Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
shall be considered by the court, unless the failure or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of extraordinary circumstances.” 29 U.S.C. § 160(e). And under the Board’s practice, “any issues that may be presented during the representation proceeding must be offered there.” Pace Univ. v. NLRB, 514 F.3d 19, 23 (D.C.Cir.2008). Thus, the Board claims, UC Health’s objection to the Regional Director’s authority comes too late. We have consistently held, however, that challenges to the composition of an agency can be raised on review even when they are not raised before the agency. See Noel Canning v. NLRB, 705 F.3d 490, 497 (D.C.Cir.2013), aff'd on other grounds, — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 2550, 189 L.Ed.2d 538 (2014); Mitchell v. Christopher, 996 F.2d 375, 378-79 (D.C.Cir.1993) . Since this challenge directly involves the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing an exception allowing parties to raise for the first time on review  challenges that concern the very composition or constitution of an agency
B. holding an agency decision is not final during the time the agency considers a petition for review
C. recognizing such an exception
D. holding that a party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal
E. recognizing exception under state constitution
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.