With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". under NEPA: preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C) (1988). Accordingly, EPA has been held to be exempt from preparing such statements regarding permits for old sources of pollution. See, e.g., Pacific Legal Found, v. Quarles,. 440 F.Supp. 316, 320-21 & n. 2 (C.D.Cal.1977), aff'd sub nom., Kilroy v. Quarles, 614 F.2d 225 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 825, 101 S.Ct. 88, 66 L.Ed.2d 29 (1980). Although the courts have stopped short of holding the exemption to provide EPA with complete NEPA immunity under every possible circumstance, they have universally relied on legislative intent to adopt a much broader application than the bare language would suggest. See, e.g., Municipality of Anchorage v. United States, 980 F.2d 1320, 1328-29 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); see also, e.g., Webb v. Gorsuch, 699 F.2d

A: holding that the epa is also exempt from the requirement to consider alternatives under section nepa 102e
B: recognizing that the epa can consider the section 404b1 guidelines when acting under section 404c
C: holding railroad rate exempt from state regulation
D: holding that it is clear that the entire business of baseball is exempt from antitrust claims
A.