Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
for nonrenewal, but retaining the "good cause” requirement for termination of a tenancy during the term of the lease. See Barrientos, 583 F.3d 1205. 4 . As discussed below, the one-year notice provision only applies to an owner's decision to terminate or not renew a project-based assistance program, and not a tenant-based assistance program like that at issue here. 5 . Under the circumstances, it would not have made any sense for Defendant to have included the other required language pertaining to the availability of "tenant-based rental assistance” in his non-renewal notice, since Plaintiffs had already been put on notice of such by the previous owner and had been receiving such assistance since 2009. Cf. Owens v. Charleston Housing Authority, 336 F.Supp.2d 934, 946 (D.Mo.2004) . 6 . Notably, even the cases on which
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the notice requirements of section 101101 do not apply to employees because they are not governmental units
B. holding that the citizen suit notice requirements cannot be avoided by employing a flexible or pragmatic construction and that plaintiffs suit must be dismissed where plaintiff had not strictly complied with the notice requirements
C. holding that plaintiff complied with plain language of the notice requirement when notice was mailed within statutory period although it was not received until after
D. holding notice provision in rcra and clean water act are virtually identical and citizens notice to violators under either act must strictly comply with statutory notice requirements
E. holding that owners notice substantially complied with federal requirements because the owner intended to demolish the housing units and noted that ajlthough the notice did not follow the statutory language it would have been misleading had it strictly followed the statute
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.