Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the rules and regulations for determining fitness of locomotives. Napier v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 272 U.S. 605, 612, 47 S.Ct. 207, 209, 71 L.Ed. 432, 438-39 (1926). This, therefore, excludes state regulation of safety appliances, parts and appurtenances of locomotives. Id. at 613, 47 S.Ct. 207. The United States Supreme Court has indicated that in passing FLIA, Congress intended the Act to occupy the entire field of regulating locomotive equipment. Id. at 611, 47 S.Ct. 207. ¶ 74. While it is clear that FLIA preempts any state regulation of locomotive design, a majority of courts have also found that FLIA preempts common law actions against locomotive operators and locomotive manufacturers. See, e.g., In re W. Va. Asbestos Litigation, 215 W.Va. 39, 592 S.E.2d 818, 822 (2003) ; General Motors Corp. v. Kilgore, 853 So.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding misrepresentation claim to be preempted
B. holding that in a personal injury action against a railroad a report containing the conclusions of a hearing examiner of the public utilities commission regarding an alleged hazardous railroad crossing was obvious hearsay
C. holding breachofcontract claim was preempted
D. holding asbestos claim against railroad preempted by the flia
E. holding employees negligence claim against his employer was preempted by the lmra
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.