PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 08-4034

FRANCIS J. FARINA, individually and on behalf

of all those similarly situated

v.

NOKIA INC.; NEC AMERICA;

ERICSSON WIRELESS COMM., INC.; 

MOTOROLA, INC.; SPRINT PCS, L.P.;

AUDIOVOX COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION; 

NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS

OF THE MID-ATLANTIC, INC.;

MATSUSHITA CORPORATION OF AMERICA,

also known as PANASONIC CORPORATION; 

PHILIPS ELECTRONIC NORTH AMERICA CORP.;

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

also known as QUALCOMM, INC;

SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, L.P.;

SANYO NORTH AMERICA, INC. also known as

SANYO NORTH AMERICA GROUP;

SONY ELECTRONICS, INC.;
2

AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC.;

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP,

also known as VERIZON WIRELESS; 

CINGULAR WIRELESS LLC, also known as

SOUTHWESTERN BELL WIRELESS formally known as

SOUTHWESTERN BELL MOBILE SYSTEMS, NC.;

CELLULAR ONE GROUP,

also known as CELLULAR ONE;

VOICESTREAM WIRELESS CORPORATION,

also known as VOICESTREAM WIRELESS;

LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A.., INC.; 

CELLULAR TELECOMMUNICATION

INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, also known as TIA;

JOHN DOES NOS. 1-100

Francis J. Farina,

Apellant

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

D.C. Civil Action No. 06-cv-0724

(Honorable John R. Padova)
 The Honorable Arthur L. Alarcón, United States Circuit *

Judge for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, sitting by designation.

3

Argued April 19, 2010

Before: SCIRICA, AMBRO

and ALARCÓN , Circuit Judges.

*

(Filed: October 22, 2010)

KENNETH A. JACOBSEN, ESQUIRE (ARGUED)

12 Orchard Lane

Wallingford, Pennsylvania 19086

MICHAEL D. DONOVAN, ESQUIRE

Donovan Searles

1845 Walnut Street , Suite 1100

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

JOSEPH A. O'KEEFE, ESQUIRE

O'Keefe & Sher

15019 Kutztown Road

Kutztown, Pennsylvania 19530

Attorneys for Appellant

DAVID C. FREDERICK, ESQUIRE (ARGUED)

Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd Evans & Figel

1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400

Washington, D.C. 20036
4

SEAMUS C. DUFFY, ESQUIRE

Drinker Biddle & Reath

One Logan Square

18 & Cherry Streets th

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

Attorneys for Appellees,

AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.

n/k/a New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc.;

Cingular Wireless LLC n/k/a AT&T Mobility LLC

JOHN BEISNER, ESQUIRE

Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom

1440 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

ROBERT C. HEIM, ESQUIRE

RICHARD D. WALK, JR., ESQUIRE

Dechert 

Cira Centre, 18 Floor th

2929 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 

Attorneys for Appellee,

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless

ANDREW G. McBRIDE, ESQUIRE

JOSHUA S. TURNER, ESQUIRE

Wiley Rein

1776 K Street, N.W.
5

Washington, D.C. 20006

Attorneys for Appellees,

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless;

Nokia Inc.

DANIEL T. FITCH, ESQUIRE

Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young

2600 One Commerce Square

2005 Market Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

JOHN B. ISBISTER, ESQUIRE

Tydings & Rosenberg

100 East Pratt Street, 26 Floor th

Baltimore, Maryland 21202

Attorneys for Appellee,

Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC

SUSAN K. HERSCHEL, ESQUIRE

Hoyle Fickler Herschel & Mathes

One South Broad Street, Suite 1500

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107

EUGENE A. SCHOON, ESQUIRE

Sidley Austin

One South Dearborn Street

Chicago, Illinois 60603

Attorneys for Appellee,
6

Voicestream Wireless Corporation

n/k/a T-Mobile USA, Inc.

EDWARD M. CRANE, ESQUIRE

Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom

155 North Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60606

STEVEN A. HABER, ESQUIRE

Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel

One Penn Center, 19 Floor th

1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

Attorneys for Appellees,

Nextel Communications of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc.;

Nextel Boost of the Mid-Atlantic LLC; Nextel West

Corp.; Nextel Boost West LLC

JAMES P. ULWICK, ESQUIRE

Kramon & Graham

Commerce Place, Suite 2600

One South Street

Baltimore, Maryland 21202

Attorney for Appellee,

NEC Corporation of America

FRANCIS A. CITERA, ESQUIRE

Greenberg Traurig
7

77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

BRIAN T. FEENEY, ESQUIRE

Greenberg Traurig

2700 Two Commerce Square

2001 Market Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

FRANCINE F. GRIESING, ESQUIRE

Griesing Law

1717 Arch Street, Suite 360

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

Attorneys for Appellees,

Qualcomm, Inc.;

Sony Electronics, Inc.

HOWARD D. SCHER, ESQUIRE

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney

Two Liberty Place, Suite 3200

50 South 16th Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102

Attorney for Appellee,

Cellular One Group

WALTER H. SWAYZE, III, ESQUIRE

Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney

United Plaza, Suite 1700
8

30 South 17th Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

Attorney for Appellee,

Panasonic Corp. of North America f/k/a

Matsushita Electric Corporation of America

DAVID G.C. ARNOLD, ESQUIRE

915 Montgomery Avenue, Suite 109 

Narberth, Pennsylvania 19072

LINDA B. EPSTEIN, ESQUIRE

Hughes Hubbard & Reed 

1775 I Street, N.W., Suite 600 

Washington, D.C. 20006

Attorneys for Appellee,

LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc.

ROCHELLE M. FEDULLO, ESQUIRE

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker

The Curtis Center, Suite 1130 East

Independence Square West

601 Walnut Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106

Attorney for Appellee,

Sanyo North America, Inc.

ASHLEY R. ADAMS, ESQUIRE

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
9

1111 Louisiana Street, 44th Floor

Houston, Texas 77002

FRED I. WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld

300 West Sixth Street, Suite 2100

Austin, Texas 78701

STEVEN M. ZAGER, ESQUIRE

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld

One Bryant Park

New York, New York 10036

Attorneys for Appellee,

Nokia, Inc.

WALTER L. McDONOUGH, ESQUIRE

Swartz Campbell

Two Liberty Place, 28 Floor th

50 South 16th Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102

Attorney for Appellee,

Sprint Corp.

STEPHAN G. WEIL, ESQUIRE

Dickstein Shapiro

1825 Eye Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006
10

CRAIG E. ZIEGLER, ESQUIRE

Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads

123 South Broad Street, 24 Floor th

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19109

Attorneys for Appellee,

Audiovox Communications Corporation

MARK A. ARONCHICK, ESQUIRE

ROBERT L. EBBY, ESQUIRE

Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin

One Logan Square, 27 Floor th

18 & Cherry Streets th

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

CHARLES L. BABCOCK, ESQUIRE

DAVID T. MORAN, ESQUIRE

Jackson Walker

901 Main Street, Suite 6000

Dallas, Texas 75202

Attorneys for Appellee,

Ericsson Inc.

RAYMOND B. BIAGINI, ESQUIRE

LISA M. NORRETT, ESQUIRE

McKenna Long & Aldridge

1900 K Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006
11

MARY C. DOHERTY, ESQUIRE

Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin

1845 Walnut Street, 21 Floor st

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

Attorneys for Appellee,

Philips Electronics North America Corporation

ROBERT E. WELSH, JR., ESQUIRE

Welsh & Recker

2000 Market Street, Suite 2903

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

Attorney for Appellee,

Cellular Telecommunication Industry Association

TERRENCE J. DEE, ESQUIRE

MICHAEL B. SLADE, ESQUIRE

Kirkland & Ellis

300 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2400

Chicago, Illinois 60654

Attorneys for Appellee,

Motorola Inc.

JAMES M. MESNARD, ESQUIRE

Seyfarth Shaw 

975 F Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20004

Attorney for Appellee,

Telecommunications Industry Association
12

OPINION OF THE COURT

SCIRICA, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Francis J. Farina brought this class action

against various cell phone manufacturers and retailers of

wireless handheld telephones. He appeals from the dismissal of

his complaint on the ground that his claims are preempted by

regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications

Commission. We will affirm.

I.

Farina represents a putative class consisting of all past,

current, and future Pennsylvania purchasers and lessees of cell

phones who have not been diagnosed with an injury or illness

resulting from their cell phone usage. Farina’s claims are based

on the allegation that cell phones, as currently manufactured, are

unsafe to be operated without headsets because the customary

manner in which they are used—with the user holding the phone

so that the antenna is positioned next to his head—exposes the

user to dangerous amounts of radio frequency (“RF”) radiation.

Farina alleges the marketing of cell phones as safe for use

without headsets violates several provisions of Pennsylvania

law. 
The power level of a cell phone, measured in watts, is 1

correlated with the range of a cell phone signal. See NPR Rural,

18 F.C.C.R. at 20829 (“One way to increase the range of radio

systems is by increasing power levels.”); id. at 20830

(“[R]eceived signal levels decrease exponentially as the receiver

moves farther from the transmitter . . . .”). The intensity of RF

radiation is measured in watts per kilogram. See 47 C.F.R. §

2.1093(d). Thus, the intensity of RF radiation is correlated with

the power level and, therefore, range. See generally FCC,

Office of Engineering & Technology, Questions and Answers

about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of

Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, OET Bull. No. 56, 5–6

13

A.

A cell phone functions by transmitting information

between its low-powered radio transmitter and a base station,

usually a tower containing a large antenna. See generally

Pinney v. Nokia, Inc., 402 F.3d 430, 439–40 (4th Cir. 2005).

Each base station reaches a relatively small area, or cell, and as

a user moves from cell to cell, the signal must transfer from base

station to base station. Id. at 440. When cell phones

communicate with base stations, they emit RF energy. Id. The

strength of a cell phone signal, and hence its range, has been

positively correlated with the intensity of its RF emissions. See

In re Rural Telephone Cos., 18 F.C.C.R. 20802, 20829 & n.114

(2003) [hereinafter NPR Rural] (notice of proposed

rulemaking).1
( 4 t h e d . A u g . 1 9 9 9 ), a v a i l abl e at

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Docum

ents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf.

