir.1997). The CEQ Regulations state that [u]pon request of the lead agency, any other Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law shall be a cooperating agency. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.6. A cooperating agency is defined as any Federal agency other than a lead agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposal (or a reasonable alternative) for legislation or other major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Id. § 1508.5. A non-federal agency, such as a State or local agency,  may request the lead agency to designate it a cooperating agency, id. § 1501.6 (emphasis added), and  may by agreement with the lead agency become a cooperating agency, id. § 1508.5 (emphasis added). Although it is true that the CEQ Regulations permit Wyoming to request cooperating-agency status from the Forest Service, and further authorize the agency to grant such status, nothing in the regulations mandates or requires that the Forest Service grant such a request. More importantly, the applicable regulations provide no standard for a court to apply in reviewing the Forest Service's denial of such a request, and are likewise devoid of any standards or directives that would guide the Forest Service in granting or denying such a request. In other words, there is simply no law to apply. Cf. Solis, 589 F.3d at 1130 (concluding that there is law to apply when the applicable legal framework provides clear and specific directives to guide the agency in making the determination (internal quotation marks omitted)). Under the applicable legal framework, therefore, the decision to grant or deny Wyoming's request was committed to the Forest Service's discretion and is not judicially reviewable under the APA. Accordingly, the district court erred in finding that the Forest Service's implied denial of Wyoming's request was arbitrary and capricious. [24]