With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". criminal statutes at issue. However, appel-lees admitted at oral argument that the pilots could comply with both the Florida criminal statutes and §§ 341-43 without any problem. Moreover, the state statutes here, criminalizing the operation .of commercial airlines while intoxicated, do not stand as an obstacle to the purpose of 18 U.S.C. §§ 341-43 or the federal regulatory scheme, and certainly not in a "facially conclusive" manner. See Crosby, 530 U.S. at 372-73, 120 S.Ct. at 2294. As such, the remainder of our focus will be on the other two types of preemption. 12 . 18U.S.C. §§ 341-43. 13 . The text of § 1(E) of Appendix J, entitled "Preemption of State and local laws,” provides that, 1. Except as provided in subparagraph 2 of this paragraph, these regulation 5, 199 (5th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). 15 . This interpretation might suggest a

A: holding that the narrow scope of the savings clause found in the second sentence of subsection a implied a broad scope of preemption for subsection a because the court concluded the second sentence would hardly have seemed necessary if state law were only narrowly preempted
B: holding that under subsection al as then written the defendant had no right to appeal whether his sentence was supported by evidence presented because he entered into a plea agreement as to the sentence
C: holding that because the first sentence of  45106a expressly limited the preemptive effect to inconsistent state regulation it would not infer a negative pregnant from the second sentence of subsection a that laws other than the specific state criminal laws described would be preempted
D: holding the state law claims were not preempted
A.