P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 08- 4034

F R A N C IS J. F A R IN A , ind iv id u a llya n d o n b e h a lf

of al l thos e s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed

v. NOKI A I NC
. ; NE C A M E RI CA ; E R IC S S O N W IR E L E S S C O M M ., IN C .; M O T O R O L A , IN C .; S P R IN T P C S , L .P .; A U D IO V O X C O M M U N IC A T IO N S C O R P O R A T IO N ;

NE XT E L CO M M UNI CA T I ONS O F T H E M ID -A T L A N T IC , IN C .; M AT S US HI T A C OR P OR AT I ON OF AM E RI CA , a lso k n o w n a s P A N A S O N IC C O R P O R A T IO N ; P H IL IP S E L E C T R O N IC N O R T H A M E R IC A C O R P .;

QU ALC OM M I NC OR PORA TED a l s o k n o wn a s QUA LCOM M , I NC; S A M S U N G T E L E C O M M U N IC A T IO N S A M E R IC A , L .P .; SA N Y O N O R T H A M E R I C A , I N C
. al s o know n as SA N Y O N O RT H A M ER I CA G RO U P; S O N Y E L E C T R O N IC S , IN C .;2 A T & T W IR E L E S S S E R V IC E S , IN C .; CE LLC O PA RT N ER SH I P, a lso k n o w n a s V E R IZ O N W IR E L E S S ; C I N G U L A R W I R E L E SS L L C , al s o know n as SO U T H W E ST E R N B E L L W I R E L E SS formal l yknow n as S O U T H W E S T E R N B E L L M O B IL E S Y S T E M S , N C .;

CE LLU LA R O N E G RO U P, a l s o k n o wn a s CELLULA R O NE; VOI CE S T RE AM WI RE L E S S CO RP OR AT I ON, a l s o k no w n a s V O I CE STR EA M W I RE LESS; L G E L E C T R O N IC S M O B IL E C O M M U .S .A
.. , IN C .; CE L L UL AR T E L E CO M M UNI CA T I ON I NDUS T RY AS S OC I AT I ON, a l s o k n o wn a s T I A;

J O H N D O E S N O S. 1- 100

Fr anci s J
. Far i na,

A pel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D
. C
. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 06- cv- 0724 ( H onor abl e J ohn R
. Padova)T h e H o n o ra b le A rth u r L . A lar c ó n , U n ited S tate s C irc u it * J udge forthe N i nth J udi ci al C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 3 A r gued A pr i l 19, 2010 Be f o r e : S CI RI CA, AM BRO a n d A L A R C Ó N , C i r cui tJudges
. * ( Fi l ed: O ct ober22, 2010) 

### KENN ET H A
. JAC OB SEN, ES QU I RE ( AR GU ED ) 12 Or c har d Lane W a l l i ngfor d, Pe nns yl vani a19086 MI CHAEL D. DONOVAN, ESQUI RE Do no van S ea

rl es 1845 W a lnut

Str e e t , Sui t e 1100 Phi l a de lphi a , Pe nns yl vani a19103 J OSEPH A. O' KEEFE, ESQUI RE O'Keefe &Sh er 15 01 9 Kutzt ow n R oad Kutzt own, Pe nns yl vani a19530 Att orne y s for

Appe l l ant DAVI D C
. FRED ERI CK , ES QU I RE ( AR GU ED ) Kell og g H ub er

Hansen To ddEv ans &Figel 1615 M Str e e t , N. W
. , Sui t e 400 W a s hi ngt on, D. C. 200364 

### SEAMUS C. DUFFY, ESQUI RE D rink er B id d le & R eath On e Log an Square 1 8 & C h erry

S treets th 

### Phi l a de lphi a , Pe nns yl vani a19103 A tto rn ey s f

o r Ap p ellees, AT &T Wire le ss Servic es , Inc. n/k/a N ewC in g u lar Wireless S erv ices, In c.; Cingul ar W i r e l e s s LL C n/k/ aAT & T M ob i l i ty LL C J OHN BEI SNER, ESQUI RE Ska dde n Ar

ps Sl at e Me a ghe r

& Fl om 14 40 New Y ork A venu e, N.W. W a s hi ngt on, D. C. 20005 ROBERT C. HEI M, ESQUI RE RI CHARD D. WALK, JR. , ESQUI RE D ech ert Ci r aCe ntr e , 18 Fl oor th 

### 2 9 2 9 ArchS treet Phi l a de lphi a , Pe nns yl vani a19104 Attorneys for Ap pell ee , C ellco P artn ersh ip d/b /a V erizo nWireless ANDREWG. Mc BRI DE, ESQUI RE J OSHUA S. TURNER, ESQUI RE Wiley R ein 17 76 K S tree t, N.W.5 

### W a s hi ngt on, D. C. 20006 A tto rn ey s f

o r Ap p ellees, C ellco P artn ersh ip d/b /a V erizo nWireless; No kia Inc. DANI EL T. FI TCH, ESQUI RE Str a dl e y Ronon St e ve ns & Young 26 00 On e Comm erceSquare 20 05 Market

Stre et Phi l a de lphi a , Pe nns yl vani a19103 J OHN B. I SBI STER, ESQUI RE Tyding s &Ro se nb erg 100 Ea s t Pr att Str e e t , 26 Fl oor

th 

### Ba l t i m or e , Maryl and 21202 Attorneys for Ap pell ee , Sam s un g T e l e c om

m un i c at i on s Am e ri c a , LL C SUSAN K. HERSCHEL, ESQUI RE Ho yleFickle r Her sc hel &Mathes One South Br oa d Str e e t , Sui t e 1500 Phi l a de lphi a , Pe nns yl vani a19107 EUGENE A. SCHOON, ESQUI RE S id ley Au stin On e South Dear

bo rn Stre et Chi c a go, I l l i noi s 60603 Attorneys for Ap pell ee ,6 

### Voi c e s tr e am

W i r e l e s s Cor

por at i on n/k/a T-Mob il e USA , Inc. EDWARD M. CRANE, ESQUI RE Ska dde n Ar

ps Sl at e Me a ghe r

& Fl om 155 North W a c ke r

Dri ve Chi c a go, I l l i noi s 60606 STEVEN A. HABER, ESQUI RE Ob er m ayer Rebm ann M axwell& Hippel One Pe nn Ce nt e r , 19 Fl oor th 

### 16 17 JohnF. Kenn edy

Bo ulevard Phi l a de lphi a , Pe nns yl vani a19103 A tto rn ey s f

o r Ap p ellees, N ex tel C o mm

un icatio n s o f

th e M id -A tlantic, In c.; N ex tel B o o s t o f

th e M id -A tlantic L L C ; N ex tel West Co r p. ; Ne xt e lBo os t

W e s t LL C JAMES P. ULW I CK, ESQUI RE Kramon& Graham Comm e r c e Pl a c e , Sui t e 2600 On e South Stre et Ba l t i m or e , Maryl and 21202 Attorney fo r App el le e, NE C C orpo rati onof

Am eric a FRANCI S A. CI TERA, ESQUI RE G reenb erg T raurig7 

### 77 W e s t W a c ke r Dri ve , Sui t e 2500 Chi c a go, I l l i noi s 60601 BRI AN T. FEENEY, ESQUI RE G reenb erg T raurig 27 00 Tw o C omm erceSquare 20 01 Market

Stre et Phi l a de lphi a , Pe nns yl vani a19103 FRANCINE F. GRI ESING, ESQUI RE Grie sing Law 1717 Ar c h Str e e t , Sui t e 360 Phi l a de lphi a , Pe nns yl vani a19103 A tto rn ey s f

o r Ap p ellees, Q u alco mm , In c.; So ny Elec tron ic s, Inc. HOWARD D. SCHER, ESQUI RE Bu chanan Ingersoll& Roo ney Two Libe rty

Pl a c e , Sui t e 3200 50 So uth 1 6th S tree t Phi l a de lphi a , Pe nns yl vani a19102 Attorney fo r App el le e, Ce l lul ar One Gr oup WALTER H. SWAYZE, I I I , ESQUI RE Segal McCam

bridge Sing er

& Mahon ey Uni t e d Pl az a , Sui t e 17008 

### 30 So uth 1 7th S tree t Phi l a de lphi a , Pe nns yl vani a19103 Attorney fo r App el le e, Panasonic Corp. of

No rth A m eric a f/k/a Mats ushita

Elec tric Co rporation o f A m eric a DAVI D G. C. ARNOLD, ESQUI RE 915 Mont gom e ry

Ave nue , Sui t e 109 Nar be rth, Pe nns yl vani a19072 LINDA B. EPSTEIN, ESQUI RE Hughe s Hubbar d & Re e d 1775 IStr e e t , N. W
. , Sui t e 600 W a s hi ngt on, D. C. 20006 Attorneys for Ap pell ee , LG Elec tron ic s Mob il ec omm U.S.A., Inc. ROCHELLE M. FEDULLO, ESQUI RE Wi ls onElse r Mosko witzEd elm an & Dic ker T h e C urtis C enter, S u ite 1 1 3 0 E ast In d ep en d en ce S qu are West 60 1 Walnut Stree t Phi l a de lphi a , Pe nns yl vani a19106 Attorney fo r App el le e, Sanyo N orth Am eric a, Inc. ASHLEY R. ADAMS, ESQUI RE A k inGum

p S trau ss H au er & F eld9 

### 1111 Loui s i anaStr e e t , 44th Fl oor Hous t on, Te xa s 77002 FRED I
. W I LLI AMS, ESQUI RE A k inGum

p S trau ss H au er & F eld 300 W e s t Si xth Str e e t , Sui t e 2100 Aus t i n, Te xa s 78701 STEVEN M. ZAGER, ESQUI RE A k inGum

p S trau ss H au er & F eld On e Bryant Par

k Ne w Yor k, Ne w York 10036 Attorneys for Ap pell ee , No kia, Inc. WALTER L. Mc DONOUGH, ESQUI RE S w artz C am

p b ell Two Libe rty

Pl a c e , 28 Fl oor

th 

### 50 So uth 1 6th S tree t Phi l a de lphi a , Pe nns yl vani a19102 Attorney fo r App el le e, Spri nt Cor p. STEPHAN G. W EI L, ESQUI RE Dickst ein S hapiro 18 25 Eye Stree t, N.W. W a s hi ngt on, D. C. 2000610 

### CRAI G E. ZI EGLER, ESQUI RE Mont gom e ry

Mc Cr a c ke n W a l ke r

& Rhoa ds 123 South Br oa d Str e e t , 24 Fl oor th 

### Phi l a de lphi a , Pe nns yl vani a19109 Attorneys for Ap pell ee , Audi ovox Comm

uni c at i ons Cor

por at i on MARK A. ARONCHI CK, ESQUI RE ROBERT L. EBBY, ESQUI RE H an g ley Aro n ch ickS eg al & P u d lin One Logan Squar e , 27 Fl oor th 

### 1 8 & C h erry

S treets th 

### Phi l a de lphi a , Pe nns yl vani a19103 CHARLES L. BABCOCK, ESQUI RE DAVI D T. MORAN, ESQUI RE Ja ckson Walker 901 Ma i n Str e e t , Sui t e 6000 Da l l a s , Te xa s 75202 Attorneys for Ap pell ee , Eric ss onInc. RAYMOND B. BI AGINI , ESQUI RE LI SA M. NORRETT, ESQUI RE Mc Ke nnaLong & Al dri dge 19 00 K S tree t, N.W. W a s hi ngt on, D. C. 2000611 

### MARY C. DOHERTY, ESQUI RE M arsh all D enn eh ey

Warn er C o lem an& G o g g in 1845 W a lnut

Str e e t , 21 Fl oor

st 

### Phi l a de lphi a , Pe nns yl vani a19103 Attorneys for Ap pell ee , Phi l ips El e c tr oni c s North Am e ri c aCor por at i on ROBERT E. W ELSH, JR. , ESQUI RE We ls h & Recker 2000 Marke t

Str e e t , Sui t e 2903 Phi l a de lphi a , Pe nns yl vani a19103 Attorney fo r App el le e, Ce l lul ar Te l e c omm

uni c at i on I ndus try

As s oc i at i on TERRENCE J
. DEE, ESQUI RE MI CHAEL B. SLADE, ESQUI RE K irk lan d& E llis 300 North La Sa l l e Str e e t , Sui t e 2400 Chi c a go, I l l i noi s 60654 Attorneys for Ap pell ee , Mo torola Inc. JAMES M. MESNARD, ESQUI RE Se yfarth S haw 9 7 5 F S treet, N .W. W a s hi ngt on, D. C. 20004 Attorney fo r App el le e, Te l e c omm

uni c at i ons I ndus try

As s oc i at i on12 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

S C IR IC A , C i r cui tJudge
. A ppel l antFr anci s J
. Far i na br ought thi s cl as s act i on agai ns tvar i ous cel l phone manufactur er s and r et ai l er s of w i r el es s handhel d t el ephones
. H e appe al s fr om the di s m i s s al of hi s complaint on t he gr ound thathi s cl ai m s ar e pr eempt ed by r egul at i ons pr o m u l gat ed bythe Feder al C om m uni cat i ons Co mmi s s i o n . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I
. F a rin a re p re se n ts a p u tativ e c las s c o n sis tin g o f a ll p a st, c u rre n t, an d f

u tu re P e n n sy lv a n ia p u rc h a se rs a n d les se e s o f c e ll phones w ho have not been diagnos e d w ith an inj uryor i l l ness r es ul t i ng fr om thei r cel l phone us age. Far i na’ s cl ai m s ar e bas ed o n the a ll eg ati o n that ce ll p h o n es, as c u rren tl ym an u fa cture d , are u n saf e to b e o p era ted w ith o u t hea d s e ts be ca u se th e c u stom ary m anneri n w hi ch they ar e us ed— w i th the us erhol di ng the phone s o thatthe ant enna i s pos i t i oned nextt o hi s head— expos es the us ert o danger ous amount s of r adi o fr equenc y( “R F”) r adi at i on. F ari na all eges t he m arket i ng of ce ll p h on es as s afe fo r use w ith o u t h e a d se ts v io late s s e v e ra l p ro v isio n s o f P e n n sy lv a n ia la w .T h e p o w e r le v e l o f a c e ll p h o n e , m e a su re d in w a tts, is 1 c o rr e la te d w ith th e ra n g e o f a c e ll p h o n e s ig n a l. See NPR R ur al , 1 8 F .C .C .R . a t 2 0 8 2 9 (“ O n e w a y to in c re a se th e ra n g e o f ra d io sy st em s i s byi ncreasi ng po w er l evels
. ” ); i d. at20830 ( “[R]e cei ved s i gnal l evel s decr ea s e e x p o n ent i al l yas the r ece i ver mo v e s f a r th e r f r o m t h e tr a n s mi t t e r. . . . ” )
. Th e i n t e n s i tyo f RF ra d ia tio n is m e a s u re d in w a tts p e r k ilo g ra m . See 4 7 C .F .R . § 2 .1 0 9 3 (d ). T h u s, th e in ten sityo f R F ra d iatio n is c o rre late d w ith th e p o w e r l e v e l a n d , th e re f o re , ra n g e . See ge ner al l y F CC, O ff ice o f E n g inee ri n g & T e ch n o log y , Q u esti o n s an d A n sw ers about Bi o l o g i c a l Ef f e c t s a n d Po t ent i al H aza r ds of R adi ofr equenc yE l ectr om agnet i c Fi el ds , O E T B ul l
. N o. 56, 5–6 13 A
. A cel l phone f

u nct i ons bytr ans m i t t i ng i nform at i on betw een i t s l ow - pow er ed r adi o tr ans m i t t erand a b ase st at i on, u s u a lly a to w e r c o n ta in in g a la rg e a n t e n n a . S e e g e n e ra lly P i nney v . N

oki a, I nc. , 4 0 2 F
. 3 d 4 3 0 , 4 3 9

– 4 0 (4th C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). E ach ba s e s t at i on r eac hes a re l at i vel y s m al l ar ea, orcel l , and as a user m ov es fr om cel l t o cell , the si gn al m usttransferfrom base s ta tio n to b a s e s ta tio n . I d. at440
. W hen ce l l phones c o m m u n ic a te w ith b a s e s ta tio n s , th e y e m it R F e n e rg y . Id

. T he s t r e n g th o f a c e l l p h o n e s i g n a l , a n d h e n c e i t s r a n g e , has been p o s itiv e ly co rr e la te d w ith th e in te n s ity o f its R F e m is s io n s . See In re R ural Tel eph on e C os. , 18 F. C
. C
. R
. 20802, 20829 & n. 114 (20 0 3 ) [h e re inaf

ter N PR R ur al ] ( not i ce of pr opos ed rulem ak ing ). 1( 4 t h e d
. A u g . 1 9 9 9 ), a v a i l abl e at ht tp: //w w w . fcc
. gov/ B ur eaus / E ngi neer i ng_T echnol o g y/ D ocum ent s /bul l et i ns / oet 56/ oet 56e4. pdf. 14 T he s ci ence i s cl earthatathi gh l evel s R F r adi at i o n can caus e adve r s e “therm al” effect s r es ul t i ng fr om the hea t i ng of h u m a n tis s u e . S e e g e n e ra lly FC C , O ffi ce of E nginee r i ng & T e c h n o lo g y , Q u e stio n s a n d A n sw e rs a b o u t B io lo g ica l E f f e c ts a n d P o ten tial H a z a rd s o f R a d io f re q u e n c yE lec tro m a g n e tic Fi el ds , O E T B ul l
. N o. 56, 6–7 ( 4th ed. A ug. 1999) [her ei naft er O E T B u lle tin ], avai l a b l e at ht tp: //w w w . fcc
. gov/ B u reaus / E ngi neer i ng_T echnol ogy/ D ocum ent s /bul l et i ns / oet 56/ oet 56e4. pdf. M or e contr over s i al i s the purpor t ed exi s t ence of “non- therm al ” ef fec t s cau sed byl ow er l ev el s of R F r adi at i on. Far i na al l eges thatoverthe pas tfi ve d ec ad es “ d o ze n s o f p e er rev iew ed rese arc h p ap ers w ere publ i s hed w hi ch, i ndi vi dual l yand col l ect i vel y , r ai s ed s er i ous a n d c re d ib le q u e stio n s re g a rd in g w h e th e r th e R F [ ra d iatio n ] to w hi ch [c el l phone] u sers w er e and a r e expos ed pos ed a r i s k or th r e a t to th e ir h e a lth .” T h ird A m . C o m p l. ¶ 5 1 ; see al so i d. ¶¶ 79–86, 90–98 ( des cr i bi ng fi ndi n g s from num er ous s tudi es and l abor at oryt es t s )
. A ccor di n g t o the FC C , how ever , “the evi dence f o rp r o d u c t i o n o f

h a r mf u l b i o l o g i c a l e f

f e c t s [ f r o m l o w- l e v e l RF r adi at i on] i s ambi guous and unpr oven. ” O E T B ul l et i n 8. R es ul t s fr om s tudi es have be en “i nconcl us i ve, ” and “ w hi l e the p o ss ib ili tyo f

‘n o n -th e rm a l’ b io lo g ica l ef f e c ts m a ye x ist, w h e th e r o r n o t su c h e f f e c ts m ig h t in d ica te a h u m a n h e a lth haza r d i s notpr es ent l yknow n. ” I d. In lig h t o f

th e p re se n t sta te15 o f th e sc ien c e , the F C C h a s s tate d th a t an yc e ll p h o n e leg a lly s ol d i n t he U ni t ed St at es i s a “s afe ” phone. A pp. 691. B
. Fed era l r eg u lat ion o f ra d io co m m u n icati ons can be tr ace d back a century , t o the W i r el es s S h ip A ct of 1910, ch. 379, 36 S ta t. 6 2 9
. See N

at ’ l B r oad. C o. v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 319 U
. S. 190, 210 ( 1943)
. Feder al contr ol overthe medi um w as ext ended by the R adi o- C om m uni cat i ons A ctof 1912, ch. 287, 37 St at
. 302, w h ich m a n d a ted f

e d e ra l l ic e n sin g o f

th e u se o f

ra d io f r e q u e n c i e s , N

at ’ lB r oad. C o. , 319 U
. S. at210, and w as cement ed bythe Feder al C om m uni cat i ons A ct of 1934, ch. 652, 4 8 S ta t. 1 0 6 4 (“ F C A ” ), N at ’ lB r oad. C o. , 319 U
. S
. at213–14. T h e F C A w a s e n a c ted “ [ f ]o r th e p u rp o se o f re g u latin g in ter sta te and f o re i gn com m erce i n co m m un i cat i on byw i re and radi o so as t o m ake av ail abl e . . . a r api d, eff i ci ent , N at i on- w i de, and w o rld -w id e w ire a n d ra d io c o m m u n ica tio n se rv ice w ith adequa t e faci l i t i es atr eas onabl e cha r ges . . . . ” 47 U
. S. C
. § 151. T o that end, the FC A es t abl i s hed the FC C , w hi ch w as endow ed w ith b ro a d a u th o rityto li c e n s e a n d re g u late ra d io c o m m u n ic a tio n s . See Nat ’ lB r oad. C o. , 3 1 9 U .S . a t 2 1 4

– 1 6
. T he FC C ’ s j ur i s di ct i on ext ends t o w i r el es s t el ephone s e rv ic e , s ee I

n r e A n I nqui r y Into the U

s e of the Bands 825–845 MHz a n d 8 7 0

– 8 9 0 MHz f

o rCe l l u la rCo mmu n i c a t i o n s S y s t e ms , 8 6 F
. C
. C
. 2 d 4 6 9 , 4 7 0 (19 8 1 ) [h ere inaf ter C el l ularC om m c’ ns ], a n d F C C a u th o rity o v e r th e tec h n ica l a sp e c ts o f ra d io comm uni cat i ons i s “exc l us i ve, ” He a d v . N .M

. B d . o f E x a m ’rs in16 O ptom etry , 374 U
. S. 424, 430 n. 6 ( 1963)
. T he FC C i s char ged w i th fos t er i ng the deve l opm entof an e ffi ci entw i r el es s netw or k, 47 U
. S. C
. § 151, and an e s s ent i al c h aract er i s t i c of a n eff i ci ent n e tw o rk is n a tio n w id e a c c e s s ib ility a n d c o m p a tib ility, s ee C el l ularC om m c’ ns , 86 F. C
. C
. 2d at503 ( “T h rou g houtthe cel l u larpr ocee di ng an es s ent i al obj ect i ve has been f orcel l ul ar s e rv ic e to b e d e s ig n e d to a c h ie v e n a tio n w id e c o m p a tib ility. . . . [A ] cel l u lar su bs cr i bertr avel i ng out s i de of hi s orherl ocal s ervi ce a r ea s houl d be abl e t o com m uni cat e overa ce l l ul ar s y s t em i n another ci ty . ”)
. M or eover , the FC C has l ong as s ert ed that uni form i tyi n the t echn i cal st and ards gov erni ng w i rel ess s e r v i c e s i s n e c e s s a r yt o e n s u r e a n e f f i c i e n tn a t i o n wi d e s y s t e m. See i d. at504–05 ( “[W ] e ar e as s ert i ng fede r al pr i m acyoverthe ar eas of t echni cal s t andar ds and compet i t i v e ma r kets tructur e for c e llu lar se rv ice .”); see al so I n r e Pet i t i on of

the C onn. D ep ’t P ub. Ut i l

. C ontr ol , 10 F
. C
. C
. R
. 70 25 , 70 34 (1995 ) ( “C on gress i nt ended .
. . t o es t abl i s h a n a tio n a l r egul at orypol i cyfor [ c o m m e rc ial m o b ile ra d io se rv ice s], n o t a p o licyth a t is b a lk a n iz e d s ta te -b y -s ta te .” (f o o tn o te o m itte d ))
. T he FC C has r egul at ed human expos ur e t o R F em i s s i ons o n ly sinc e 19 8 5
. S e e In re R e sp o n sib ili ty o f th e F.C .C . to C on side rB i ol ogi cal

