Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): (6th Cir.1999)); Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 446 F.3d 808, 815 (8th Cir.2006) (noting that “[t]he Supreme Court has strongly signaled that an agency’s decision to issue ... an environmental impact statement is a ‘final agency action’ permitting immediate judicial review under NEPA”) (citing Ohio Forestry, 523 U.S. at 737, 118 S.Ct. 1665); Goodrich v. United States, 434 F.3d 1329, 1335 (Fed.Cir.2006) (collecting “case law from our sister circuits holding that, for purposes of the [APA] a ROD is a ‘final agency action’ ”); Highway J Citizens Group v. Mineta, 349 F.3d 938, 958 (7th Cir.2003) (stating that NEPA “documents are intended to be the culmination of an agency’s environmental assessment”); Utah v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 210 F.3d 1193, 1196 (10th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Jersey Heights Neighborhood Ass’n v. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that judicial review of decisions of military correction boards is review of the administrative record conducted under the administrative procedure act (B) holding that the rod and eis for a program were final agency action (C) holding that when the administrative procedure is not empowered to achieve the end sought in the legal action the procedure is unavailable because it cannot accomplish the purpose of the legal action (D) holding that judicial review of final agency action under the administrative procedure act  provides the proper procedure to challenge the sufficiency of an eis (E) holding that when an agency fails to follow the proper procedure under the illinois administrative procedure act for the adoption of rules the rule is invalid
Output (English): holding that the rod and eis for a program were final agency action