Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
devoid of any evidence that APHIS made determinations that the field tests at issue involved either “new species or organisms or novel modifications that raise[d] new issues.” Likewise, there is no evidence that APHIS considered whether the field tests, notwithstanding the initial application of the “confined field release” exemption, “may have [had] the potential to affect ‘significantly’ the quality of the ‘human environment.’ ” This absence manifests arbitrary and capricious agency action which is inconsistent with the terms used in APHIS’s own regulations, and which violates NEPA. Ctr. for Food Safety, 451 F.Supp.2d at 1183-86 (reviewing similar field test permits and reaching the same conclusion); see also Back Country Horsemen of Am. v. Johanns, 424 F.Supp.2d 89, 99 (D.D.C.2006) . The record contains substantial evidence that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that an agencys interpretation of the scope of its own categorical exclusions is given controlling weight unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the terms used in the regulation quoting alaska ctr for envt v us forest serv 189 f3d 851 857 9th cir1999
B. holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation citation and quotation marks excluded
C. holding that deference is owed to an agencys interpretation of its own categorical exclusion regulations so long as that interpretation is not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation
D. holding that courts should defer to agencys interpretation of its own regulations if not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation
E. holding that a secretarys interpretation of a departments regulation is controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.