14

The science is clear that at high levels RF radiation can

cause adverse “thermal” effects resulting from the heating of

human tissue. See generally FCC, Office of Engineering &

Technology, Questions and Answers about Biological Effects

and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic

Fields, OET Bull. No. 56, 6–7 (4th ed. Aug. 1999) [hereinafter

O E T B u lle tin ], avai l a b l e at

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Docum

ents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf. More controversial is the

purported existence of “non-thermal” effects caused by lower

levels of RF radiation. Farina alleges that over the past five

decades “dozens of peer reviewed research papers were

published which, individually and collectively, raised serious

and credible questions regarding whether the RF[ radiation] to

which [cell phone] users were and are exposed posed a risk or

threat to their health.” Third Am. Compl. ¶ 51; see also id. ¶¶

79–86, 90–98 (describing findings from numerous studies and

laboratory tests). According to the FCC, however, “the evidence

for production of harmful biological effects [from low-level RF

radiation] is ambiguous and unproven.” OET Bulletin 8.

Results from studies have been “inconclusive,” and “while the

possibility of ‘non-thermal’ biological effects may exist,

whether or not such effects might indicate a human health

hazard is not presently known.” Id. In light of the present state
15

of the science, the FCC has stated that any cell phone legally

sold in the United States is a “safe” phone. App. 691.

B.

Federal regulation of radio communications can be traced

back a century, to the Wireless Ship Act of 1910, ch. 379, 36

Stat. 629. See Nat’l Broad. Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190,

210 (1943). Federal control over the medium was extended by

the Radio-Communications Act of 1912, ch. 287, 37 Stat. 302,

which mandated federal licensing of the use of radio

frequencies, Nat’l Broad. Co., 319 U.S. at 210, and was

cemented by the Federal Communications Act of 1934, ch. 652,

48 Stat. 1064 (“FCA”), Nat’l Broad. Co., 319 U.S. at 213–14.

The FCA was enacted “[f]or the purpose of regulating interstate

and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so

as to make available . . . a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and

world-wide wire and radio communication service with

adequate facilities at reasonable charges . . . .” 47 U.S.C. § 151.

To that end, the FCA established the FCC, which was endowed

with broad authority to license and regulate radio

communications. See Nat’l Broad. Co., 319 U.S. at 214–16. 

The FCC’s jurisdiction extends to wireless telephone

service, see In re An Inquiry Into the Use of the Bands 825–845

MHz and 870–890 MHz for Cellular Communications Systems,

86 F.C.C.2d 469, 470 (1981) [hereinafter Cellular Commc’ns],

and FCC authority over the technical aspects of radio

communications is “exclusive,” Head v. N.M. Bd. of Exam’rs in
16

Optometry, 374 U.S. 424, 430 n.6 (1963). The FCC is charged

with fostering the development of an efficient wireless network,

47 U.S.C. § 151, and an essential characteristic of an efficient

network is nationwide accessibility and compatibility, see

Cellular Commc’ns, 86 F.C.C.2d at 503 (“Throughout the

cellular proceeding an essential objective has been for cellular

service to be designed to achieve nationwide compatibility. . . .

[A] cellular subscriber traveling outside of his or her local

service area should be able to communicate over a cellular

system in another city.”). Moreover, the FCC has long asserted

that uniformity in the technical standards governing wireless

services is necessary to ensure an efficient nationwide system.

See id. at 504–05 (“[W]e are asserting federal primacy over the

areas of technical standards and competitive market structure for

cellular service.”); see also In re Petition of the Conn. Dep’t

Pub. Util. Control, 10 F.C.C.R. 7025, 7034 (1995) (“Congress

intended . . . to establish a national regulatory policy for

[commercial mobile radio services], not a policy that is

balkanized state-by-state.” (footnote omitted)). 

The FCC has regulated human exposure to RF emissions

only since 1985. See In re Responsibility of the F.C.C. to

Consider Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, 100

F.C.C.2d 543, 544 (1985) [hereinafter Responsibility]. The

FCC’s RF regulations were promulgated to satisfy the

Commission’s obligations under the National Environmental
 Although RF standards were issued to satisfy NEPA 2

obligations, the regulations were promulgated pursuant to the

FCC’s rulemaking authority under, inter alia, 47 U.S.C. §§

154(i) and 303(r).

 In particular, the FCC has solicited guidance on its RF 3

regulations from the Food and Drug Administration, the

Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and

Health Administration, the National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health, the National Telecommunications and

Information Administration, and the Department of Defense.

See OET Bulletin 27.

17

Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.

2

NEPA obligates all federal agencies—not just the FCC—to

consider and identify the environmental impact of any “major”

action that “significantly affect[s] the quality of the human

environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). Although the FCC does

not possess individual agency expertise with respect to the

development of public health and safety standards, see

Responsibility, 100 F.C.C.2d at 551, the Commission concluded

that NEPA obligated it to regulate RF radiation, see id. at 546.

After seeking input from other federal agencies and interested 3

parties, the FCC adopted as its own standard the then-current

American National Standards Institute Committee (“ANSI”)

standard governing RF emissions. Id. at 551. Notably, these

regulations did not extend to cell phones. See id. at 561–62. 
18

In 1993, prompted by ANSI’s revision of its standards in

collaboration with the Institute of Electrical and Electronic

Engineers, Inc. (“IEEE”), the FCC began rulemaking procedures

to determine whether it should strengthen its regulations. See In

re Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of

Radiofrequency Radiation, 8 F.C.C.R. 2849, 2849 (1993)

[hereinafter NPR FCC First Order] (notice of proposed

rulemaking). Among the proposed changes was the extension

of RF regulations to cover cell phones. Id. at 2851. During the

pendency of this notice-and-comment period, Congress passed

the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“TCA”), which directed

the FCC to “make effective rules regarding the environmental

effects of [RF] emissions” within 180 days of the TCA’s

enactment. Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 704(b), 110 Stat. 56, 152.

In addition, the TCA expanded the FCC’s authority to preempt

certain state and local regulations of RF emissions. See 47

U.S.C. § 332(c). 

In response to the TCA, the FCC adopted a hybrid of the

ANSI/IEEE standard and the standard recommended by the

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements

(“NCRP”). See In re Guidelines for Evaluating the

Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, 11

F.C.C.R. 15123, 15134–35, 15146–47 (1996) [hereinafter FCC

First Order]. These regulations, reflecting a “consensus view

of the federal agencies responsible for matters relating to the

public safety and health,” id. at 15124, limited RF emissions

from cell phones for the first time, id. at 15146–47. In
 The ANSI/IEEE and NCRP standards drew distinctions 4

between exposure in “occupational”/“controlled” environments

and exposure in “general population”/“uncontrolled”

environments, which were subsequently adopted by the FCC.

Id. at 15139. The occupational/controlled exposure standard

applies to individuals exposed as a result of their employment,

who are fully aware of possible exposure, and can exercise

control over it. Id. The general population/uncontrolled

exposure standard applies to the general public or those

individuals exposed as a result of their employment who are

either unaware of exposure or cannot exercise control over it.

Id. 

 The SAR maximum for general population/uncontrolled 5

exposure contains exemptions for exposure to the hands, wrists,

feet, and ankles, at which the spatial peak SAR is 4 W/kg, as

averaged over any 10 grams of tissue. 47 C.F.R. § 2.1093(d)(2).

19

particular, the FCC adopted a maximum specific absorption rate

(“SAR”)—which measures the amount of energy absorbed in

human tissue—in “uncontrolled” environments of 0.08 4

watts/kilogram (W/kg) as averaged over the whole-body and 1.6

W/kg spatial peak as averaged over any 1 gram of tissue, as

measured for frequencies between 100 kHz and 6 GHz. Id. at

15140–41, 15146–47; see also 47 C.F.R. § 2.1093(d)(2). The 5

Commission recognized that research on the safety of RF

radiation was ongoing, and pledged to monitor the science “in

order to ensure that our guidelines continue to be appropriate
20

and scientifically valid.” FCC First Order, 11 F.C.C.R. at

15125. The FCC reaffirmed the standards relevant to this case

one year later. See In re Procedures for Reviewing Requests for

Relief From State and Local Regulations, 12 F.C.C.R. 13494,

13505 (1997) [hereinafter FCC Second Order]. The current

standards are codified at 47 C.F.R. § 2.1093(d), and all cell

phones sold in the United States must comply with those

regulations, 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.803(a)(1), 24.51–.52.

C.

The complaint before us in this appeal is Farina’s Third

Amended Complaint. The procedural history of this case is

complex, winding through state court, two federal district courts,

and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Because the

specifics of the procedural history are implicated by Farina’s

challenge to our subject matter jurisdiction, we set them out in

detail.

Farina initially brought this putative class action in the

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, asserting claims

for: (1) civil conspiracy to market and sell defective cell phones

by collective means, including the suppression of information

regarding the health risks of RF emissions and the deliberate

misleading of the public as to those risks; (2) breach of implied

warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular

purpose, on the ground that cell phones sold without headsets

were unsafe to use; (3) breach of express warranty of safe usage;

(4) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement
 Farina has since voluntarily dismissed this claim, on the 6

basis of our holding in Hunt v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 538 F.3d 217

(3d Cir. 2008).

 The Georgia case, Gimpelson v. Nokia, Inc., was pending at 7

the time of the initial consolidation, see In re Wireless Tel.

Radio Frequency Emissions Prods. Liab. Litig., 170 F. Supp. 2d

1356, 1357 n.2 (J.P.M.L. 2001), but was subsequently

consolidated as a tag-along action.

21

Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301–12, on the basis of breach of express

and implied warranties; (5) violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair

Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; and (6) a 6

judgment under the Pennsylvania Declaratory Judgments Act,

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7531, et seq., declaring that defendants’

conduct violated Pennsylvania law and requiring defendants to

award the class members with headsets. 

Farina filed his initial complaint on April 19, 2001.

