With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". urges that the holding in Myrick prevents this court from finding preemption in the absence of a promulgated regulation with respect to propeller guards. Furthermore, according to Sprietsma, Myrick establishes a “stricter” preemption analysis, under which this court must find that his claims are not preempted. See Moore v. Brunswick Bowling & Billiards, 889 S.W.2d 246, 252 (Tex. 1994) (finding early decisions construing the FBSA unpersuasive in light of the decision in Myrick). Having carefully considered Myrick, we find that the facts and reasoning in that case do not preclude a finding of preemption in this case and, in fact, support the determination that Sprietsma’s state common law claims are preempted. See Gracia v. Volvo Europa Truck, N.V., 112 F.3d 291, 296 (7th Cir. 1997) (<HOLDING>). In Myrick, the Supreme Court considered

A: holding that the plaintiffs state commonlaw tort claims were preempted by the national motor vehicle safety act 15 usc 1381 et seq
B: holding plaintiffs product liability claims against windshield retention system manufacturer were preempted by the vehicle safety act and finding that myrick supported this conclusion
C: holding the state law claims were not preempted
D: holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law
B.