E f f ect s of R adi of r equenc y Radi at i on , 100 F .C
. C
. 2 d 5 4 3 , 5 4 4 (19 8 5 ) [h ere inaf ter R e sp o n sib ili ty ]
. T he FC C ’ s R F r egul at i ons w er e pr om ulgat ed t o s at i s fythe C om m i s s i on’ s obl igat i ons underthe N at i onal E nvi r onm ent alA l tho ug h R F s t a nd a r ds w e r e i s s ue d t o s a t i s fyN EPA 2 obl i gat i ons , the r egul at i ons w er e pr om ul gat ed pur s uantt o the FC C ’ s rul emaki ng author i tyunder , i nt eral i a, 47 U
. S. C
. §§ 1 5 4 (i ) an d 3 0 3 (r)
. I n p a r t i c ul a r , t he F CC h a s s o l i c i t e d g u i d a n c e o n i t s RF 3 r egul at i ons fr om the Food and D rug A dm i ni s tr at i on, the E nvi r onm ent al Pr ot ect i on A gency , the O ccupa t i onal Safetyand H eal th A dm i ni s tr at i on, the N at i onal Ins t i tut e forO ccupa t i onal Safetyand H eal th, the N at i onal T el ecomm uni cat i ons and I nform at i on A dm i ni s tr at i on, and the D epart m entof D efe ns e. See O E T B ul l et i n 27. 17 Pol i cyA ctof 1969 ( “N E PA ”) , 42 U
. S. C
. §§ 4321 et s eq . 2 N E P A o b lig a tes a ll fe d e ra l ag e n c ies

— n o t ju st th e F C C

— to co n side r an d iden ti fy the en v ir o n m en tal im p ac t o f an y“m ajor” a c t i o n th a t“ s i g n i f

i c a n t l ya f

f e c t [ s ] th e q u a l i tyo f

th e hum an envi r onm ent
. ” 42 U
. S. C
. § 4332( 2) ( C )
. A l though the FC C does notpos s es s i ndi vi d ual agenc yexpert i s e w i th r es pectt o the d e v e lo p m e n t o f

p u b lic h e a lth a n d s a f e ty sta n d a rd s , see R e sp o n sib ili ty , 100 F. C
. C
. 2d at551, the C om m i s s i on concl uded thatN E PA obl i gat ed i t t o r egul at e R F r adi at i on, s ee i d. at546. A ft ers eeki ng i nput fr om other fede r al agenc i es and i nt er es t ed 3 parti es, t he FC C adopt ed as i t s ow n s t andar d the then- curr ent A m er i can N at i onal St andar ds I ns t i tut e C om m i t t ee ( “A N SI ”) s ta n d a rd g o v e rn in g R F e m is s io n s . I d. at 5 5 1
. N otabl y , these r egul at i ons di d notext end t o cel l phones
. See id

. a t 5 6 1

– 6 2
.18 In 1 9 9 3 , p ro m p ted b yA N S I’s re v isio n o f its sta n d a rd s in c o llab o ra tio n w ith th e In stitu te o f E lec trica l an d E lec tro n ic E ngi n ee rs, Inc
. (“IE E E ”), th e F C C b eg an rul emaki ng pr ocedur es to d e te rm in e w h e th e r i t s h o u ld s tr e n g th e n its re g u la tio n s . S ee In r e G ui del i nes f

orE val uat i ng the Envi r onm ent a l E f f ect s of R adi of r equenc y Radi at i on , 8 F. C
. C
. R
. 2849, 2849 ( 1993) [h ere inaf ter N PR F C CF i rs tO r der ] ( not i ce of pr opos ed rul ema ki ng)
. A m ong the pr opos ed cha nges w as the ext ens i on o f R F re g u la tio n s to c o v e r c e ll p h o n e s . I d. at 2851. D ur i ng the pendenc yof thi s not i ce- and- comm ent per i od, C ongr es s pas s ed the Tel ecomm uni cat i ons A ct of 1996 ( “TC A ”) , w hi ch di r ect ed the FC C t o “make eff

ect i ve rul es r egar di ng the envi r onm ent al ef fe cts o f [ R F ] em issi o n s” w ith in 1 8 0 d ay s o f th e T C A ’s enac t me n t
. Pu b
. L. No. 1 0 4

- 1 0 4 , § 7 0 4 ( b ) , 1 1 0 St a t
. 5 6 , 1 52. I n addi t i on, the T C A expande d the FC C ’ s author i tyt o pr eempt ce rt ain st ate an d loca l reg u lat ion s o f R F em issi o n s . See 47 U .S .C . § 3 3 2 (c ). I n r es pons e t o the TC A , the FC C adopt ed a hybr i d of the A N SI / I E E E s t andar d and the s t andar d r ecomm ended bythe N a tio n a l C o u n c il o n R a d iatio n P ro tec tio n a n d M e a su re m e n ts (“ N C R P ” ). See I

n r e G ui del i nes for E val uat i ng the E nvi r onm entalE

f f ect s of R adi of r equenc y Radi at i on , 11 F
. C
. C
. R
. 1 5 1 2 3 , 1 5 1 3 4

– 3 5 , 1 5 1 4 6

– 4 7 (19 9 6 ) [h ere inaf ter FCC F i rs tO r der ]
. T hes e r egul at i ons , r efl ec ti n g a “c ons ens us vi ew of the fe der al agenc i es re sp o ns i bl e form att er s r el at i ng t o the publ i c s afe tyand hea l th, ” i d. at 15124, l i m i ted R F emi s s i ons f ro m c e ll p h o n e s f

o r t h e f ir s t tim e , i d. at 15 1 4 6

– 4 7
. InT h e A N SI / I E E E and N C R P st andar ds dr ew di s t i nct i ons 4 b e tw e e n e x p o su re in “ o c c u p a tio n a l”/“ c o n tro lled ” e n v iro n m e n ts and expos ur e i n “gene r al popul at i on”/ “ u n c o n t r o l l ed” e n v i r o n me n t s , w h i c h we r e s u b s e q u e n t l ya d o p t e d b yth e F CC. I d. at 15 1 3 9
. T h e o cc u p ati o n al/ co n tr o ll ed ex p o su re stan d ard a p p lies to in d iv id u a ls e x p o se d a s a re su lt o f th e ir e m p lo ym e n t, w ho are f

u l l yaw are of po ssi ble expo sure, and can ex erci se c o n tr o l o v e r i t. I

d. T he genera l popul at i on/uncontr ol l ed exp osure st a n d a rd appli es t o the gen eral pu bli c or tho se ind ividu als ex p o sed as a resu lto f th eir em p loym e n t w h o are e ith e r u n a w a re o f

e x p o su re o r c a n n o t ex e rc ise c o n tro l o v e r it. I d. T he SA R m axi m um forgener al popul at i on/uncontr oll ed 5 exp osure con t ai ns exem pti on s for exp osure t o the han ds, w ri st s, fee t , and ankl es , atw hi ch the s pat i al peak SA R i s 4 W / kg, as av era g ed o v er an y 1 0 g ram s o f ti ssu e. 4 7 C
. F
. R
. § 2
. 1 0 9 3 (d)(2 ). 19 p a rticu lar , the F C C a d o p ted a m a x im u m sp e c if ic a b so rp tio n ra te (“ S A R ” )— w h ich m e a su re s th e a m o u n t o f e n e rg ya b so rb e d in hum an t i s s ue— i n “uncontr ol l ed ” envi r onm ent s of 0. 08 4 w a tts /k ilo g ra m (W /k g ) a s a v e ra g e d o v e r th e w h o le -b o d ya n d 1 .6 W / k g s p a t i a l p e a k a s a v e r a g e d o v e r a n y 1 g r a m o f t i s s u e , as m e a s u re d f

o r f re q u e n c i e s b e tw e e n 1 0 0 k H z a n d 6 G H z . I d. at 1 5 1 4 0

– 4 1 , 1 5 1 4 6

– 4 7 ; see al so 47 C
. F. R
. § 2. 1093( d) ( 2)
. T he 5 Co mmi s s i o n r e c o g n i z e d th a tr e s e a r c h o n th e s a f e tyo f RF ra d iatio n w a s o n g o in g , an d p led g e d to m o n ito r th e sc ien c e “ in o rd e r to e n su re th a t o u r g u id e lin e s c o n tin u e to b e a p p ro p ria te20 a n d s c i e n t i f

i c a l l yv a l i d
. ” F C CF i rs tO r der , 11 F. C
. C
. R
. at 15 12 5. T he F C C reaffi rm ed the st and ards r el evan tt o thi s case o n e y e a r l a te r. See I

n r e Proce dur es f

orR evi ew i ng R eques t

s f or R el i ef Fr om Stat e and Local

R egul a ti ons , 12 F. C
. C
. R
. 13494, 1 3 5 0 5 (19 9 7 ) [h ere inaf ter F C CSecond O r der ]
. T he curr ent sta n d a rd s a re c o d if

ied a t 4 7 C .F .R . § 2 .1 0 9 3 (d ), an d a ll ce ll ph on es sol d in the U nit ed S t at es m ustcom plyw ith those r egul at i ons , 47 C
. F. R
. §§ 2. 803( a) ( 1) , 24. 51–. 52. C
. T h e co m p lai n t b ef

o re us in this ap p ea l i s F arina ’s T h ir d A m e n d e d C o m p lain t. T h e p ro c e d u ra l h isto ryo f th is c a se is com plex, w i nd i ng throug h st at e c ou rt , tw o f e de r a l dis tri ctcou rt s, and the J udi ci al Panel on M ul t i di s tr i ctL i t i gat i on. B eca us e the sp ec if ic s o f th e p roc ed u ral hist o ryare im p li ca ted b yF arina ’s c h a llen g e to o u r su b

jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n , w e se t th e m o u t in d e tail. Far i na i ni t i al l ybr oughtthi s p u tat i ve cl as s act i on i n the P h i l a d e l p h i a Co u n tyCo u r to f Co mmo n P l e a s , a s s e r t i n g c l a i ms for : ( 1) ci vi l cons pi r acy t o m arketand s el l defe ct i ve ce l l phones bycol l ect i ve m ea n s , i ncl udi ng the s uppr es s i on of i nform at i on re g a rd in g th e h e a lth risk s o f R F e m iss io n s a n d th e d e lib e ra te m i s l eadi ng of the publ i c as t o thos e r i s ks ; ( 2) br eac h of i m pl i ed w arrant i es of m er chant abi l i tyand fi tnes s fora part i cul ar p u rp o se , o n th e g ro u n d th a t c e ll p h o n e s s o ld w ith o u t h e a d se ts w er e uns afe t o us e; ( 3) br eac h of expr es s w arr antyof s afe us age; ( 4) vi ol at ion of the M agnus on- M os s W arr antyI m pr ovementFar i na has s i nce vol unt ar i l ydi s m i s s ed th is c lai m , o n the 6 bas i s of our hol di ng i n H untv. U

. S. Tobacco C o. , 538 F. 3d 217 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ). T h e G e o rg ia c a s e , G i m

pel s on v. N oki a, I nc. , w as pendi ng at 7 the tim e o f th e initi al co n so li d atio n , s e e In re W ire les s T e l. R adi o Fr equenc

y E m is s i ons P r ods

. Li ab. Li t ig. , 170 F. Supp. 2d 1 3 5 6 , 1 3 5 7 n .2 (J. P .M .L . 2 0 0 1 ), b u t w a s s u b se q u e n tly cons ol i dat ed as a t ag- al ong act i on. 21 A ct , 15 U
. S
. C
. §§ 23 01 –1 2, on the b asi s of b reach of ex press a n d im p lied w a rra n ties ; (5 ) v io latio n o f th e P e n n sy lv a n ia U n f

a ir T rad e P rac ti ce s an d C o n su m er P rote c tio n L aw ; an d (6) a 6 ju d g m e n t u n d e r th e P e n n s ylv a n ia D e c lar a to ryJu d g m e n ts A c t, 4 2 P a . C o n s . S ta t. § 7 5 3 1 , et s eq . , declar i ng that defend ants ’ c o n d u c t v io late d P e n n sy lv a n ia la w a n d re q u irin g d e f e n d a n ts to a w a rd th e c la s s m e m b e rs w ith h e a d s e ts
. Far i n a fi l ed hi s i ni t i al compl ai nton A pr i l 19, 2001. D efe ndant s s ubs equent l yr emoved t he ca s e t o the U ni t ed St at es D istri ct C o u rtfo r the E astern D istri ct of P en n sy lvan ia. F arina ’s c a se w a s o n e o f a se t o f p a ra llel c a se s a lleg in g d e f e c ts in c e ll p h o n es a ri sing fro m the h e alth ri sk s o f R F rad iat ion that w ere br oug h ti n s t a t e c o u r t s i n Pe n n s y l v a n i a , M a ry l a n d , New Y o r k, G eor gi a, and Loui s iana
. T he ca s es w er e cons ol i dat ed bythe 7 J udi ci al Panel on M ul t i di s tr i ctL i t i gat i on and tr ans ferr ed t o the U ni t ed S tat es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof M ary l and (“ M a r yl a n d c o u rt ” ). I n r e W i r el es s Tel

. R adi o Fr equenc y22 E m is s i ons P r ods

. Li ab. Li t ig. , 1 7 0 F. Su p p . 2 d 1 3 5 6 , 1358 (J. P
. M
. L
. 2 0 0 1 ). F o u r of thes e cas es, i n clud ing F arina ’s, w ere r emoved t o fede r al courton the bas i s of fe der al -ques t i on ju ri s d ic tio n . T h e L o u is ia n a c a s e , N a q u in v . N

o k ia Mo b ile P hones , I

nc. , w as r emoved on the bas i s of di ver s i tyj ur i s di ct i on. T he pl ai nt i ffs i n al l cas es , exce ptforthe N a q u in pl ai nt i ffs , fi l ed a c o n so lid a ted m o tio n to re m a n d b e f o re th e M a r y lan d c o u rt. T he court d eni ed the mot i on, concl udi ng thatfede r al

- ques t i on ju ri s d ic tio n w a s ra is e d b y th e is s u e o f f e d e ra l p re e m p tio n . In re W i r el es s Tel

. R adi o Fr equenc y Em is s i ons P r ods

. Li ab. Li t ig. , 216 F. Supp. 2d 474, 491–92 ( D
. M d. 2002)
. T he courtthen g r a n t e d th e d e f

e n d a n t s ’ mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s , c o n c l u d i n g th a tF CC re g u la tio n s o f R F e m is s io n s p re e m p te d th e p la in tif f s ’ s u it. In re W i r el es s Tel

. R adi o Fr equenc y Em is s i ons P r ods

. Li ab. Li t ig. , 2 4 8 F
. S u p p . 2 d 4 5 2 , 4 6 7 (D
. M d
. 2 0 0 3 ). T he plai nt i ffs appea l ed t o the C our tof A ppeal s forthe F o u rt h C ir c u it, w h ic h re v e rs e d
. P i nney , 402 F.3d a t439. T he courtfound subj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on l acki ng forthe pl ai nt i ffs

— i ncl udi ng Far i na— i n the ca s es otherthan N a q u in
. I d. at451. I n part i cul ar , the i s s ue of fede r al pr eempt i on di d not a rise o n th e f

a c e o f a “ w e ll-p lea d e d c o m p lain t,” b u t m e re ly cons t i tut ed an a nt i ci pat ed af fi r m at i ve def

ens e, w hi ch coul d not c o n f e r j u ri s d ic tio n . I

d. at445–46. I ts i m i l ar l yr ej ect ed a p p lica tio n o f

th e ju risd ic ti o n a l d o c trin e o f c o m p lete p re e m p tio n . I

d. at 451. H ow ever , forthe N a q u in pl ai nt i ffs , the courtr eac hed the mer i t s of the pr eempt i on i s s ue— as ithad j u r i s d i c t i o n o n th e b a s i s o f d i v e r s i ty
— a n d c o n c l u d e d th e F CA ,T hi s i ns i s t ence w as os t ens i bl ydue t o Pa. R
. C iv. P
. 1714, 8 w hi ch r equi r es courtappr o v al f o rthe di s cont i nuat i on of any c la s s a c tio n . 23 a s a m e n d e d b yth e T C A , d id n o t p re e m p t th e s e c la im s . I d. at 459. A ccor di ngl y , beca us e the Four th C i r cui tconcl uded fede ral j uri sdi ct i on did not exi stov er Fari na’s cl ai m s, his case wa s r e ma n d e d b a c k t o th e Co u r to f Co mm o n P l e a s . On D e c e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 5 , F a rin a f iled a S e c o n d A m e n d e d C o m p lain t, a d d in g , fo r th e f

ir st tim e , L G E lec tro n ics , In c ., a K o re a n c e ll p h o n e ma n u f

a c tu r e r , a n d i t s Am e r i c a n s ubs i d i a ry , LG E l ectr oni cs U
. S. A
. , I nc. ( col l ect i vel y , “L G defe ndant s ”)
. T he compl ai ntw as s erved on D ece m ber27, and no def endants ought rem o v al w ith in thirtyd ay s, as re q u ir ed b y 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 4 4 6 (b). Sh o rt lyaft erthe fi l i ng of the Second A m ended C om pl ai nt, L G defe ndant s ’ couns el al l egedl yappr oache d Far i na’ s couns el , s eeki ng t o d rop the l i s t ed LG corpor at i ons fr om the s ui t

— w ho pu rpo rt edl yhad no conne ct i on t o the m anufa ctur e orr et ai l of cel l phones

— and s ubs t i tut e a di ffe r ent A m er i can su b sidiary , L G E lectron ics M o b il eC o m m U
. S
. A
. , I nc. ( “LG M obi l eC om m ”)
. A ccor di ng t o Far i na, hi s couns el hes i t at ed t o amend t he compl ai nt , as i thad fi l ed the Second A m ended Com pl ai ntonl ythr ee w eeks pr i or , and soughti ns t ead to f ile a P ra e c ip e to A m e n d C a p tio n a n d S u b stitu te P a rty . B u t, as Far i na al l eges , L G defe ndant s ’ couns el i ns i s t ed upon a f or m al am en d ed co m p lai n t, an d F arina ac q u iesce d , fil ing the T h ir d 8T he D i s tr i ct C our t l i s t ed the dat e of the tr ans feras J une 26. 9 A ccor di ng t o the docke t , the tr ans feror derappea r s t o have be en i s s ued on J une 20. 24 A m ended Com pl ai nton February9, 2006. T he Thi r d A m ended C o m p lain t w a s id e n tica l to th e S e c o n d A m e n d e d C o m p lain t in al l m at er i al r es pect s , w i th the exc ept i on of the r epl ace m entof L G d e f e n d a n ts w ith L G M o b ile C o m m . A ltho ug h L G defe nd a n ts h a d n o t re m o v e d th e c a se w ith in thi r tyday s of the dat e t hey w er e added t o the Second A m ended C o m p lai n t, L G M o b il eC o m m rem o v ed the a cti o n o n F eb rua ry 1 7 , 2 0 0 6

— w ell w ith in 3 0 d ay s o f th e f ilin g o f th e T h ir d A m ended Com pl ai nt

— as s ert i ng j ur i s di ct i on exist ed underthe C la s s A c tio n F a irn e ss A c t, 28 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 2 (d ). D e f e n d a n ts then s oughtto st aythe pr ocee di ngs pendi ng a tr ans fert o the J udi ci al Panel on M ul t i di str i ctL i t i gat i on, w hi ch the D i s tr i ct C our t gr ant ed on M ar ch 22. T he cas e r eturned t o the J u d ici al P anel on M ult i dis tri ctL i t i gati on , w hich transferred the case back t o th e M a r y l a n d c o u r t o n J u n e 2 0
. Fa r i n a h a d f i l ed a 9 M ot i on t o V aca t e C ondi t i onal T r an sferO r derpr i ort o the tr ans fert o the M ary l and court , bas ed pr i m ar i l yon the abs ence o f fe der al s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on. T he J udi ci al Panel on M u lti d istric t L iti g a tio n d id n o t a d d re ss th e ju risd ictio n a l issu e in its tra n sf e r o rd e r, sta tin g “ [ t]h e p e n d in g m o tio n to re m a n d to s t at e courtcan b e pre s ent ed t o and dec i ded bythe tr ans fer ee j udge. ” A pp. 331. O n N ovember 10, Far i na fi l ed an A m endedAs th e Di s tr i c tCo u r tr e c o g n i z e d, t h e r e i s s o me 10 di s agr eementas t o w hen the mot i on forr ema n d w as fi l ed. Def e n d a n t s a r g u e d b e l o w t h a tth e Nov e mbe r1 0 mot i on cons t i tut ed the i ni t i al m ot i on forr emand. Far i na, on the other hand, cont ended thi s m ot i on w as m er el yan amended mot i on for r emand, and thatthe i ni t i al m ot i on w as i ncl uded i n the mot i on t o vaca t e the tr ans feror der, w h ich w as docket ed on A pr i l 12. A s d isc u ss e d b e lo w , the d if f e re n c e b e tw e e n th e se d a te s is im m a ter ial. 25 M ot i on t o R emand be for e the M ary l and court
. A ft era hea r i ng 10 on the mot i on t o r emand t o s t at e court , the M ary l and courtm ade no deci s i on on the i s s ue, i ns t ead tr ans ferr i ng the cas e back t o the E as t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a. T h e D i s tr i ctC our tul t i m at el ydeni ed Far i na’ s m ot i on. T he courthel d C A FA pr ovi ded gr ounds forfede r al j ur i s di ct i on, a n d Fa r i n a ’ s f

a i l u r e t o mov e t o r e ma n d wi th i n th i r tyd a y s o f LG M ob i l eC om m ’s rem ov al w ai ved the d efects i n d ef end ants ’ i ni t i al fai l ur e t o r emove w i thi n the r equi red thi r ty - dayper i od a f ter th e f ili n g o f th e S e c o n d A m e n d e d C o m p lain t. In a se p a ra te or der , the D i s tr i ctC our taddr es s ed t he m er i t s of t he pr eempt i on i s s u e , c o n c l u di n g th a tth e F CC’ s r e g u l a t i o n s g o v e rn i n g RF emi s s i ons pr eempt ed Far i na’ s cl ai m s . Far i na t i m el yappea l ed. II. “[E] veryfede r al appel l at e court has a s peci al obl i gat i on t o ‘ s at i s fyi t s el f not onl y of i t s ow n j ur i s di ct i on, butal s o thatofC A F A g ra n ts f e d e ra l ju risd ictio n o v e r c las s a c ti o n s in 11 w hi ch the aggr egat e amount i n contr over s y exce eds $5, 000, 000, th e p a rties a re m in im a lly d iv e rse , an d th e m e m b e rs o f a ll p ro p o s e d p lain tiff

c las se s a re e q u a l to o r g re a ter th a n 1 0 0 in n u m b er. 28 U
. S
. C
. § 1 3 3 2 (d). 26 th e l o wer c o u r t s i n a c a u s e u n d e r r e v i e w . . . . ’ ” B enderv. W ill ia m sp o rt A re a Sc h . D ist. , 475 U
. S. 534, 541 ( 1986) ( quot i ng Mi t chel lv. Maur er , 2 9 3 US
. 2 3 7 , 2 4 4 ( 1 9 3 4 ) ) )
. We r e v i e w a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on of i t s ow n s ubj ectm att er ju ri s d ic tio n d e n o v o . E m er ald I nves t ors Trus tv. G aunt P arsi pp any P artners , 4 9 2 F
. 3 d 1 9 2 , 1 9 7 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ). A
. T her e i s no di s put e thatthis cas e, i n i t s curr ent i n c a r n a t i o n , s a t i s f

i e s th e s u b s t a n t i v e r e q u i r e me n t s o f CA F A. 11 See D ef. L G M obi l eC om m ’ s N ot i ce of R emoval 6–9. B ut C A F A is n o t re tr o a c tiv e lya p p lica b le. It a p p lies o n lyto c iv il a c tio n s “ c o m m e n c e d o n o r a f te r t h e d a te o f

e n a c tm e n t,” February18, 2005. C A FA , Pub. L
. N o. 109- 2, § 9, 119 St at
. 4, 1 4 (2 0 0 5 ) ( c o d if

ie d a s N o te to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 2 ). C A F A itse lf

p ro v id e s n o d e f

in iti o n o f

c o m m e n c e m e n t. W e have noty etaddr es s ed the i s s ue, but m o st o f ours i s t er ci r cui t s have l ooked t o s t at e l aw forthe def i ni t i on of c o m m e n c e m e n t. S e e B ra u d v . T ra n sp . S e rv . C o . o

f Ill. , 445 F. 3d 801, 803 ( 5th C i r . 200 6 ) (“ [T ] he court s of appe al s thathave e x a m in e d th e iss u e h a v e u n a n im o u sly h e ld th a t w h e n a law su it27 i s i ni t i al l y ‘ comm ence d’ forpurpos es of C A FA i s det erm i ned by sta te la w . W e a g re e .” (f o o tn o te o m itt e d )); Sc h o rs c h v . H e w lettP ackard C o. , 417 F. 3d 748, 750 ( 7th C i r . 2005) ( “[S] t at e r ather th a n f e d e ra l p ra c tice m u st su p p ly th e ru le o f d e c isio n .”); see al

so Sm i th v. N

at i onw i de Prop. and C as . I ns . C o. , 505 F. 3d 401, 405 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); P l ubel l v. Merc k & C o. , 434 F. 3d 1070, 1071 ( 8 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); B us h v. C heapt i cke t s , I nc. , 4 2 5 F. 3 d 6 8 3 , 686 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); N

atal e v. P f iz er, I nc. , 4 2 4 F
. 3 d 4 3 , 4 4 (1st C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). B ut s ee P ri m e C are of N e . K a n. , L L Cv. H

um an a Ins. C o. , 4 4 7 F. 3 d 1 2 8 4 , 1 2 8 9 n . 6 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( “ [ W ] e do not e x p re ss a n o p in io n a s to w h e th e r f e d e ra l o r sta te la w sh o u ld co n tr o l. ”). W e a g r e e t h a t s t a t e l a w s h o u l d g o v e rn th e i n q u i ry. C A F A o p e r a t e s a s a n e x p a n s io n o f d iv e rs ity ju ri s d ic tio n . See B ush , 4 2 5 F
. 3d at686. T he A ctexpr es s l yauthor i zes the re m o v a l o f q u a lif

y in g c la s s a c tio n s to f

e d e ra l c o u rt
. See Pu b
. L. N o . 1 0 9 -2 , § 5 , 1 1 9 S ta t. 4 , 1 2

– 1 3 (c o d if i e d a t 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 5 3 ). It en v isio n s a n d a p p lies to c a se s th a t ar e in iti a llyf iled in stat e c o u rtan d su b seq u en tl yrem o v ed to f e d era l cou rt
. F o r a ca se in it ial lyb rou g h t i n stat e c o u rt, stat e law sh o u ld g o v ern w h e n th e c a s e c o m m e n c e s . C f

