that the Air Force’s Handbook is not binding as it was not promulgated according to the APA’s procedural requirements). Where agency publications have not been so promulgated, the agency’s decision to analyze impacts by other methods is not an automatic violation of the law. As such, it is subject to review under the normal “arbitrary and capricious standard” used to review agency action under the APA. Davis Mountains, 116 Fed.Appx. at 9-10 (“Thus the Air Force retained discretion to analyze impacts on livestock by methods other than those contained in the Handbook, and we must address the adequacy of the Air Force’s chosen method according to the arbitrary and capricious standard”); see also Communities Against Runway Expansion, Inc. (CARE) v. F.A.A., 355 F.3d 678, 688 (D.C.Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Here, plaintiffs neither argue nor offer
holding that ftc issuance of a complaint meets the apa definition of order and therefore is agency action even if not final agency action holding the director of the united states environmental protection agency in contempt for failure to comply with court order holding that an administrative agency is not subject to a contempt proceeding for failure to comply with an order holding that even though an executive order mandating agency consideration of environmental justice concerns created no private right of action for an agencys failure to comply with that mandate the court would review the agencys action as an exercise of discretion under the apa and nepa recognizing private right of action