Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Accordingly, because the Department did not provide a meaningful opportunity for comment, and did not solicit or receive relevant comments regarding the substance or merits of either set of regulations, we have no difficulty in concluding that the Department “ignored important aspects of the problem.” Kempthorne, 473 F.3d at 103. Therefore, we hold that the Department’s reinstatement of the 1987 regulations was arbitrary and capricious in that the Department’s action did not follow procedures required by law. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2); see also Mack Trucks, 682 F.3d at 95-96 (vacating agency interim rule when good cause exception did not apply, and APA notice and comment procedures were not followed); Buschmann, 676 F.2d at 358 (same); Kollett v. Harris, 619 F.2d 134, 144-46 (1st Cir.1980) . VI. Under the terms of the 2009 Notice and
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an extension of time in which to serve process may be granted despite the absence of good cause
B. holding that notice of foreclosure that failed to provide a reinstatement balance was not defective in the absence of harm caused by the omission
C. holding that proper service of new notice of deficiency and new notices of levy moots question as to whether prior actions were procedurally defective
D. holding invalid procedurally defective interim regulations that were issued without notice and comment and in the absence of good cause
E. holding tax foreclosure invalid without adequate notice
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.