Defendants subsequently removed the case to the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Farina’s

case was one of a set of parallel cases alleging defects in cell

phones arising from the health risks of RF radiation that were

brought in state courts in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York,

Georgia, and Louisiana. The cases were consolidated by the 7

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and transferred to the

United States District Court for the District of Maryland

(“Maryland court”). In re Wireless Tel. Radio Frequency
22

Emissions Prods. Liab. Litig., 170 F. Supp. 2d 1356, 1358

(J.P.M.L. 2001). Four of these cases, including Farina’s, were

removed to federal court on the basis of federal-question

jurisdiction. The Louisiana case, Naquin v. Nokia Mobile

Phones, Inc., was removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs in all cases, except for the Naquin plaintiffs, filed

a consolidated motion to remand before the Maryland court.

The court denied the motion, concluding that federal-question

jurisdiction was raised by the issue of federal preemption. In re

Wireless Tel. Radio Frequency Emissions Prods. Liab. Litig.,

216 F. Supp. 2d 474, 491–92 (D. Md. 2002). The court then

granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, concluding that FCC

regulations of RF emissions preempted the plaintiffs’ suit. In re

Wireless Tel. Radio Frequency Emissions Prods. Liab. Litig.,

248 F. Supp. 2d 452, 467 (D. Md. 2003).

The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals for the

Fourth Circuit, which reversed. Pinney, 402 F.3d at 439. The

court found subject matter jurisdiction lacking for the

plaintiffs—including Farina—in the cases other than Naquin.

Id. at 451. In particular, the issue of federal preemption did not

arise on the face of a “well-pleaded complaint,” but merely

constituted an anticipated affirmative defense, which could not

confer jurisdiction. Id. at 445–46. It similarly rejected

application of the jurisdictional doctrine of complete

preemption. Id. at 451. However, for the Naquin plaintiffs, the

court reached the merits of the preemption issue—as it had

jurisdiction on the basis of diversity—and concluded the FCA,
 This insistence was ostensibly due to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1714, 8

which requires court approval for the discontinuation of any

class action. 

23

as amended by the TCA, did not preempt these claims. Id. at

459.

Accordingly, because the Fourth Circuit concluded

federal jurisdiction did not exist over Farina’s claims, his case

was remanded back to the Court of Common Pleas. On

December 23, 2005, Farina filed a Second Amended Complaint,

adding, for the first time, LG Electronics, Inc., a Korean cell

phone manufacturer, and its American subsidiary, LG

Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “LG defendants”). The

complaint was served on December 27, and no defendant sought

removal within thirty days, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).

Shortly after the filing of the Second Amended

Complaint, LG defendants’ counsel allegedly approached

Farina’s counsel, seeking to drop the listed LG corporations

from the suit—who purportedly had no connection to the

manufacture or retail of cell phones—and substitute a different

American subsidiary, LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc.

(“LG MobileComm”). According to Farina, his counsel

hesitated to amend the complaint, as it had filed the Second

Amended Complaint only three weeks prior, and sought instead

to file a Praecipe to Amend Caption and Substitute Party. But,

as Farina alleges, LG defendants’ counsel insisted upon a formal

amended complaint, and Farina acquiesced, filing the Third

8
 The District Court listed the date of the transfer as June 26. 9

According to the docket, the transfer order appears to have been

issued on June 20.

24

Amended Complaint on February 9, 2006. The Third Amended

Complaint was identical to the Second Amended Complaint in

all material respects, with the exception of the replacement of

LG defendants with LG MobileComm. 

Although LG defendants had not removed the case within

thirty days of the date they were added to the Second Amended

Complaint, LG MobileComm removed the action on February

17, 2006—well within 30 days of the filing of the Third

Amended Complaint—asserting jurisdiction existed under the

Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Defendants

then sought to stay the proceedings pending a transfer to the

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which the District

Court granted on March 22. The case returned to the Judicial

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which transferred the case

back to the Maryland court on June 20. Farina had filed a 9

Motion to Vacate Conditional Transfer Order prior to the

transfer to the Maryland court, based primarily on the absence

of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The Judicial Panel on

Multidistrict Litigation did not address the jurisdictional issue in

its transfer order, stating “[t]he pending motion to remand to

state court can be presented to and decided by the transferee

judge.” App. 331. On November 10, Farina filed an Amended
 As the District Court recognized, there is some 10

disagreement as to when the motion for remand was filed.

Defendants argued below that the November 10 motion

constituted the initial motion for remand. Farina, on the other

hand, contended this motion was merely an amended motion for

remand, and that the initial motion was included in the motion

to vacate the transfer order, which was docketed on April 12.

As discussed below, the difference between these dates is

immaterial.

25

Motion to Remand before the Maryland court. After a hearing 10

on the motion to remand to state court, the Maryland court made

no decision on the issue, instead transferring the case back to the

Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

 The District Court ultimately denied Farina’s motion.

The court held CAFA provided grounds for federal jurisdiction,

and Farina’s failure to move to remand within thirty days of LG

MobileComm’s removal waived the defects in defendants’

initial failure to remove within the required thirty-day period

after the filing of the Second Amended Complaint. In a separate

order, the District Court addressed the merits of the preemption

issue, concluding that the FCC’s regulations governing RF

emissions preempted Farina’s claims. Farina timely appealed.

II.

“[E]very federal appellate court has a special obligation

to ‘satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but also that of
 CAFA grants federal jurisdiction over class actions in 11

which the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000,

the parties are minimally diverse, and the members of all

proposed plaintiff classes are equal to or greater than 100 in

number. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).

26

the lower courts in a cause under review . . . .’” Bender v.

Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986) (quoting

Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 US. 237, 244 (1934))). We review a

district court’s determination of its own subject matter

jurisdiction de novo. Emerald Investors Trust v. Gaunt

Parsippany Partners, 492 F.3d 192, 197 (3d Cir. 2007).

A.

There is no dispute that this case, in its current

incarnation, satisfies the substantive requirements of CAFA.11

See Def. LG MobileComm’s Notice of Removal 6–9. But

CAFA is not retroactively applicable. It applies only to civil

actions “commenced on or after the date of enactment,”

February 18, 2005. CAFA, Pub. L. No. 109-2, § 9, 119 Stat. 4,

14 (2005) (codified as Note to 28 U.S.C. § 1332). 

CAFA itself provides no definition of commencement.

We have not yet addressed the issue, but most of our sister

circuits have looked to state law for the definition of

commencement. See Braud v. Transp. Serv. Co. of Ill., 445 F.3d

801, 803 (5th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he courts of appeals that have

examined the issue have unanimously held that when a lawsuit
27

isinitially ‘commenced’ for purposes of CAFA is determined by

state law. We agree.” (footnote omitted)); Schorsch v. HewlettPackard Co., 417 F.3d 748, 750 (7th Cir. 2005) (“[S]tate rather

than federal practice must supply the rule of decision.”); see also

Smith v. Nationwide Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co., 505 F.3d 401, 405

(6th Cir. 2007); Plubell v. Merck & Co., 434 F.3d 1070, 1071

(8th Cir. 2006); Bush v. Cheaptickets, Inc., 425 F.3d 683, 686

(9th Cir. 2005); Natale v. Pfizer, Inc., 424 F.3d 43, 44 (1st Cir.

2005). But see Prime Care of Ne. Kan., LLC v. Humana Ins.

Co., 447 F.3d 1284, 1289 n.6 (10th Cir. 2006) (“[W]e do not

express an opinion as to whether federal or state law should

control.”).

We agree that state law should govern the inquiry.

CAFA operates as an expansion of diversity jurisdiction. See

Bush, 425 F.3d at 686. The Act expressly authorizes the

removal of qualifying class actions to federal court. See Pub. L.

No. 109-2, § 5, 119 Stat. 4, 12–13 (codified at 28 U.S.C. §

1453). It envisions and applies to cases that are initially filed in

state court and subsequently removed to federal court. For a

case initially brought in state court, state law should govern

when the case commences. Cf. Ragan v. Merchs. Transfer &

Warehouse Co., 337 U.S. 530, 533–34 (1949) (applying state

law to determine commencement for statute of limitations

purposes); Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U.S. 117, 120 (1945)

(“Whether any case is pending in the Illinois courts is a question

to be determined by Illinois law . . . .”). Accordingly, we look

to Pennsylvania law. 
28

The filing of an original complaint in Pennsylvania court

commences an action. See Pa. R. Civ. P. 1007 (“An action may

be commenced by filing with the prothonotary (1) a praecipe for

a writ of summons, or (2) a complaint.”). As such, the filing of

the original complaint commenced a civil action for the

purposes of CAFA. Farina’s initial complaint was filed on April

19, 2001, clearly before CAFA’s enactment. But the Second

Amended Complaint, filed on December 23, 2005, and the Third

Amended Complaint, filed on February 9, 2006, were filed after

the date of CAFA’s enactment. If either of these complaints

constituted the commencement of a new action, CAFA’s

jurisdictional grant would apply. The issue before us, then, is

whether the amendment of the original complaint in the Second

Amended Complaint or the Third Amended Complaint

commenced a new case.

The case law has coalesced around three approaches to

the effect of amendments to complaints on CAFA

commencement. The first approach, adopted by the Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, ignores amendments and looks

only to the filing of the original complaint for commencement.

McAtee v. Capital One, F.S.B., 479 F.3d 1143, 1147–48 (9th

Cir. 2007) (interpreting California law to hold that an action “is

commenced for purposes of CAFA when a complaint is filed,

irrespective of any later amendment of that complaint. . . . Any

amendment of that complaint—whether to add new causes of

action, to add or replace plaintiffs, or to add or replace
 Although McAtee is limited to CAFA cases filed in 12

California, id. at 1147, much of its discussion suggests this rule

has broader applicability than just to California law. The Ninth

Circuit argued that relation-back principles need not be used in

CAFA commencement because the substantive rights of parties

are not implicated, as they would be for a statute of limitations.

Id. Rather, CAFA commencement affects only the forum in

which the suit takes place. Id. These arguments are not limited

to an interpretation of California law, but would seemingly be

applicable to any state relation-back rules.

