Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Penn Central Transportation Company, 944 F.2d 164, 165-66 (3d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 906, 112 S.Ct. 1262, 117 L.Ed.2d 491 (1992). 7 .Id. at 166. 8 . For a discussion of the ownership and operational history of the Reading Terminal, see Reading Company v. City of Philadelphia, 823 F.Supp. 1218, 1222-25 (E.D.Pa.1993). 9 . Conrail has now dropped its motion for summary judgment on the immunity portion of Count II. ConraiTs Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment at 1. The summary judgment motions of the Uni .R. 406, 409 (Sp.Ct.R.R.R.A.1990) (concluding that an interpretation of language in the FSP. is within the Special Court’s jurisdiction); Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Penn Central Corporation, 533 F.Supp. 1351, 1353-55 (Sp.Ct.R.R.R.A.1982) ; Stratford Land and Improvement Company, Inc.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that interpretation of contract documents regulations or a solicitation present no disputed issues of material fact and is a question of law
B. holding that the court had jurisdiction to decide issues relating to the fsp conveyance orders and an agreement entered pursuant to the conveyance orders
C. holding that the interpretation of both conveyance orders and documents is within the jurisdictional grant of  209e2
D. recognizing that deference to an agencys interpretation of the written law is appropriate only when that interpretation is within the written laws language
E. holding erisa plan interpretation is simply one of contract interpretation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.