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
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 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 holding the state law claims were not preempted 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 holding a state law invalid under obstacle preemption without discussing the scope of the federal statutes expresspreemption clause