## Facts

- Amoco Production Company owned a downtown Tulsa office building constructed in the early 1930s.
- Amoco undertook a major renovation in the early 1980s to modernize the building and comply with current codes while attempting to preserve historic character.
- Under the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, a taxpayer could claim either a 20% rehabilitation credit for older buildings or a 25% credit for a “certified historic structure,” but certified historic structures were ineligible for the 20% credit.
- Amoco pursued the 25% credit by obtaining National Register listing and applying to the National Park Service (NPS) for certification that the rehabilitation met the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
- NPS reviewed the application record (including photographs and drawings) and denied certification, finding the rehabilitation inconsistent with the Standards and the building’s historic character.
- Amoco exhausted administrative review within the Department of the Interior without success.
- After the denial, Amoco asked NPS to remove the building from the National Register so it could seek the 20% non-historic credit instead; NPS refused.
- Amoco sued for judicial review, challenging both the denial of certification and the refusal to delist as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

## Issues

1. Whether NPS acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or otherwise not in accordance with law in denying certification that Amoco’s rehabilitation complied with the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
2. Whether the Department of the Interior acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to law by refusing to delist the building from the National Register (or otherwise reclassify it) to allow Amoco to claim the 20% non-historic rehabilitation credit.

## Decision

- The court upheld the Department of the Interior’s actions and entered judgment for the government.
- The court held that NPS’s denial of rehabilitation certification was not arbitrary or capricious because it was supported by the administrative record and within the agency’s discretion.
- The court held that the refusal to delist the building (or permit retroactive reclassification to reach the 20% credit) was not arbitrary or capricious and was consistent with the statutory and regulatory framework.

## Legal Principles

- Under the APA, courts review agency action under a narrow “arbitrary and capricious” standard and may not substitute their judgment for the agency’s where the agency relied on relevant materials and gave a rational explanation.
- Determinations applying the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation involve technical and evaluative judgments within NPS’s delegated authority; courts generally defer to the agency’s expertise when the decision is rationally supported by the record.
- National Register listing and tax-credit certification are distinct steps; listing does not entitle an owner to the historic rehabilitation credit without separate certification of the rehabilitation work.
- Delisting from the National Register is governed by preservation criteria tied to historic significance and integrity; it is not a device to alter tax consequences after a taxpayer elects the historic-credit route and fails certification.

## Conclusion

The court sustained NPS’s denial of historic rehabilitation certification and its refusal to delist the property, holding that both actions were rational, record-based exercises of agency discretion consistent with the governing preservation and tax-credit scheme and therefore lawful under the APA.


Amoco Prod. Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 763 F. Supp. 514 (N.D. Okla. 1990)