29

defendants—does not change the commencement date”).12

The other two approaches both apply state-law principles

governing the relation-back of pleadings for statutes of

limitations to determine whether an amended complaint is

distinct enough from the original complaint to commence a new

case. See Prime Care, 447 F.3d at 1286. One approach,

adopted by the Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Eighth, and

Tenth Circuits, applies ordinary relation-back rules to all

amendments, no matter what type of amendment is made (the

“Prime Care approach”). See id.; see also Smith, 505 F.3d at

405; Plubell, 434 F.3d at 1071. If the amendment would not

relate back to the pre-CAFA pleading, it constitutes a

commencement of a new case. Prime Care, 447 F.3d at 1286.

The final approach uses relation-back rules as well, but

categorically treats certain changes as commencing a new case

(the “Braud approach”). See Braud, 445 F.3d at 804–05;
30

Knudsen v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 411 F.3d 805, 807 (7th Cir.

2005). In particular, the addition of a new defendant—unless

the addition is done merely to correct a clerical error, see

Schillinger v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 425 F.3d 330, 333 (7th Cir.

2005)—or the addition of a distinct claim, see Schorsch, 417

F.3d at 749, commences a new civil action.

We agree with the general approach of applying relationback rules to at least some amendments. In doing so, we reject

the approach of the Ninth Circuit in McAtee. As the Tenth

Circuit recognized:

[T]he unqualified disregard of any post-CAFA

pleading amendments . . . entails the practically

untenable result that once a pre-CAFA case is

filed, the plaintiff can tack on new causes of

action so substantively independent of the original

case that they would be properly treated as filed

after CAFA’s effective date for all legal purposes

. . . except for CAFA. 

Prime Care, 447 F.3d at 1288 n.4. “Generally ‘a party brought

into court by an amendment, and who has, for the first time, an

opportunity to make defense to the action, has a right to treat the

proceeding, as to him, as commenced by the process which

brings him into court.’” Braud, 445 F.3d at 805 (quoting United

States v. Martinez, 195 U.S. 469, 473 (1904)). “It ‘would be a

novel and unjust principle to make the defendants responsible

for a proceeding of which they had no notice.’” Id. (quoting
 In fact, it is unclear how distinct these approaches are. 13

Both the Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and the Seventh

Circuits—which follow the Braud approach—recognize an

exception to the categorical rule that an amendment adding a

new defendant commences a new civil action when that addition

is merely to correct a clerical misidentification of a party. See

Braud, 445 F.3d at 806–07; Schillinger, 425 F.3d at 333. In

dicta, Braud explained this “misnomer” exception by looking to

both Louisiana law as well as Rule 15(c)(3), governing when an

31

Miller v. M’Intyre, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 61, 64 (1832)).

Moreover, although CAFA does not define

commencement, “Congress is presumed to enact legislation with

knowledge of the law and a newly-enacted statute is presumed

to be harmonious with existing law and judicial concepts.”

Prime Care, 447 F.3d at 1287 (internal quotation marks

omitted). Congress passed CAFA aware of the general

principles of relation-back analysis, both under state law and

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c). It is only natural that Congress would

intend to incorporate into CAFA the case law governing

amended pleadings. “Precisely because CAFA does not define

‘commencement’ of an action, it is obvious that CAFA is not

intended to replace caselaw deciding when a lawsuit is

considered ‘commenced . . . .’” Braud, 445 F.3d at 805. 

But because the result is the same under either the Prime

Care approach or the Braud approach, we need not choose

between the two. Under Pennsylvania law, a party “may at 13 14
amendment adding a defendant will relate back to the prior

pleading. 445 F.3d at 806–08. If the “misnomer” exception

applies every time the addition of a defendant would relate back

under ordinary relation-back analysis, the two approaches are

coextensive.

 Because state law governs the definition of commencement, 14

state law should also govern the relation-back of amendments.

In Braud, the Fifth Circuit used state law to define

commencement, 445 F.3d at 803–04, but did not specify

whether state or federal relation-back rules would apply to

amendments, id. at 807 n.14 (“It is less certain whether state law

provides the applicable rules for the relation back analysis. . . .

The result in this case is the same under either . . . .”). But

commencement is not alien to the relation-back analysis. See

Prime Care, 447 F.3d at 1288 (“Nor . . . are commencement and

amendment properly seen as utterly unrelated matters. Rather,

the relevant landscape in which both of these legal concepts

reside has for some time been governed by the relation-back

principle.” (footnote omitted)). Moreover, in these cases, state

law provides the applicable statute of limitations, see Ragan,

337 U.S. at 533–34, and Rule 15(c)(1)(A) expressly co-opts the

relation-back rules of “the law that provides the applicable

statute of limitations,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(A). An

amendment that does not relate back constitutes a

commencement under CAFA. Accordingly, if state law defines

the commencement of the initial civil action, it naturally should

32
provide the rules governing commencement via amendment—in

other words, the rules governing relation back.

33

any time change the form of action, correct the name of a party

or amend his pleading.” Pa. R. Civ. P. 1033. But a party may

not add a “new and distinct” party after the statute of limitations

has run. Tork-Hiis v. Commonwealth., 735 A.2d 1256, 1258

(Pa. 1999). In other words, if an added defendant is “new and

distinct” from the defendants named in the prior pleading, the

amendment will not relate back. The only exceptions to this

general rule apply where the assets subject to the risk of liability

would not change or where the amendment is made only to

correct the improper designation of a business entity. Id.

Under this standard, the Second Amended Complaint

commenced a new action. In a hearing before the District Court,

Farina’s counsel conceded that LG defendants were not a party

to the case prior to the Second Amended Complaint. App. 462.

Because they were unrelated to any of the named defendants, the

addition of LG defendants placed new assets at risk of liability

and went beyond merely correcting an improper designation of

a business entity. Accordingly, they constituted “new and

distinct” parties. Because the Second Amended Complaint was

filed after the enactment of CAFA, Farina’s claims became

subject to its provisions.

Farina raises several arguments counseling against

recognizing the Third Amended Complaint as the
 In particular, Farina argues the substitution of LG 15

MobileComm for LG defendants was merely a correction of an

improper designation of a business entity and that this

substitution occurred at the insistence of LG defendants. 

 Under CAFA, any defendant may remove the entire 16

case—not just the claims asserted against that particular

defendant—without the consent of any other defendant. 28

U.S.C. § 1453(b); Brown v. Jevic, 575 F.3d 322, 327 (3d Cir.

2009). If LG MobileComm properly removed the claims against

it, the removal of the entire class action was valid. 

34

commencement of a new action. Even assuming we were 15

persuaded by these arguments, they would only establish that the

Third Amended Complaint would relate back to the filing of the

Second Amended Complaint. They would not establish that the

Second Amended Complaint would relate back to the filing of

the original complaint. Because the Second Amended

Complaint was filed after the enactment of CAFA, CAFA

applies and confers federal jurisdiction.

B.

Farina also argues that even if the Second Amended

Complaint would have established federal jurisdiction under

CAFA, the District Court lacked jurisdiction here because the

removal by LG MobileComm was untimely. CAFA has its 16

own removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1453, which, for all pertinent

purposes, imports the procedures of the general removal statute,
 If the claim is not initially removable, the thirty-day period 17

runs from the date of receipt of “a copy of the amended

pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be

ascertained that the case is one which is or has become

removable.” Id.

 Defendants state that LG MobileComm was served with the 18

Third Amended Complaint on January 20, 2006, but the record

indicates the Third Amended Complaint was dated January 27,

App. 213, and docketed on February 9, App. 306. The

difference between these dates is immaterial, however, as LG

MobileComm’s removal was timely under any of these dates.

35

28 U.S.C. § 1446. Section 1446(b) requires a defendant to file

for removal within thirty days of receiving a copy of the

pleading setting forth the removable claim.17

If the substitution of LG MobileComm for LG defendants

in the Third Amended Complaint commenced a new case under

CAFA, there is no dispute that removal was timely. The Third

Amended Complaint was filed on February 9, 2006, and LG 18

MobileComm filed its notice of removal on February 17—well

within thirty days. But Farina argues the Third Amended

Complaint relates back to the Second Amended Complaint, see

supra note 15, and, therefore, does not constitute a

commencement. The § 1446(b) time limit would then run from

the date of the filing of the Second Amended Complaint,

December 23, 2005, and the notice of removal would be
36

untimely.

We need not decide whether the Third Amended

Complaint relates back to the Second Amended Complaint

because even if the Second Amended Complaint is the relevant

date and LG MobileComm’s removal was therefore untimely,

Farina waived his objection. 28 U.S.C. § 1447 provides the

procedures generally applicable after removal and is explicitly

adopted by CAFA, see 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1). Section 1447(c)

stipulates that a remand motion made on the basis of “any defect

other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction” must be filed

within thirty days of the notice of removal. The failure to move

to remand results in a waiver of the objection. See Ariel Land

Owners, Inc. v. Dring, 351 F.3d 611, 613 (3d Cir. 2003). A

jurisdictional defect, on the other hand, may be raised at any

time. Id.

It is well settled that § 1446(b)’s thirty-day time limit for

removal is a procedural provision, not a jurisdictional one. Id.

at 614; see also McGlinchey v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.,

866 F.2d 651, 653 (3d Cir. 1989) (“[T]he failure to file a

removal petition within the 30 day statutory time limit [does not]

affect this Court’s jurisdiction.”); Albritton Commc’ns Co. v.

NLRB, 766 F.2d 812, 820 (3d Cir. 1985) (“[R]emoval

proceedings are in the nature of process, and thus defects in the

removal procedures are waivable . . . .”). A defect is considered

jurisdictional “only if the case could not initially have been filed

in federal court.” Ariel Land Owners, 351 F.3d at 614 (quoting

Korea Exch. Bank v. Trackwise Sales Corp., 66 F.3d 46, 50 (3d
 On appeal, defendants cite October 15 as the date of the 19

filing of the motion for remand. The case before the District

Court was stayed at this time, and there is no docket entry in the

Maryland court corresponding to this date. We assume this

reference is to the November 10 filing, docketed as “Amended

Motion to Remand and Memorandum for Remand.” App. 89.

37

Cir. 1995)). Federal jurisdiction over Farina’s suit arose on

December 23, 2005, when the Second Amended Complaint

commenced a new civil action and brought the case under

CAFA. Because at that moment the case could have been filed

in federal court, the failure to remove within thirty days of the

filing of the Second Amended Complaint was not a

jurisdictional defect.

