Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
include necessary requirements’ of the statute — not because the EPA ignored a factor that the statute requires it to consider, but only because it has not fully implemented the statutory goal.”). The issue raised by Oceana in challenging the Omnibus Amendment is different from the jurisdictional issues raised in the D.C. Circuit cases. Oceana argues that, because NMFS did not consider whether to include non-target bycatch stocks “in the fishery,” the Omnibus Amendment is arbitrary and capricious because the ACLs it does set for the already-managed stocks could result in overfishing of the unregulated bycatch stocks. See Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. 18; see also Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) . The MSA’s new provisions required NMFS to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously if it entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem
B. holding that the court must find that the agency entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency or the decision is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise
C. holding allegation that the agency failed to fully evaluate an aspect of petitioners claim to be another way of saying that the agency got the facts wrong
D. recognizing criminal forfeiture as an aspect of punishment
E. holding that an agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously if it reverses its position in the face of a precedent it has not persuasively distinguished
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.