With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 2007 decision to deny a rehearing on the termination, renders this case moot. However, we need not decide this issue given our conclusion that no federal jurisdiction exists in this case. 5 . Indeed, the district court’s depiction of these studies as “FERC mandated” is a mis-characterization of the role played by these studies in the FERC licensing scheme. The studies outlined by FERC are necessary to complete the license application; the only penalty for failure to conduct these studies appears to be the termination of the ILP. 6 . Alternatively, MHC contends that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists because the FPA preempts the actions taken by Metro Parks. In doing so, MHC urges us to look to Town of Springfield v. Vermont Environmental Bd., 521 F.Supp. 243, 249 (D.Vt.1981) (<HOLDING>). However, in the instant case, Metro Parks has

A: recognizing state laws can be preempted by federal regulations as well as by federal legislation
B: holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law
C: holding that vermonts licensing scheme was preempted by the fpa because it enabled the state to thwart a federal project by withholding a state permit
D: holding the state law claims were not preempted
C.