With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that this Court has not previously addressed the constitutionally of the BAA’s procedures for adjudicating parking violations. Although our opinion in O’Neill v. City of Philadelphia, 711 A.2d 544 (Pa.Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 556 Pa. 681, 727 A.2d 134 (1998), discussed the BAA’s procedures generally, this Court only went so far as to hold that “there was ... no constitutional or statutory bar to the city by ordinance from transferring the enforcement of all outstanding parking tickets on June 11, 1989 from Traffic Court to the BAA.” Multiple United States Courts of Appeals, however, considering procedures for adjudicating parking violations substantially similar to the BAA’s, have found those procedures to satisfy due process. See Van Harken v. City of Chicago, 103 F.3d 1346 (7th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), appeal denied, 520 U.S. 1241, 117 S.Ct. 1846,

A: holding that alien need not receive actual notice for due process requirements to be satisfied
B: holding chicagos system for adjudicating parking violations satisfied due process
C: holding that chicagos system whichprovided only one level of administrative hearing before appeal to the state courts was sufficient
D: holding columbuss procedures for adjudicating parking violations did not contravene due process
B.