With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". could mitigate the stated effect of the company’s receipt of the Letter. See Letter from Robert A. Darling to Rhea Lana Rhiner (Aug. 26, 2013), J.A. 23. In Sackett, the Court likewise found a legal consequence where the Government took the position that the order at issue “exposes the Sacketts to double penalties in a future enforcement proceeding,” 132 S.Ct. at 1372, without “deciding] ... that the Government’s position is correct, but assum[ing] the consequences of the order to be what the Government asserts,” id. at 1372 n. 2. We can take the Department at its word to the regulated party that § 578.3(c) renders the Letter legally consequential, leaving the parties to litigate on remand the merits of the regulation’s import. Cf. W. Ill. Home Health Care, Inc., 150 F.3d at 663 (<HOLDING>). Finally, the Department suggests that

A: holding that the corroboration of facts in an anonymous informants letter that the defendants car would be in florida that one of the defendants would fly to florida within the next day or so and that the defendant would then drive towards bloomington indiana all contributed to a legitimate belief that the informants additional assertions of criminal activity were true and probable cause had been established
B: holding panels decision was not final appealable order because the amount of the penalty must be determined here before the ruling as to penalties is final for purposes of judicial review
C: holding dol advice letter final where letter warned that companies would be treated either as recidivists or as willful violators if they failed in the future to comply with the legal ruling contained in the letter thus subjecting them to penalties
D: holding that motion to dismiss cannot be treated as summary judgment
C.