Cir.1998). When evaluating the adequacy of an EIS, the court must determine whether the EIS contains “a reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the probable environmental consequences.” See Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. United States Forest Service, 137 F.3d 1372, 1376 (9th Cir.1998). The court must ensure that the agency took a “hard look” at the environmental effects of the proposed action. See Vermont Yankee v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 435 U.S. 519, 535, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978). In interpreting NEPA, courts give substantial deference to the regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”). See 42 U.S.C. § 4342 et. seq.; Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989) (<HOLDING>). B. Summary Judgment Rule 56(c) of the Federal
holding regulations entitled to chevron deference holding that the secretary is not entitled to deference when construing the acts implementing regulations holding that the district courts apa review of a sba size decision was not entitled to deference but that the agencys interpretation and application of its own regulations did merit deference holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference holding ceq regulations entitled to substantial deference