Of particular import to the present case, the Home Builders Court addressed Public Citizen, a NEPA case, directly: We do not suggest that Public Citizen controls the outcome here; § 7(a)(2), unlike NEPA, imposes a substantive (and not just a procedural) statutory requirement, and these cases involve agency action more directly related to environmental concerns than- the FMCSA’s truck safety regulations.. But the basic principle announced in Public Citizen— that an. agency cannot be considered the legal “cause” of an action that it has no statutory discretion- not to take — supports the reasonableness of the FWS’ interpretation of § 7(a)(2) as reaching only discretionary agency actions. See also California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645, 668, n.21 [98 S.Ct. 2985, 57 L.Ed.2d 1018] (1978) (<HOLDING>). Id. at 667-68, 98 S.Ct. 2985. Contrary to
recognizing that administrative agencies are not bound by rules of evidence holding that where state rules of civil procedure apply to courts of the state they do not apply to adjudicatory proceedings before state agencies holding that a statutory requirement that federal operating agencies conform to state water usage rules applied only to the extent that it was not inconsistent with other congressional directives holding that a state election law is preempted only to the extent that it conflicts with federal law recognizing that state agencies which are independent of the state are citizens of the state