With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". circuits have held that EPA action undertaken pursuant to EPA’s AEC-transferred authority is reviewable under the Hobbs Act as if undertaken by the AEC itself. See Watkins, 939 F.2d at 712 n. 4 (stating that EPA’s generic health and safety standards for nuclear waste repositories are reviewable under 42 U.S.C. § 2239(b)); NRDC v. EPA, 824 F.2d at 1267 n. 7 (same); Quivira Mining Co. v. United States EPA, 728 F.2d 477, 481-84 (10th Cir.1984) (finding Hobbs Act jurisdiction over EPA regulations addressing radiation releases from uranium fuel cycle operations). Going one step further, this circuit has held that agency action that “derives” from transferred authority is also reviewable under the Hobbs Act. See Aulenback, Inc. v. Fed. Highway Admin., 103 F.3d 156, 164-65 (D.C.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). This is just such a case. In issuing its

A: holding that proof of racketeering was not a separate prerequisite to criminal liability under the hobbs act
B: holding that impossibility is not a defense to attempts or conspiracy under the hobbs act
C: holding the meaning of commerce element in a different federal statute the hobbs act to be a question of law
D: holding that the court had hobbs act jurisdiction to review transportation department rules addressing certain safety requirements because the agencys power to issue those requirements derived in part from its transferred authority and because actions taken pursuant to that transferred authority were subject to hobbs act review
D.