With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 305, 309, 102 S.Ct. 1798, 1801, 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982). 7 . It appears that these extensions were motivated in part by the EPA's indecision as to how to deal with the problem of storm-water outlets. We do not know what has transpired on this issue since the beginning of the year. 8 . We surmise that the storm water collected in the drainage ditch is being diverted into the collection pool. 9 . A crucial distinction would seem to be that plaintiff in this case seeks penalties for past violations, while the Government has elected to forego past penalties in its action. There is a substantial question in our mind as to whether HudFish is entitled to past penalties in light of Gwaltney. But see Public Interest Research Group of N.J., Inc. v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 684 F.Supp. 115 (D.N.J.1988) (<HOLDING>). We may have cause to revisit this issue at

A: holding service requirements under fedrcivp 4 to be jurisdictional
B: holding that regulatory requirements are not jurisdictional in nature
C: holding gwaltney limited to jurisdictional question and does not prohibit recovery of past penalties in citizen suit if jurisdictional requirements met
D: holding that notice requirements of 4206a are jurisdictional
C.