With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". with the plans for the Holcomb Expansion Project in the manner the company desired without RUS approval, plaintiff has not persuaded this Court that the provisions generally prevent a borrower from undertaking this type of project without RUS approval. 12 . This is commonly seen in the cases involving the construction of a highway, a rail line or a power line. In these instances, courts have repeatedly held that, while the federal agency might be expected to consider environmental impacts with respect to the small segment in which it was involved, the agency was not required to consider the environmental impact of the entire project if it had no involvement in the remaining portions of the project. See, e.g., Coal. for Underground Expansion v. Mineta, 333 F.3d 193, 198 (D.C.Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Weiss v. Kempthorne, 580 F.Supp.2d 184, 189

A: holding that although the express warranty claim was not federally preempted the plaintiff had not alleged sufficient facts for the claim to survive dismissal under rule 8 where the pjlaintiff alleged no facts demonstrating that defendants made any affirmations specifically to plaintiff or her physician so as to form the basis of the bargain
B: holding that the court may only consider the discrete acts that occurred within the appropriate time period
C: recognizing that order denying confirmation of a plan does not resolve a discrete issue
D: holding that although other parts of the rail transit system are federally funded this does not make the discrete claytonshrewsbury extension federally funded
D.