With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Exchange, Inc. v. NLRB, 620 F.2d 629, 633-34 (7th Cir.1980) (finding the Milchem rule violated based on a five-minute conversation between a party agent and an employee waiting in line to vote); Bio-Medical Applications, 269 NLRB 827, 829, 1984 WL 36254 (1984) (finding the Milchem rule violated where party agent spoke with four employees in the waiting room adjacent to the polling area). None of these cases supports the proposition that the Milchem rule extends any farther than the voters actually waiting in line to vote. Moreover, there are cases which specifically hold that electioneering activity near the polls, but not directed at employees actually waiting in line, does not violate the Milchem rule. NLRB v. J.P. Transportation, Co., 1998 WL 869984 (6th Cir.1998) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>); NLRB v. Del Rey Tortilleria, Inc., 823 F.2d

A: holding that electioneering approximately fifty feet from entrance to building did not violate the milchem rule where those waiting in line to vote were inside the building while the polls were open
B: holding that injury in a parking lot did not occur on a covered situs
C: holding that party agents conversation with arriving voters in parking lot outside of polling place did not appear substantially to have impaired the employees free choice in the election
D: holding that speaking to employees in a parking lot near the polling place while the polls were open did not violate the milchem rule
D.