it to proceed without an EIS in this case were not arbitrary, capricious, or clearly contrary to law. When the interpretation and application of regulations by an agency and its opponents are not arbitrary and capricious nor clearly contrary to law we are required by NEPA and the Supreme Court’s decisions to accept the agency’s decision as being in accordance with law. See, e.g., N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Porter County Chapter of Izaak Walton Leagtie of America, Inc., 423 U.S. 12, 15, 96 S.Ct. 172, 46 L.Ed.2d 156 (1975). HUD regulation 24 C.F.R. §§ 51.104(b)(2) requires the agency to prepare an EIS prior to approving “projects with unacceptable noise exposure[,]” that is, where sound levels reach 75 decibels or greater, based on a 24-hour weighted average of sound 1 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Gatter v. Nimmo, 672 F.2d 343, 347 (3d
holding that agency action is final  and thus has legal effect  only if taken by officials possessing properly delegated authority holding that chevron deference is due only when the agency acts pursuant to delegated authority and the agency action has the force of law holding that there is nothing for a court to review when an agency has never issued a final and binding judgment that has the force of law holding that the court reviews noncompliance with an agency pronouncement only if it actually has the force and effect of law holding that where the plaintiffs evidence supported a finding that the defendants had applied force to restrain him the jury must determine not only whether the officers were justified in using force at all but if so whether the degree of force actually used was reasonable