Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
On June 4, 1984 FTI and Houser filed their present petition, seeking attorneys’ fees in the amount of approximately $385,000. A. The threshold issue is whether this Court has jurisdiction to consider the present petition for attorneys’ fees. Section 504(c)(2) of the EAJA provides that “[a] party dissatisfied with the fee determination ... may petition ... to the court having jurisdiction to review the merits of the underlying decision of the agency____” The SEC maintains that the staff decision not to recommend that the Commission file an injunctive action is “committed to agency discretion,” 15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 78u(d), and is therefore unreviewable. See Kixmiller v. SEC, 492 F.2d 641, 645 (D.C.Cir.1974). Compare Medical Committee for Human Rights v. SEC, 432 F.2d 659 (D.C.Cir.1970) , vacated as moot, 404 U.S. 403, 92 S.Ct. 577,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding sec decision reviewable when commission has reviewed staff decision
B. recognizing that the decision of whether to give a jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion
C. holding that the commission applied its technical knowledge and expertise to the facts presented and the commissioners decision  should be afforded deference when the commission conducted investigations reviewed accounting practices and solicited comments from several agencies and organizations involved in the regulatory process in the course of balancing the interests of the public utility and the public to reach its decision
D. holding that even when there is a conflict of evidence before the commission and the evidence was such that the commission could have reasonably reached a contrary decision the commissions decision was not arbitrary and capricious
E. holding that evidence contrary to an administrators decision does not make the decision arbitrary and capricious so long as a reasonable basis appears for the decision
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.