With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 167 has proven so problematic, perhaps the EPA and ultimately the Congress will reconsider its utility. That section seems to provide an anomalous and perhaps unnecessary remedy, neither fish nor fowl, which skews the administrative enforcement scheme and forces the courts to engage in lengthy exegeses such as this, adding to the pages of the federal reporter without noticeable benefit to our polity. At the very least, Congress could clarify its intent with respect to the finality of section 167 orders. 1 .Other cases have also held that agency action with no independent legal effect is reviewable. See Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 89 S.Ct. 1794, 23 L.Ed.2d 371 (1969) (reviewing declaratory ruling by the FCC); Modine Mfg. Corp. v. Kay, 791 F.2d 267 (3d Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>); Better Gov’t Ass’n v. Department of State,

A: holding that epa regulations do not allow the agency to act contrary to federal statute
B: holding that an adjudication on summary judgment is an adjudication on the merits
C: holding that the federal water pollution control act amendments of 1972 and certain regulations promulgated thereunder are applicable to nonnavigable waters of puerto rico despite contention that such waters are areas of purely local concern and that federal regulation of such areas is inapplicable under the puerto rican federal relations act
D: holding ripe for review an epa informal adjudication that regulations promulgated under the federal water pollution control act applied to certain brass cleaning facilities
D.