EA in every case could require the reversal of permitting decisions where a draft EA was not circulated even though the permitting agency actively sought and achieved public participation through other means. The regulations do not compel such formality. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9. Our conclusion is consistent with the views of other circuits, which uniformly have not insisted on the circulation of a draft EA. See Alliance To Protect Nantucket Sound, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Amy, 398 F.3d 105, 114-115 (1st Cir.2005) (concluding that “[n]othing in the CEQ regulations requires circulation of a draft EA for public comment, except under certain ‘limited circumstances,’ ” and rejecting Anderson’s contrary language as dicta); Pogliani v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 306 F.3d 1235, 1240 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Flowers, 359
holding that in certain circumstances fraud can be prosecuted under the statute holding that a dismissal in the interest of justice can be a favorable termination under certain circumstances recognizing that in certain circumstances inquiry notice may be determined as a matter of law holding that the court may set aside agency action only in extremely limited circumstances holding that a draft ea must be circulated only in certain limited circumstances