. R ag an v. Merchs. T

ransf er & W ar ehous e C o. , 3 3 7 U .S . 5 3 0 , 5 3 3

– 3 4 (1 9 4 9 ) (a p p ly in g sta te l aw t o d et erm i ne comm ence m entfors t atut e of l i m i t at i ons p u rpo ses); Herb v. P i t cairn , 324 U
. S. 117, 120 ( 1945) ( “W hetheranycas e i s pendi ng i n the I l l i noi s court s i s a ques t i on t o be det erm i ned by I l l i noi s l aw . . . . ”)
. A ccor di ngl y , w e l ook to P e n n s y lv a n ia la w .28 T h e fil ing o f an o ri g inal co m p lai n t in P en n sy lvan ia co u rt c o m m e n c e s a n a c tio n . See Pa. R
. C i v. P. 1007 ( “A n act i on m ay be comm ence d by fi l i ng w i th the pr othonot ary( 1) a pr aec i pe for a w r i tof s um m ons , or( 2) a compl ai nt
. ”)
. A s s uch, the fi l i ng of the or i gi nal compl ai ntcomm ence d a ci vi l ac ti on forthe p u rp o se s o f

C A F A . F a rin a ’s in iti a l co m p lain t w a s f iled o n A p ril 19, 2001, cl ear l ybefor e C A FA ’ s enac t m ent. B utthe Second A m en d ed C o m p lai n t, fil ed o n D ec em b er 2 3 , 2 0 0 5 , an d the T h ir d A m ended Com pl ai nt , fi l ed on February9, 2006, w er e fi l ed af t er th e d a te o f C A F A ’s e n a c tm e n t. If e ith e r of th e s e c o m p lain ts co n sti tu te d the c o m m en ce m en t of a n ew ac ti o n , C A F A ’s ju risd ictio n a l g r a n t w o u ld a p p ly . T h e iss u e b e f o re u s, th e n , is w hetherthe amendm entof the or i gi nal compl ai nt i n the Second A m ended C o m p l ai ntorthe Thi r d A m ended Com pl ai nt comm ence d a new cas e. T h e c a se law h a s c o a les c e d a ro u n d th re e a p p ro a c h e s to the e ff e c tof a mend ment s t o c ompl a i nt s o n CA FA comm ence m ent
. T he fi r s tappr oac h , adopt ed bythe C our tof A ppeal s forthe N i nth C i r cui t, ignor es amendm ent s and l ooks o n lyto th e f

ili n g o f th e o rig in a l co m p lain t f o r c o m m e n c e m e n t. McAt e e v . Cap i ta lOne , F. S

. B. , 4 7 9 F .3 d 1 1 4 3 , 1 1 4 7

– 4 8 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (in terp re tin g C a lifo rn ia law to h o ld th a t a n a c tio n “ is comm ence d forpurpos es of C A FA w hen a c om pl ai nti s fi l ed, i r r es pect i ve of a nyl at eramendm entof that compl ai nt
. . . . A ny amendm entof thatcompl ai nt

— w hethert o add new caus es of ac t i o n , t o a d d o rr e p l a c e p l a i n t i f f s , o rt o a d d o rr epl aceA l though McAt ee is lim ited to C A F A c a s e s f il e d in 12 C a lif o rn ia , i d. a t 1 1 4 7 , m u c h o f its d isc u ss io n su g g e sts th is ru le h a s b ro a d e r a p p lica b ili ty th a n ju st t o C a lifo rn ia la w . T h e N in th C irc u it arg u e d th a t re latio n -b a c k p rin c ip les n e e d n o t b e u se d in C A FA comm ence m ent beca us e the s ubs t ant i ve r i ght s of part i es are noti m pli cat ed, as theyw ou l d b e for a st atute of l i m i t at i on s. Id . R a th e r, C A F A c o m m e n c e m e n t af f e c ts o n lyth e f

o ru m in w h ic h th e s u it ta k e s p la c e . Id

. T hes e ar gum ent s ar e notl i m i t ed t o an interp ret at i on of C al i forni a l aw , butw oul d s eemi ngl ybe app l i cable t o an yst at e rel at i on -back rul es. 29 d ef en d an ts— d o es n o t cha n g e the co m m en ce m en t date” ). 12 T he othertw o appr oache s both appl ys t at e- l aw pr i nci pl es g o v e r n i n g th e r e l a t i o n - b a c k o f p l e a d i n g s f o r s t a tu t e s of lim itatio n s to d e ter m in e w h e th e r a n a m e n d e d c o m p lain t is di s t i nctenough fr om the or i gi nal compl ai ntt o comm ence a new c a s e . See P ri m e C are , 447 F. 3 d at 1 2 8 6
. O ne appr oach, adopt ed bythe C our t s of A ppeal s forthe Si xth, E i ghth, a nd T e n th C irc u its, a p p lies o rd in a ryre latio n -b a c k ru les to a ll a me n d me n t s , n o ma t t e r wha t typ e o f a me n d me n t i s m ade ( t he

“ P ri m e C are a p p ro a c h ” ). See i d. ; se e a lso Sm ith , 5 0 5 F. 3d at 4 0 5 ; P lu b e ll , 434 F. 3d at 1071. I f the amendm entw oul d not rel at e back t o the p re- C A F A pleadi ng , i tcon st i tutes a c o m m e n c e m e n t o f

a n e w c a s e . P ri m e C are , 447 F. 3d at1286. T he fi nal appr oach us es r el at i o n - back rul es as w el l , but cat ego ri cal l ytreat s cer t ai n chan ges as com m encing a n ew case ( the “ B r aud a p p ro a c h ” ). See Braud , 445 F. 3d at804–05;30 Kn u dsen v. Li ber t

y Mut
. I ns . C o. , 4 1 1 F
. 3 d 8 0 5 , 8 0 7 (7th C ir
. 20 05 ). In part i cular, the ad dit i on of a n ew defe nd ant— un l ess th e a d d itio n is d o n e m e r e ly to c o rr e c t a c le ri c a l e rr o r, s ee Schi l l i ngerv. U

ni on P ac. R

. R

. C o. , 4 2 5 F
. 3 d 3 3 0 , 3 3 3 (7th C ir
. 2 0 0 5 )

— o r t h e a d d itio n o f a d is tin c t c la im , s ee Sc hors ch , 417 F. 3d at749, comm ence s a new ci vi l act i on. W e agr ee w i th the gene r al appr oach of appl y i ng r el at i onback rul es t o atl eas ts om e amendm ent s . I n doi ng s o, w e r ej ect the appr oach of

the N i nth C i r cui ti n McAt ee . A s th e T e n th C i r cui tr ecogni zed: [T] he un qu a l i fi e d d i s r e ga r d o f a nypo s t
- CA FA p lea d in g a m e n d m e n ts . . . e n ta il s th e p ra c tica lly u n ten a b le re su lt th a t o n c e a p re -C A F A c a s e is fi l ed, t he pl ai nt i ff c an t ack on new caus es of act i on s o s ubs t a n t i v e l yi ndepende ntof the or i gi nal case thatt heyw oul d be pr oper l ytr eat ed as fi l ed aft erC A FA ’ s eff

ect i ve dat e foral l l egal purpos es

. . . ex c e p tf o rCAFA
. P ri m e C are , 447 F. 3d at1288 n. 4. “G ener al l y ‘ a partybr ought i nt o courtbyan amendm ent , and w ho has , for the fi r s tt i m e, an oppor tuni tyt o m ake de fens e t o the ac t i on, has a r i ghtt o tr eatthe pr ocee d ing, as t o hi m , as comm ence d bythe pr oces s w hi ch br i ngs hi m i nt o court
. ’ ” B r aud , 445 F. 3d at805 ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. M

ar t i nez , 195 U
. S. 469, 473 ( 1904) )
. “I t‘ w oul d be a n o v e l a n d u n

ju st pr in c ip le to m a k e th e d e f e n d a n ts r e sp o n sib le fora pr ocee di ng of w hi ch theyhad no not i ce. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ngI n fac t , i ti s uncl earhow di s t inc tthes e appr oache s ar e. 13 B o th th e C o u rts o f A p p e a ls fo r th e F if th a n d th e S e v e n th C i r cui t s

— w hi ch fol l ow the B r aud appr oach— r ecogni ze a n exception to the ca t egor i cal rul e thatan amendm entaddi ng a new defe ndantcomm ence s a new ci vi l act i on w hen thataddi t i on is m e re ly to c o rr e c t a c le ri c a l m is id e n tif ic a tio n o f a p a rt y . See B r aud , 4 4 5 F .3 d a t 8 0 6

– 0 7 ; Schi l l i nger , 4 2 5 F
. 3 d at 33 3
. In d ic ta , B r aud e x p lain e d th is “ m isn o m e r” e x c e p tio n b ylo o k in g to both L oui s i ana l aw as w el l as R ul e 15( c) ( 3) , governi ng w hen an 31 Mi l l er v. M ’I

ntyr e , 3 1 U
. S
. (6 P et. ) 61 , 6 4 (18 3 2 )). M or eover , al though C A F A d oes notdefi ne c o m m e n c e m e n t, “ C o n g r e s s is p r e s u m e d to e n a c t l e g isla tio n w ith know l edge of

the l aw and a ne w l y - enac t ed s t atut e i s pr es um ed to b e h a rm o n io u s w ith e x is tin g la w a n d ju d ic ia l c o n c e p ts .” P ri m e C are , 447 F. 3d at1287 ( i nt erna l quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)
. C ongr es s pas s ed C A FA aw are of the gene r al pr i nci pl es of r el at i on -ba ck anal y s i s , both unders t at e l aw and F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 5 (c ). It is o n lyn a tu r a l th a t C o n g re ss w o u ld i ntend to i ncorpor at e i nt o C A FA the ca s e l aw governi ng amended pl eadi ngs . “Pr eci s el ybeca us e C A FA does notdefi ne
‘ comm ence m ent ’ of an a ct i on, i ti s obvi ous that C A F A is not in ten d e d to re p lac e c a se law d e c id in g w h e n a law su it i s cons i der ed ‘ comm ence d .
. . . ’ ” B r aud , 4 4 5 F .3 d a t 8 0 5
. B ut beca us e the r es ul ti s the s ame underei therthe P r i me C are appr oach orthe B r aud app roach, w e need no tcho ose betw een the tw o . U nderPenns y l vani a l aw , a party“mayat 13 14amendm entaddi ng a def en dantw i l l r el at e bac k t o the pr i or p l e a d i n g . 4 4 5 F. 3 d a t8 0 6

– 0 8
. I f th e “ mi s n o me r ” e x c e pt i on appl i es everyt i m e the addi t i on of a de fenda ntw oul d r el at e bac k u n der or di nary r el at i on- back anal y s i s , the tw o appr oache s are coext ens i ve. B e c a u se sta te la w g o v e rn s the d e f in iti o n o f c o m m e n c e m e n t, 14 st at e l aw shou l d al so go vern t he rel at i on -back o f am end m ents
. I n B r aud , t he Fi fth C ir cu it us ed s t at e l aw t o defi ne comm ence m ent , 445 F. 3d at803–04, bu t di d nots peci fy w h e th e r sta te o r f

e d e ra l re latio n -b a c k ru les w o u ld a p p lyto a m e n d m e n ts , i d. at807 n. 14 ( “I ti s l es s cert ai n w hethers t at e l aw p ro v id e s th e a p p lic a b le ru le s f o r t h e re la tio n b a c k a n a lysis
. . . . T he r es ul ti n thi s cas e i s the s ame unde r e i ther
. . . . ”)
. B ut c o m m e n c e m e n t is n o t a lie n t o th e re la tio n -b a c k a n a lysis
. See P ri m e C are , 447 F. 3d at1288 ( “N or. . . ar e comm ence m entand am en d m en t p rop erly see n as u tt erly u n related m att ers. R athe r, th e re lev a n t lan d sc a p e in w h ich b o th o f th e se leg a l co n c e p ts r es i de has fors om e t i m e bee n g o v ern ed bythe r el at i on- back p rin c ip le.” (f

o o tn o te o m itt e d )). M o re o v e r, in th e se c a se s, sta te la w p ro v id e s th e a p p lic a b le s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s , s ee Ragan , 337 U
. S. at533–34, and R ul e 15( c) ( 1) ( A ) expr es s l yco- opt s the re latio n -b a c k ru les o f

“ th e la w th a t p ro v id e s th e a p p lica b le s t a tu t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s , ” F e d
. R
. C i v . P
. 1 5 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A )
. An am end m ent that does no trel at e back con stitutes a comm ence m entunderC A FA
. A ccor di ngl y , i f s t at e l aw defi nes th e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f th e in iti a l c iv il a c tio n , it n a tu ra llysh o u ld 32p ro v id e th e ru le s g o v e rn in g c o m m e n c e m e n t v ia a m e n d m e n t— in otherw or ds , the rul es governi ng r el at i on back. 33 a n ytim e c h a n g e th e f

o rm o f a c tio n , co rre c t th e n a m e o f a p a rty oramend hi s pl eadi ng. ” Pa. R
. C i v. P. 1 0 3 3
. B uta partym ay not add a “new and di s t i nct ” party aft erthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons h a s ru n . Tork

- Hi is v. C om m onw eal th. , 735 A
. 2d 1256, 1258 ( Pa. 1999)
. I n otherw or ds, i f an a dded def endanti s “new and di s t i nct ” fr om t he def

endant s named i n the pr i orpl eadi ng, the a m e n d m e n t w ill n o t re late b a c k . T h e o n lye x c e p tio n s to th is g e n e ra l ru le a p p lyw h e re th e a ss e ts s u b jec t to th e risk o f

liab ili ty w o u ld n o t ch a n g e o r w h e re th e a m e n d m e n t is m a d e o n lyto c o rr e c t th e im p ro p e r d e s ig n a tio n o f a b u s in e s s e n tity. I

d. U nderthis standa r d, the Second A m ended Com pl ai nt c o m m e n c e d a n e w a c tio n . In a h e a rin g b e f o re th e D istric t C o u rt, F a rin a ’s c o u n se l c o n c e d e d th a t L G d e f e n d a n ts w e re n o t a p a rty t o the cas e pri or t o the S econd A m ended C om pl ai nt
. A pp. 462. B eca us e theyw er e unr el at ed t o anyof the named defe ndant s , the a d d iti o n o f

L G d e f e n d a n ts p lac e d n e w a ss e ts a t r isk o f liab ili ty and w entbey ond m er el ycorr ect i ng an i m pr operdes i gnat i on of a bus i nes s ent i ty . A ccor di ngl y , theycons t i tut ed “ne w and di s t i nct ” part i es . B eca us e the Second A m ended Com pl ai ntw as f i l e d a f t e rth e e n a c t m e n to f

C AF A, F a r i n a ’ s c l a i m s b e c a me subjectt o it s provi si on s. F ari na r ai ses several argum ents cou nsel i ng a g a i nst r ecogni zi ng t h e Th i r d Am e n d e d C om pl ai nt as t heI n p a r t i c u l a r , Fa r i n a a r g u e s th e s u b s t i tu t i o n o f LG 15 M obi l eC om m forL G defe ndant s w as m er el y a corr ect i on of an im p ro p e r de sig n a tio n o f a b u sin e ss e n tity a n d th a t th is s u b s titu tio n o c c u rr e d a t th e in s is te n c e o f L G d e f e n d a n ts
. U n d er C A F A , an yd ef en d a n t m a y rem o v e the en ti re 16 cas e— notj us tthe cl ai m s as s ert ed aga i ns tthatpart i cul ar defe ndant

— w i thoutthe cons entof anyotherdefe ndant
. 28 U .S .C
. § 1 4 5 3 (b ); B ro w n v . Je v ic , 5 7 5 F
. 3 d 3 2 2 , 3 2 7 (3d C ir
. 20 09 ). If LG M ob i l eC om m pr operl yrem ov ed the cl ai m s agai nst it, th e re m o v a l o f

th e e n tir e c la s s a c tio n w a s v a lid
.

34 co m m en ce m en t of

a n ew ac ti o n . E v en assu m ing w e w ere 15 per s uaded bythes e ar gum ent s , they w oul d onl yes t abl i s h thatthe T hi r d A m ended Com pl ai ntw oul d r el at e back t o the fi l i ng of the Second A m ended Com pl ai nt
. T heyw oul d not es t abl i s h thatthe Second A m ended Com pl ai ntw oul d r el at e bac k t o the fi l i ng of the or i gi nal compl ai nt
. B eca us e the Second A m en ded Com pl a i ntw a s fi l e d a ft e rthe e na c t mentof CA FA , CA FA appl i es and conf

er s fede r al j ur i s di ct i on.

B
. Far i na a lso ar gues thateven i f the Second A m ended C om pl ai ntw oul d have e s t abl i s hed fe der al j ur i s di ct i on under C A FA , t he D i s tr i ctC our tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on her e bec aus e the re m o v a l b y L G M o b ileC o m m w a s u n tim e ly
. C A F A h a s its 16 ow n r emoval s t atut e, 28 U
. S. C
. § 1453, w hi ch, foral l pert i nent purpos es , i m por t s the pr ocedur es of the gene r al r emoval s t atut e,I f the cl ai m i s noti ni t i al l yr emovabl e, the thi r ty - dayper i od 17 runs fr om the dat e of r ece i pt of “a copy of the a m ended pl eadi ng, m ot i on, or derorotherpaperfr om w hi ch i t m ay fi r s tbe a s c e r t a i n e d th a tth e c a s e i s o n e wh i c h i s o rh a s b e c o me r emovabl e. ” I

d. D efe ndant s s t at e thatL G M obi l eC om m w as s erved w i th the 18 T h ir d A m en d ed C o m p lai n t o n Jan u ary 2 0 , 2 0 0 6 , b u t th e re co rd i ndi cat es the Thi r d A m ended Com pl ai ntw as dat ed J anuary27, A pp. 213, and docke t ed on February 9 , A pp. 306. T he d i f f e r e n c e b e twee n th e s e dat e s i s i mma t e r i a l , h o wev e r , a s LG M ob i l eC om m ’s rem ov al w as t i m el yun der anyof these dat es. 35 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 4 6 . S e c tio n 1 4 4 6 (b ) re q u ire s a d e f e n d a n t to f

ile forr emoval w i thi n th ir ty d ay s of r ece i vi ng a copyof the p l e a d i n g s e t t i n g f

o r th th e r e mo v a b l e c l a i m. 17 If th e su b stitu tio n o f

L G M ob i l eC om m for L G d e f e n d a n ts i n t he T hi r d A m ended Com pl ai ntcomm ence d a new cas e under C A F A , there is no d ispu te th at rem o v al w as ti m ely
. T h e T h ir d Am e n d e d Co mp l a i n t wa s f i l e d o n F e b ru a ry 9 , 2 0 0 6 , a n d LG 18 M o b ileC o m m f

iled its n o tice o f re m o v a l o n F e b ru a ry1 7

— w e ll w it h in thi r tyday s . B utFar i na ar gues the Thi r d A m ended C o m p la in t r e la te s b a c k to th e S e c o n d A m e n d e d C o m p la in t, s ee supra not e 15, and, ther efor e, does notcons t i tut e a comm ence m ent
. T he § 1446(b) t i m e l i m i t w oul d then run fr om th e d a te o f

th e f ili n g o f th e S e c o n d A m e n d e d C o m p lain t, D ec em b er23, 2005, and the not i ce of r emoval w oul d be36 u n t i m e l y. W e nee d notdeci de w hetherth e T h i r d A m ended C om pl ai ntr el at es back t o the Second A m ended C om pl ai nt beca us e eve n i f t he S econd A m ended Com pl ai nti s the r el evant d a te a n d L G M o b ile C o m m ’s re m o v a l w a s th e re f o re u n tim e ly, Far i na w ai ved hi s obj ect i on. 2 8 U
. S. C
. § 1447 pr ovi des the p ro c e d u re s g e n e ra llya p p lica b le a f ter re m o v a l an d is e x p licitly a d o p te d b yC A F A , s ee 28 U
. S. C
. § 1453( c) ( 1)
. Sect i on 1447( c) s t i pul at es thata r emand m ot i on m ade on the bas i s of “a nydefe ct other than l ack of s ubj ect m att er j ur i s di ct i on” m us t be f i l ed w i thi n thi r tyday s of t he not i ce of r emoval
. T he fa i l ur e t o m ove to re m a n d re s u lts in a w a i v e r o f th e o b je c tio n . See Ari el

