requirement. Id. at 27. In Idrogo, neither the prudential standing requirements nor the zone-of-interests test was at issue. And unlike Plaintiffs here, the Idrogo plaintiff had not alleged any interest in studying the remains. 14 . Even if NAGPRA did not confer jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims, the APA’s "generous review provisions” would confer jurisdiction. See Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Ass’n, 479 U.S. 388, 400 n. 16, 107 S.Ct. 750, 93 L.Ed.2d 757 (1987). The APA provides a right to judicial review of all "final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in court.” 5 U.S.C. § 704. The interests Plaintiffs seek to protect are "arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated” by NAGPRA § 3002(a). See Bennett, 520 U.S. at 175, 117 S.Ct. 1154 (<HOLDING>). NAGPRA § 3002(a) was not intended merely to
holding that chesterman is the only test to determine whether an employer is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior holding that under an apa claim one looks to substantive statutes to determine whether zoneofinterests test is met holding that the ninth circuit looks to state contract law to determine whether an arbitration award is valid holding that jurisdiction exists if either the pluralitys test or kennedys test is met holding that the analysis to determine whether a claimant has established a reasonable basis to plead a claim for punitive damages is similar to the analysis applied to determine whether the allegations of a complaint are sufficient to state a cause of action