With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 205 F.3d 108, 117 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 121 S.Ct. 56, 148 L.Ed.2d 24 (2000), the Third Circuit, the only appellate court that has addressed the issue, was “constrained by PACA’s unambiguous statutory language to hold that a restaurant ... [that] purchases produce in wholesale or jobbing quantities (and in excess of $230,000 per year), is a ‘dealer’ under 7 U.S.C. § 499a(b)(6).” We find the court’s reasoning persuasive and adopt it. See also In re Country Harvest Buffet Restaurants, Inc., 245 B.R. 650 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.2000) (same); JC Produce, Inc. v. Paragon Steakhouse Restaurants, 70 F.Supp.2d 1119 (E.D.Cal.1999) (same); Royal Foods Co. v. L.R. Holdings, Inc., 1999 WL 1051978 (Bankr.N.D.Cal.1999)(same). But see In re The Italian Oven, Inc., 207 B.R. 839 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.1997) (<HOLDING>). In Magic Restaurants, the Third Circuit

A: holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference
B: holding that where statute is ambiguous deference is appropriately accorded to agencys interpretation
C: holding that an agencys reasonable reading of an ambiguous statute must be affirmed
D: holding paca ambiguous and deferring to agencys interpretation
D.