Land O w ners , I

nc. v. D r i ng , 3 5 1 F .3 d 6 1 1 , 6 1 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). A j ur i s d i c t i o n a l d e f

e c t , o n th e o th e r h a n d , ma y b e r a i s e d a tany tim e . I d. I ti s w el l s ett l ed t hat § 1446( b) ’ s thi r ty - day t i m e l i m i tfor re m o v a l is a p ro c e d u ra l p ro v is io n , n o t a ju ri s d ic tio n a l o n e . I d. a t 6 1 4 ; s ee al

s o McG l i nchey v. H

ar t f or d A cci dent

& I ndem

. C o. , 866 F. 2d 6 5 1 , 6 5 3 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ( “[T] he fa i l ur e t o fi l e a re m o v a l p e tit io n w ith in th e 3 0 d a ysta tu to rytim e lim it [d o e s n o t] a f f e c t th is C o u rt’s ju risd ictio n .”); A l br i t t on C om m c’ ns C o. v. NLRB , 766 F. 2d 812, 820 ( 3d C i r . 1985) ( “[R ]emoval pr ocee di ngs ar e i n the natur e of pr oces s , and thus defe ct s i n the r emoval pr ocedur es ar e w ai vabl e . . . . ”)
. A defe cti s cons i der ed j ur i s di ct i onal “onl yi f the ca s e coul d noti ni t i al l yhave be en fi l ed i n fede r al court
. ” A ri el L an d O w ners , 351 F. 3d at614 ( quot i ng Kor ea Exch. B ank v. Trac kw is e Sal es C or p. , 66 F. 3d 46, 50 ( 3dO n appea l , defe ndant s ci t e O ct o b er 1 5 as the dat e of the 19 fi l i ng of the mot i o n fo r re m and. T he ca s e bef or e the D i s tr i ct C our tw as s t ay ed atthi s t i m e, and ther e i s no docketentryi n the M a ry lan d c o u rt c o rre sp o n d in g to th is d a te. W e a ss u m e th is r efe r ence i s t o the N ovember10 fi l i ng, docket ed as “A m ended M ot i on t o R emand and M emora ndum forR emand. ” A pp. 89. 37 C i r . 1995) )
. Feder al juri sd i ct i on overFar i na’ s s ui tar os e on D ece m ber 23, 2005, w hen the Second A m ended C o m p la i nt comm ence d a new ci vi l act i on and bro u g h t t he ca s e under C A FA
. B eca us e atthat m om ent the cas e coul d have be en fi l ed i n fede r al court , the fa i l ur e t o r emove w i thi n thi r tyday s of the f ili n g o f th e S e c o n d A m e n d e d C o m p lain t w a s n o t a ju risd ictio n a l d e f

e c t. L G M obi l eC om m rem o ved the ca s e on February17, 2006, and, acc or di ngl y , Far i na had thi r tyday s

— unt i l M ar ch 20

— to se e k a rem and t o st at e cou rton un t i m el i ness groun ds. A s t he D i s tr i ctC our tr ecogni zed, the part i es di s put e w hen the m ot i on t o r ema n d w as fi l ed. D efe ndant s ar gued bel ow that Far i na s oug h ta r emand on N ovember10. Far i na cl ai m s the 19 r emand m ot i on w as i ncl uded w i th h i s m ot i on t o vaca t e the J udi ci al Panel on M ul t i di s tr i ct L i t i gat i on’ s condi t i onal tr ans fer or der
. B utthi s m ot i on w as ent er ed i nt o the docket on A pr i l 12, out s i de of the thi r ty - dayt i m e l i m i t
. Far i na cont ends thathe w ai t ed t o fi l e forr emand befor e the J udi ci al P anel on M u lt idi s tr i ctL i t i gat i on beca us e the mot i on forr emand fi l ed aft erhi s or i gi nal compl ai ntw as rem o v ed i n 2001 w as not38 deci ded bythe D i s tr i ctC our tpr i or t o the s t ay of the pr ocee di ngs pendi ng tr ans fert o the J udi ci al Panel on M ul t i di s tr i ctL i t i gat i on. I ns t ead, i tw as deci ded bythe tr ans fer ee M ary l and court , and he as s um ed a sim il ars i tuat i on w oul d occuronce mor e. B ut r egar dl es s of Far i na’ s as s um pt i on, he fa il ed t o fi l e forr emand w i thi n thi r tyday s of r emoval
. T h e D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s t ayw as iss u e d o n M a rc h 2 2 , b e y o n d th e th irty -d a ytim e lim it, a n d c o u ld nothave h ad an effectupon the t i m el i nes s of Far i na’ s r emand m o tio n . T h e D istric t C o u rt , th e re f o re , “h a d n o a u th o rityto r e m a n d , b e c a u s e [ F a r i n a ’ s ] m o t i o n w a s f i l e d m o r e th a n 3 0 d a ys aft erthe not i ce of

r emoval
. ” A ri elL an d O w ners , 351 F. 3d at 6 1 3
. A ccordi ng l y , fede ral j uri sdi ct i on exis t s ov er th e c ase whe th e ro rn o tFa r i n a i s c o rr e c tth a tth e Th i r d Am e n d ed C om pl ai nt r el at es back t o the Second A m ended Com pl ai nt
. T he Second A m ended C om pl ai nt , w hi ch added tw o u nr el at ed defe ndant s , comm ence d a new ci vi l acti o n , as defi ned by P en n sy lvan ia l aw , w h ich b rou g h t the ca se u n d er C A F A ’s ju risd ictio n a l g ra n t. A lth o u g h th e c a se w a s n o t re m o v e d w ith in th irtyd a y s o f

th e f ili n g o f th e S e c o n d A m e n d e d C o m p lain t, Fa r i n a ’ s f

a i l u r e t o f

i l e f o rr e ma n d wi th i n t hi r t yd a y s o f LG M o b ileC o m m ’s s u b se q u e n t re m o v a l w a iv e d h is o b jec tio n s to thi s non-

j ur i s di ct i on al defect
. T her efor e, ourr evi ew of d e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n to d ism iss o n th e g ro u n d s o f p re e m p tio n isW e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h e a p p e a l u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 20 1 2 9 1 . W e re v ie w q u e s t i o n s o f p re e m p tio n d e n o v o . See D ew ees e v. N

at ’ lR

. R

. P as s engerC or p. , 5 9 0 F .3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 4 n .8 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 9 ). 39 p rop er. 20 III
. T he Supr emacyC l aus e of t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on, U
. S. C ons t
. art
. V I , cl
. 2, i nval i dat es s t at e l aw that“i nt er fer es w i th or i s contr ary t o fede r al l aw . ” Fr ee v . B land , 369 U
. S. 663, 666 ( 1962) ( ci t i ng G i bbons v. O gden , 22 U
. S. ( 9 W heat
. ) 1, 210 ( 1824) )
. Feder al l aw can pr eempts t at e l aw i n thr ee w ay s : ( 1) expr es s pr eempt i on, ( 2) fi el d p ree m pt i on, and ( 3) confl i ct p re e m p tio n . Hi l l

s bor ough C nt

y. v. A ut om at ed Med. Labs. , I nc. , 4 7 1 U
. S
. 7 0 7 , 7 1 3 (1 9 8 5 ). E x p ress p ree m p ti o n ap p li es w h ere C o n g re ss , thr o u g h a sta tu te’ s e x p re ss lan g u a g e , d e c lar e s its in te n t to d is p la c e s ta te la w . I d. F iel d p ree m p ti o n ap p li es w h ere
“ th e f e d e ra l in ter e st is so d o m in a n t th a t th e f e d e ra l sy ste m w ill b e a s s u me d t o p r e c l u d e e n f o r c e me n to f

s t a t e l a ws o n th e s a me s ubj ect
. ” I

d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)
. C onfl i ct p re e m p tio n n u lli f

ies sta te la w in a sm u c h a s it c o n f licts w ith f e d e ra l law , eith e r w h e re c o m p li a n c e w ith b o th law s is i m pos s i bl e orw her e s t at e l aw er ect s an “obs t acle t o the acc om pl i s hm entand exe cut i on of the ful l purpos es and obj ect i ves of C ongr es s . ” I d. (i n terna l q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). Feder al r egul at i ons pr eem p t s t at e l aw s i n the s ame fas hi on as c o n g re s s io n a l s ta tu te s . F id . Fe d . Sa v . & L o a n A s s ’n v . D e la40 C u e sta , 4 5 8 U .S . 1 4 1 , 1 5 3 (1 9 8 2 ); s ee al s o Fel lnerv. Tri

- U

ni on S e a f o o d s , L

. L

. C. , 5 3 9 F
. 3 d 2 3 7 , 2 4 3 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ) (“W h ere C ongr es s has del egat ed the author i tyt o reg u la t e a pa r t i cul ar fi el d t o an admi ni s tr at i ve age ncy , the agenc y ’ s r egul at i ons i s s ued pur s uantt o that author i tyhave no l es s pr eempt i ve ef fec t th a n f e d e ra l sta tu tes , as su m in g th o s e r e g u latio n s a re a v a lid exer ci s e of the agenc y ’ s del egat ed author i ty . ”)
. Pr eempt i on can appl yt o al l form s of s t at e l aw , i ncl udi ng ci vi l act i ons bas ed on s ta te la w . See H

olk v. Snappl e B eve r age C or p. , 575 F. 3d 329, 3 3 1 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 9 ). I n e v e r yp r e e mp t i o n c a s e , o u ri n q u i r y i s g u i d e d b ytwo p rin c ip les
. F irst, th e in ten t o f C o n g re ss is th e “ u lti m a te to u c h s to n e ” o f

p re e m p tio n a n a lysis
. Medtr o ni c, I nc. , v. Lohr , 5 1 8 U
. S
. 4 7 0 , 4 8 5 (19 9 6 ) (intern al q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). In dis cerni ng this i ntent , w e l oo k n ot onl yt o C on gress ’s exp res s sta tem e n ts, b u t als o to th e “ stru c tu re a n d p u rp o se o f th e sta tu te as a w h o le, as r evea l ed notonl yi n the t ext , butthr ough the r evi ew i ng court ’ s r eas oned under s t andi ng of the w ayi n w hi ch C o n g re ss inten d ed the s tatu te an d it s su rrou n d ing reg u lat o ry s cheme t o aff

ectbus i nes s , cons um er s , and the l aw . ” Id

. at486 (cit ati o n s an d interna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). Second, w e “s t art [] w i th the bas i c as s um pt ion that C ongr es s di d noti nt end t o di s pl ace st at e l aw . ” M ar yland v. Louis i ana , 4 5 1 U
. S
. 7 2 5 , 7 4 6 (19 8 1 ). “[ B ]ec au se th e S tat es a re i ndepende nts over ei gns i n ourfede r al s y s t em, w e have l ong pr es um ed that C ongr es s does notcava l i er l ypr e- empt s t at e- l aw caus es of ac t i on. ” Lohr , 5 1 8 U
. S
. at 48 5
. T h e S u p rem e C o u rt41 has r efe r r ed t o thi s as a “pr es um pt i on agai ns tpr eempt i on. ” See W ye th v. Levi ne , 129 S. C t
. 1187, 1195 n. 3 ( 2009)
. T he pr es um pt i on appl i es w i th part i cul ar for ce i n fi el ds w i th in the p o lic e p o w e r o f

th e s ta te , s ee Lohr , 518 U
. S. at485, butdoes not a p p ly w h e re s ta te re g u la tio n h a s tr a d itio n a lly b e e n a b s e n t, s ee B u c kma n Co

. v . P la i n t i f f s ’L eg a lCo mm. , 531 U
. S. 341, 347 ( 2 0 0 1 ) ( r e

j e c t i n g th e p r e s u mp t i o n f o rs t a t e - l a w fr a u d c l a i ms p r e mi s e d o n a l l e g e d f

r a u d u l e n ts t a t e me n t s ma d e t o th e F DA beca us e “the r el at i ons hi p betw een a fede r al agenc yand the ent i tyi tr egul at es . . . or i gi nat es fr om , i s g o v ern ed by , and te r m in a tes a c c o rd in g to f e d e ra l law ” ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. Locke , 5 2 9 U
. S
. 89, 108 ( 2000) ( r ej ect i ng the appl i cat i on of the presum pti on t o st at e regul at i on of m ari t i m e com m erce because “C ongr es s has l egi s l at ed i n the fi el d fr om the ear l i es t day s of the R epubl i c, ” and “ in thi s ar ea ther e i s no begi nni ng as s um pt i on th a t c o n c u rre n t r e g u latio n b y th e S tate is a v a lid e x e rc ise o f its p o li ce p o w ers” ). A ccor di ng t o d ef

endant s , the pr es um pt i on s houl d not appl yt o Far i na’ s cl ai m s . T heyar gue thatfede r al r egul at i on of r a d i o c o mmun i c a t i o n s mi rr o r s th e r e g u l a t i o n o f o i l t a n k e r s at i s s ue i n Locke . S im ilar to m a r iti m e c o m m e rc e , rad io com m un i cat i on s have b ee n w i thin the p urvi ew of C on gress s in c e th e a d v e n t o f

th e te c h n o lo g y . See Nat ’ lB r oad. C o. , 319 U
. S. at210–13 ( des cr i bi ng the hi s t oryof fe der al r egul at i on of r adi o comm uni cat i ons )
. T he FC C , i n part i cul ar , has “exc l us i ve” con trol ov er the technical aspect s of radi o co m m un i cat i on s. Head , 374 U
. S. at430 n. 6. I n addi t i on t o this l ongs t andi ng42 h isto ryo f

f e d e ra l au th o r it y , d e f

e n d a n ts c o n ten d th a t ra d io comm uni cat i on s , l i k e th e ma r i t i me i n d u s try , ar e an i ns trum ent al i tyof comm er ce. A ccor di ng ly , theym ai nt ai n that tradi t i on al st at e i nter est s und erpi nn i ng the p res um pti on against pr eempt i on ar e l acki ng. B utthe pr es ence of fe der al r egul at i on, how ever l ongs tand ing, does notbyi t s el f def eatthe appl i cat i on of the p re su m p tio n . R a th e r, it s a p p lica tio n “ a c c o u n ts f o r th e h isto ric pr es ence of s t at e l aw butdoes notr el yon the abs ence of fe der al r egul at i on. ” W

y e th , 1 2 9 S . C t. at 1 1 9 5 n .3 ; s e e a l s o Lo hr , 518 U
. S. at475- 77, 485 ( appl y i ng the pr es um pt i on d esp it e the deca des

- l ong hi s t oryof fe der al r egul at i on of publ i c hea l th and sa f e ty ). W h ile C o n g re ss h a s lo n g e x e rte d c o n tro l o v e r ra d io com m u n icati o n s, stat e g o v ern m en ts ha v e trad it ion all yreg u la t ed the fi el d of publ i c hea l th and w el far e. St at e- l aw act i ons bas ed o n th e risk s a ss o c iate d w ith R F e m iss io n s f a ll sq u a re lyw ith in th e tr a d itio n a l p o lic e p o w e r. See Fel lner , 5 3 9 F
. 3 d at 24 8 (“[ I]t i s har d t o i m agi ne a f

i el d m or e s quar el y w i thi n the r eal m of tr adi t i onal s t at e r eg u lat i on than a s t at e t or t
- l i ke ac t i on s eeki ng d am ag es fo r an all eg ed fa il u re t o w arn co n su m ers o f d a n g ers arisi n g fro m the u se o f a p rod u ct. ”). M or eover , defe ndan ts’ ch ara cteriz at i on of tele c o m m u n ica tio n s a s a n “ in stru m e n talityo f c o m m e rc e ” is i m m at er i al
. N othi ng i n the Supr eme Court ’ s cas e l aw i ndi cat es th e a p p lica tio n o f

th e p re su m p tio n tu r n s o n w h e th e r th e f ield r e g u l a t e d c a n b e c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s a n i n s tru me n t a l i t yof comm er ce. T hi s l anguage appea r s to b e cul l ed fr om theA t th e o u tse t, F a rin a a ss e rts th a t o u r p re e m p tio n a n a ly sis is 21 bou n d b ythe Four th C i r cui t ’ s deci s i on i n P i nney b e c a u se its r ej ect i on of conf

l i ctpr eempt i on beca m e l aw of the ca s e. T he l aw of the ca s e doctr i ne “pos i t s thatw hen a c our tdeci des upon a ru l e o f l a w, th a t d e c i s i o n s h o u l d c o n t i n u e t o g o v e rn th e s a me i s s u e s i n s u b s e q u e n t s t a g e s i n th e s a me c a s e. ” A riz ona v. C a lif o rn ia , 460 U
. S. 605, 618 ( 1983)
. T he doctr i ne onl yappl i es w ith in th e sa m e c a se

— a n id e n ti c a l issu e d e c id e d in a se p a ra te a c tio n d o e s n o t q u a lif

ya s l a w o f t h e c a s e . See 18B C har l es A l an W r i ght , A r thur R
. M i l l er& E dw ar d H
. C ooper , Feder al 43 j ur i s prudence governi ng the C om m er ce Cl aus e of the U ni t ed S ta te s C o n s titu tio n , s ee U ni t ed Stat es v. Lopez , 514 U
. S. 549, 558 ( 1995) ( “C ongr es s i s empow er ed t o r egul at e and pr ot ectthe i ns trum ent al i t i es of i nt ers t at e comm er ce . . . . ”) , and notthe doctr i ne of pr eempt i on. M or eover , beca us e the presu m pt i on tu rn s o n th e p re se n c e o f sta te la w , the a b il it y o f C o n g re ss to r egu l a t e r a d i o c o mmun i c a t i o n s a s a n i n s tru me n t a l i tyof c o m m e r c e is irre lev a n t in lig h t o f th e lo n g h isto ryo f

sta te regul at i on of h eal th an d safetym at t ers . A ccordi ng l y , w e app l ythe p res um pti on against pr eempt i on t o ouranal y s i s her e. B ut al though w e conc l ude the pr es um pt i on app li es, w e r ecogni ze i ti s “over come w her e a C ongr es s i onal purpos e t o pr eempt or the exi s t ence of a conf l i ct i s ‘ cl earand mani fe st. ’ ” Fel lner , 539 F. 3d at249 ( quot i ng Hi l l s bor ough C nt

y. , 4 7 1 U .S . a t 7 1 5 ).

A
. 21P r a c ti c e a n d P ro c e d u re § 4 4 7 8 , at 6 3 7

– 3 9 (2 d e d . 2 0 0 2 ); s ee al s o H ar borI ns . C o. v. E ssm an , 9 1 8 F
. 2 d 7 3 4 , 7 3 8 (8th C ir
. 1 9 9 0 ) (re f

u sin g to re c o g n ize a d e n ial o f a m o tio n to d ism iss in a ca s e l at erdi s m i s s ed w i thout pr ej udi ce as l aw of t he ca s e i n a su b seq u en t suitb etw ee n the s am e p arti es). F a rin a ’s c o n ten tio n th a t P i nney ’s ho lding b ind s u s h ere i s m i s pl ace d forthatr eas on. T h e F our th C i r cui tm ade no deci s i on o n pr eempt i on forthe cl ai m s br oughtbyFar i na. A l though Far i na’ s cl ai m s w er e i ni t i al l y cons ol i dat ed w it h the othe rc a s es , theyw er e s ubs equent l ydi s m i s s ed forl ack of s ubj ect m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . P i nney , 402 F. 3d at451. T he dec i s i on on confl i ctpr eempt i on, then, w as m ade onl yw i th r es pectt o the N aqui n c la im s . I

d. ( “W e mustther efo r e r evi ew the di s tr i ct court ’ s or d er gr ant i ng N oki a’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s the cl ai m s of th e N a q u in p lain tiff

s.” ); i d. at459 ( “W e . . . r ever s e the di s tr i ct court ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng the N aqui n pl ai nt i ffs ’ c ase a s p re e m p ted b yth e F C A .”). W ith o u t ju risd ictio n , the F o u rth C i rcui t“had no pow er ” t o r endera dec i s i on on pr eempt i on of F a ri n a ’s c la im s , i d. ; s ee al s o Steel C o . v. C i t iz ens f ora B et t er E n v’t , 523 U
. S. 83, 101–02 ( 1998) ( “Fora cou rt t o pr onounce upon the meani ng orthe cons t i tut i onali tyof a s t at e orfede r al l aw w hen i thas no j ur i s di ct i on t o do s o i s , by very defi ni t i on, for a courtt o actul tr a vi r es . ”) , and w e ar e notbound byi t s hol di ng. M oreover , the Four th C i r cui t ’ s r ej ect i on of the juri sd ict ion al do ctri n e o f c o m p le te p re e m p tio n , P i nney , 4 0 2 F
. 3d a t 4 5 1 , als o d o e s n o t c o n s tr a in o u r a n a ly sis . C o m p lete 44p ree m p ti o n co n fe rs f ed era l jurisdicti o n o v er a stat e c lai m w h ere C ongr es s “‘ s o compl et el ypr eempt [s ] a part i cul arar ea thatany c iv il c o m p lain t ra isin g th [ e ] se lec t g ro u p o f c laim s is n e c e ss a rily fede r al i n ch ara ct er . ’ ” I d. at449 ( quot i ng Metr o. Li f e I ns . C o. v. Tayl or , 481 U
. S. 58, 63–64 ( 1987)) ( al t er at i ons i n the o ri g inal). L aw o f th e c a s e o n lyex tend s to issue s tha t w ere a c tu a lly d e c id e d in p ri o r p ro c e e d in g s . See 18B W r i ght , M i l l er & C o o p e r, supra , § 4478, at649. “Ther e i s . . . a di ffe r ence betw een the doctr i ne of com pl et e pr eempt i on and the aff i r m at i ve defens e of feder al pr eempt i on. ” P i nney , 402 F. 3d at 449. A ccor di ngl y , the dec i s i on on compl et e pr eem p ti o n does n o t c ons t i tut e an a ctual deci s i on on the i s s ue of c onfl i ct pr eempt i on. 45 D efe ndant s ’ firstar gum entfordi s m i s s al as s ert s that Far i na’ s cl ai m s ar e expr es s l y pr eempt ed by the TC A
. A s not ed, e x p re ss p re e m p tio n a p p lies w h e re C o n g re ss e x p licitlysta tes in th e l a n g u a g e o f

t h e s t a tu t e i t s i n t e n tt o p r e e mpt s t a t e l a w. C i pol l one v. Ligget tG r oup, I nc. , 505 U
. S. 504, 516 ( 1992)
. B ut the pr es ence of an e xpr ess pre empt i on pr ovi s i on does notend the i nqui r y . W hi l e i tm eans w e nee d notinqui r e w hether C on gres s in t end ed to preem pt s om e st at e l aw , w e st i l l m ust exami ne congr es s i onal i nt entas t o the scope of t he pr eempt i on p ro v is io n . See Lohr , 518 U
. S. at485–86 ( “[A ] nyunder s t andi ng of t he s cope of

a pr e- empt i on s t atut e mustr es tpr i m ar i l yon a fai runder s t andi ng of congr es s i onal p urpos e. ” ( emphasi s and in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d )). A lth o u g h w e lo o k p rim a rily to the t extof an e xpr es s pr eempt i on pr ovi s i on t o di s ce rn46 congr es s i onal i nt ent , w e al s o l ook t o the co n te xtof the r egul at orys cheme as a w hol e, i ncl udi ng i t s purpos es and the w ayi n w hi ch C ongr es s i nt ended i tt o aff ectthe publ i c and the la w . I d. at 486. M or eover , beca us e w e s t artw i th a pr es um pt i on a g a in st p re e m p ti o n , “w h e n th e tex t o f a p re -e m p tio n c lau se is su sc e p tib le o f

m o re th a n o n e p lau sib le r e a d in g , co u rts o rd in a rily

‘ acc eptthe r eadi ng thatdi s favor s pr e- empt i on. ’ ” A l tr i a G r oup, I nc. v. G ood , 129 S. C t
. 538, 543 ( 2008) ( quot i ng B at es v. D ow Agr os c i e nc e s LLC , 5 4 4 U
. S
. 4 3 1 , 4 4 9 (20 0 5 )). D e f e n d a n ts a rg u e 4 7 U .S .C . § 3 3 2 (c )(7 )(B )(iv ) e x p re ss ly preem pts F ari na’s cl ai m s. Itprovides: N o S ta te o r lo c a l g o v e rn m e n t o r in stru m e n tality ther eof mayr egul at e the pl ace m ent , cons truct i on, and modi fi cat i on of per s onal w i r el es s s ervi ce f a c ili ties o n th e b a sis o f

th e e n v iro n m e n tal e f

f e c ts of r adi o fr equenc yem iss i ons t o the ext entthat su ch fa ci l i t i es compl yw i th the C om m i s s i on’s regul at i on s conce rni ng such em i ssi on s. D efe ndant s ar gue ce l l phones fal l w i thi n the def i ni t i on of “per s onal w i r el es s s ervi ce f aci l i t i es . ” T he st atut e i t s el f does not provide a cl ear defini t i on . “P ers on al w i rel ess service faci l i t i es” are defin ed as “facil i t i es for the p rovi si on of p ers on al w i rel ess services , ” § 3 32 (c) (7) (C )( i i ), and “personal w i rel ess s ervi ces” ar e i n turn defi ned as “comm er ci al m obi l e servi ces , unl i cens ed w i rel ess s ervi ces, and com m on carr i er w i rel ess exchan ge acc ess s e rv ic e s ,” § 3 3 2 (c )( 7 )( C )( i)
.T he curr ent N i nth edi t i on of B l ack’ s L aw D i ct i onarydoes 22 n o t c o n ta in a n e n tr yf

o r “ f a c ility.” 47 D ef en d a n ts i n stead u rge u s to a d o p t a dicti o n ary defi ni t i on of “f

aci li t i es ” as “[t ] hatw hi ch pr om ot es the ea s e of a n y a c tio n , o p e ra tio n , tr a n s a c tio n , o r c o u rs e o f c o n d u c t.” B lack ’s L aw D ict ion ary5 9 1 (6th ed
. 1 9 9 0 ); s ee al s o W eb ster’s 22 T h irdN e w In te r n a ti o n a l D ic ti o n a ry 8 1 2 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ( d e f in in g f a c ili ty as “s om ethi ng thatpr om ot es the ea s e of a nyact i on, oper at i on, tra n sa c tio n , o r c o u rse o f c o n d u c t”) . B e c a u se c e ll p h o n e s e n a b le w i r el es s comm uni cat i ons , defe n d ant s al l ege c el l phones “pr om ot e the ea s e” of

per s onal w i r el es s s ervi ce. B utFar i na ci t es t o hi s ow n di ct i onary defi ni t i on for“fa ci l i ty , ” one w hi ch he ar gues i m pl i es a s ens e of perm anenc e, as w i th a p h y s i cal s tru c tu re . See W eb ster’s T h ir d N ew Intern ati o n al D ict ion ary 8 1 2

