With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". failed as a matter of law to allege a violation of the NGPSA and that, because such a violation is a jurisdictional prerequisite for a citizen suit under the act, the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this case. 1. Jurisdictional Requirement The Court begins with the provision of the NGPSA that authorizes private causes of action: A person may bring a civil action in an appropriate district court of the United States for an injunction against another person ... for a violation of this chapter or a regulation prescribed or order issued under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. § 60121(a)(1). Such provisions authorizing citizen suits establish jurisdictional requirements. See, e.g., Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 484 U.S. 49, 108 S.Ct. 376, 98 L.Ed.2d 306 (1987) (<HOLDING>); Save Our Community v. EPA, 971 F.2d 1155,

A: holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the clean water act
B: holding that the caa allows citizen suits for a wholly past violation so long as there is a second violation of the same emission standard or limitation
C: holding that adequate notice is a mandatory precondition of a clean water act citizen suit
D: holding that statute authorizing citizen suits against those alleged to be in violation of the clean water act cwa conferred no jurisdiction over cases based on wholly past violations
D.