With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “adopted only after the hazards posed by track conditions were taken into account.” Id. at 674, 113 S.Ct. 1732. As a consequence, the Court held that under the preemption provision of the FRSA, states were precluded from enacting additional regulations which set the maximum speed at a lower level than that set by the FRSA. Id. Numerous decisions following Easterwood, including claims brought by railroad employees under FELA alleging negligence in unsafe train speed, found such claims to be preempted by the FRSA. See, e.g., Waymire v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 218 F.3d 773 (7th Cir.2000); In re Amtrak “Sunset Ltd.'' Train Crash, 188 F.Supp.2d at 1346; Thirkill v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 950 F.Supp. at 1107; Earwood v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 845 F.Supp. 880, 887-88 (N.D.Ga.1993) (<HOLDING>). Although no authority has been cited by

A: holding that excessive speed claims are preempted but refusing to hold that easterwood extends to any state regulation affecting speed of trains in any manner
B: holding that a master conspiracy with subschemes to sell speed was a single conspiracy
C: holding that the old common law duty to moderate train speed  at an extra or ultrahazardous crossing is preempted
D: holding the state law claims were not preempted
A.