LG MobileComm removed the case on February 17,

2006, and, accordingly, Farina had thirty days—until March

20—to seek a remand to state court on untimeliness grounds.

As the District Court recognized, the parties dispute when the

motion to remand was filed. Defendants argued below that

Farina sought a remand on November 10. Farina claims the 19

remand motion was included with his motion to vacate the

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s conditional transfer

order. But this motion was entered into the docket on April 12,

outside of the thirty-day time limit. Farina contends that he

waited to file for remand before the Judicial Panel on

Multidistrict Litigation because the motion for remand filed

after his original complaint was removed in 2001 was not
38

decided by the District Court prior to the stay of the proceedings

pending transfer to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Instead, it was decided by the transferee Maryland court, and he

assumed a similar situation would occur once more. But

regardless of Farina’s assumption, he failed to file for remand

within thirty days of removal. The District Court’s stay was

issued on March 22, beyond the thirty-day time limit, and could

not have had an effect upon the timeliness of Farina’s remand

motion. The District Court, therefore, “had no authority to

remand, because [Farina’s] motion was filed more than 30 days

after the notice of removal.” Ariel Land Owners, 351 F.3d at

613. 

Accordingly, federal jurisdiction exists over the case

whether or not Farina is correct that the Third Amended

Complaint relates back to the Second Amended Complaint. The

Second Amended Complaint, which added two unrelated

defendants, commenced a new civil action, as defined by

Pennsylvania law, which brought the case under CAFA’s

jurisdictional grant. Although the case was not removed within

thirty days of the filing of the Second Amended Complaint,

Farina’s failure to file for remand within thirty days of LG

MobileComm’s subsequent removal waived his objections to

this non-jurisdictional defect. Therefore, our review of

defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds of preemption is
 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 20

1291. We review questions of preemption de novo. See

Deweese v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 590 F.3d 239, 244 n.8

(3d Cir. 2009).

39

proper.20

III.

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution,

U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2, invalidates state law that “interferes

with or is contrary to federal law.” Free v. Bland, 369 U.S. 663,

666 (1962) (citing Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 210

(1824)). Federal law can preempt state law in three ways: (1)

express preemption, (2) field preemption, and (3) conflict

preemption. Hillsborough Cnty. v. Automated Med. Labs., Inc.,

471 U.S. 707, 713 (1985). Express preemption applies where

Congress, through a statute’s express language, declares its

intent to displace state law. Id. Field preemption applies where

“the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will

be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same

subject.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Conflict

preemption nullifies state law inasmuch as it conflicts with

federal law, either where compliance with both laws is

impossible or where state law erects an “obstacle to the

accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and

objectives of Congress.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Federal regulations preempt state laws in the same fashion as

congressional statutes. Fid. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. De la
40

Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 153 (1982); see also Fellner v. Tri-Union

Seafoods, L.L.C., 539 F.3d 237, 243 (3d Cir. 2008) (“Where

Congress has delegated the authority to regulate a particular

field to an administrative agency, the agency’s regulations

issued pursuant to that authority have no less preemptive effect

than federal statutes, assuming those regulations are a valid

exercise of the agency’s delegated authority.”). Preemption can

apply to all forms of state law, including civil actions based on

state law. See Holk v. Snapple Beverage Corp., 575 F.3d 329,

331 (3d Cir. 2009).

In every preemption case, our inquiry is guided by two

principles. First, the intent of Congress is the “ultimate

touchstone” of preemption analysis. Medtronic, Inc., v. Lohr,

518 U.S. 470, 485 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). In

discerning this intent, we look not only to Congress’s express

statements, but also to the “structure and purpose of the statute

as a whole, as revealed not only in the text, but through the

reviewing court’s reasoned understanding of the way in which

Congress intended the statute and its surrounding regulatory

scheme to affect business, consumers, and the law.” Id. at 486

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Second, we “start[] with the basic assumption that

Congress did not intend to displace state law.” Maryland v.

Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 746 (1981). “[B]ecause the States are

independent sovereigns in our federal system, we have long

presumed that Congress does not cavalierly pre-empt state-law

causes of action.” Lohr, 518 U.S. at 485. The Supreme Court
41

has referred to this as a “presumption against preemption.” See

Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S. Ct. 1187, 1195 n.3 (2009). The

presumption applies with particular force in fields within the

police power of the state, see Lohr, 518 U.S. at 485, but does not

apply where state regulation has traditionally been absent, see

Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341, 347

(2001) (rejecting the presumption for state-law fraud claims

premised on alleged fraudulent statements made to the FDA

because “the relationship between a federal agency and the

entity it regulates . . . originates from, is governed by, and

terminates according to federal law”); United States v. Locke,

529 U.S. 89, 108 (2000) (rejecting the application of the

presumption to state regulation of maritime commerce because

“Congress has legislated in the field from the earliest days of the

Republic,” and “in this area there is no beginning assumption

that concurrent regulation by the State is a valid exercise of its

police powers”).

According to defendants, the presumption should not

apply to Farina’s claims. They argue that federal regulation of

radio communications mirrors the regulation of oil tankers at

issue in Locke. Similar to maritime commerce, radio

communications have been within the purview of Congress

since the advent of the technology. See Nat’l Broad. Co., 319

U.S. at 210–13 (describing the history of federal regulation of

radio communications). The FCC, in particular, has “exclusive”

control over the technical aspects of radio communications.

Head, 374 U.S. at 430 n.6. In addition to this longstanding
42

history of federal authority, defendants contend that radio

communications, like the maritime industry, are an

instrumentality of commerce. Accordingly, they maintain that

traditional state interests underpinning the presumption against

preemption are lacking.

But the presence of federal regulation, however

longstanding, does not by itself defeat the application of the

presumption. Rather, its application “accounts for the historic

presence of state law but does not rely on the absence of federal

regulation.” Wyeth, 129 S. Ct. at 1195 n.3; see also Lohr, 518

U.S. at 475-77, 485 (applying the presumption despite the

decades-long history of federal regulation of public health and

safety). While Congress has long exerted control over radio

communications, state governments have traditionally regulated

the field of public health and welfare. State-law actions based

on the risks associated with RF emissions fall squarely within

the traditional police power. See Fellner, 539 F.3d at 248 (“[I]t

is hard to imagine a field more squarely within the realm of

traditional state regulation than a state tort-like action seeking

damages for an alleged failure to warn consumers of dangers

arising from the use of a product.”).

Moreover, defendants’ characterization of

telecommunications as an “instrumentality of commerce” is

immaterial. Nothing in the Supreme Court’s case law indicates

the application of the presumption turns on whether the field

regulated can be characterized as an instrumentality of

commerce. This language appears to be culled from the
 At the outset, Farina asserts that our preemption analysis is 21

bound by the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Pinney because its

rejection of conflict preemption became law of the case. The

law of the case doctrine “posits that when a court decides upon

a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same

issues in subsequent stages in the same case.” Arizona v.

California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 (1983). The doctrine only applies

within the same case—an identical issue decided in a separate

action does not qualify as law of the case. See 18B Charles

Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal

43

jurisprudence governing the Commerce Clause of the United

States Constitution, see United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549,

558 (1995) (“Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the

instrumentalities of interstate commerce . . . .”), and not the

doctrine of preemption. Moreover, because the presumption

turns on the presence of state law, the ability of Congress to

regulate radio communications as an instrumentality of

commerce is irrelevant in light of the long history of state

regulation of health and safety matters.

Accordingly, we apply the presumption against

preemption to our analysis here. But although we conclude the

presumption applies, we recognize it is “overcome where a

Congressional purpose to preempt or the existence of a conflict

is ‘clear and manifest.’” Fellner, 539 F.3d at 249 (quoting

Hillsborough Cnty., 471 U.S. at 715). 

A.

21
Practice and Procedure § 4478, at 637–39 (2d ed. 2002); see

also Harbor Ins. Co. v. Essman, 918 F.2d 734, 738 (8th Cir.

1990) (refusing to recognize a denial of a motion to dismiss in

a case later dismissed without prejudice as law of the case in a

subsequent suit between the same parties).

Farina’s contention that Pinney’s holding binds us here

is misplaced for that reason. The Fourth Circuit made no

decision on preemption for the claims brought by Farina.

Although Farina’s claims were initially consolidated with the

other cases, they were subsequently dismissed for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. Pinney, 402 F.3d at 451. The decision on

conflict preemption, then, was made only with respect to the

Naquin claims. Id. (“We must therefore review the district

court’s order granting Nokia’s motion to dismiss the claims of

the Naquin plaintiffs.”); id. at 459 (“We . . . reverse the district

court’s order dismissing the Naquin plaintiffs’ case as

preempted by the FCA.”). Without jurisdiction, the Fourth

Circuit “had no power” to render a decision on preemption of

Farina’s claims, id.; see also Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better

Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 101–02 (1998) (“For a court to pronounce

upon the meaning or the constitutionality of a state or federal

law when it has no jurisdiction to do so is, by very definition, for

a court to act ultra vires.”), and we are not bound by its holding.

Moreover, the Fourth Circuit’s rejection of the

jurisdictional doctrine of complete preemption, Pinney, 402 F.3d

at 451, also does not constrain our analysis. Complete

44
preemption confers federal jurisdiction over a state claim where

Congress “‘so completely preempt[s] a particular area that any

civil complaint raising th[e] select group of claims is necessarily

federal in character.’” Id. at 449 (quoting Metro. Life Ins. Co.

v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63–64 (1987)) (alterations in the

original). Law of the case only extends to issues that were

actually decided in prior proceedings. See 18B Wright, Miller

& Cooper, supra, § 4478, at 649. “There is . . . a difference

between the doctrine of complete preemption and the

affirmative defense of federal preemption.” Pinney, 402 F.3d at

449. Accordingly, the decision on complete preemption does

not constitute an actual decision on the issue of conflict

preemption.

45

Defendants’ first argument for dismissal asserts that

Farina’s claims are expressly preempted by the TCA. As noted,

express preemption applies where Congress explicitly states in

the language of the statute its intent to preempt state law.

Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 516 (1992). But

the presence of an express preemption provision does not end

the inquiry. While it means we need not inquire whether

Congress intended to preempt some state law, we still must

examine congressional intent as to the scope of the preemption

provision. See Lohr, 518 U.S. at 485–86 (“[A]ny understanding

of the scope of a pre-emption statute must rest primarily on a

fair understanding of congressional purpose.” (emphasis and

internal quotation marks omitted)). Although we look primarily

to the text of an express preemption provision to discern
46

congressional intent, we also look to the context of the

regulatory scheme as a whole, including its purposes and the

way in which Congress intended it to affect the public and the

law. Id. at 486. Moreover, because we start with a presumption

against preemption, “when the text of a pre-emption clause is

susceptible of more than one plausible reading, courts ordinarily

‘accept the reading that disfavors pre-emption.’” Altria Group,

Inc. v. Good, 129 S. Ct. 538, 543 (2008) (quoting Bates v. Dow

Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431, 449 (2005)).

Defendants argue 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) expressly

preempts Farina’s claims. It provides:

No State or local government or instrumentality

thereof may regulate the placement, construction,

and modification of personal wireless service

facilities on the basis of the environmental effects

of radio frequency emissions to the extent that

such facilities comply with the Commission’s

regulations concerning such emissions.

Defendants argue cell phones fall within the definition of

“personal wireless service facilities.” The statute itself does not

provide a clear definition. “Personal wireless service facilities”

are defined as “facilities for the provision of personal wireless

services,” § 332(c)(7)(C)(ii), and “personal wireless services”

are in turn defined as “commercial mobile services, unlicensed

wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access

services,” § 332(c)(7)(C)(i). 
 The current Ninth edition of Black’s Law Dictionary does 22

not contain an entry for “facility.”

47

Defendants instead urge us to adopt a dictionary

definition of “facilities” as “[t]hat which promotes the ease of

any action, operation, transaction, or course of conduct.”

Black’s Law Dictionary 591 (6th ed. 1990); see also Webster’s 22

Third New International Dictionary 812 (1993) (defining facility

as “something that promotes the ease of any action, operation,

transaction, or course of conduct”). Because cell phones enable

wireless communications, defendants allege cell phones

“promote the ease” of personal wireless service. But Farina

cites to his own dictionary definition for “facility,” one which he

argues implies a sense of permanence, as with a physical

structure. See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary

812–13 (defining facility as “something (as a hospital,

machinery, plumbing) that is built, constructed, installed, or

established to perform some particular function or to serve or

facilitate some particular end”); see also Black’s Law Dictionary

591 (defining facility as “[s]omething that is built or installed to

perform some particular function”).

Because the term itself is ambiguous, we look to the

broader context in which “facility” is used. That context

supports Farina’s reading. Section 332(c)(7), in which

subsection (B)(iv) is included, is titled “Preservation of local

zoning authority,” and subsection (B)(iv) is expressly limited to

the “placement, construction, and modification” of facilities.
 Defendants allege that if Congress intended only to preempt 23

regulation of infrastructure, it would have said so, instead of

“broadly preempt[ing] all state regulation” based on RF

emissions. Appellees’ Br. at 68. This argument proves too

much. Had Congress intended to preempt state regulation of

cell phones, it could certainly have said so as well. Congress’s

statement is only “broad” if “facilities” is read to cover more

than just infrastructure. We conclude it should not be.

48

This language suggests that the statute is directed at preempting

state and local decisions with respect to the physical location of

“facilities,” a reading which, as Farina contends, requires

permanence. See Pinney, 402 F.3d at 455 (finding the

subsection “deals with the authority of the states over zoning

and land use”); H.R. Rep. No. 104-204(I), at 94 (1995),

reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 10, 61 (“[C]urrent State and

local requirements, siting and zoning decisions by non-federal

units of government, have created an inconsistent and, at times,

conflicting patchwork of requirements . . . .” (emphasis added)).

The fair reading of this statute, then, focuses on state and local

decisions with respect to the physical infrastructure of the

wireless network, not cell phones.23

Defendants argue that even if § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) applies

only to physical infrastructure, because cell phones are the

means by which that infrastructure is accessed, regulation of cell

phones on the basis of RF emissions imposes restrictions on the

wireless infrastructure. Defendants argue this constitutes a
49

“back-door” regulation of infrastructure, in violation of the

principles of Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Ass’n,

552 U.S. 364 (2008). In Rowe, the state of Maine enacted a law

intended to prevent the sale of tobacco to minors by imposing

duties on retailers of tobacco products, including requiring the

use of a delivery service that abided by mandated procedures for

verifying the identity of recipients. Id. at 368–69. Several

transport carrier associations challenged the law, arguing it was

preempted by 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1), which provides: “[A]

state . . . may not enact or enforce a law . . . related to a price,

route, or service of any motor carrier . . . with respect to the

transportation of property.” Rowe, 552 U.S. at 368–69. The

Supreme Court agreed, finding that although the Maine law did

not directly impose duties on carriers, by imposing duties on

recipients, the law effectively placed restrictions on carriers.

Id. at 372. 

But Rowe is inapposite here. First, the language of the

preemption provision in Rowe was much broader than the

language at issue here. That preemption provision applied to all

laws “related to” motor carrier services, id. at 368, language that

was read broadly enough to reach all laws having even an

indirect connection with or reference to motor carrier services,

id. at 370 (citing Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S.

374, 384 (1992)); see also Altria Group, 129 S. Ct. at 548–49

(distinguishing the phrase “based on” from “relating to”). The

language of § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) is not so broad, covering only

regulations of the “placement, construction, and modification of
Although defendants do not raise it on appeal, they argued 24

before the District Court that § 332(c)(3)(A) also expressly

preempted Farina’s claims. That subsection provides, in

pertinent part:

[N]o State or local government shall have any

50

personal wireless service facilities,” not regulations “relating to”

the “placement, construction, and modification of personal

wireless service facilities.” That suggests a narrower scope for

this preemption provision than the one in Rowe.

Second, the burden placed on the wireless infrastructure

through regulating cell phones is distinct from the burden

resulting from regulating the infrastructure itself. Requiring

shippers to use only those carriers who follow certain

procedures is no different than requiring carriers to adopt those

same procedures. See Rowe, 552 U.S. at 372 (“[T]he effect of

the regulation is that carriers will have to offer tobacco delivery

services that differ significantly from those that . . . the market

might dictate. And that being so, treating sales restrictions and

purchase restrictions differently for pre-emption purposes would

make no sense.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). State-law

actions imposing liability on the basis of RF emissions from cell

phones do not impose identical burdens on the “placement,

construction, and modification” of the wireless infrastructure, as

they would only require alterations to cell phones, not to the

infrastructure itself. Accordingly, it would appear that §

332(c)(7)(B)(iv) does not expressly preempt Farina’s suit.24
authority to regulate the entry of or the rates

charged by any commercial mobile service or any

private mobile service, except that this paragraph

shall not prohibit a State from regulating the other

terms and conditions of commercial mobile

services.

47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(3)(A). According to defendants’ argument

below, state-law standards that add requirements with which cell

phones must comply—whether in the form of specific

components (i.e., headsets) or additional warnings—before

being sold constitute regulations of “entry.”

Section 332 does not define what constitutes a regulation

of entry, and it appears that the FCC has not clearly defined the

term either. See Peck v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 535 F.3d

1053, 1056–57 (9th Cir. 2008). The Fourth Circuit concluded

it referred to regulations that obstruct the ability to provide

wireless coverage. Pinney, 402 F.3d at 456. Although

§ 332(c)(3)(A) is ambiguous, we think that reading is the proper

one. “Entry” must be read in a somewhat limited fashion in

order to give effect to the savings provision present in §

332(c)(3)(A). According to defendants’ reading, any

requirement placed upon wireless service providers would

constitute a regulation of entry because providers would have to

comply with that requirement prior to selling their goods, or

“entering” the market. But almost all regulations of commercial

goods set standards or requirements which must be complied

51
with prior to selling those goods, and § 332(c)(3)(A) specifically

reserves a place for state regulation of at least some of the

“terms and conditions” of wireless service. As even the FCC

has recognized, accepting defendants’ reading would eviscerate

that savings provision. See In re Wireless Consumers Alliance,

Inc., 15 F.C.C.R. 17021, 17040 (2000) (finding that an “award

of monetary damages based on state contract or tort causes of

action” should fall under the other “terms and conditions

provisions of [§] 332”); cf. Cellular Telecomms. Indus. Ass’n v.

FCC, 168 F.3d 1332, 1336 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (“To equate state

action that may increase the cost of doing business with rate

regulation would . . . forbid nearly all forms of state regulation,

a result at odds with the ‘other terms and conditions’ portion of

[§ 332(c)(3)(A)].”).

Pinney’s limited reading of “entry” is more consistent

with the entire text of § 332(c)(3)(A). Moreover, it is also

consistent with other provisions of the TCA. 47 U.S.C. § 253,

entitled “Removal of barriers to entry,” is directed at preventing

state or local regulations that “prohibit the ability of any entity

to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications

service.” Id. § 253(a); see also S. Rep. No. 104-230, at 126

(1996) (Conf. Rep.) (referring to federal prohibition of “State

and local statutes and regulations, or other State and local legal

requirements, that may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting

any entity from providing interstate or intrastate

telecommunications services”). Regulation of entry, then,

52
appears to refer to laws that erect obstacles to the provision of

wireless services. This term would not encompass regulations

of cell phones because they only reach devices that access the

wireless network, not devices that provide the actual wireless

coverage.

 We have recognized that “although the term ‘field 25

preemption’ suggests a broad scope, the scope of a field deemed

preempted by federal law may be narrowly defined.” Abdullah

v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 181 F.3d 363, 367 (3d Cir. 1999).

Although there appears to be a difference in breadth between a

field defined as regulation of RF emissions and a field defined

as regulation of aviation safety, see id. at 367–68, or nuclear

safety, see Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238, 249

(1984), other cases have used narrow conceptions of the relevant

field, see Hillsborough Cnty., 471 U.S. at 714 (plasmapheresis

regulation); Hughes v. Att’y Gen. of Fla., 377 F.3d 1258,

1267–68 (11th Cir. 2004) (commercial airline pilot safety).

