Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that “are distinctively incident to the provision of airline service,” and thus necessarily exclude an air carrier’s common law duty to exercise ordinary care. 813 F.Supp. at 517-18. The court opined that extending the pre-emptive reach of Section 1305 to exempt air carriers from “ordinary premises liability” within a terminal building would justify exempting them from the duty to exercise reasonable care in their “downtown ticketing offices,” or in any other facility they owned or operated. Id. at 518. The court found it “impossible to 'discern any 'policy reason” justifying such an illogical result, and concluded that it “is inconceivable that. Congress intended to preempt state common law duties in this context.” Id. See also Margolis v. United Airlines, Inc., 811 F.Supp. at 324 . The Court holds that Section 1305 does not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a negligence claim is not a personal injury tort claim
B. holding that congress did not intend to preempt state common law actions for personal injury based on the negligence of the airline or its employees
C. holding flsa did not preempt state law fraud claim
D. holding that the airline deregulation act preempts claims under the illinois consumer fraud and deceptive business practices act but does not preempt state breach of contract actions
E. holding section 10 of faa is procedural and does not preempt state common law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.