– 1 3 (d e f

in in g f a c ili tya s “ so m e th in g (a s a h o sp ital, m achi nery , pl um bi ng) thati s bui l t , cons truct ed, i n stal l ed, or es t abl ishe d t o per form s om e part i cul arfunct i on ort o s erve or faci l i t at e som e p a rticu lar e n d ” ); s ee al s o B la c k ’s L a w D ic tion ary 5 9 1 (d e f in in g f a c ili ty a s “[ s]o m e th in g th a t is b u ilto r in sta lled to p erf o rm so m e p arti cu lar fu n cti o n ”). B eca use the t erm i t s el f i s ambi guous , w e l ook t o the br oadercont exti n w hich “faci l i ty ” i s us ed. T hatcont ext s uppor t s Far i na’ s r eadi ng. Sect i on 332( c) ( 7) , in w hi ch s ubs ect i on ( B ) ( i v) is i ncl uded, i s t i t l ed “Pr es ervat i on of l ocal z o n in g a u th o rity ,” a n d su b se c tio n (B )(iv ) is e x p re ss ly lim ited to the “p l acem ent, con struct i on , and m od if i cat i on ” of f

aci l i t i es.D efe ndant s al l ege that i f C ongr es s i nt ended onl y t o pr eempt 23 r egul at i on of i nfr as tructur e, i tw oul d have s ai d s o, i ns t ead of

“ b r o a d l yp r e e mp t [ i n g ] a l l s t a t e r e g u l a t i o n ” b a s e d o n RF emission s. A ppel l ees ’ B r . at68. T hi s ar gum entpr oves t oo m uch. H ad C ongr es s i nt ended t o pr eempts t at e r egul at i on of ce ll p h o n es, it co u ld ce rt ainlyh av e sa id so as w ell
. C o n g ress’s stat em en t i s o n ly“b roa d ” if “ fa c iliti es” is r ea d to co v er m o re than j us ti nfr as tructur e. W e conc l ude i ts houl d notbe. 48 T hi s l anguage s ugges t s thatthe s t atut e i s di r ect ed atpr eempt i ng s t at e and l ocal deci s i ons w i th r es pect t o the phy s i cal l ocat i on of “fa ci l i t i es, ” a r eadi ng w hi ch, as Far i na cont ends , r equi r es p erm an en c e . See Pi nney , 402 F. 3d at455 ( fi ndi ng the subsect i on “deals w i th the a u th ori tyof the st at es overz oni ng an d land u se ”); H .R . R ep . N o . 1 0 4 -20 4 (I) , at 94 (19 9 5 ), r epr i nt ed i n 1996 U
. S. C
. C
. A
. N
. 10, 61 ( “[C]urr entSt at e and lo c a l r e q u ir e m e n ts , si t i ngan d zon i ngdecis i on s bynon- fede r al un i t s of go vernm ent, hav e creat ed an i nco nsi st ent an d, att i m es, co n fli cti n g p atch w o rk o f re q u ir em en ts .
. . . ” (e m p h asis ad d ed )). T he fa i rr eadi ng of thi s s t atut e, then, focus es on s t at e and l ocal deci s i ons w i th r es pectt o th e p h y s i cal i nfr as tructur e of the w i rel ess netw ork, no tcel l ph on es. 23 D efe ndant s ar gue that even i f § 332( c) ( 7) ( B ) ( i v) appl i es onl yt o phy s i cal i nfr as tructur e, beca us e ce l l phones ar e the m e a n s b yw h ich th a t in f

ra stru c tu re is a c c e ss e d , re g u latio n o f c e ll phones on the bas i s of R F em i s s i ons i m pos es r es tr i ct i ons on the w i rel ess i nfrastructure. D efen dan t s ar gu e t his con st i tutes a49 “bac k- door ” r egul at i on of i nfr as tructur e, i n vi ol at i on of the pr i nci pl es of R o w e v . N ew H a m p sh ir e Mo tor T

ra n sp o rt A ss’n , 5 5 2 U
. S
. 3 6 4 (20 0 8 ). I n Ro we , the s t at e of M ai ne ena ct ed a l aw i nt e n d e d t o p r e v e n tth e s a l e o f t o b a c c o t o mi n o r s b yi mpo s i ng dut i es on r et ai l er s of t obacc o pr oduct s , i ncl udi ng r equi r i ng the us e of a del i very s ervi ce t hat abi ded bym andat ed pr ocedur es for v e r i f yi n g th e id e n tity o f

re c ip ie n ts
. I

d. at368–69. Sever al tr ans por tcarr i eras s oci at i ons chal l enged the l aw , ar gui ng i tw as p r e e mp t e d b y4 9 U. S
. C. § 1 4 5 0 1 ( c ) ( 1 ) , wh i c h p r o v i d e s : “ [ A] s t at e . . . m aynotenac tor en fo rce a l aw . . . r el at ed t o a pr i ce, r out e, o r se rvi ce of

anym ot orcarr i er. . . w i th r es pectt o the tr ans por t at i on of pr operty . ” Rowe , 552 U
. S. at368–69. T he S u p re m e C o u rt a g re e d , f in d in g th a t a lth o u g h th e M a in e law d id n otdi r ect l yi m pos e dut i es on carr i er s , byi m pos i ng dut i es on reci pient s, the law effecti velyplaced res tri ct i on s on c a rri ers . I d. a t 3 7 2
. B u t Ro w e is i nappos i t e her e. Fi r s t , the l anguage of the p r eempt i on pr ovi s i on i n R ow e was muc h b r o a d e r th an t he lan g u a g e a t issu e h e re . T h a t p re e m p tio n p ro v isio n a p p lied to a ll la w s “ re la te d to ” m o to r c a rr ie r s e rv ic e s , i d. at 368, l anguage that w as r ead b roa d lyenough t o r eac h al l l aw s havi ng even a n i nd i rectcon necti on w i th o r r eference t o m otor carr i er s ervi ces, i d. at 370 ( ci t i ng Mor al es v. Trans W or ld A i r l i nes , I

nc. , 50 4 U. S. 3 7 4 , 3 8 4 (1 9 9 2 ) ) ; s ee al s o A l tr i a G r oup , 129 S. C t
. at548–49 ( di s t i ngui s hi ng the phr as e “ba s ed on” fr om “r el at i ng t o”)
. T he lan g u a g e o f

§ 3 3 2 (c )(7 )(B )(iv ) is n o t so b ro a d , c o v e rin g o n ly r egul at i ons of the “pl ace m ent , cons truct i on, and modi fi cat i on ofA l though defe ndant s do not r ai s e i t on appea l , theyar gued 24 b e f o re th e D istric t C o u rt th a t § 3 3 2 (c )(3 )(A ) a lso e x p re ss ly p re e m p te d F a ri n a ’s c l a im s . T h a t su b se c tio n p ro v id e s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt: [N ]o St at e orl ocal governm ents hal l have a ny

50 per so n al w ir eless se rvice fa cil it ies, ” n o t r eg u lat ion s “r el at i ng t o” the “pl ace m ent , cons truct i on, and modi fi cat i on of per s onal w i r el es s s ervi ce fac i l i t i es . ” Thats ugges t s a narr ow ers cope f or thi s pr eempt i on pr ovi s i on than the one i n Ro we . S ec o n d , the b u rde n p lace d o n the w ir eless inf rastruc ture thr ough r egul at i ng cel l phones i s di s t i nctfr om the bur den r es ul t i ng fr om regul at i ng the i nfr as tructur e i t s el f. R equi r i ng sh ip p e rs to u se o n lyth o se c a rrie rs w h o f o llo w c e rta in proced ures i s no d i fferentthan requi ri ng carr i ers t o adop ttho se s a m e p ro c e d u re s . S e e Ro we , 552 U
. S. at 372 ( “[T] he ef fec tof the reg u lat ion is tha t ca rri ers w il l h av e to o ff er tob ac co d eli v ery s ervi ces thatdi ffe rs i gni fi cant l y fr om thos e that
. . . the mar ket m i ghtdi ct at e. A nd that bei ng s o, tr eat i ng s al es r es tr i ct i ons and p u rc h a se r e s tr ic ti o n s d if f e r e n tl y f o rp r e - e m p tio n p u rp o se s w o u ld m ake no s ens e. ” (i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) )
. St at e- l aw a c tio n s im p o sin g liab ili tyo n th e b a sis o f R F e m iss io n s f

ro m c e ll p h o n e s d o n o t im p o se id e n tica l b u r d e n s o n th e “ p lac e m e n t, cons truct i o n , a n dm odi fi cat i on” of the w i r el es s i nfr as tructur e, as theyw oul d onl yr eq u ir e al t er at i ons t o cel l phones , nott o the in f ra stru c tu re itse lf. A c c o rd in g ly , itw o u ld a p p e a r th a t § 3 3 2 (c )(7 )(B )(iv ) d o e s n o t ex p re ss lyp re e m p t F a rin a ’s s u it. 24author i tyt o r egul at e the entry o f o rthe r at es char ged by any comm er ci al m obi l e servi ce orany pr i vat e m obi l e s ervi ce, exce ptthatthi s par agr aph s hal l notpr ohi bi ta St at e fr om r egul at i ng the other ter m s a n d c o n d iti o n s o f c o m m e rc ial m o b ile services
. 47 U
. S. C
. § 332( c) ( 3) ( A )
. A ccor di ng t o defe ndant s ’ ar gum ent b e lo w , sta te- law sta n d a rd s th a t ad d re q u ir em ents w i th w h ich c e ll p h o n e s m u st c o m p ly

— w h e th e r in th e f o rm o f sp e c if ic co m p o n en ts ( i. e., h ea d sets) or a d d it ion al w arn ing s— b e f o re b e in g s o ld c o n s titu te re g u la tio n s o f “ e n tr y .” Sect i on 332 does not defi ne w hat cons t i tut es a r egul at i on of entr y , and i tappea r s thatthe F C C has notcl ear l ydefi ned the te rm e ith e r. Se e Peck v . Ci ng ularW

i r e l e s s , LLC , 535 F. 3d 1053, 1056–57 ( 9th C i r . 2008)
. T he Four th C i r cui tconcl uded i tr efe r r ed t o r egul at i ons that o b st ructthe abi l i tyt o pr ovi de w ir e le s s c o v e ra g e . P i nney , 402 F. 3d at456. A l though § 332( c) ( 3) ( A ) i s ambi guous , w e thi nk thatr eadi ng i s the pr oper o n e . “E n try ” m u st b e re a d in a so m e w h a t li m ited f a sh io n in o r d e r t o g i v e e f

f e c t t o th e s a v i n g s p r o v i s i o n p r e s e nt i n § 332( c) ( 3) ( A )
. A ccor di ng t o d efe ndant s ’ r eadi ng, any re q u ire m e n t p lac e d u p o n w ire les s s e rv ice p ro v id e rs w o u ld c o n stitu te a re g u latio n o f e n try b e c a u se p ro v id e rs w o u ld h a v e to compl yw i th thatr equi r emen t p ri o r t o s el l i ng thei rgoods , or “ent er i ng” the mar ket
. B utal m os tal l r egul at i ons of comm er ci al goods s ets t andar ds orr eq u ir ement s w hi ch mustbe compl i ed 51w ith p rio r to se lli n g th o se g o o d s, a n d § 3 3 2 (c )(3 )(A ) sp e c if ica lly r es erves a pl ace fors t at e r egul at i on of atl east so m e of the

“ t e r ms a n d c o n d i t i o n s ” o f wi r e l e s s s e r v i c e . As e v e n the F CC h a s re c o g n ize d , a c c e p tin g d e f e n d a n ts’ re a d in g w o u ld e v isc e ra te th a t s a v in g s p ro v is io n . See I n r e W i r el es s C ons um ers A l l i ance, I nc. , 1 5 F
. C
. C
. R
. 1 7 0 2 1 , 1 7 0 4 0 (20 0 0 ) (find ing that an “a w ard of m onet arydamag es b as ed on s t at e contr actort or tcaus es of act i on ” s h o u l d f

a l l u n d e rth e o th e r“ t e r ms a n d c o n d i t i o ns p ro v isio n s o f

[ § ] 3 3 2 ” ); cf

. C el l ularTel ecom m s . I

ndus

. A s s ’ n v. FCC , 1 6 8 F .3 d 1 3 3 2 , 1 3 3 6 (D .C
. C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) (“ T o e q u a te s tate a c tio n th a t m a yin c re a se th e c o s t o f d o in g b u sin e ss w ith ra te r egul at i on w oul d .
. . forbi d near l yal l form s of s t at e r egul at i on, a r es ul tatodds w i th t he ‘ othert erm s and condi t i ons ’ por t i on of [§ 3 3 2 (c)(3)(A )]. ”). P i nney ’ s l i m i t ed r eadi ng of “e ntry ” i s m or e cons ist ent w ith the en t i re t ext of § 3 32 (c) (3) (A ). M oreove r, i ti s al so cons i s t ent w i th other pr ovi s i ons of t he T C A
. 47 U
. S. C
. § 253, ent i t l ed “Rem oval of barr i er s t o entry , ” i s di r ect ed atpr event i ng sta te o r l o c a l re g u latio n s th a t “p ro h ib it th e a b ili tyo f a n ye n tity t o pr ovi de anyi nt er s t at e ori ntr as t at e t el ecomm uni ca ti o ns s ervi ce. ” I

d. § 2 5 3 (a ); see al

so S. R ep. N o. 104- 230, at126 (1 9 9 6 ) (C o n f. R e p .) (re f e rrin g to f

e d e ra l p ro h ib iti o n o f

“ S tate and l ocal s t atut es and re gul at i ons , orotherSt at e and l ocal l egal r equi r ement s , that m ay pr ohi bi t or have t he effec t of pr ohi bi t i ng a n y en tit y f

ro m p ro v id in g in ter sta te o r in tra sta te t el ecomm uni cat i ons s ervi ces” )
. R egul at i on of entry , then, 52appea r s t o r efe rt o l aw s that erectobs t acl es t o the pr ovi s i on of w i r el es s s ervi ces . T hi s t erm w oul d notencompas s r egul at i ons of ce l l phones beca us e theyonl yr eac h devi ce s thatacc es s the w i r e l e s s ne tw ork, no tde vi c e s tha tpr ov i de the a c tua l w i r e l ess cover age. W e h a v e re c o g n ize d th a t “a lth o u g h th e te rm ‘f ield 25 pr eempt i on’ s ugges t s a br oad s cope, the s cope of a fi el d deemed pr eempt ed byfede r al l aw m aybe narr ow l ydefi ned. ” A bdul lah v . Am. Ai r l i n es , I

nc. , 1 8 1 F
. 3 d 3 6 3 , 3 6 7 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 9 ). A l though ther e appea r s t o be a di ffe r ence i n br eadth betw een a fi el d defi ned as r egul at i on of R F em i s s i ons and a f i el d defi ned a s re g u l a t i o n o f

a v ia tio n s a f

e ty, s ee i d. at367–68, ornucl ear s a f e ty, s ee Si lkw o o d v. Ker r - McG ee Corp. , 464 U
. S. 238, 249 ( 1984) , othe rc a s es have us ed narr ow conce pt i ons of the r el evant f ie ld , s ee Hi l l

s bor ough C nt

y. , 4 7 1 U .S . at 7 1 4 (p las m a p h e re sis re g u latio n ); H

ughes v. A t t ’

y G en. of

F la. , 377 F. 3d 1258, 1 2 6 7

– 6 8 (11 th C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ) (co m m erc ial airl ine pilo t sa fe ty ). B eca us e w e r ej ect defe ndant s ’ fi el d pr eempt i on cl ai m , w e adopt thei rchar act er i zat i on of the r el evantfi el d w i th o u tc o n s i der at i on. 53 B
. D efe ndant s als o ar gue thatC ongr es s ’ s del egat i on of “exc l us i ve author i ty ” overthe fi el d of R F em i s s i on r egul at i on 25 pre e mpt s a l l s t a t e l a w s pr e mi s e d on the s uf fi c i e nc y of t ho se r egul at i ons . Th e d octr i ne of f i el d pr eempt i on appl i es w her e “the sc h e m e o f

f e d e ra l re g u latio n is s u f f icie n tl yc o m p re h e n siv e to54 m ake r eas onabl e the i nfer ence that C ongr es s ‘ l eft no r oom ’ for su p p lem e n tar ysta te r e g u la tio n ” o r w h e re “ th e f ield is o n e in w hi ch ‘the feder al i nt er es ti s s o dom i nantthatthe fe der al s y s t em w i l l be as s um ed t o pr ecl ude enf or cementof st ate l aw s on the s a me s u b j e c t
. ’ ” Hil ls bor ough C nt y. , 471 U
. S. at713 ( quot i ng R i ce v. Santa Fe E leva tor C or p. , 3 3 1 U
. S
. 2 1 8 , 2 3 0 (19 4 7 )). “The ques t i on w hether the re gul at i on of an e nt i r e fi el d has been r es erved byth e Feder al G overnm enti s , es s ent i al l y , a ques t i on of asc ert ai ni ng the i nt ent under l y i ng the feder al s cheme. ” I d. at 714. W i th r es pect t o agenc y r egul at i ons , “w e m us t con s i der w h e th e r th e re g u la tio n s e v id e n c e a d e sire to o c c u p ya f ield compl et el y . ” R

. J. R eynolds Tobacco C o. v. D ur ham C nt y. , 479 U
. S. 130, 149 ( 1986)
. “Pr e- empt i on s houl d notbe i nferr ed, h o w ev er, si m p ly b ec au se th e a g en cy ’s reg u lat ion s are compre hens i ve. ” I

d. W hi l e the FC C m ayhave “ p ri m acyoverthe ar eas of t echni cal s t a ndar ds and compet i t i ve mar kets tructur e forcel l ul ar s ervice, ” C el l ularC om m c’ ns , 86 F. C
. C
. 2d at504–05, nei ther C o n g ress n o r th e F C C h as e v ince d an inten t t o o cc u p ythe e n ti re fi el d. T he TC A and the FC A both cont ai n a s avi ngs pr ovi s i on. See Pub. L
. N o. 104- 104, § 601( c) ( 1) , 110 St at
. 5 6 , 143 ( c o d i f i e d a s N ot e t o 4 7 U. S
. C § 1 5 2 ) ( s t a t i n g th a tth e TCA

“ sh a ll n o t b e c o n stru e d to m o d if y , im p a ir, o r su p e rse d e F e d e ra l, S ta te , o r l o c a l la w u n le s s e x p re s s ly so p ro v id e d ” ); 4 7 U .S .C . § 414 ( “N othi ng i n t hi s chapt ercont ai ned s hal l i n anyw ayabr i dge oral t er the r emedi es now exi s t i ng at comm on l aw or bys t atut e, butt he pr ovi s i ons o f thi s chapt erar e i n addi t i on t o s uch55 r emedi es . ”)
. T hes e pr ovis i ons i ndi cat e C ongr es s envi s i oned s om e r ol e fors t at e law in the fi el d. T he pr es ence of a s avi ngs p ro v isio n “ is f

u n d a m e n ta ll y inc o m p a tib le w ith c o m p lete f ield p re e m p tio n ; if

C o n g re s s in te n d e d to p re e m p t th e e n tir e f ie ld
. . . the re w o u ld b e n o th in g . . . to ‘sa v e ,’ an d th e p ro v isio n w o u ld be mer e s urplusage. ” I n r e NO S C om m c’ ns , 495 F. 3d 1052, 1 0 5 8 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); se e a lso H o lk , 5 7 5 F .3 d a t 3 3 8 ; T i me W a rn e r C a b le v . D o

y le , 6 6 F
. 3 d 8 6 7 , 8 7 8 (7th C ir
. 1 9 9 5 ). Fur therm or e, the FC C has r epea t edl y d is cl ai m ed pr eempt i ve a u t h o ri ty o v e r t h e e n tir e f ie ld o f R F re g u la tio n . S e e FCC Seco n d O r der , 1 2 F .C .C .R . at 1 3 5 2 9 ; F C CF i rs tO r der , 11 F .C .C .R . at 1 5 1 8 3 ; C el l ularC om m c’ ns , 86 F. C
. C
. 2d at505. G iv e n C o n g re ss ’s a n d th e F C C ’s d e m o n stra ted h e sita tio n to o v e rrid e a ll state law a n d re c o g n iti o n o f a ro le f o r sta te r egul at i on w i thi n the fi el d of R F em i s s i ons , w e ca nnotconcl ude th a t f e d e ra l law “ so th o ro u g h ly o c c u p ies a leg isla tiv e f ield ‘a s to m ake r eas onabl e the i nfer ence thatC ongr es s l eftno r oom forthe St at es t o s uppl ementi t
. ’ ” C i pol l one , 505 U
. S. at516 ( quot i ng D e la C u e sta , 4 5 8 U .S . a t 1 5 3 ). C
. D efe ndant s ’ fi nal as s ert e dg r o u n df o rd i s mi s s a l i s c o n fl i ct p re e m p tio n . C o n f

lict p re e m p tio n e x ists (1 ) “ w h e re it i s i m pos s i bl e fora pr i vat e partyt o co m p lyw i th both s t at e and fede r al r equi r ement s , ” or( 2) “w h ere s t at e l aw s t ands as an o b sta c le to th e a c c o m p li sh m e n t an d e x e c u tio n o f th e f u ll purpos es and obj ect i ves of C ongr es s . ” Fel lner , 539 F. 3d at251 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)
. I t i s l i kel ythatcompl i ance56 w i th bot h fede r al R F st andar ds as w el l as anyhypothet i cal s tr i ct ers t at e s t anda rd i s pos s i bl e. T her efor e, the bas i s of defe ndant s ’ confl i ct pr eempt i on defe ns e i s the cont ent i o n that Far i na’ s s ui t w oul d er ect an obst acl e t o the ac compl i s hm entof the o bject i ves of

