With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that only the EPA’s costs associated with the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) conducted pursuant to the consent order of 1989 are recoverable. They further argue that the RI/FS terminated with the final document in February, 1992. Remaining Defendants make no mention of costs associated with the oversight of VDWM. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has not addressed the recovery of costs for agencies’ oversight. In support of their position, Remaining Defendants cite United States v. Rohm & Haas Co., 2 F.3d 1265, 1278 (3d Cir.1993), which drew a distinction between the government’s role in performing cleanups and the government’s role in supervising cleanups by private parties. Cf. United States v. Lowe, 864 F.Supp. 628, 632 (S.D.Tex.1994) (<HOLDING>). Discussing § 104(b) of CERCLA, the United

A: holding that insured could recover the costs of defending a declaratory judgment action brought by the injured party to compel the insurer to defend but could not recover the costs associated with prosecuting crossclaims against the insurer
B: recognizing that detariffmg would result in some increased administrative costs but anticipating those costs to be initial and fixed costs only resulting from the shift to a detariffed environment  such as the cost of developing short standard contracts
C: holding that investigatory costs are considered costs of response under cercla
D: holding that rohm  haas leads to the incongruous result that the epa could recover the costs of overseeing its own contractors but not the costs of overseeing those hired by the potentially responsible parties
D.