Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
statute and thus was invalid. See Felton I, 4 Vet.App. at 369-71; Ozer I, 14 Vet.App. at 263-64. Indeed, as the preceding discussion shows, the Court’s denunciation of the regulation was even stronger in Felton I than in Ozer I. See ibid. Therefore, the Court holds that the Secretary was substantially justified in promulgating the regulation at issue here. See Felton II, 7 Vet.App. at 282-84; Secretary’s Oct. 2002 Mem. at 2 (attesting that Federal Register “contained no discussion of public comments having been solicited or received”). As to the second part of action at the administrative level, VA’s application of the regulation in the instant case, VA and the BVA were bound by law to apply the regulation to the appellant’s claim. See Fugere v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 103, 110 (1990) . Moreover, as in Felton II, “the regulation
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that zoning agency bodies   are not bound by strict rules of evidence
B. holding that agency regulations cannot be applied retroactively unless congress has so authorized the administrative agency and the language of the regulations require it
C. holding that a party is not bound by the testimony of a witness it calls
D. holding that agency is bound by its regulations
E. holding that a panel of this court is bound by a holding of a prior panel but is not bound by a prior panels dicta
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.