Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the Department of Labor’s regulations were a permissible interpretation of § 196-d. See N.Y. Lab. Law § 199 (authorizing Department of Labor Commissioner to issue rules and regulations for enforcing state laws governing employers’ payment of wages to employees); Samiento v. World Yacht Inc., 10 N.Y.3d at 79, 854 N.Y.S.2d at 88, 883 N.E.2d 990 (instructing that “Labor Department’s interpretation of a statute it is charged with enforcing is entitled to deference” pursuant to general administrative law principle that “construction given statutes and regulations by the agency responsible for their administration, if not irrational or unreasonable, should be upheld”). See generally Golf v. N.Y. State Dep’t. of Soc. Servs., 91 N.Y.2d 656, 667, 674 N.Y.S.2d 600, 605, 697 N.E.2d 555 (1998) . But no court — state or federal — appears yet
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that agency interpretation which is reasonable is entitled to deference
B. recognizing that deference to an agencys interpretation of the written law is appropriate only when that interpretation is within the written laws language
C. holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference
D. holding that where statute is ambiguous deference is appropriately accorded to agencys interpretation
E. holding that deference is owed to state agencys interpretation of state law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.