Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
court after December 19, 2004. Martin maintains that Local Rule 7 conflicts with Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that he in fact timely submitted his response because the federal rules trump the local rules, which gave him an additional three days to file his response. Rule 6(e) extends deadlines tied to service of process by mail. It states, “[wjhenever a party must or may act within a prescribed period after service and service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(B), (C), or (D), 3 days are added after the prescribed period would otherwise expire under subdivision (a).” Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(e). Because Local Rule 7 requires action within twenty days of filing, as opposed to service, Rule 6(e) is inapplicable. See Lauzon v. Strachan Shipping Co., 782 F.2d 1217 (5th Cir.1985) . Rule 6(e) applies to those obligations
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that rule 6e did not extend the period in which a workers compensation carrier was required to pay a compensation award under the longshore and harbor workers compensation act where the act required payment within ten days of filing of the order as opposed to within ten days of service of notice provided for in the rule
B. holding that the trial courts authority to initiate workers compensation benefits before the final adjudication was not divested by the legislature and was consistent with the stated purpose of the workers compensation act
C. holding that the longshore and harbor workers compensation act specifically relates to business of insurance
D. holding that carrier was entitled to intervene as of right where the states workers compensation law permitted subrogation of a compensation carrier
E. holding that a second motion to reconsider served within ten days of the denial of the first motion does not extend the time period for filing a notice of appeal from the underlying judgment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.