Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the leases, the court fails to give the required deference to permissible agency action. The court’s opinion expresses concern that DNR “singled out” the Jerrels and implies that DNR varied “the requirements of its regulations at a whim.” First, DNR did not single out the Jerrels. Their actions prompted individualized attention. DNR had authority to interpret its regulation as it did, and a duty to rein in the Jerrels’ animals. The record strongly suggests that DNR worked in good faith, dealing patiently with both the Jerrels and their neighbors. Second, unless DNR had absolutely no authority to interpret its regulation on a lease-by-lease basis, it seems inconsistent to reason that a requirement specific to the Jerrels could somehow be a regulation of general application. D. The . 28 . See State v. Anderson, 749 P.2d 1342,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding it was not an abuse of discretion to deny funds
B. holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony
C. holding that issuance of commercial fishing permit for closed waters to one individual was not regulation and was not abuse of discretion
D. holding that denial of untimely request was not abuse of discretion
E. holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.