Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
rules), practices, routes, services, and facilities of such carriers; and “(2) the construction, acquisition, operation, abandonment, or discontinuance of spur, industrial, team, switching, or side tracks, or facilities even if the tracks are located or intended to be located, entirely in one State, “is exclusive. Except as otherwise provided in this part, the remedies provided under this part with respect to regulation of rail transportation are exclusive and preempt the remedies provided under federal or State law.” 49 U.S.C. § 10102(9)(A) and (B) define “transportation” as used in § 10501(b)(1) to include: “(A) a locomotive, car,' vehicle, vessel, warehouse, wharf, , pier, dock, yard, property, facility, instrumentality, or equipment of any kind related to' th 4 (5th Cir.2001); Pejepscot Indus. Park, Inc. v. Maine Cent.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the iccta preempted claims of negligence and negligence per se with respect to railroads alleged road blockages
B. holding that violation of city ordinance does not constitute negligence per se
C. holding negligence per se not applicable to violation of railroad commission regulation
D. holding that the iccta preempted statelaw negligence and nuisance claims intended to interfere with railroads operation of switchyard
E. holding that the iccta preempted statelaw nuisance claim with respect to operation of side track
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.