Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Commerce’s determination in the Final Results. (Pis.’ Br. on Jurisdiction 2-5.) In deciding between the appropriate bases for jurisdiction, the “ ‘mere recitation of a basis for jurisdiction, by either a party or a court, cannot be controllingt;]’ ” instead, the court “ ‘look[s] to the true nature of the action ... in determining jurisdiction.’ ” Norsk Hydro Can., Inc. v. United States, 472 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed.Cir.2006) (quoting Williams v. Sec’y of Navy, 787 F.2d 552, 557 (Fed.Cir.1986)). In this case, Plaintiffs challe t the time that the rule goes into effect because the relevant harm has already been inflicted: an interested party has lost the opportunity to alter the agency’s decision through full participation in the regulatory process. See, e.g., Wind River, 946 F.2d at 715 ; Thrift Depositors of Am., Inc. v. Office of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing the cause of action
B. holding that the sixyear statute of limitations on a written contract is applicable to a cause of action based on a um policy
C. holding that grounds for a cause of action for facial or procedural challenges to a regulation will usually be apparent to any interested citi zen within a sixyear period following promulgation of the decision and because the governments interest in finality outweighs a latecomers desire to protest the agencys action as a matter of policy or procedure
D. holding that the rule of splitting of causes of action as related to res judicata does not permit the owner of a single or entire cause of action or an entire indivisible demand to divide or split that cause of action and that all damages from a single wrongful act must be claimed in one action
E. recognizing cause of action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.