Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
understood that “revisions to the Increment Rule,” which might have obviated the need for its petition, “would take time.” Pet’r’s Br. 29. But the Clean Air Act does not toll filing deadlines for such niceties. The Increment Rule was in full effect and applicable to North Carolina when we handed down our decision in NRDC. See, e.g., 75 Fed.Reg. at 64,898 (noting that the Increment Rule set “final PM2.6 increments ... for all State [prevention of significant deterioration] programs” (emphasis added)). The State thus had no more than sixty days from when we issued that decision on January 4, 2013, to avail itself of the after-arising grounds exception and file its petition. See 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b); cf. Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967) , abrogated on other grounds by Califano v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that issue of whether dismissal was with or without prejudice becomes ripe only when new action is filed and issue is raised the court in the new action should decide the issue
B. holding that a suit is ripe if the legal issue is fit for judicial resolution and the party challenging an administrative action has felt its effects in a concrete way
C. holding that requiring a party to participate in further administrative or judicial proceedings is not a hardship sufficient to outweigh a determination that an issue is unfit for review
D. holding that the ripeness doctrine exists to prevent the courts through avoidance of premature adjudication from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effect felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties
E. holding that a third party holding legal title to property is a necessary party in an action for equitable distribution
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.