With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and Chukchi Seas.” The analysis of oil spill risks was updated in the EAs for both Lease Sale 195 and Lease Sale 202. There is no indication that the agency erred in relying on these documents in its review of this specific project. Petitioners argue that extensive discussion of spills in MMS’s prior analyses and the requirement that an oil response plan be prepared is evidence that an oil spill is a reasonably foreseeable event. Under their logic, the EA should therefore have included analysis on the possibility of such a spill. Petitioners support this contention by citing to cases where an agency was required to consider even remote risks that could cause great harm. See, e.g., San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 449 F.3d 1016, 1030-31 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Petitioners also point out that, even if an

A: holding that agency was unreasonable in categorically dismissing the possibility of a terrorist attack as too remote and highly speculative to warrant nepa consideration
B: holding that eight years between prior convictions and the beginning of the charged conspiracy was not too remote
C: holding the class too imprecise and speculative to be certified
D: holding that collateral crime that occurred twelve years prior to charged offense not too remote in time
A.