C on gress . F a rin a ’s c laim s re st o n th e a lleg a ti o n th a t d e f e n d a n ts w arr ant ed that thei rcel l phones w er e s afe t o oper at e, butthat th e se p h o n e s w e re , in f a c t, un sa f

e to o p e ra te w ith o u t h e a d se ts beca us e of thei remi s s i on of R F r adi at i on— des pi t e the fa ctthat t hei re mi s s i on l e ve l s w e r e i n c ompl i a nc e w i th FCC s t a nd a rds. F a r i n a a t t e mp t s t o c h a r a c t e r i z e h i s c l a i ms a s c o n s u me rc l a i ms b a s e d o n ly o n f

a ls e a n d m is le a d in g s ta te m e n ts
. See A p p ell an t’ s B r. at 52 ; T r. of O ral A rgum ent at3 ; i d. a t 1 1 ; id

. at38. B ut al tho ug h he dis avo w s an y chall eng e t o the F C C ’s R F st and ards, s ee A p p e ll a n t’s B r. at 5 3

– 5 4 ; T r. o f O ra l A rg u m e n t at 4 ; i d. at 1 1 , tha t is th e e ss e n c e o f h is c o m p lain t. T h e re p re se n tatio n s in the adve r t i s i ng and i ns truct i onal l i t er atur e thatFar i na has i dent i fi ed as fal s e or mi s l eadi ng ar e w arr ant i es thatthe phones a r e “ s a f e t o o p e r a t e wi th o u tth e u s e o f a h e a d s e ta n d th a tth ey w e re a n d w o u ld be free fro m d ef ec ts. ” T h ir d A m . C o m p l. ¶ 1 4 9 ; see al

so i d. ¶ 141. I n or derforFar ina to suc cee d, he n ec essa ri lym u st establish tha t cell p h o n es ab iding b ythe F C C ’s S A R g u idelines are u n saf e to o p era te w ith o u t a he ad set. In o ther w o rds, F arina m u st sh o w th at th ese stan d ard s are in a d e q u a te— th a t th e ya re in su f f icie n tlyp ro tec tiv e o f

p u b lic h e a lth a n d s a f

e ty. See M

ur r ay v. Mot or ola, I

nc. , 982 A
. 2d 764, 775 ( D
. C
. 2009) ( agr eei ng w i th the di s tr i ctcourtthat“byur gi ngIn th is w a y , F a rin a ’s c laim s d if f e r f ro m th o se b ro u g h t in 26 Mu rray u n d e rth e Di s tr i c to f Col u mbi a Con s u me rPr o t e c t i on P ro c e d u re s A c t (“ C P P A ” ). T h e re , the p lain tiff s a lleg e d c e ll p h o n e m a n u f

a c tu re rs a n d re taile rs v io late d D istric t o f C o lu m b ia l aw byfal s el y repr es ent i ng thats ci ent i fi c r es ear ch es t abl i s hed

“ a b so lu telyn o risk o f

h a rm a ss o c iate d w ith th e u se o f c e ll p h o n e s,” a n d b yf

a ili n g to in f

o rm c o n su m e rs th a t ce rta in m ea su res c o u ld b e tak en to li m itR F ex p o su re . I d. at784 (i nternal qu otat i on m arks om i t t ed). T he co urtcon cl ud ed these claim s w ere n o t pree m p ted, as the F C C h as a ck n o w ledg ed there i s no s ci ent i fi c pr oof thatcel l phones have abs ol ut el y no r i s k of h a rm , i d. , an d th e re is n o in d ic a tio n th a t n o n u n if o rm ityin d is c lo s u re s to c o n s u m e rs w o u ld h in d e r F C C re g u la tio n s , i d. at 7 8 8

– 8 9
. F arina ’s claim s d o n o t m irror the C P P A claim s, h o w ev er. T h e a lleg e d re p re se n tatio n s m a d e b yd e f e n d a n ts d id n o t sta te thatther e i s abs ol ut el yno r i s k of harm fr om R F r adi at i on; they me r e l ys t a t e d th a t c e l l p h o n e s we r e c o mp l i a n twi th F CC g u id e lin e s a n d f

re e f ro m d e f e c ts
. See T hi r d A m . C om pl
. ¶¶ 141, 1 4 9 . S im ilarly , F a rin a ’s a lleg a tio n s d o n o t p o s it a f a ilu re to 57 a ju r y to f

in d th a t d e f

e n d a n ts’ c e ll p h o n e s e m it u n re a so n a b ly dan gerous le v el s of R F radi at i on even tho ug h the pho nes’ e mi s s i o n s a r e wi th i n th e S AR g u i d e l i n e s a d o p t e d b yth e F CC, pl ai n t i f f s a r e e f f e c t i v e l ys e e k i n g t o l o werth e FCC’ s c u r r ent S A R st and ard”)
. W hetheror not Fari na int end s t o ex press ly chal l enge the FC C s t andar ds attr i al , the i nes capa bl e ef fec tof hi s compl ai nti s t o do s o. A ccor di ngl y , w e mustdet erm i ne 26d isc lo se in f o rm a tio n e n a b lin g u se rs to m iti g a te risk , b u t sim p ly thatdefe ndant s fai l ed t o di s cl os e a defe ct i n thei rphones

— the l evel of R F em i ssions— thatm ade them unsafe t o oper at e. Mur r ay ’ s r efus al t o pr eemp t the C PPA cl ai m s , ther efor e, does no taffect our anal y si s. 58 wh e th e rs u i t s c h a l l e ng i n g th e a d e q u a c yo f th e F CC’ s RF r egul at i ons ar e pr eempt ed. T he Supr eme C our t ’ s pr eempt i on cas e l aw i ndi cat es that r egul at orys i tuat i ons i n w hi ch an a gencyi s r equi red to st r i ke a bal ance betw een c om pet i ng s t atut oryo b j e c t i v e s l e n dth e mse l ves to a f in d in g o f

c o n f lic t p re e m p tio n . See, e.g. , B uckm an , 531 U
. S. at348 ( “T h e co n fli cts t ems fr om the fa ctthatthe fe der al s t atut ory s cheme ampl y empow er s the FD A t o puni s h and det er fr aud agai ns t the A dm i ni s tr at i on, and t hat thi s author i tyi s us ed bythe A dm i ni s tr at i on t o achi eve a s om ew hatdel i cat e bal ance of s t atut oryobj ect i ves . T he bal ance . . . can be s kew ed byal l ow i ng

. . . c laim s u n d e r sta te to rt law .”); C i t y of B ur bank v. Lockhee d A i rp o r tTer m i nalI

nc. , 411 U
. S. 624, 638–39 ( 1973) ( “The F e d e ra l A v iatio n A c t r e q u ire s a d e lica te b a lan c e b e tw e e n sa f e ty and ef fi ci ency . . . . T he i nt er depende nce of thes e fact or s r equi r es a uni form and exc l u s i ve s y s t em of feder al r egul at i on i f the congr es s i onal obj ect i ves under l y i ng the .
. . A ctar e t o be f u lf ill e d .”); c

f. Lohr , 518 U
. S. at501 ( r efus i ng t o fi nd pr eempt i on w her e the feder al l aw at i s s ue w as notone “i n w hi ch th e F e d e ra l G o v e rn m e n t h a s w e ig h e d th e c o m p e tin g in ter e sts r el evantt o the part i cul arr equi r ementi n ques t i on, rea ched an59 unambi g u ous concl us i on abouthow thos e compet i ng cons i der at i ons s houl d be r es ol ved .
. . , and i m pl ement ed that concl us i on vi a a s peci fi c ma n dat e on manufactur er s or p ro d u c e rs ” ). T h e re a so n w h ysta te la w c o n f licts w ith f

e d e ra l law in thes e bal anci ng s i tuat i ons i s pl ai n. W hen C ongr es s char ges an agenc y w i th bal anci ng compet i ng obj ect i ves , i t i nt end s t he agenc yt o us e i t s r eason ed judgmentt o w ei gh the r el evant cons i der at i ons and det erm i ne how bes tto pr i or i t i ze be tw een th ese obj ect i ves . A l l ow i ng s t at e l aw t o i m pos e a di ffe r ent s t andar d perm i t s a r e - bal anci ng of thos e cons i der at i ons . A s t at elaw sta n d a rd th a t is m o re p ro tec tiv e o f o n e o b jec tiv e m a yre su lt i n a st and ard that i s l ess pr otect i ve o f others
. I n G ei er v. A m er i can Honda Mot orC o. , forexampl e, the Supr eme C our tfound a s ui tall eg ing t hatan aut om obi l e w as d e f e c tiv e ly d e sig n e d b e c a u se it la c k e d a n a irb a g c o n f licte d w ith a D epart m entof Tra ns por t at i on ( “D O T ”) r egul at i on author i zi ng m anufa ctur er s t o choos e betw een a r ange of pas s i ve restr ai nt devi ces . 529 U
. S. 861, 886 ( 2000)
. I n s ett i ng i t s s t andar d, the D O T w as requ i red to con si der n ot on l y safety , bu t al so t he co st t o cons um er s of addi t i onal s afe ty m eas ur es , the enc our agement o f te c h n o lo g ic a l d e v e lo p m e n t, an d c o n s u m e r p re f e re n c e s . I

d. at 8 7 5 ; id

. at877–79 ( det ai l i ng the s peci fi c cons i der at i ons behi nd th e D O T sta n d a rd ). B e c a u se th e D O T w a s re q u ire d to f a c to r in al l of thes e cons i der at i ons , perm i t t i ng al t ernat i ve s t at e s t andar ds t o ar i s e vi a t he i m pos i t i on of l i abi l i ty i n a t or t s ui tw oul d confl i ct w ith th e D O T ’s d e lib e ra te p o lic yc h o i c e . I d. a t 8 8 1 ; see al

so60 W y e th , 1 29 S. C t
. at1203 ( “Exam i ni ng the rul e i t s el f and the D O T ’ s cont empora neous r ecor d, w hi ch r evea l ed the fa ct or s the a g e n c yh a d we i g h e d a n d th e b a l a n c e i th a d s tru c k , we det e r mi n e d th a t s t a t e t o r t s u i t s p r e s e n t e d a n o b s t a c l e t o t he fe d era l sch em e.”). Si m i l ar l y , i n B uckm an , the C o u rt p r e e m p ted a to rt su it pr emi s e d o n t he defendant ’ s al l eged f r audul ent m isre p re se n tatio n s m a d e to th e F D A in se e k in g a p p ro v a l to m ark et ortho p ed ic bo n e sc rew s. 5 3 1 U
. S
. a t 3 5 3 . T h e C o u rt fou nd C on gress had “am plyem p o w e r[ e d]” the F D A t o p un i sh m i s r epr es ent at i ons and thatthe FD A had us ed thi s puni t i ve a u th o ri ty in c a s e s to b a la n c e b e tw e e n its s ta tu to ry o b je c tiv e s . I

d. at348. I n part i cul ar , the F D A w as r equi r ed t o “ens ur e both that m e d ic a l d e v ic e s a re re a s o n a b ly sa f e a n d e f f e c ti v e a n d t h a t . . . [a n a p p ro v ed d ev ice] is on the m ark et w ith in a re lat ivelysh o rt per i od o f t i m e. ” I

d. at349–50. “[F] l exi bi l i ty ” i n “pur s u[i ng] di ffi cul t( and oft en com pet i ng) obj ect i ves ” w as es s ent i al t o the F D A ’s m a n d a te
. I

d. at 349. A l t er i ng the bal ance s truck bythe F D A to p ro tec t sa f

e tyto a g re a ter d e g re e w o u ld “ d ra m a tica lly in c re a se th e b u rd e n s” o n in d u stryb yre q u irin g c o m p lian c e w ith var i ous s t at e s t andar ds and di m i ni s h the expe dienc y o f the a p p ro v a l p ro c e s s . I

d. at350–51. De f e n d a n t s a r g u e th a tF a r i n a ’ s s u i tc o n f l i c t s wi th F CC re g u latio n s in a sim ilar w a y , cla im in g a f in d in g o f

liab ili ty wo u l d u p s e tth e b a l a n c e s tru c k b yth e F CC i n s e t t i n g i t s RF s t a n d a r d s . Def

e n d a n t s c o n t e n d th a tCon g r e s s d e l e g a t ed aut ho r i ty t o th e FCC t o e n s u r e th e c r e a t i o n o f a u n i f o r m and61 eff i ci entnat i onw i de w i r el es s s ervi ce. A l l ow i ng a j urydeci s i on t o pot ent i al l ys et s tr i ct erR F st andar ds , theys ay , w oul d ups etthe FC C ’ s del i cat e bal anci ng of ef fi ci encyand uni form i ty w i th the heal th and s afe tyof the publ i c. T he s t at ed purpos e behi n d the FC A i s t o “r egul at [e] i nt er s t at e and f

or ei gn comm er ce i n comm uni cat i on byw i r e and r adi o s o as t o m ake a vai l abl e . . . a r api d, eff i ci ent , N at i on- w i de, a n d w o rld -w id e w ire a n d ra d io c o m m u n ica tio n se rv ice w ith adequa t e fa ci l i t i es at r eas onabl e char ges . . . . ” 47 U
. S. C
. § 151. I n s e t t i n g s t a n d a r d s f

o rwi r e a n d r a d i o c o mmu n i c a t i o n s , th e F CC m us tal s o cons i derthe promot i on of “the s afe tyof l i fe a nd pr operty . ” 47 U
. S. C
. § 33 2 (a)(1)
. A n es s ent i al el ementof an ef ficien t w ir eless n etw o rk is a sy stem that is su b ject t o u n ifo rm te c h n ic a l s ta n d a rd s . See F ed. R a d io C om m ’n v. N el son B ros. B ond & Mor t

g. C o. , 289 U
. S. 266, 279 ( 1933) ( “N o s t at e l i nes d iv id e th e ra d io w a v e s , a n d n a tio n a l re g u latio n is n o t o n ly ap p rop ri ate b u t es sen ti al to the ef ficien t use o f ra d io f

ac il it ies. ”); H .R . R e p . N o . 1 0 4 -2 0 4 (I ), a t 9 5 , re p rin tedin 1996 U
. S
. C
. C
. A
. N
. at61 –6 2 (“A high qu al i tynati on al w i rel ess tele c o m m u n ica tio n s n e tw o rk c a n n o t ex ist if e a c h o f

its component [s ] m us tm eetdi ffe r en tR F st andar ds i n eac h comm uni ty . ”)
. As th e H ous e C om m i t t ee on Com m er ce de cl ar ed i n a p p r o v i n g th e T CA : [ I ] ti s i n th e n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t th a tu n i f o r m, cons i s t entr equi r emen ts, w ith ad eq u ate sa feguar ds of the publ i c hea l th and s afe ty , be es t abl i s hed as so o n as p o ssible. Su ch req u ir em en ts w il l ens u re62 an appr opr i at e bal ance i n pol icyand w i l l s peed dep l o yme n ta n d th e a v a i l a b i l i tyo f c o mpe t i t i ve w i r el es s t el ecomm u n i cat i ons s ervi ces w hi ch ul t i m at el yw il l pr ovi de cons um er s w i th l ow er cos t s as w el l as w i th a gr eat erran ge and opt i ons for such servi ces. H .R . R e p . N o . 1 0 4

- 2 0 4 (I ), a t 9 4 , r epr i nt ed i n 1996 U
. S. C
. C
. A
. N
. at61. M or eover , uni form i tyi n r egul at i on hel ps ens ur e that adequa t e s ervi ce i s acc es s i bl e thr oughoutthe countryata l ow c o s t. See Cel l ularC om m c’ ns , 86 F. C
. C
. 2d at503. “[U ] ni ver s al s e rv ic e is a c o rn e rs to n e o f th e N a tio n ’s c o m m u n ic a tio n s y s te m .” S. R ep. N o . 104- 23, at25 ( 1995)
. “[O ] ne of the funda m ent al conce r ns ” of w ir eless r egul at i on i s the nee d t o fur ther u n iv e rs a lity, i d. at4, and thi s goal i s t o be s erved, in p art , by

“ p ro v id in g q u a lityse rv ic e s a t ju st, re a so n a b le, a n d a f f o rd a b le r at es [ and] pr ovi di ng acc es s t o advanc ed t el ecomm uni cat i ons and i nform at i on s ervi ces i n al l r egi ons of the nat i on . . . . ” Id

. at 5. A ccor di n g ly , the FC C w as t as ked notonl yw i th pr ot ect i ng the hea l th and s afe tyof the publ i c, butal s o w i th ens ur i ng the r api d devel opm entof an e ffi ci entand uni form netw or k, one that p ro v id e s ef

f e c tiv e a n d w id e ly a c c e ss ib le se rv ice a t a re a so n a b le c o st. H ow pr eci s el yt o serve thes e obj ect i ves “i s a pol i cy ques t i on, nota l egal one. ” Ce l l u la rPh o n e T as k f or c e v . FCC , 2 0 5 F .3 d 8 2 , 9 1 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). In o rd e r to sa tisf yb o th its63 m a n d a tes to re g u late th e sa f e tyc o n c e rn s o f

R F e m iss io n s a n d to ens ur e the cr eat i on of an e ffi ci en t an d uni form nat i onw i de netw or k, t h e F C C w as r equi r ed t o w ei gh thos e cons i der at i ons and es t abl i s h a s et of s t andar ds thatl i m i tR F em i s s i ons enough t o pr ot ectthe publ i c and w or ker s w hi l e, atthe s ame t i m e, l eave R F lev e ls h ig h e n o u g h to e n a b le c e ll p h o n e c o m p a n ies to p rovi de qual i tynat i onw i de s ervi ce i n a cos t
- eff ect i ve manne r. T he FC C i t s el f r ecogni zed: “W e bel i eve ourdeci s i ons pr ovi de a pr operbal ance betw een the need t o pr ot ectthe publ i c and wo r k e r s f

r o m e x p o s u r e t o p o t e n t i a l l y h a r mf u l RF el ectr om agnet ic fi el ds and the r equi r ementthati ndus trybe a llo w e d to p ro v id e tele c o m m u n ica tio n s se rv ice s to th e p u b lic in the mosteff

i ci entand pr act i cal m anner pos s i bl e. ” F C CSecond O r der , 12 F
. C
. C
. R
. at13496. T he SA R gui del i nes , ther efor e, r epr es ent the F C C ’ s cons i der ed j udgm ent abouthow t o pr ot ect th e h e a lth an d saf

etyo f th e p u b li c w h il e sti ll leav ing ind u stry capab l e of m ai ntai ning an e ffi ci ent and u nifor m w i rel ess netw or k. T he FC C concl uded t hat r equi r i ng expos ur e t o be keptas l ow as r eas onabl yachi evabl e i n the fa ce of s ci ent i fi c unce r t ai ntyw oul d be i ncons i st ent w ith i t s m and at e t o bal ance bet w een the ne e d to pr ot ectthe publ i c . . . and the r eq u ir ementthat i ndus t r y b e a l l o w ed t o pr ovi d e t el eco m m uni cat i ons s ervi ces t o the publ i c i n the m os teff i ci entand pr act i cal m annerpos s i bl e. C el l ularP hone Tas kf

or ce , 205 F. 3d a t9 2 ( i n t e rn a l q u o t at i on64 m a rk s o m itte d ). T hi s i s a si tuat i on “i n w hi ch the Feder al G overnm enthas w ei ghed the c o m pet i ng i nt er es t s r el evantt o the part i cul ar r equi r ementi n ques t i on, r eac hed an u n am bi guous concl us i on aboutho w thos e compet i ng cons i der at i ons s houl d be r es ol ved i n a part i cul arcas e ors et of ca s es , and i m pl ement ed that concl us i on vi a a s peci fi c m andat e on manufactur er s or pr oducer s . ” Lohr , 518 U
. S. at 501. H er e, the FC C has w ei ghed the compet i ng i nt er es t s r el evantt o R F r egul at i ons

— s afe tyand eff i ci ency . I thas r eac hed an una m bi guous concl us i on by a d o p tin g th e h yb ri d A N S I/ IE E E -N C R P s e t o f s ta n d a rd s , s ee 47 C .F .R . § 2 .1 0 9 3 (d ), a n d it h a s im p lem e n ted th a t co n c lu sio n v ia a s peci fi c mandat e, r equi r i ng everycel l phone s ol d i n the U ni t ed S t a te s to c o m p ly w ith th o s e s ta n d a rd s , s ee 4 7 C. F. R. §§ 2. 803( a) ( 1) ; 24. 51–. 52. A l l o wi n g j u r i e s t o i mpo s e l i a b i l i tyo n c e l l p hone compani es forcl ai m s li k e Far i na’ s w oul d confl i ctw i th the F C C ’s r e g u latio n s. A ju ryd e ter m in a tio n th a t ce ll p h o n e s in c o m p lian c e w ith th e F C C ’ s S A R g u id e lin e s w e re still u n re a so n a b lyd a n g e ro u s w o u ld , in e ss e n c e , p e rm it a ju ryto se c o n d g u e ss th e F C C ’s c o n c lu sio n o n h o w to b a lan c e its o b j e c t i v e s . W e r e th e F C C ’ s s t a n d a r d s t o c o n s t i tu t e o n l y a r egul at oryfl oorupon w hi ch s t at e l aw can bui l d, j ur i es coul d r ebal ance the FC C ’ s s t atut ory obj ect i ves and i nhi bi tthe pr ovi s i on o f q u a l i tyn a t i o n wi d e s e r v i c e . Be c a u s e th e i n t e n s i tyo f R F e m iss io n lev e ls a n d th e stre n g th a n d ra n g e o f c e ll p h o n e sig n a ls ar e pos i t i vel ycorr el at ed, al l ow i ng addi t i onal s t at e- l aw65 r es tr i ct i ons on thes e l evel s coul d i m pai rthe e ff ici encyof the w i r el es s m arket
. B utgi ven the curr ents t at e of the s ci ence , the FC C cons i der s al l phones i n compl i ance w i th i t s s t andar ds t o be s a f e . See FC CF i rs tO r der , 11 F. C
. C
. R
. at 15184 ( “W e bel i eve thatthe r egul at i ons . . . r epr es ent the bes t s ci ent i fi c thoughtand ar e suf ficientt o pr ot ectthe publ i c hea l th. ”)
. T hes e s t andar ds r epr es enta “c ons ens us vi ew ” of the age nci es w i th j ur i s di ct ion overR F em i s s i ons and inc orpor at e the vi ew s of num er ous e x p e rt o rg a n iz a tio n s a n d in te re s te d p a rt ie s . Id

. at15124. A s an a g e n c ye n g a g e d in ru lem a k in g , the F C C is w e ll p o si tio n e d to so li citex p ert o p inion s an d m arsh al th e sc ientifi c d ata to e n su re i t s s t andar ds both pr ot ectthe publ i c and pr ovi de foran ef fi ci ent w i r el es s netw or k. A l l ow i ng j ur i es t o perfo rm thei row n r i s ku til itya n a lys is a n d se c o n d -g u e ss th e F C C ’s c o n c lu sio n w o u ld d is ru p t th e e x p e rt b a la n c in g u n d e rl y in g th e f e d e ra l s c h e m e . See B u ckm an , 5 3 1 U. S. a t3 4 8 ( f i n d i n g p r e e mpt i o n whe r e “a s om ew hatdel i cat e bal ance of s tatut oryobj ect i ves ” coul d be “sk ew ed b y all o w ing
. . . claim s u n d er tort l aw ”); c f. R i egel , 552 U
. S
. at 3 2 5 (“S tat e t o rt law that req u ir es a m an u fa cture r’s cathet ert o be s afe r , but hence l es s eff ect i ve, than the model the F D A h a s a p p ro v e d d is ru p ts th e f e d e ra l s c h e m e . . . .” ). M o reo v er, th e re su lt ing stat e-law stan d ard s co u ld v ary f ro m sta te to sta te, e ra d ic a tin g th e u n if o rm ityn e c e ss a ryto r egul at i ng the w i r el es s netw or k. T he w i r el ess net w or k i s an inh ere n tl yn ati o n al sy stem
. In o rde r t o en su re the n etw o rk funct i ons nat i onw i de and t o pr es erve the bal ance betw een the FC C ’ s compet i ng r egul at oryobj ect i ves , both C ongr es s and the66 FC C r ecogni zed uni form i tyas an e s s ent i al el ementof an e f f ic ie n t w ir e le s s n e tw o rk
. See H
. R
. R ep. 104- 204 ( I ) , at94–95, r epr i nt ed i n 1 9 9 6 U .S .C .C .A .N . a t 6 1

