Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. 6 . The Lead Agencies and Longhorn have argued that requiring the preparation of an EIS here would be a waste of time and resources, given the fact that the EA prepared here contains all the functional elements of an EIS. We find this argument persuasive. In Vieux Carre Property Owners Residents and Assoc's, Inc. v. Pierce, 719 F.2d 1272, 1282 (5th Cir. 1983), this court upheld the decision of an agency not to conduct an EIS where the “objectives reflected in the [fjinal [EA] and the procedures followed in its preparation were extremely thorough and resulted in a document much akin to a detailed environmental impact statement.” But see State of Louisiana v. Lee, 758 F.2d 1081 (5th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Like the EA in Vieux Carre, the EA here- has 
 Holding statements: (A) holding eis must be prepared where monitoring and mitigation measures were uncertain (B) holding that there was no actual prejudice where the defendant has the functional equivalent of the notice required (C) holding that the rod and eis for a program were final agency action (D) holding that an ea prepared by an agency in that case was not the functional equivalent of an eis (E) holding that an order vacating an arbitration award and directing a rehearing is the functional equivalent of an order granting a new trial
Output (English): holding that the rod and eis for a program were final agency action