Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that eight major oil companies were violating the Federal Trade Commission Act was not final agency action. See id. at 246, 101 S.Ct. 488. The Court reasoned that the FTC’s averment of “reason to believe” 'that the oil companies were violating the FTCA was “not a definitive statement of position [but instead] represented] a threshold determination that further inquiry [was] warranted and that a complaint should initiate proceedings.” Id. at 241, 101 S.Ct. 488. The Court then determined that, because the issuance of the complaint served only to initiate the proceedings by which a definitive agency position could become known, the complaint had no legal force or practical effect that was comparable to the regulation at issue in Abbott Laboratories, 387 U.S. at 151-53, 87 S.Ct. 1507 . See Standard Oil, 449 U.S. at 241-43, 101
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding if immunity is raised as a basis in the motion for summary adjudication a substantial right is affected and the denial is immediately appealable
B. holding that the denial of a motion to remand is interlocutory and not immediately appealable
C. holding that summons issued nearly seven months after the show cause order was entered was not issued immediately as required by statute
D. holding that regulations issued by commissioner of food and drugs were ripe for review because they were definitive immediately effective and directly and immediately affected petitioners daily business activities
E. holding that plaintiffs had standing because they were directly affected by the laws and practices against which their complaints were directed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.