– 6 2 ; C el l ularC om m c’ ns , 8 6 F .C .C .2 d a t 5 0 3 ; c

f. T h o m a s W . H a z le tt, Feder alP r eem pt i on i n C el l ularP hone Regul at i on , in Feder al Pr eempt i on 113, 124–25 ( R i chard A
. E ps t ei n & M i chae l S. G r eve e ds
. , 2007) ( des cr ibing the benef

i t s of uni form fede r al r egul at i on i n other aspects o f the w i rel ess netw ork). S ubj ect i ng the w i rel ess netw or k t o a pat chw or k of st ate st andar ds w oul d di s ruptthat uni form i tyand pl ace addi t i onal bur dens on i ndus tryand the n e t w o r k its e lf
. C

f

. B uckm an , 531 U
. S. at350 ( “A s a pr act i cal m a tter, c o m p ly in g w ith th e F D A ’s d e taile d re g u lato ry re g im e in the shad ow of 5 0 St at es’ t ortregi m es w i l l dram at i cal l yi ncrease th e b u rd e n s fa c in g p o ten tial ap p lica n ts .
. . .”). T h is w o u ld hinder the acc om pli shm ent of the fu l l obj ect i ves beh i ndw i rel ess r egul at i on. In c o n clud ing that stat e-law ca u ses o f a ct i on li k e F arina ’s ma yd i s tu rb th e F CC ’ s b a l a n c e o f i t s s t a tu t o ryo b

j e c t i v e s , we aff or d s om e w ei ght t o the vi ew s of the FC C i t s el f. W hi l e w e do n o t d e f e r to a n a g e n c y ’s le g a l co n c lu sio n th a t sta te la w is pr eempt ed, w her e “the s ubjectm att eri s t echni cal and the r e l e v a n th i s t o r ya n d b a c k g r o u n d a r e c o mp l e x a n d e x t e n s i v e ” we defe rt o “an a gency ’ s ex p la nat i on of how s t at e l aw aff ect s the r egul at orys cheme. ” W y e th , 129 S. C t
. at1201 ( al t er at i on and i nt erna l quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)
. B eca us e age nci es “have a uni que un d erst andi ng of the s t atut es theyadmi ni s t er [, they pos sess ] an a t t endantabi l i tyt o m ake i nform ed det erm i nat i ons67 abouthow s t at e r equi r ement s m aypos e an obs t acl e t o the acc om pl i s hm entand exe cut i on of the ful l purpos es and obj ect i ves of C ongr es s . ” I d. (i n terna l q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). “The w ei ght w e accor d the agency ’ s expl anat i on . . . depends on i t s thor oughness, consi s t ency , and per s uas i venes s . ” I d. T he FC C , i n i t s not i ce of

rul emaki ng, expl i ci t l ys t at ed the adopt i on of i t s SA R gui del i nes cons t i tut ed a ba l ancing of sa fetyand e f f ic ie n c y . F C CSecond O r der , 12 F. C
. C
. R
. at13496. I thas a lso c a u tio n e d , in a n a m icu s b r ie f b e f o re th e C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls forthe D i s tr i ctof C ol um bi a i n Mur r ay , th a ts t a t e - l a w c l a i ms w oul d ups etthat bal ance . B oth of thes e vi ew s s uppor t a fi ndi ng o f p re e m p tio n . F a rin a o b jec ts, a rg u in g w e sh o u ld a f f o rd n o d e f

e re n c e to the FC C ’ s s t at ement s beca us e the FC C ’ s pos i t i on on pr eempt i on i s i ncons i s t entw i th i t s pr i ors t at ement s on the i s s ue. I n W y e th , the S u p r eme C our tr efus ed t o defe rt o the FD A ’ s vi ew advoca ti n g i t s pr eempt i ve author i tybeca us e the age ncyhad pr evi ous l yas s ert ed thats t at e l aw di d not er ect an obst acl e t o the a g e n c y ’s o b

jec tiv e s. 1 2 9 S . C t. at 1 2 0 1

– 0 2 ; s ee al s o R i egel , 552 U
. S. at326 (st ati n g that“the degr ee of defe r ence [gi ven t o an agenc yexpl anat i on] m i ghtbe r educe d bythe fa ctthatthe a g e n c y ’s e a rlier p o sitio n w a s d if f e r e n t”) . F a rin a h ig h lig h ts sta tem e n ts b yth e F C C th a t p u rp o rt to d isc laim th e a u th o rityto pr om ul gat e s afe tys t andar ds and t o r ej ectthe pr eempt i ve a u th o ri ty o f

its R F re g u la tio n s . See FC CF i rs tO r der , 11 F. C
. C
. R
. at15101 ( r ecogni zi ng that“[t ] he FD A has gener al j ur i s di ct i on for pr ot ect i ng the publ i c fr om pot ent i all yh arm ful68 r adi at i on fro m cons um erand i ndus tr i al devi ces and i n that c a p a c ityis e x p e rt in R F e x p o su re s” ); R e sp o n sib ili ty , 100 F. C
. C
. 2d at551 ( “[W ] e have nei therthe expe r t i s e northe j uri sdi ct i on t o d evelop o ur ow n radi at i on exp osure gu i deli nes .

. . . ” (e m p h asis o m itted)); s ee al s o F C CSeco n dO r der , 12 F. C
. C
. R
. at13529 ( r efus i ng t o deci de w heth erornots t at e and lo c a l re g u latio n s o f

R F e m iss io n s s h o u ld b e p re e m p ted ); FCC Fi rs tOr der , 1 1 F .C .C .R . at 1 5 1 8 3 (sa m e ); R e sp o n sib ili ty , 100 F
. C. C. 2 d a t 5 5 8 ( “ [ W ] e d o n o tb e l i e v e i ti s n e c e s s a rya tth i s t i me t o r e s o l v e th e i s s u e o f

f e d e r a l p r e e mp t i o n o f

s t a t e a n d l o c a l RF stan d ard s. ”) . T o the ext entFar i na ar gues thes e s t at ement s evi n ce t he FC C ’ s r ej ect i on of pr eempt i on, he overr eads them. F ir s t , the f a c t th a t th e F C C d o e s n o t p o ss e ss so le ju risd ictio n o v e r h e a lth and s afe tys t andar ds does not pr ecl ude a fi ndi ng of pr eempt i on. See Ci t y of B ur bank , 411 U
. S. at638–39 ( fi ndi ng pr eempt i on w h e re a u th o rityo v e r r e g u latin g a irp lan e n o ise w a s v e ste d in b o th the E P A an d the F ed era l A v iat ion A d m inistra tio n ). Second, the FC C has been con s i s t enti n i t s pos i t i on on preem pti on . A l tho ug h ithas previousl yrefused t o ex press a vi ew on w hethers t at e and l ocal R F r egul at i ons ar e pr eempt ed, i t s r efus al w as expli ci t l ybas ed on the fa ctthatno s i gni fi cant c o n f lic t b e tw e e n s ta te la w a n d its re g u la tio n s e x is te d
. See, e. g. , F C CF i rs tO r der , 11 F. C
. C
. R
. at15182 ( “T o dat e the C o m m is sio n h a s d e c lin e d to p re e m p t o n h e a lth a n d sa f e ty m att er s . H ow ever , the C om m i s s i on has not ed thats houl d nonFeder al R F r adi at i on s t andar ds be adopt ed thatadver s el yaff ectF ari na als o co ntends W yeth pr ecl udes defe r ence t o agenc y 27 s t at ement s m ade out s i de of not i ce- and-c om m entrul emaki ng pr ocedur es . I n W

y e th , the Supr eme C our tr efus ed t o defe rt o the F D A ’s v iew s in p a rt b e c a u se th e y w e re e x p re ss e d in a p re a m b le t o an FD A r egul at i on w hos e not i ce of pr opos ed rul emaki ng had d e c lar e d it w o u ld n o t c o n tain p re e m p tiv e re g u latio n s. 1 2 9 S . C t. at1201. T he F D A ’ s vi ew s w er e “i nher ent l ys us pecti n l i ghtof thi s pr ocedur al fai l ur e. ” I d. W e do notr ead thi s pas s age a s s t andi ng forthe pr opos i t i on thaton ly s t at ement s m ade pur s uantt o not i ce- andcomm entrul emaki ng can be aff or ded def

er ence . T he def

er ence ati s s ue i n W

yeth w as Ski dm or e d e f

e re n c e , se e Sk idm o re v . Sw ift & Co. , 3 2 3 U .S . 1 3 4 (1 9 4 4 ), n o t C hevr on d ef ere n ce , s ee C hevr on, U

. S. A

. , I

nc. v. N at ur al R es. D ef

. C ounci l

, I nc. , 467 U .S
. 8 3 7 (1 9 8 4 ). T h e latte r l e v e l o f d e f e re n c e a p p li e s o n ly to sta tem e n ts c a rry in g th e f o rc e o f law , b u t Ski dm or e d e f

e re n c e is n o t so lim ite d
. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Mead C or p. , 533 U
. S. 218, 234–35 ( 2001) ( appl y i ng Ski dm or e d ef ere n ce to an a d v is o ry rul i ng l ett er )
. I ns t ead, w e r ead the C our t ’ s r efe r ence t o the 69 a l i cens ee’ s abi l i tyt o engag e in Com m i s s i on- author i zed act ivi t i es , the C om m i s s i on w oul d cons i derr econs i der i ng w h e th e r F e d e r a l ac tio n is n e c e ss a ry .”); R e sp o n sib ili ty , 100 F. C
. C
. 2d at 5 5 8 (s ame)
. T he FC C has al w ay s r es erved the ques t i on of the pr eempt i ve author i tyof i t s R F r eg ul at i ons pendi ng the exi s t ence of a n actual confl i ct , and i t s curr ent pos i t i on i s cons i s t ent w i th that appr oach. A ccor di ngl y , w e thi nk the FC C ’ s pos i t i on on pr eempt i on m er i t s defe r ence . 27FD A ’ s “pr ocedur al fai l ur e” t o be more pr oper ly co n si der ed a defe cti n the tho rou ghnes s of the FD A ’ s vi ew s . H avi ng d isa v o w e d a n yin ten t to iss u e p r e e m p tiv e re g u latio n s in its not i ce of

pr opos ed rul emaki ng, the FD A w o u ld nothave recei ved and con si dered t he co m m ents of all i nter est ed p art i es. In li g h t of

the lack o f ex p o su re to co n fli cti n g v iew s, the F D A ’s p o s i t i o n wo u l d l a c k th o r o u g h n e s s . He r e , i n c o n tr a s t , th e F CC r ece i ved num er ous comm ent s r egar di ng pr eempt i on, s e e FCC F i rs tO r der , 11 F. C
. C
. R
. at 15128 ( “[A ] s i gni fi cant num berof part i es addr es s ed the i s s ue of Fede r al p ree m p ti on of s t at e and l ocal r egul at i ons fo r R F expos ur e. ”) , and di d notdi s avow i s s ui ng pr eem p t i ve r egul at i ons i n i t s not i ce of pr opos ed rul emaki ng pr i ort o the F C CF i rs tO r der , see N PR F C CF i rst O r der , 8 F. C
. C
. R
. 2849. A l though the fa ctthatan age ncy ’ s vi ew s on pr eempt i on a re e x p re s s e d in f

o rm a lly c a n li m it th e d e f e re n c e g iv e n , s ee Fel lner , 539 F. 3d at 250–51, at l eas t her e, w her e the FC C w as e x p o se d to c o n f

lictin g v iew s, w e d o n o t th in k d e f e re n c e is u n w a r r a n t e d , cf

. i d. at250 n. 8 ( ci t i ng the age ncy ’ s l ack of expos ur e t o compet i ng vi ew s as a r at i onal e forr efus i ng t o defe r to an inf

o rm al ag en cystat em en t)
. R eg ard less, the F C C ’s recogn i t i on of the balance b e h in d i t s R F regul at i on s w as al so expr es s ed i n a for m al pr ocee di ng, and w e bel i eve thatdes erves d e f e re n c e . F C CSecond O r der , 12 F. C
. C
. R
. at13496. 70 Far i na ra is es s ever al obj ect i ons t o a fi ndi ng of preem pti on . F i rs t , he argu es preem pti on i s unw arr anted becau se th e F CC l a c k s a u th o r i ty t o r e g u l a t e th e s a f e tye f f e c t s o f RFT h e d istric t co u r t co n c lu d e d th a t th e F C C re g u late d c e ll 28 p h o n e RF e mi s s i o n s p u r s u a n t o n l y t o i t s a u th o r i ty u n d e rNE P A. Th e c o u r ti n M u r r a yd i d n o tb e l i e v e th a twh e th e rth e F CC p ro m ulgat ed i t s R F regul at i on s un der N E P A or “pu rs uan t to s peci fi c r adi o- comm uni cat i ons l egi s l at i on, ” M urr ay , 982 A
. 2d at 77 8 n. 19 , w as i m po rt ant becau se, i n the T C A , C on gress expl i ci t l yi ns truct ed the FC C t o “make eff ect i ve rul es r egar di ng 71 emi s s i ons . B eca us e the FC C i s notan age ncy in the fi el d of healt h and saf

ety , Far i na cont ends i tcannotpas s pr eempt i ve s a f e tyr e g u l a t i o n s . M o r e o v e r , h e a r g u e s th a t , i n p a s s i n g i t s RF s t andar ds , the FC C act ed purs uantt o i t s obl i gat i ons under N E P A
. See, e. g. , F C CSecond O r der , 12 F.C
. C
. R
. at13499 ( “To m eet i t s r es pons i bi l i t i es underN E PA , the C om m i s s i on has adopt ed r equi r ement s foreval uat i ng the envi r o n m ent al i m pact of i t s act i ons . O ne of se ver al envi r onm ent al fac t or s addr es s ed b yth e s e re q u ir e m e n ts is h u m a n e x p o s u re to R F e n e rg y. . . .” (f o o tn o te o m itt e d )). B e c a u se N E P A a p p lies b ro a d lyto a ll fede r al agenc i es and i s not a st atut e w i thi n the FC C ’ s excl us i ve p u rv ie w , h e a rg u e s it c a n n o t h a v e p re e m p tiv e e f f e c t. B utal though t he FC C ’ s R F r egul at i ons w er e tr i gger ed by th e C o m m iss io n ’s N E P A o b lig a tio n s, h e a lth a n d sa f e ty consi d era t i ons w er e al r eadyw i thi n the FC C ’ s m andat e, 47 U
. S. C
. §§ 151, 332( a) , and al l R F r egul at i ons w er e pr om ul gat ed u n d e r t h e ru le m a k in g a u th o ri ty g ra n te d b yth e F C A , s ee, e. g. , F C CSecond O r der , 1 2 F .C .C .R . at 1 3 5 6 2 ; F C CF i rs tO r der , 11 F .C .C .R . at 1 5 1 8 5
. F u rth e r m o r e , w h ile th e F C C a rg u a b ly 28the envi r onm ent al eff ect s of [R F] emi s s i ons . ” Pub. L
. N o. 104- 104, § 704( b) , 110 St at
. 56, 152. T he M urr aycourtconcl uded th a t§ 7 0 4 ( b ) d e l e g a t e d a ut h o r i tyt o th e F CC t o r e g u l a t e RF r adi at i on fr om cel l phones
. See M urr ay , 982 A
. 2d at 786 n. 37. T hi s i nt erpr et at i on has s om e for ce, butw e do not re lyon § 7 0 4 (b).
72 lac k s th e e x p e rtise to d e sig n its o w n sc ien tific h e a lth a n d sa f e ty s ta n d a rd s , se e R e sp o n sib ili ty , 100 F. C
. C
. 2d at551, i tdoes pos s es s the expe r t i s e t o s el ecta s t anda rd d evel oped byother exp ertagen ci es and o rgan i zat i on s and b al ance thatagainst e f f i c i e n c y , s e e i d. (r ecog nizi ng the F C C “do es have the ex pert i se and author i tyt o r ecogni ze t echni cal l ys ound s t andar ds prom ulga ted byreput able and co m petentorganizat i on s” (e m p h a s is o m itt e d )). T h e F C C n e e d n o t b e e x p e rt e n o u g h to devi s e i t s ow n SA R s t andar d t o adopt a pre empt i ve r egul at i on. I n C i t y of B ur bank , th e S u p r e me Co u r te v a l u a t e d F AA r egulati o n s of ai rpl ane noi s e contr ol underthe N oi s e C ontr ol A c t o f 1 9 7 2
. 4 1 1 U
. S
. at 62 8

– 2 9
. T h ese reg u lat ion s w ere pr om ul gat ed onl yaft erthe E PA s ubm i t t ed t o the FA A pr opos ed re g u la tio n s “ n e c e s s a ry to p ro te c t th e p u b lic h e a lth a n d w e lf a re .” I d. at 6 30. D es pi t e the fa ctthatthe EP A as s i s t ed i n the fo rm u lat ion o f f

ed era l st an d a rd s , the C o u rth eld th e F A A ’s a u th o ri ty p re e m p te d s ta te la w . I d. at640. F arina ’s sec o n d arg u m en t i s tha t th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’s r ece ntopi ni on i n W

yeth r equi r es us t o r ej ectpr eempt i on her e.73 I n W y e th , the pl ai nt i ff, D i ana L evi ne, s uffe r ed i nj ur i es r es ul t i ng fr om the admi ni s tr at i on of phener gan, an ant i hi s t ami ne, bythe I V
- pus h m ethod. 129 S. C t
. at 1 1 9 1
. Phener gan ca n be adm i nis t ered i n tw o p ossi ble w ay s— ei ther throug h the I V -push m eth o d , i n whi c h th e d ru g i s i n j e c t e d d i r e c t l y i n t o th e vei n, or thr ough i t s i ntr oduct i on i nt o s al i ne s ol ut i on thatdr i ps i nt o the v e in v ia a c a th e te r. I

d. Le v i n e a l l e g e d th e d ru g ’ s l a b e l i ng, al though appr oved bythe FD A , w as i nadequa t e bec aus e i tfai l ed t o i ns tructpr act i t i oner s nott o us e the r iskie rI V
- pus h m ethod. I d. a t 1 1 9 1

– 9 2
. T he C o u rt hel d L evi ne’ s s ui tw as notpr eempt ed bythe F D A ’s a p p ro v a l o f

p h e n e rg a n ’s l a b e l. I

d. at 12 0 4
. T h e C o u rt firstfo u n d that C o n g ress ha d lon g rec o g n ized a c o m p lem en tary r ol e for stat e- l aw caus es of ac t i on underthe Food, D rug, and C o s m e tic A c t ( “ F D C A ” ). I d. at11 99 –1 20 0. T his aw areness, w hen p a i red w i th C on gress ’s refusal t o en actan ex press pr eempt i on pr ovi s i on deal i ng w i th pr es cr i pt i on drugs , i ndi cat ed C o n g re s s d id n o t in te n d to d is p la c e s ta te la w . I d. at1200. M or eover , the C our tr efus ed t o d efe rt o the FD A ’ s curr ent p o s itio n o n p re e m p tio n , i d. at1201–02, and the age ncyi t s el f had tr adi t i onal l y reg ar ded s t at e l aw as a compl ementt o fede r al re g u la tio n s , id

. at 1202. Fi nal l y , the FD A ’ s appr o v al of phener gan’ s l abel di d notr efl ecta balanci ng of compet i ng obj ect i ves , as i n cas es l i ke G ei er , beca us e the FD A had noteven cons i der ed r equi r i ng a w arni ng agai ns t the IV

- pus h m ethod. I d. at1203 n. 14. Far i na ar g ues thes e as pect s of W yeth su p p o rt h isFar i na al s o emphasi zes thatthe W yeth C ourt rec o g ni zed 29 s t at e l a w as a n e c e s s a ryc o mpl e me n tb e c a u s e th e FDA l acke d th e res ou rces t o m on i t or al l new i nfo rm at i on abo ut the v ast a m o u n t o f

p h a rm a c e u tic a l s o n th e m a rk e t. S e e id

. at1202 & n. 11. Far i na ar gues thi s couns el s agai ns tfi ndi ng pr eempt i on her e bec aus e the FD A has s t at ed that i t l acks adequa t e r es our ces t o r egul at e the hea l th and s afe tyeff ect s of R F r adi at i on. I ti s not cl ear how the s uffi ci encyof the FD A ’ s r es our ces w oul d have a n eff ectupon the pr eempt i ve aut hor i tyof FC C r egul at i ons . Far i na m akes no corr es pondi ng ar gum entthatthe FC C l acks s uffi ci ent r es our ces t o m oni t orthe r i s ks of R F em i s s i ons . M or eover , the cos t s of m oni t or i ng the adequac yof a ge ner al l yappl i cabl e s etof R F st andar ds w ou ld p r es um abl ybe fa rl es s than thos e of m oni t or i ng the ade quacyof the l abel s forthous ands of di s t i nct ph arm aceuti cal s. 74 ar gum entagai ns tpr eemp ti on. W e di s agr ee. Fi r s t , ther e i s no i ndi cat i on, as ther e w as i n W y e th , that eit herC ongr es s orthe F C C tradi t i on al l yview ed st at e regul at i on of R F em i ssi on s as a nece s s arycompl em en t to feder al r egul at i on. T he FC C has a c k n o wl e d g e d tha t tr a d i t i o n a l l yl i t t l e s t a t e r e g u l a t i o n o f RF e m is s io n s e x is te d
. F C C F i rs tO r der , 1 1 F
. C
. C
. R
. at 15 1 8 3 (“It w ou l d a pp e a r fr om the c omm e nt s tha ta fe w [s t a t e a nd l oc a l RF] r egul ati o n s h ave been i m pos ed .
. . . ”)
. T he C om m i s s i on has h isto ri cal l y recogn i zed a rol e for st at e l aw on l y t o the ext ent it does notconfl i ctw i th fede r al l aw , and has t ake n the pos i t i on th a t sta te- law su its li k e F a rin a ’s w o u ld c o n f lict w ith its regul at i on s. 2975 M or eover , t h e l ack of

an expr es s pr eempt i on pr ovi s i on cove ri ng cl ai m s l i ke Far i na’ s does notnece s s ar i l ym ean C ongr es s i nt ended t o pr es erve conf l i ct i ng s t at e l aw . W e do not r ead W y e th ’ s r efe r ence t o C ongr es s ’ s deci s i on nott o enac tan e x p re s s p re e m p tio n p ro v is io n , s ee i d. a t12 00 ( “ I f Con gr ess th o u g h t sta te- law su its p o se d a n o b sta c le to its o b jec ti v e s, it s ur el yw oul d have enac t ed an expr es s pr e- empt i on pr ovi s i on at s om e po int dur i ng the FD C A ’ s 70- y earhi s t ory . ”) , as s t andi ng forthe pr opos i t i on thatconfl i ct pr eempt i on s houl d not be found a b se n t an e x p re ss p re e m p tio n p ro v isio n . S u c h a re a d in g w o u ld com e t oo cl ose t o sub sum i ng con fl i ctpreem pti on i nto express pr eempt i on anal y s i s , and i s i ncons i s t ent w i th the axi om thatan ex p ress p re e m p ti o n p rov isi o n d o es n o t “ba r th e o rdin ary w or ki ng of conf

