With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Reinsurance Co., 868 F.2d 52, 58 (3d Cir.1989) (stating “[a] district court itself should not clarify an ambiguous arbitration award but should remand it to the arbitration panel for clarification”); Bell Aerospace Co. Div. of Textron, Inc. v. Local 516, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir.1974) (stating “[cjonstruing ambiguous provisions of an arbitration award is the proper province of the arbitrator, not the courts”); American Postal Workers v. U.S. Postal Serv., 254 F.Supp.2d 12, 15 (D.D.C.2003) (remanding for clarification where the arbitrator’s award was “susceptible to more than one interpretation”). Such remands, however, are to be used sparingly in order not to thwart the interest of achieving finality. See Fischer v. CGA Computer Assoc., Inc., 612 F.Supp. 1038, 1041 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (<HOLDING>). In Nukem I, Nukem argued “the district

A: holding that an order not denominated a judgment is not final for purposes of appeal
B: recognizing remand frustrates the basic purposes of arbitration because it delays execution of the final judgment
C: holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence
D: recognizing that a final judgment may provide for a particular standard upon which to modify a final judgment
B.