With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See 24 C.F.R. §§ 51.104(b)(2). In its FONSI, HUD stated that the project is in compliance with noise abatement requirements, noting that the sound measurements fall within “acceptable” levels. In doing so, HUD relied on a September 2002 noise survey included in its EA which indicates that the noise exposure (the average day-night sound level at the site) reaches 60 decibels, within the “acceptable” range. Review of that study indicates that it used measurements taken over a 24-hour period within a carefully described area, and included an assessment of the possible effects of future increased traffic and the construction of retail buildings. Plaintiffs contend that in conducting the study HUD did not comply with its own September 1991 Noise Guidebook. The fact that HUD’s sub 987) (<HOLDING>); W. Radio Servs. Co. v. Espy, 79 F.3d 896,

A: holding that neglect was not excusable where the defendants did not do all that they were required to do after they received the summons and complaint in that they did not contact a lawyer or make any other arrangements with respect to their defense
B: holding that legislative functions such as powers of zoning and rezoning cannot be delegated
C: holding ins operations instructions not binding because they are not an exercise of delegated legislative power and do not purport to be anything other than internal housekeeping measures
D: holding that crime definition and penalty powers are essential legislative functions that cannot constitutionally be delegated by the utah legislature to any other person or body
C.