Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
correctly recognizes that sub-ACLs are not a mandatory measure, and that an FMP must simply establish an overall suite of accountability measures sufficient to prevent overfishing. See Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. 22, ECF No. 36 (citing Oceana, Inc. v. Locke, 831 F.Supp.2d 95, 117 (D.D.C.2011)). Indeed, the MSA makes no mention of sub-ACLs. Cf. 16 U.S.C. § 1853(a)(15) (2012) (requiring that the Secretary “establish a mechanism for specifying [overall] annual catch limits”). The issue is thus whether NMFS, by not implementing Oceana’s sub-ACL proposal, acted arbitrarily and capriciously by ignoring bycatch of target stocks in non-directed fisheries. 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) . Both the Guidelines and the administrative
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. 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
B. holding that an agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously if it entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem or offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency
C. 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
D. holding that an agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously if it reverses its position in the face of a precedent it has not persuasively distinguished
E. holding an agency decision is not final during the time the agency considers a petition for review
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.