are [1] whether the entity has authority to act with the sanction of government support, or [2] has any authority in law to make decisions, or [3] has substantial authority in the exercise of specific functions. In re Gideon, Inc., 158 B.R. 528, 531 (Bankr. S.D.Fla.1993) (footnotes omitted). 69 . The International Brominated Court seemed willing to entertain the notion that a private entity's mere "contractual relationship” with the federal government could make it a governmental entity and therefore perhaps an "agency” under the APA. 393 F.Supp.2d at 1380. But I have found no controlling authority to that effect. On the contrary, the case law I have examined appears to support the opposite conclusion. See United States v. Pa. Envtl. Hearing Bd., 584 F.2d 1273 (3d Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>); Mark v. Borough of Hatboro, 856 F.Supp. 966,
holding that just because a claim implicates a federal issue or involves construction of federal law does not necessarily give rise to a federal question and confer removal jurisdiction on a federal court holding that a private company operating under a federal contract was not a federal department agency or instrumentality for the purposes of section 313 of the federal water pollution control act amendments of 1972 holding that there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction under the private cause of action provision of the act holding that federal express despite the use of the word federal in its name is not a federal agency and therefore cannot be sued in this court holding that the federal water pollution control act amendments of 1972 and certain regulations promulgated thereunder are applicable to nonnavigable waters of puerto rico despite contention that such waters are areas of purely local concern and that federal regulation of such areas is inapplicable under the puerto rican federal relations act