With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". substances and testing results, and it “failed to provide an opportunity for public review and comment of the alternative remedial measure it was considering”); American Color & Chemical Corp., supra, 918 F.Supp. at 957 (“The court agrees ... that the public was provided with an opportunity for meaningful public comment concerning selection of a response action.... Additionally, the requirements of the ... Consent Orders were substantially equivalent to those found in the 1990 NCP”); Greene v. Product Mfg. Corp., 842 F.Supp. 1321, 1326 (D.Kan.1993) (“The court is persuaded that the provisions of the consent decree providing for a community relations program through the KDHE are sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the NCP”); General Electric Co., supra, 715 F.Supp. at 952, 961 (<HOLDING>). Still other courts have simply examined the

A: holding that where the action was filed as a class action and a consent decree was entered into entry of the consent decree was sufficient certification of the action as a class action under rule 23
B: holding that if notice to the public was a requirement the input of the missouri department of natural resources mdnr served as a substitute for public comment because the consent decree between plaintiff and mdnr required all remedial action for the site to be consistent with the national contingency plan and required mdnr approval of all remedial action
C: holding that any member of the general public can initiate an action to raise issues involving the public trust in air water or other natural resources of the state
D: holding that the ncp public participation requirement was fulfilled because the indiana department of environmental management gave public notice and received public comments before issuing an npdes permit for the cleanup even if it did not hold a public hearing
B.