Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
W. Daisey petitions pro se for review of the decision of the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) that it lacks jurisdiction over Daisey’s appeal from a decision of the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”). We have jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C § 1153(a). We review de novo the NTSB’s conclusions of law. Olsen v. National Transp. Safety Bd., 14 F.3d 471, 474 (9th Cir.1994). We deny the petition for review. The NTSB correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction over Daisey’s appeal of the FAA’s revocation and non-approval of check airman authority because check airmen serve under the Administrator’s delegated authority, which the Administrator may rescind “at any time for any reason.” 49 U.S.C. § 44702(d); cf. Adams v. FAA 1 F.3d 955, 956-57 (9th Cir.1993) (per cu-riam) ; Greenwood v. FAA 28 F.3d 971, 974-75 (9th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the decision whether to renew a hap rests entirely with the owner and that an owner has no legal obligation to renew
B. holding that this court lacked jurisdiction under  46110 for lack of finality and that the district court also lacked jurisdiction because the orders were not final and thus not ripe for review
C. holding that this court lacked preliminary authority to review the district courts jurisdiction because there was no immediately appealable order before the court
D. holding that the faas decision not to renew an aircraft examiners authority is nonreviewable
E. holding that this court lacked jurisdiction to review the faas decision to not renew a pilot examiner designation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.