l i ctpr e- empt i on pr i nci pl es , ” G ei er , 529 U
. S. at 8 6 9
. I n a n yc a s e , we r e c o g n i z e th a tCo n g r e s s d i d p a s s two e x p re s s p r e e m p t i o n p ro v is io n s in th e T C A
. See 47 U
. S. C
. §§ 3 3 2 (c)(3)(A ), (c)(7)(B )(i v ). W h il e the yd o n o t cov er F arina ’s cl ai m s , they do m ani fes tC ongr es s ’ s expr es s i nt entt o pr eempt s o me s t a t e l a w, wh i c h d i s t i n g u i s h e s th i s c a s e f r o m W y e th
. F in a lly, a s th e C o u rt its e lf re c o g n iz e d , W

yeth w a s n o t a b a lan c in g c a se . 1 2 9 S . C t. at 1 2 0 3 . S tate -la w a c tio n s s e e k in g to im p o se liab ili tyf

o r i n a d e q u a te w a rn in g s w o u ld n o t co n f lict w ith th e F D A ’s la b e lin g a p p ro v a l b e c a u se b o th w e re d e sig n e d to s e rv e t h e s a m e o b

je c tiv e

— p ro te c tin g p u b lic s a f e ty. I d. at 1199–1200. St at e t or tl aw w o ul d m er el ypr ovi de addi t i onal pr ot ect ion
. Pr ot ect i ng publ i c s afe tyi s cl ear l yw i thi n the m a n d a te o f

th e F C C
. See 47 U
. S. C
. § 332( a) ( 1) ; H
. R
. R ep. N o.76 1 0 4 -2 0 4 (I ), a t 9 4 , r epr i nt ed i n 1996 U
. S. C
. C
. A
. N
. at61 (d isc u ss in g th e n e e d f

o r “ a d e q u a te s a f

e g u a rd s o f th e p u b lic heal th and s afe ty ” i n R F r egul at i ons )
. B utthe C om m i s s i on w as no tcharged on l yw i th prot ect i ng the pu bli c from R F em i ssi on s; i tw as al s o r equi r ed t o ensure the devel opm entof an e ffi ci ent w ire les s n e tw o rk
. T h e C o m m iss io n ’s b a lan c e o f th e se in ter e sts wo u l d b e s k e we d b y a d d i t i o n a l s t a t e r e s tr i c t i o n s o n RF emi s s i ons i n a mannerthatthe obj ect i ves behi nd pharm ace ut i cal la b e ls w o u ld n o t b e . A c c o rd in g ly, W yeth d oes notpr ovi de s uffi ci entgr ounds t o al t erourconcl us i on. Fari n a’s thi r d ar gum entpos i t s thatthe pr es ence of a s avi ngs pr ovi s i on i n the TC A l i m i t s the pr eempt i ve author i tyof F C C re g u latio n s. S e c tio n 6 0 1 (c )(1 ) o f th e T C A p ro v id e s: “ T h is A ctand the amendm ent s m ade bythi s A cts hal l notbe cons trued t o m odi fy , i m pai r , ors uper s ede Fede r al , St at e, orl ocal l aw unl es s expr es s l ys o pr ovi ded i n s uch A ct or amendm ent s . ” P ub. L
. N o . 1 0 4 -1 0 4 , § 6 0 1 (c )(1 ), 1 1 0 S tat. 5 6 , 1 4 3 (c o d if ied a s N o te t o 47 U
. S. C
. § 152)
. I t i s ent i t l ed “N o I m pl i ed Effec t
. ” Far i na ar g u e s th i s s e c t i o n d e mon s tr a t e s Con g r e s s ’ s i n t e n tt o l i mi tthe pr eempt i on of s t at e l aw t o onl ythos e s i tuat i ons cover ed byan e x p re s s p re e m p tio n p ro v is io n . See H
. R
. R ep. N o. 104- 458, at 201 ( 1996) ( C o n f. R ep. ) ( “Thi s pr ovi s i on pr event s aff ect ed part i es fr om as s ert i ng thatthe bi l l i m pl i edl ypr eem pt s other l aw s . ”)
. B eca us e nei ther§ 332( c) ( 7) ( B ) ( i v) nor§ 332( c) ( 3) ( a) r eac h Far i na’ s cl ai m s , he w oul d have us concl ude hi s s ui tcannot be pr eempt ed. F ari na’s ar gu m ent i s not w i tho ut s om e forc e . Iti s a77 pos s i bl e r eadi ng of § 601(c )(1) t o concl ude C ongr es s m ade a cons ci ous eff

ortt o l i m i tthe s cope of anys ubs equentpr eempt i on a n a ly sis . A n d b e c a u se c o n g re ss io n a l in ten t is th e “ u lti m a te to u c h s to n e ” o f

o u r i n q u ir y , Lohr , 518 U
. S. at485 ( i nt ernal quot ati o n m arks om i t t ed) , i ti s conce i vabl e that§ 601( c) ( 1) c o u ld b e d is p o s itiv e , s ee Pi nney , 4 0 2 F. 3d at458 ( concl udi ng thatth e p res ence of § 601( c) ( 1) couns el ed aga i ns ta fi ndi ng of confl i ct p ree m p ti on)
. B uti ti s a gene r al rul e i n pr eempt i on an aly sis th at a sa v ing s p rov isi o n d o es n o t “ba r th e o rdin ary w or ki ng of confl i ct pr e- empt i on pr i nci pl es . ” G ei er , 529 U
. S. at 86 9. M oreove r, w here the federal regul at oryschem e refl ect s a car eful bal anci ng, s avi ngs pr ovi s i ons s houl d not be gi ven br oad e f f e c t, i d. a t8 7 0 , l e s tth e y“ p e r mi t [ a ] l a w t o d e f e a ti t s o wn obj ect i ves , orpot ent i al l y. . . t o ‘ destroyi t s el f. ’ ” I d. at872 ( quot i ng A T&T C o. v. C ent
. O f f i ce Tel

. , I nc. , 524 U
. S. 214, 228 (19 9 8 )). W hy , i n anyevent , w oul d C ongr es s n o t ha ve w a n ted o rd in a ryp re -e m p tio n p rin c ip les to a p p ly w her e an a ct u al confl i ctw i th a fe der al obj ect i ve is a t sta k e ? S o m e su c h p rin c ip le is n e e d e d . In its abs ence , s t at e l aw coul d i m pos e l egal dut i es that w o u ld co n fli ct direc tl yw ith fe d era l r eg u la to ry m andat es . . . . [I ] tw oul d t ake f r om those w ho w o u ld e n f

o rc e a f e d e ra l law th e v e rya b ili tyto achi eve the l aw ’ s congr es s i on al l ym andat ed obj ect i ves that the C ons t i tut i on, thr oug h the o p erat i on of o rdi narypre- em pti on pri ncipl es,78 se e k s to p ro tec t. I d. at871–72. Such a r eadi ng w oul d be odd, then, gi ven the fa ctthatthe FC C ’ s R F r egul at i ons r epr es ent a bal ance of c om pet i ng obj ect i ves. In cases w here an ag e n c y ’s regul at i on refl ect s a sin g le o b jec tiv e , it m ay m ake s ens e forC ongr es s t o decl ar e that s t at e l aw i s di s pl ace d onl y i n the s peci fi c s i tuat i ons cover ed by a n e x p re ss p re e m p tio n p ro v isio n . B y d o in g so , C o n g re ss c o u ld ens ur e s t at e l aw s erves as a compl ementt o federal r egul at i on, w hich w oul d fur theradvanc e the age ncy ’ s s t atut oryobj ect i ve. B utw her e the age ncy ’ s r egul at i ons repr es enta bal ance , the p re sence o f st at e-l aw regul at i on s does no tserve as a com plem ent, bu t rather r e-bal ances t he rel evan tcon si derat i on s. See Buckm an , 531 U
. S. at348. T h is is pre ci s el ythe type of situ a tio n w h e re a b ro a d re a d in g o f a sa v in g s p ro v is io n c o u ld al l ow the l aw t o “def

eati t s ow n obj ect i ves . ” G ei er , 529 U
. S. at 872. A ccor di ngl y , w e hes i t at e t o r ead § 601( c) ( 1) i n a w aythat d i s c l a i m s p r e e m p t i o n e v e n i n th e f a c e o f a n a c tu a l c o n f

l i c t
. “ We d o n o t cla im th a t C o n g re ss lac k s th e c o n st it u tio n a l p o w e r to w r i t e a s t atute thatm andat es s uch a c om pl ex type of s t at e/ fede r al r el at i ons hi p. ” I d. B u t w h e re th e lan g u a g e p e rm its anotherr eas onabl e re adi ng, i tm aybe more prudentt o adoptthat al t ernat i ve r atherthan the o n e thatcoul d do vi ol ence t o the s t atut e’ s obj ect i ves . I ti s notcl eartha t§ 601( c) ( 1) i ndi cat es C ongr es s w as w i l l i ng t o pr es erve s t at e l aw thatcr eat ed ac tual79 confl i ct s w i th fede r al l aw . E ven as s um i ng that C ongr es s m ay h a v e b e e n c la ri f

y in g its in te n t n o t to p re e m p t s o m e s ta te la w , a c lar i fi cat i on of i ntent no t t o preem pt som e st at e l aw i s n o t a s t at ementof i nt ent t o perm i t actual confl i ct s betw een s t at e and f e d e ra l la w . W hi l e the pr es ence of a s avi ngs pr ovi s i on does notaff ect the actual w or ki ngs of conf l i ctpr eempt i on, i tcan pr ovi de an i n d i c a t i o n o f

c o n g r e s s i o n a l i n t e n ta s t o a s t a tu t e ’ s o b j e c t i v e s . As s uch, a s avi ngs pr ovi s i on coul d i nform our anal y s i s of w hether a c o n f l i c te x i s t s wi th o u to f

f e n d i n g th e p r i n c i p l e s o f confl i ct pr eempt i on. Sect i on 601( c) ( 1) , then, coul d ind ic at e that C ongr es s ’ s obj ect i ves ar e more l i m i t ed than theym i ght o th e rw ise b e c h a ra c ter ize d . W h ile a n a c tu a l co n f lict w o u ld still b e p re e m p ted , su c h a c o n f lict w o u ld b e h a rd e r to f in d u n d e r th is l ess expan si ve v i ew of the st atute’ s object i ves. B u t th is is m e re lyo n e d a ta p o in t o u t o f m a n yw e u se to dis cern con gress i on al i ntent , and “a narrow focu s on C on gress ’ i nt entt o s uper s ede s t at e l aw i s m i s di r ect ed, fora pre-em pt i ve r egul at i on’ s for ce doe s notdepend on e xpr es s congr es s i onal author i zat i on t o di s pl ace s t at e l aw . ” Ci t y o f Ne w York

v . FCC , 486 U
. S. 57, 64 ( 1988) ( al t er at i ons and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks o m itt e d ); s ee al

s o G ei er , 529 U
. S. at884. M or eover , the br oad i n s tru c t i o n i n t h e TCA t o p r o mu l g a t e ru l e s g o v e rn i n g RF em iss i on s appea rs suffici ent t o au tho ri ze t he F C C t o p ass p re e m p tiv e re g u la tio n s . S e e D e la C u e sta , 458 U
. S. at153–54 (r ecog nizi ng that w hen an ag encyi ssues pr eempt i ve r e gu l at i on s, the q uest i on o f c o ng res si on al i ntentfocu ses on w hethertho se80 reg u lat ion s fa ll w ith in the ag en cy ’s de lega ted a u tho ri ty ). In a d d iti o n , C o n g re ss h a s alre a d y sh o w n th e in ten tio n to o v e rrid e n o n u n if

o rm sta te- law R F sta n d a rd s th a t c o n f lict w ith fede r al r egul at i on of the w i r el es s i nfr as tructur e. I n pas s i ng § 332( c) ( 7) ( B ) ( i v) , C ongr ess re cogni zed that“curr entSt at e and l ocal r equi r ement s , s i t i ng and zoni ng deci s i ons bynon- fede r al un i t s o f go vernm ent, hav e creat ed an i nco nsi st ent and, att i m es, confl i ct i ng pat chw or k of re qui r ement s w hi ch w i l l i nhi bi t
. . . the r ebui l di ng of a di gi t al t ec h n o log y -ba sed ce ll u la r t el ecomm uni cat i ons netw or k. ” H
. R
. R ep. N o. 104- 204( I ) , at94, re p rin tedin 1996 U
. S. C
. C
. A
. N
. at61
. T h e pr es ence of i ncons i s t ents t at e- l aw regul at i ons of the i nfr as tructur e cr eat ed confl i ct s w i th the FC C ’ s R F r egul at i ons and l ed t o the enactm ent of an ex press preem pti on provis i on . C on gress , ther efor e, w as cl ear l yconce rned w i th s tat e-l aw R F st andar ds appl i cabl e t o i nfr as tructur e thatthr eat ened t o l i m i tth e ef fi ci ency and uni form i tyof the w i r el es s netw or k. C ell p h o n es ar e as i nt egral t o the w i r el es s netw or k as the i nfr as tructur e, and r egul at i ons of phones can ha ve s i m i l areff ect s on the eff ect i venes s of w i r el es s s ervi ce a s r egul at i ons of the inf rastruc ture. C

f. N PR R ur al , 18 F. C
. C
. R
. at20830 ( s t at i ng th a t th e b ig g e st lim it a ti o n s o n th e a b ili tyo f a b a se sta tio n to r eac h a ce l l phone ar e t h e p ow erl evel of the s i gnal and the l ocat i on of the phone i n r el at i on t o the bas e s t at i on)
. W e thi nk C ongr es s w oul d be equa l l yconce rned w i th s t at e r egul at i ons of cel l phon es thatcoul d i m pos e s i m i l arl i m i t at i ons on the r ange an d ef ficien cyo f th e w ir eless n e tw o rk. S ec ti o n 6 0 1 (c)(1),Far i na al s o poi nt s t o an addi t i onal s avi ngs pr ovi s i on i n 47 30 U
. S. C
. § 414, pr ovi di ng: “N othi ng i n thi s chapt ercontai ned s hal l i n anyw ayabr i dge oral t erthe rem edi es now exi s t i ng at comm o n law orbys t atut e . . . . ” Thi s pr ovi s i on appl i es gener al l y , and as s uch, does notpr ovi de s tr ong evi dence of the c o n g r e s s i o n a l o b

j e c t i v e s b o u n d u p wi th th e r e g ul a t i o n o f RF e m iss io n s. W e d e c lin e to re a d th is p ro v isio n in a w a yth a t li m its ou r confli ctpreem pti on analy si s. A lt h o u g h Far i na pr i m ar i l yr eques t s the pr ovi s i on of 31 heads et s orcompensa t i on forthe cos tof hea ds et s , hi s compl ai nt r eques t s s ever al addi t i onal forms of r el i ef, i ncl udi ng m oney d a m a g e s, p u n iti v e d a m a g e s, a n d a d e c lar a to ryju d g m e n t. 81 th e re f o re , d o e s n o t b a r th e p re e m p tio n o f F a rin a ’s s u it. 30 Far i na’ s fi nal ar gum enti s thateven i f the FC C di d s tr i ke a ba l a n c e t o p r o t e c t s a f e ty a n d e f

f i c i e n c y , th e p r e c i s e r e l i ef he s eeks

— r equi r i ng cel l phones t o carryheads et s

— w oul d have no e f f e c t u p o n th e e f

f icie n c y o f

th e w ire les s n e tw o rk
. T h e F o u rth 31 C ir c u it f o u n d th is a rg u m e n t c o n v in c in g . See Pi nney , 402 F. 3d at458 ( “I ti s di ffi cul t t o under s t and how a hea ds etr equi r ement ( the s peci fi c r el i ef s ought ) w oul d af fe ct the es t abl i s hm entof a nat i onw i de w i r el es s s ervi ce ne tw or k orthe a v ai l abi l i tyof w i r el es s s ervi ce cov erage. . . . [A ] ccor di ngl y , a hea ds et r equi r ementw oul d nots t and as an obs t acl e t o C ongr es s ’ s goal o f a c h ie v in g n a tio n w id e c o v e ra g e .” ). B u t w e th in k th e f

o c u s o n th e h e a d se t re q u ire m e n t is82 m i s pl ace d. Forthe purpose s of pr eempt i on anal y s i s , i ti s the cause o f act i on, and notthe s peci fi c r el i ef r eques t ed, that m att er s . Pr eempt i on s peaks i n t erm s of cl ai m s , noti n t erm s of f o rm s o f re lie f
. See, e. g. , W

y e th , 129 S. C t. at1191 ( “The q u e stio n w e m u st d e c id e is w h e th e r th e F D A ’ s a p p ro v a ls p ro v id e W y e th w ith a c o m p lete d e f e n se to L e v in e ’s to rt c la i ms .” (e m p h a sis a d d e d )); R i egel , 552 U
. S. at323 ( r eadi ng L oh r to h a v e h e l d th a t“ c o m mo n - l a w caus es of act i on fornegl i gence and s tr i ctl i abi l i ty ” w er e s ubj ectt o pr eempt i on bycert ai n fede r al re g u latio n s (e m p h a sis a d d e d )); see a l so W oo d v. P ruden t i al I

ns. Co

. o f A m. , 207 F. 3d 674, 678 ( 3 d C ir
. 2000) ( not i ng that p re e m p tio n “ d o e s n o t d e p e n d o n th e typ e o f re lief re q u e ste d in a c o m p lain t” ). A n yfo rm o f re li ef sh ap es a d ef

en d an t’ s b eh av ior, w h ich c an co n fli ct w ith fe d era l l aw o b jec tiv e s . See C i pol lone , 5 0 5 U .S . at 5 2 1 (S tev e n s, J., co n c u rrin g ) (“ [ S ]ta te r egul at i on can be as eff ect i vel yexert ed thr ough an aw ard of damages as thr ough so m e form of pr event at i ve r el i ef. T he obl i gat i on t o paycompensa t i on can be
. . . a pot entm et hod of governi ng conduct and contr ol l i ng pol i cy . ” ( quot i ng San D i ego B ldg. Trade s C ounci lv. G ar m on , 3 5 9 U
. S
. 2 3 6 , 2 4 7 (19 5 9 )) (a ltera tio n o m itt e d )); s ee al s o R i egel , 5 5 2 U .S . a t 3 2 4 ; c f

. N. Y. Ti m es C o. v. Sul l i van , 3 7 6 U .S . 2 5 4 , 2 7 7 (1 9 6 4 ) (“ W h a t a S tate m ay not cons t i tut i onal l y br i ng about by m eans of a cri m i nal statu te i s li k ew ise b ey o n d the re ac h o f it s civ il law s . . . . ”). F u rth e rm o re , altho ug h F ari na att e m p ts to c h a ra c ter ize h is s ui tas s ett i ng a hea ds etr equi r ement , thi s m isap p rehends the eff ecta fi ndi ng of l i abi l i ty w oul d have i n thi s ki nd of sui t
. T heW e do noti m pl ythata s t at e s t atut e o r r egul at i on 32 p r e s c r i b i n g a s p e c i f

i c me a n s o f

r e d u c i n g o re l i mi n a t i n g S AR expos ur e— s uch as one req u ir i ng a hea ds etforal l cel l phones so ld w it h in a sta te— w o u ld n o t b e p re e m p ted . W e m e re ly re c o g n ize th a t a d istin c tio n e x ists b e tw e e n th e tw o f o rm s o f sta te re g u la tio n . See Ri egel , 5 5 2 U .S . at 3 2 5 (“ In d e e d , o n e w o u ld thi nk t hat tortl aw , appl i ed byj ur i es . . . , i s l es s des ervi ng of p re se rv a tio n . A sta te s tatu te, o r a re g u latio n a d o p ted b ya sta te a g e n c y , co u ld a t lea st b e e x p e c ted to a p p lyc o st-b e n e f it an a ly sis s i m i l a rt o th a ta p p l i e d b yth e e x p e r t s a t t h e F DA .
. . . ” )
. We r efe r ence thi s di s t i nct i on onl y beca us e F ar i na’ s char act er i zat i on o f hi s s ui tas s ett i ng a hea ds etr equi r ementi ns i nuat es no d istin c tio n is p re se n t. 83 natur e of j ury deci s i ons i s not t o pr es cr i be a s peci fi c pr os pect i ve r emedy
. I ti s m er el yt o s aythatdefe n d an ts’ conductdoes not abi de bythe oper at i ve l egal s t andar d— i n thi s cas e, that defe ndant s ’ cel l phones ar e uns afe

— and t o pr ovi de r el i ef forthe sp e c if ic c a se o r c a se s b e f

o re th e c o u rt. H o w d e f e n d a n ts achi eved s afe l evel s of SA R expos ur e for cel l phones s ol d i n the futur e w oul d be l eftup t o them. W hetherth eycompl i ed by 32 r educi n g RF em i s s i ons orbybundl i ng heads et s w i th phones

— or bys om e otherm eans

— w oul d be i rr el evantforthe purpos es of th e n e w sta te- law sta n d a rd
. In b o th situ a tio n s, th e p h o n e s w o u ld b e c o n s id e re d “ sa f

e ” u n d e r sta te la w . N o r sh o u ld th e sp e c if ic m e a n s o f c o m p lia n c e m a tte r f

o r p re e m p tio n p u rp o s e s . A cc o rdin g ly , w e c o n clud e tha t Fa ri n a’s c lai m s areFar i n a al s o al l eges defe ndant s ’ cel l phones ar e def ect i ve 33 b e c a u se th e y re p re se n t a sa f e ty risk w h e n u se d w ith o u t h e a d se ts w hi l e dr i vi ng. T hi r d A m . C om pl
. ¶ 151. B ut w hether ornotthe FC C has author i tyoverthe m att erof dr i vers afe ty , the ef fec tof F ari na’s s uitw ou l d b e t o requir e t he redesi gn of ce l l ph on es. T h i s p r e s e n t s th e s a me c o n f l i c ta s h i s o th e rc l a i m s . We 84 pr eempt ed bythe FC C ’ s R F r egul at i ons . T he i nexor abl e ef fec t o f a llo w in g su its lik e F a rin a ’s to c o n tin u e is to p e rm it j u rie s to second -gues s the F C C ’s balance of it s com peti ng obj ect i ves. T he F C C i s i n a bet t er pos i t i on t o m oni t orand as s es s the s ci ence b eh ind R F rad iat ion than juri es in ind ividu al ca ses. R eg u lat o ry as s es s m ent s and rul emaki ng cal l upon a m yr i ad of e m pi r i cal and sc ien tific d a ta a n d m e d ica l a n d sc ien tific o p in io n , es p e c iallyin a ca s e, s uch as R F r ad iat i on, w her e the s ci ence r emai ns i nconcl us i ve. T hough w e forec lose r el i ef f orthe mem ber s of thi s put at i ve class, thi s does notr enderthem devoi d of pr ot ect i on. T he FC C has pl edged t o s erve an ongoi ng r ol e i n the re g u latio n o f

R F ra d iatio n a n d to m o n ito r th e sc ien c e in o rd e r to ens ur e i t s r egul at i ons r emai n adequa t e t o p rot ectthe publ i c. O E T B ull et i n at 8; s e e als o EMR Ne two rk v . FCC , 391 F. 3d 2 6 9 , 2 7 3 (D .C . C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (n o tin g th e F C C ’s “ d e ter m in a tio n to keep a n ey e on devel opm ent s ” and acc om m odat e change s i n the sci ence). A l l ow i ng j uri es t o d et erm i ne inst ead w hethe r t ho se r egul at i ons ar e adequat e t o pr ot ectthe publ i c w oul d “s t and[] as a n o b sta c le to th e a c c o m p lish m e n t an d e x e c u tio n o f th e f u ll purpos es and obj ect i ves of C ongr es s . ” Hi l l s bor ough C nt

y. , 471 U
. S
. at 71 3 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). 33th e r e f o r e r e j e c tF a r i n a ’ s d r i v e rs a f e tya r g u men tf

o rth e s a me reas on s as hi s ot her cl ai m s. 85 I V. Forthe for ego ing r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ct C o u rt’s d ism iss a l o f

F a rin a ’s c o m p lain t.