instruction:
In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
question:
a threat to water quality because they do not introduce any invasive species from outside the Great Lakes. EPA has properly rejected this argument, noting that Lakers can spread or more rapidly distribute invasive species already present, in the Great Lakes. Id. at 501. 16 . Federal regulation permits such limits to be expressed narratively if the calculation of numeric limits is "infeasible.” 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(k)(3). 17 . EPA also claims general prohibitions can be BMPs, citing 40 C.F.R. § 122.2, but does not offer an example of something as general as the WQBEL standard being found to be a BMP. As discussed herein, the EPA’s charac-terizationis inconsistent with regulations that require WQBELs to "ensure compliance.” 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(d); see Auer, 519 U.S. at 461, 117 S.Ct. 905 (<HOLDING>). 18 . EPA’s response is that petitioners’ 
 Holding statements: (A) holding interpretation may not be inconsistent with regulation (B) holding that where a regulation could not fairly be read to have spoken at all on an issue an agencys proposed interpretation of the regulation as it pertained to that issue was not a reasonable interpretation of the regulation (C) holding that courts should defer to agencys interpretation of its own regulations if not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation (D) holding that a secretarys interpretation of a departments regulation is controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation (E) holding that deference is owed to an agencys interpretation of its own categorical exclusion regulations so long as that interpretation is not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation
answer:
holding that where a regulation could not fairly be read to have spoken at all on an issue an agencys proposed interpretation of the regulation as it pertained to that issue was not a reasonable interpretation of the regulation


question:
hold that a court of appeals may not award a new trial on the basis of an erroneous eviden-tiary decision” in the absence of a post-verdict motion. Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., 448 F.3d 936, 939 (7th Cir.2006). Likewise, in Metcalf v. Bochco, 200 Fed.Appx. 635, 637 n. 1 (9th Cir.2006), the Ninth Circuit stated that Unitheim "deals with the specific situation of a party’s failure to renew, post-verdict, a Rule 50 motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in a civil jury trial” and reasoned that "Unitherm is inapposite” to Metcalf's case because the appellants did not "challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal.” 3 . Our circuit has repeatedly accepted such claims of retaliation for taking FMLA leave. See, e.g., Arban v. West Publ’g Corp., 345 F.3d 390, 403 (6th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Wysong v. Dow Chemical Co., 503 F.3d 441, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that employers oral denial of plaintiffs request for fmla leave showed interference (B) holding that  825220c is a reasonable interpretation of the statutes prohibition on interference with and restraint of employees rights under the fmla  2615a1  and that the labor departments conclusion that employer use of the taking of fmla leave as a negative factor in employment actions  violates  the act is  a reasonable one (C) holding that an employee who did not present evidence that she could have returned to work prior to the expiration of her fmla leave allowance was not entitled to additional leave merely because her employer had not properly provided her with notice that the leave was designated as fmla leave (D) holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jurys conclusion that west retaliated against arban for taking leave under the fmla (E) holding that employee who exceeded fmla leave was subject to immediate discharge on the very first workday that he was both absent from work and no longer protected by the fmla
answer:
holding that employers oral denial of plaintiffs request for fmla leave showed interference


question:
Peaslee simultaneously moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction; his attorney submitted an affidavit asserting that Peaslee was not domiciled in New York and had not transacted any business in New York either on his own account or on behalf of the Yagi entities or Euro Brokers. The Yagi defendants filed similar motions on February 3,1995. On February 6, 1995, plaintiffs moved to remand to the state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, asserting that diversity was incomplete because Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. was a limited partnership at least one partner of which was a citizen of the United States domiciled abroad, citing Cresswell v. Sullivan & Cromwell, 922 F.2d 60, 68-69 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1222, 112 S.Ct. 3036, 120 L.Ed.2d 905 (1992) (<HOLDING>). At a status conference on February 10, 1995, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that general partners must notify limited partners of partnership opportunity to purchase adjacent property but not addressing whether  9404 requires affirmative consent of partners after such notice (B) holding that alien on student visa could not lawfully possess intent to be domiciled in the united states (C) holding that under the texas uniform partnership act the government was entitled to collect the  tax liability indisputably a partnership debt from any one of the general partners (D) holding that a diversity suit cannot be maintained against a partnership one of the partners of which is a united states citizen domiciled abroad (E) holding that a bivens cause of action cannot be maintained against a federal agency
answer:

holding that general partners must notify limited partners of partnership opportunity to purchase adjacent property but not addressing whether  9404 requires affirmative consent of partners after such notice