With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". In Specialized Carriers & Rigging Association, the Fourth Circuit also recognized that the Regulations do not preempt state law by conflict unless state and federal laws are incompatible, or state laws would decrease highway safety. Id. at 1158. In this case, the state law privileges at issue are compatible with 49 C.F.R. § 391.23(£) and 49 U.S.C. § 508, and therefore do not raise a conflict preemption issue. See 49 U.S.C. § 508(c) (expressly preempting state or local laws that impede the furnishing of safety information). Indeed, courts have applied the privilege under the Regulations along with other statutory and common law privileges in the same case. Dickens v. Werner Enters., No. 1:12CV76, 2012 WL 3061595, at *3, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103850, at *8-10 (N.D.W.Va. July 26, 2012) (<HOLDING>), report and recommendation adopted in part,

A: holding that there is no statutory deliberative process privilege in arizona and declining to create such a privilege under the common law
B: holding that former employees state law claim of fraud brought against his former employer was preempted by labor management relations act
C: holding that defendant is free to claim protections of 49 cfr  39123l and west virginia common law privilege for former employer reports to prospective employers
D: holding that 49 cfr  232103n only applies to unattended equipment left on a grade
C.