first argue that HUD’s action in funding the project was not in accord with law in two respects: they assert that federal regulations automatically required HUD to produce an EIS based on the increased level of noise and the sheer number of dwellings affected by the project. In their remaining arguments, plaintiffs contend that HUD acted arbitrarily and capriciously or unreasonably because the evidence available to HUD mandated preparation of an EIS. A. Plaintiffs contend that CEQ regulations required HUD to prepare an EIS under the facts established by its own EA, and that HUD’s major federal action of funding the project before preparing an EIS was not in accordance with law. Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, however, HUD’s interpretation and application of the regulations as permi ) (<HOLDING>); Fed. Land Bank in Receivership v. Fed.
holding veterans administration publications not binding because they were not promulgated under the apas rulemaking requirements holding that although miranda warnings were not given to defendant police officers they had no cause of action under 42 usc  1983 because they were never prosecuted holding that arbitration award is binding on the parties holding that independent contractors whose contracts were terminated following a change in administration were not protected by the first amendment holding social security administration claims manual is not binding agency rule