Because we reject defendants’ field preemption claim, we adopt

their characterization of the relevant field without consideration.

53

B.

Defendants also argue that Congress’s delegation of

“exclusive authority” over the field of RF emission regulation25

preempts all state laws premised on the sufficiency of those

regulations. The doctrine of field preemption applies where “the

scheme of federal regulation is sufficiently comprehensive to
54

make reasonable the inference that Congress ‘left no room’ for

supplementary state regulation” or where “the field is one in

which ‘the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system

will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the

same subject.’” Hillsborough Cnty., 471 U.S. at 713 (quoting

Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947)).

“The question whether the regulation of an entire field has been

reserved by the Federal Government is, essentially, a question

of ascertaining the intent underlying the federal scheme.” Id. at

714. With respect to agency regulations, “we must consider

whether the regulations evidence a desire to occupy a field

completely.” R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Durham Cnty., 479

U.S. 130, 149 (1986). “Pre-emption should not be inferred,

however, simply because the agency’s regulations are

comprehensive.” Id.

While the FCC may have “primacy over the areas of

technical standards and competitive market structure for cellular

service,” Cellular Commc’ns, 86 F.C.C.2d at 504–05, neither

Congress nor the FCC has evinced an intent to occupy the entire

field. The TCA and the FCA both contain a savings provision.

See Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 601(c)(1), 110 Stat. 56, 143

(codified as Note to 47 U.S.C § 152) (stating that the TCA

“shall not be construed to modify, impair, or supersede Federal,

State, or local law unless expressly so provided”); 47 U.S.C. §

414 (“Nothing in this chapter contained shall in any way abridge

or alter the remedies now existing at common law or by statute,

but the provisions of this chapter are in addition to such
55

remedies.”). These provisions indicate Congress envisioned

some role for state law in the field. The presence of a savings

provision “is fundamentally incompatible with complete field

preemption; if Congress intended to preempt the entire field . .

. there would be nothing . . . to ‘save,’ and the provision would

be mere surplusage.” In re NOS Commc’ns, 495 F.3d 1052,

1058 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Holk, 575 F.3d at 338; Time

Warner Cable v. Doyle, 66 F.3d 867, 878 (7th Cir. 1995).

Furthermore, the FCC has repeatedly disclaimed preemptive

authority over the entire field of RF regulation. See FCC

Second Order, 12 F.C.C.R. at 13529; FCC First Order, 11

F.C.C.R. at 15183; Cellular Commc’ns, 86 F.C.C.2d at 505.

Given Congress’s and the FCC’s demonstrated hesitation to

override all state law and recognition of a role for state

regulation within the field of RF emissions, we cannot conclude

that federal law “so thoroughly occupies a legislative field ‘as to

make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the

States to supplement it.’” Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 516 (quoting

De la Cuesta, 458 U.S. at 153). 

C.

Defendants’ final asserted ground for dismissal is conflict

preemption. Conflict preemption exists (1) “where it is

impossible for a private party to comply with both state and

federal requirements,” or (2) “where state law stands as an

obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full

purposes and objectives of Congress.” Fellner, 539 F.3d at 251

(internal quotation marks omitted). It is likely that compliance
56

with both federal RF standards as well as any hypothetical

stricter state standard is possible. Therefore, the basis of

defendants’ conflict preemption defense is the contention that

Farina’s suit would erect an obstacle to the accomplishment of

the objectives of Congress.

Farina’s claims rest on the allegation that defendants

warranted that their cell phones were safe to operate, but that

these phones were, in fact, unsafe to operate without headsets

because of their emission of RF radiation—despite the fact that

their emission levels were in compliance with FCC standards.

Farina attempts to characterize his claims as consumer claims

based only on false and misleading statements. See Appellant’s

Br. at 52; Tr. of Oral Argument at 3; id. at 11; id. at 38. But

although he disavows any challenge to the FCC’s RF standards,

see Appellant’s Br. at 53–54; Tr. of Oral Argument at 4; id. at

11, that is the essence of his complaint. The representations in

the advertising and instructional literature that Farina has

identified as false or misleading are warranties that the phones

are “safe to operate without the use of a headset and that they

were and would be free from defects.” Third Am. Compl. ¶

149; see also id. ¶ 141. In order for Farina to succeed, he

necessarily must establish that cell phones abiding by the FCC’s

SAR guidelines are unsafe to operate without a headset. In

other words, Farina must show that these standards are

inadequate—that they are insufficiently protective of public

health and safety. See Murray v. Motorola, Inc., 982 A.2d 764,

775 (D.C. 2009) (agreeing with the district court that “by urging
 In this way, Farina’s claims differ from those brought in 26

Murray under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection

Procedures Act (“CPPA”). There, the plaintiffs alleged cell

phone manufacturers and retailers violated District of Columbia

law by falsely representing that scientific research established

“absolutely no risk of harm associated with the use of cell

phones,” and by failing to inform consumers that certain

measures could be taken to limit RF exposure. Id. at 784

(internal quotation marks omitted). The court concluded these

claims were not preempted, as the FCC has acknowledged there

is no scientific proof that cell phones have absolutely no risk of

harm, id., and there is no indication that nonuniformity in

disclosures to consumers would hinder FCC regulations, id. at

788–89. 

Farina’s claims do not mirror the CPPA claims, however.

The alleged representations made by defendants did not state

that there is absolutely no risk of harm from RF radiation; they

merely stated that cell phones were compliant with FCC

guidelines and free from defects. See Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 141,

149. Similarly, Farina’s allegations do not posit a failure to

57

a jury to find that defendants’ cell phones emit unreasonably

dangerous levels of RF radiation even though the phones’

emissions are within the SAR guidelines adopted by the FCC,

plaintiffs are effectively seeking to lower the FCC’s current

SAR standard”). Whether or not Farina intends to expressly

challenge the FCC standards at trial, the inescapable effect of

his complaint is to do so. Accordingly, we must determine 26
disclose information enabling users to mitigate risk, but simply

that defendants failed to disclose a defect in their phones—the

level of RF emissions—that made them unsafe to operate.

Murray’s refusal to preempt the CPPA claims, therefore, does

not affect our analysis.

58

whether suits challenging the adequacy of the FCC’s RF

regulations are preempted.

The Supreme Court’s preemption case law indicates that

regulatory situations in which an agency is required to strike a

balance between competing statutory objectives lend themselves

to a finding of conflict preemption. See, e.g., Buckman, 531

U.S. at 348 (“The conflict stems from the fact that the federal

statutory scheme amply empowers the FDA to punish and deter

fraud against the Administration, and that this authority is used

by the Administration to achieve a somewhat delicate balance of

statutory objectives. The balance . . . can be skewed by allowing

. . . claims under state tort law.”); City of Burbank v. Lockheed

Airport Terminal Inc., 411 U.S. 624, 638–39 (1973) (“The

Federal Aviation Act requires a delicate balance between safety

and efficiency. . . . The interdependence of these factors requires

a uniform and exclusive system of federal regulation if the

congressional objectives underlying the . . . Act are to be

fulfilled.”); cf. Lohr, 518 U.S. at 501 (refusing to find

preemption where the federal law at issue was not one “in which

the Federal Government has weighed the competing interests

relevant to the particular requirement in question, reached an
59

unambiguous conclusion about how those competing

considerations should be resolved . . . , and implemented that

conclusion via a specific mandate on manufacturers or

producers”). 

The reason why state law conflicts with federal law in

these balancing situations is plain. When Congress charges an

agency with balancing competing objectives, it intends the

agency to use its reasoned judgment to weigh the relevant

considerations and determine how best to prioritize between

these objectives. Allowing state law to impose a different

standard permits a re-balancing of those considerations. A statelaw standard that is more protective of one objective may result

in a standard that is less protective of others.

In Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., for example, the

Supreme Court found a suit alleging that an automobile was

defectively designed because it lacked an airbag conflicted with

a Department of Transportation (“DOT”) regulation authorizing

manufacturers to choose between a range of passive restraint

devices. 529 U.S. 861, 886 (2000). In setting its standard, the

DOT was required to consider not only safety, but also the cost

to consumers of additional safety measures, the encouragement

of technological development, and consumer preferences. Id. at

875; id. at 877–79 (detailing the specific considerations behind

the DOT standard). Because the DOT was required to factor in

all of these considerations, permitting alternative state standards

to arise via the imposition of liability in a tort suit would conflict

with the DOT’s deliberate policy choice. Id. at 881; see also
60

Wyeth, 129 S. Ct. at 1203 (“Examining the rule itself and the

DOT’s contemporaneous record, which revealed the factors the

agency had weighed and the balance it had struck, we

determined that state tort suits presented an obstacle to the

federal scheme.”).

Similarly, in Buckman, the Court preempted a tort suit

premised on the defendant’s alleged fraudulent

misrepresentations made to the FDA in seeking approval to

market orthopedic bone screws. 531 U.S. at 353. The Court

found Congress had “amply empower[ed]” the FDA to punish

misrepresentations and that the FDA had used this punitive

authority in cases to balance between its statutory objectives. Id.

at 348. In particular, the FDA was required to “ensure both that

medical devices are reasonably safe and effective and that . . .

[an approved device] is on the market within a relatively short

period of time.” Id. at 349–50. “[F]lexibility” in “pursu[ing]

difficult (and often competing) objectives” was essential to the

FDA’s mandate. Id. at 349. Altering the balance struck by the

FDA to protect safety to a greater degree would “dramatically

increase the burdens” on industry by requiring compliance with

various state standards and diminish the expediency of the

approval process. Id. at 350–51.

Defendants argue that Farina’s suit conflicts with FCC

regulations in a similar way, claiming a finding of liability

would upset the balance struck by the FCC in setting its RF

standards. Defendants contend that Congress delegated

authority to the FCC to ensure the creation of a uniform and
61

efficient nationwide wireless service. Allowing a jury decision

to potentially set stricter RF standards, they say, would upset the

FCC’s delicate balancing of efficiency and uniformity with the

health and safety of the public.

