With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". actions, standing alone, demonstrates an intent to forestall review unless and until the forfeiture process is completed. The legislative history cited by the FCC sheds no light on the issue. In 1978, Congress amended the Communications Act “to unify, simplify, and enlarge the scope of the forfeiture provisions,” but made no attempt to limit judicial review. S.Rep. No. 95-580, at 1 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 109. It simply added an alternative approach, giving the FCC the option of holding an adjudicatory hearing in “the exceptional forfeiture ease, where urgency, precedent value, or convenience of the Commission warrants a proceeding exclusively under the Commission’s control until a final judgment on appeal is obtained.” Id. at 4, 1978 d 564, 566 (10th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). We determine that nothing in the

A: holding that district courts are without jurisdiction to review preenforcement orders issued under the clean water act
B: holding that case law from other circuits squarely precluded jurisdiction over preenforcement ruling under the clean air act
C: holding the epa could regulate air pollutants under the clean air act solely on the basis of the pollutants risk to human health
D: recognizing limitations existence in other circuits
B.