Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
step one allows, and perhaps requires, consideration of legislative history in determining “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue”, Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-843; and • an analysis of the additional question we have to answer after Brand X, 545 U.S. at 984: Did the Supreme Court hold in Colony that its interpretation of the key phrase “omits from gross income an amount properly includible therein” is “the only permissible reading” of the statute? We agree with the majority that it is wise for us as a trial court to avoid the issue of what level of deference to give this regulation. See Swallows Holding, Ltd. v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 96, 180-181 (2006) (Holmes, J., dissenting) (listing circuit conflicts), vacated and remanded 515 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2008) . We are particularly cautious about the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that chevron deference is due only when the agency acts pursuant to delegated authority
B. holding ceq regulations entitled to substantial deference
C. holding regulations entitled to chevron deference
D. holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference
E. holding that chevron deference is due only to a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.