to sue under the statute. Pres. Coal. of Erie County v. Fed. Transit Admin., 129 F.Supp.2d 551, 561 (W.D.N.Y.2000). The plaintiff, however, is dedicated to providing education to at-risk youth and seeks only to preserve its opportunity to obtain the Fort Ritchie property under the DBCRA. See generally Am. Compl. The NHPA does not protect the right to acquire property, and this relief consequently is not within the zone of interest protected by the statute. Ass’n of Data Processing Serv. Org. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153, 90 S.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970) (stating that the interest sought to be protected by the complaint has to be within the zone of interest to be protected or regulated by the statute in question); Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. McDivitt, 286 F.3d 1031, 1039 (8th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Pye, 269 F.3d at 467-468 (stating that the
holding that a plaintiff whose only complaint was that agency action would cause economic harm asserted an interest outside nepas zone of interests holding that the plaintiff did not have standing because it was not able to demonstrate how its economic interests fell within the zone of interests protected by the nhpa holding the defendant does not possess statutory standing to attack the subpoena  because he has not demonstrated that he was within the zone of interests intended to be protected by  876a holding that as title vi is a remedial statute the zone of interests to be protected  must be construed broadly holding that the plaintiff had prudential standing because her interests in avoiding harassment via the telephone line installed in her home are not so marginally related to or inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the statute that they fail to fall within the tcpas zone of interests