With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See 39 M.R.S.A. § 103-E. Moreover, an award may be confirmed by the superior court even if it remains subject to post-order administrative proceedings or a pending appeal. See Cilley v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 519 A.2d 191, 192 (Me.1986); see also 39 M.R.S.A. § 104-A. 4 . Any claim in this case not covered by the foregoing principles would be subject to dismissal under the related doctrine of Burford-type abstention. The state has signalled its interest in regulatory coherency by concentrating all claims in an exclusive administrative process, and parallel federal suits could "in a very real sense ... disrupt the regulatory scheme.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Sabbagh, 603 F.2d 228, 233 (1st Cir.1979); see also Bath Memorial Hosp. v. Maine Health Care Fin. Com., 853 F.2d 1007, 1013 (1st Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Construction Aggregates Corp., 573 F.2d at

A: holding that when all federal claims have been dismissed the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims
B: holding that courts should only abstain under younger if the state proceedings are coercive and not remedial and citing a number of district court opinions
C: recognizing that the longstanding public policy against federal court interference with state court proceedings generally requires federal courts to abstain from involvement in state criminal proceedings
D: holding that a court should abstain when an exercise of jurisdiction might lead to a parallel federal regulatory review mechanism complicating state administration
D.