types of turbines studied at distances greater than 300 m[et-ers].” Id. The BLM then concluded that the resulting LFN and infrasound that would be produced by the OWEF Project would be unlikely to cause health problems for the nearby residents because “the dos- est turbine is 804.67 m[eters] ... from the nearest home.” Id. We find the BLM conducted a full analysis of the potential consequences of LFN and infrasound that would be produced by the Project and, based on the studies it found reliable, the BLM determined that the health effects would be minimal. Thus, the BLM took the requisite “hard look” at LFN and infrasound, and we will defer to the agency’s position on this technical issue. See Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 222 F.3d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>). Fourth, and finally, Appellants argue that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that we show  deference to an agencys conclusions in the area of its expertise (B) recognizing that courts accord significant deference to an agency decision where agency expertise is involved (C) holding that we consider an agencys expertise or special knowledge when  application of the regulation is primarily factual and necessarily requires application of the agencys technical knowledge and expertise to the facts presented citation omitted internal quotation marks omitted (D) holding that when there are conflicting expert reports an agencys determination is due deferenceespecially in areas of agency expertise (E) holding that conflicting expert evidence regarding function establishes material issue of fact
(D)