With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for two reasons; 1) fencing is specifically listed in the definition of a “removal action” in § 101(23), and 2) the fence was installed nine months before the draft remedial action plan and while RI/FS testing was still ongoing. See id. at 1393. In contrast, the court concluded that installation of the utilities constituted “construction of the remedial action,” noting that the utilities were installed for the sole purpose of implementing the chosen permanent remedy, which was apparent from the draft remedial action plan, and marked the “initiation” of the final remedy. See id. at 1393-94. Again, in Hyampom the final remedy was reasonably known at the time the triggering action was taken. See also Advanced Micro Devices v. National Semiconductor, 38 F.Supp.2d 802, 813 (N.D.Cal.1999) (<HOLDING>). Based on these decisions, the court concludes

A: recognizing in comparison to hyampom that the final design had not been disclosed prior to the activities relied upon as remedial action
B: holding that upon remand if the trial court determined that the testimony in a newly discovered evidence claim was reliable the trial court must review that new evidence as well as brady claims that were previously rejected in a prior postconviction motion because the evidence was equally accessible to the defense and there was no reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different had the evidence been disclosed
C: holding that venue was proper in kansas because both of the defendants conducted many of their activities with the plaintiff through the mail despite that fact that the defendants activities may have been more substantial in california
D: holding that in the context of construction litigation regarding the alleged negligence of design professionals a tort action for negligent misrepresentation alleging damages based purely on economic loss is not available to a party in privity of contract with a design professional
A.