205 F.3d 108, 117 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 121 S.Ct. 56, 148 L.Ed.2d 24 (2000), the Third Circuit, the only appellate court that has addressed the issue, was “constrained by PACA’s unambiguous statutory language to hold that a restaurant ... [that] purchases produce in wholesale or jobbing quantities (and in excess of $230,000 per year), is a ‘dealer’ under 7 U.S.C. § 499a(b)(6).” We find the court’s reasoning persuasive and adopt it. See also In re Country Harvest Buffet Restaurants, Inc., 245 B.R. 650 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.2000) (same); JC Produce, Inc. v. Paragon Steakhouse Restaurants, 70 F.Supp.2d 1119 (E.D.Cal.1999) (same); Royal Foods Co. v. L.R. Holdings, Inc., 1999 WL 1051978 (Bankr.N.D.Cal.1999)(same). But see In re The Italian Oven, Inc., 207 B.R. 839 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.1997) (<HOLDING>). In Magic Restaurants, the Third Circuit
holding that an agencys reasonable reading of an ambiguous statute must be affirmed holding that where statute is ambiguous deference is appropriately accorded to agencys interpretation holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference holding paca ambiguous and deferring to agencys interpretation holding that when a court is asked to construe an ambiguous statute it must defer to the interpretation set out in a regulation promulgated by the agency charged with administering the statute so long as the agencys interpretation is reasonable