With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". no jurisdiction. In the first place, Plaintiff neither pleads nor argues that the Strategy represents a change in Texas water-quality law. Even if the pleadings might be very liberally so construed, Plaintiff neither pleads nor argues whether the State of Texas has submitted legislation based on the Strategy to the EPA for review; whether the EPA has determined that a change of state law has occurred; or, particularly in the absence of state submission, whether Plaintiff has petitioned for and obtained an official agency ruling with regard to those matters. Under those circumstances, and for the reasons set out elsewhere in this opinion, the question is not yet ripe for judicial review. See Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49, , 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967) (<HOLDING>). The Court finds that no significant hardship

A: holding premature a suit filed before final administrative determination of claimants administrative claim
B: 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
C: holding that habeas corpus petitions are premature until administrative remedies have been exhausted
D: 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
B.