With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at 112. We fail to see how this background information demonstrates a Congressional intent to bar our review under the circumstances existing in this case. Furthermore, the case law on appellate review of FCC determinations contradicts the agency’s argument. For instance, in Straus Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 530 F.2d 1001 (D.C.Cir.1976), the court found jurisdiction to review an FCC letter ruling which held that a broadcast licensee had violated a rule but, at the same time, rescinded the monetary sanction based on the violation. The court determined that review was appropriate, in spite of the lack of a forfeiture, because the existence of the letter could result in harsher treatment for further violations by the licensee. See id. at 1005-07. See also I 6-78 (3d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); see also Laguna Gatuna, Inc. v. Browner, 58

A: holding that case law from other circuits squarely precluded jurisdiction over preenforcement ruling under the clean air act
B: holding the epa could regulate air pollutants under the clean air act solely on the basis of the pollutants risk to human health
C: holding that section 9613h precluded preenforcement judicial review of plaintiffs constitutional challenge cercla
D: holding judicial review of a preenforcement ruling unavailable under the clean air act because early intervention would interfere with statutorilyrequired efforts at negotiation and compromise
D.