With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Systems, Inc., 715 F.Supp. 949, 961 (W.D.Mo.1989) (“Public hearings are not mandated in the NCP when compliance with legally applicable or relevant and appropriate state requirements provides a substantially equivalent opportunity for public involvement.... It is clear to the Court that no public hearing was required due to the fact that GE was complying with legally applicable or relevant and appropriate state requirements that the waste be removed. Furthermore, if notice to the public is a requirement, the input of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources serves as a substitute for public comment”), aff'd. on other grounds, 920 F.2d 1415 (8th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 937, 111 S.Ct. 1390, 113 L.Ed.2d 446 (1991). See also Morrison Enterprises, supra, 302 F.3d at 1137-38 (<HOLDING>). Other courts have held that the involvement

A: holding as a factspecific matter that plaintiff was entitled to a rebuttable presumption of compliance with the ncp because it undertook a cleanup pursuant to a consent order with a state environmental agency that was part of the epas program of deferring the placement of properties on the national priorities list to afford an opportunity for state governments to effect remediation
B: holding that plaintiffs failure to substantially comply with public participation requirement rendered cleanup inconsistent with ncp
C: holding that the state police is a state agency
D: holding that wsdot was not entitled to recover response costs under cercla where its actions in connection with an environmental cleanup were inconsistent with the ncp to such a high degree as to be arbitrary and capricious but also stating that failure to comply with the ncp is not a defense to liability but rather a factual issue affecting damages
A.