agency is defined by the APA. See Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 800, 112 S.Ct. 2767, 120 L.Ed.2d 636 (1992) (explaining that “[t]he APA defines ‘agency’ as ‘each authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency’,” but explicitly does not include the Congress) (citing 5 U.S.C. §§ 701(b)(1), 551(1)). The fact that § 6012 incorporates by reference the CPI, which is compiled and published by an agency of the DOL, does not cause the APA to be invoked. In this context, the CPI is simply an ascertainable numerical standard, and there is no requirement that such a standard incorporated into a statute be itself an enforceable rule of law. Cf. Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564, 585, 122 S.Ct. 1700, 152 L.Ed.2d 771 (2002) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, a statute providing the basis
holding portions of the online solicitation of a minor statute unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the first amendment holding that the incorporation of community standards by itself did not make the child online protection act unconstitutionally overbroad holding that a statute must burden a substantial amount of protected speech to be unconstitutionally overbroad holding new yorks disclosure law unconstitutionally overbroad holding the improper photography or visual recording statute unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the first amendment