The stated purpose behind the FCA is to “regulat[e]

interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and

radio so as to make available . . . a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide,

and world-wide wire and radio communication service with

adequate facilities at reasonable charges . . . .” 47 U.S.C. § 151.

In setting standards for wire and radio communications, the FCC

must also consider the promotion of “the safety of life and

property.” 47 U.S.C. § 332(a)(1). An essential element of an

efficient wireless network is a system that is subject to uniform

technical standards. See Fed. Radio Comm’n v. Nelson Bros.

Bond & Mortg. Co., 289 U.S. 266, 279 (1933) (“No state lines

divide the radio waves, and national regulation is not only

appropriate but essential to the efficient use of radio facilities.”);

H.R. Rep. No. 104-204(I), at 95, reprinted in 1996

U.S.C.C.A.N. at 61–62 (“A high quality national wireless

telecommunications network cannot exist if each of its

component[s] must meet different RF standards in each

community.”). As the House Committee on Commerce declared

in approving the TCA:

[I]t is in the national interest that uniform,

consistent requirements, with adequate safeguards

of the public health and safety, be established as

soon as possible. Such requirements will ensure
62

an appropriate balance in policy and will speed

deployment and the availability of competitive

wireless telecommunications services which

ultimately will provide consumers with lower

costs as well as with a greater range and options

for such services.

H.R. Rep. No. 104-204(I), at 94, reprinted in 1996

U.S.C.C.A.N. at 61.

Moreover, uniformity in regulation helps ensure that

adequate service is accessible throughout the country at a low

cost. See Cellular Commc’ns, 86 F.C.C.2d at 503. “[U]niversal

service is a cornerstone of the Nation’s communication system.”

S. Rep. No. 104-23, at 25 (1995). “[O]ne of the fundamental

concerns” of wireless regulation is the need to further

universality, id. at 4, and this goal is to be served, in part, by

“providing quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable

rates[ and] providing access to advanced telecommunications

and information services in all regions of the nation . . . .” Id. at

5. Accordingly, the FCC was tasked not only with protecting

the health and safety of the public, but also with ensuring the

rapid development of an efficient and uniform network, one that

provides effective and widely accessible service at a reasonable

cost.

How precisely to serve these objectives “is a policy

question, not a legal one.” Cellular Phone Taskforce v. FCC,

205 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 2000). In order to satisfy both its
63

mandates to regulate the safety concerns of RF emissions and to

ensure the creation of an efficient and uniform nationwide

network, the FCC was required to weigh those considerations

and establish a set of standards that limit RF emissions enough

to protect the public and workers while, at the same time, leave

RF levels high enough to enable cell phone companies to

provide quality nationwide service in a cost-effective manner.

The FCC itself recognized: “We believe our decisions provide

a proper balance between the need to protect the public and

workers from exposure to potentially harmful RF

electromagnetic fields and the requirement that industry be

allowed to provide telecommunications services to the public in

the most efficient and practical manner possible.” FCC Second

Order, 12 F.C.C.R. at 13496. The SAR guidelines, therefore,

represent the FCC’s considered judgment about how to protect

the health and safety of the public while still leaving industry

capable of maintaining an efficient and uniform wireless

network.

The FCC concluded that requiring exposure to be

kept as low as reasonably achievable in the face

of scientific uncertainty would be inconsistent

with its mandate to balance between the need to

protect the public . . . and the requirement that

i ndust r y b e a l l o w ed t o pr ovi d e

telecommunications services to the public in the

most efficient and practical manner possible.

Cellular Phone Taskforce, 205 F.3d at 92 (internal quotation
64

marks omitted). 

This is a situation “in which the Federal Government has

weighed the competing interests relevant to the particular

requirement in question, reached an unambiguous conclusion

about how those competing considerations should be resolved

in a particular case or set of cases, and implemented that

conclusion via a specific mandate on manufacturers or

producers.” Lohr, 518 U.S. at 501. Here, the FCC has weighed

the competing interests relevant to RF regulations—safety and

efficiency. It has reached an unambiguous conclusion by

adopting the hybrid ANSI/IEEE-NCRP set of standards, see 47

C.F.R. § 2.1093(d), and it has implemented that conclusion via

a specific mandate, requiring every cell phone sold in the United

States to comply with those standards, see 47 C.F.R. §§

2.803(a)(1); 24.51–.52.

Allowing juries to impose liability on cell phone

companies for claims like Farina’s would conflict with the

FCC’s regulations. A jury determination that cell phones in

compliance with the FCC’s SAR guidelines were still

unreasonably dangerous would, in essence, permit a jury to

second guess the FCC’s conclusion on how to balance its

objectives. Were the FCC’s standards to constitute only a

regulatory floor upon which state law can build, juries could rebalance the FCC’s statutory objectives and inhibit the provision

of quality nationwide service. Because the intensity of RF

emission levels and the strength and range of cell phone signals

are positively correlated, allowing additional state-law
65

restrictions on these levels could impair the efficiency of the

wireless market. But given the current state of the science, the

FCC considers all phones in compliance with its standards to be

safe. See FCC First Order, 11 F.C.C.R. at 15184 (“We believe

that the regulations . . . represent the best scientific thought and

are sufficient to protect the public health.”). These standards

represent a “consensus view” of the agencies with jurisdiction

over RF emissions and incorporate the views of numerous

expert organizations and interested parties. Id. at 15124. As an

agency engaged in rulemaking, the FCC is well positioned to

solicit expert opinions and marshal the scientific data to ensure

its standards both protect the public and provide for an efficient

wireless network. Allowing juries to perform their own riskutility analysis and second-guess the FCC’s conclusion would

disrupt the expert balancing underlying the federal scheme. See

Buckman, 531 U.S. at 348 (finding preemption where “a

somewhat delicate balance of statutory objectives” could be

“skewed by allowing . . . claims under tort law”); cf. Riegel, 552

U.S.at 325 (“State tort law that requires a manufacturer’s

catheter to be safer, but hence less effective, than the model the

FDA has approved disrupts the federal scheme . . . .”). 

Moreover, the resulting state-law standards could vary

from state to state, eradicating the uniformity necessary to

regulating the wireless network. The wireless network is an

inherently national system. In order to ensure the network

functions nationwide and to preserve the balance between the

FCC’s competing regulatory objectives, both Congress and the
66

FCC recognized uniformity as an essential element of an

efficient wireless network. See H.R. Rep. 104-204 (I), at 94–95,

reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 61–62; Cellular Commc’ns,

86 F.C.C.2d at 503; cf. Thomas W. Hazlett, Federal Preemption

in Cellular Phone Regulation, in Federal Preemption 113,

124–25 (Richard A. Epstein & Michael S. Greve eds., 2007)

(describing the benefits of uniform federal regulation in other

aspects of the wireless network). Subjecting the wireless

network to a patchwork of state standards would disrupt that

uniformity and place additional burdens on industry and the

network itself. Cf. Buckman, 531 U.S. at 350 (“As a practical

matter, complying with the FDA’s detailed regulatory regime in

the shadow of 50 States’ tort regimes will dramatically increase

the burdens facing potential applicants . . . .”). This would

hinder the accomplishment of the full objectives behind wireless

regulation.

In concluding that state-law causes of action like Farina’s

may disturb the FCC’s balance of its statutory objectives, we

afford some weight to the views of the FCC itself. While we do

not defer to an agency’s legal conclusion that state law is

preempted, where “the subject matter is technical and the

relevant history and background are complex and extensive” we

defer to “an agency’s explanation of how state law affects the

regulatory scheme.” Wyeth, 129 S. Ct. at 1201 (alteration and

internal quotation marks omitted). Because agencies “have a

unique understanding of the statutes they administer[, they

possess] an attendant ability to make informed determinations
67

about how state requirements may pose an obstacle to the

accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and

objectives of Congress.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

“The weight we accord the agency’s explanation . . . depends on

its thoroughness, consistency, and persuasiveness.” Id. The

FCC, in its notice of rulemaking, explicitly stated the adoption

of its SAR guidelines constituted a balancing of safety and

efficiency. FCC Second Order, 12 F.C.C.R. at 13496. It has

also cautioned, in an amicus brief before the Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia in Murray, that state-law claims

would upset that balance. Both of these views support a finding

of preemption. 

Farina objects, arguing we should afford no deference to

the FCC’s statements because the FCC’s position on preemption

is inconsistent with its prior statements on the issue. In Wyeth,

the Supreme Court refused to defer to the FDA’s view

advocating its preemptive authority because the agency had

previously asserted that state law did not erect an obstacle to the

agency’s objectives. 129 S. Ct. at 1201–02; see also Riegel, 552

U.S. at 326 (stating that “the degree of deference [given to an

agency explanation] might be reduced by the fact that the

agency’s earlier position was different”). Farina highlights

statements by the FCC that purport to disclaim the authority to

promulgate safety standards and to reject the preemptive

authority of its RF regulations. See FCC First Order, 11

F.C.C.R. at 15101 (recognizing that “[t]he FDA has general

jurisdiction for protecting the public from potentially harmful
68

radiation from consumer and industrial devices and in that

capacity is expert in RF exposures”); Responsibility, 100

F.C.C.2d at 551 (“[W]e have neither the expertise nor the

jurisdiction to develop our own radiation exposure guidelines .

. . .” (emphasis omitted)); see also FCC Second Order, 12

F.C.C.R. at 13529 (refusing to decide whether or not state and

local regulations of RF emissions should be preempted); FCC

First Order, 11 F.C.C.R. at 15183 (same); Responsibility, 100

F.C.C.2d at 558 (“[W]e do not believe it is necessary at this time

to resolve the issue of federal preemption of state and local RF

standards.”) .

To the extent Farina argues these statements evince the

FCC’s rejection of preemption, he overreads them. First, the

fact that the FCC does not possess sole jurisdiction over health

and safety standards does not preclude a finding of preemption.

See City of Burbank, 411 U.S. at 638–39 (finding preemption

where authority over regulating airplane noise was vested in

both the EPA and the Federal Aviation Administration).

Second, the FCC has been consistent in its position on

preemption. Although it has previously refused to express a

view on whether state and local RF regulations are preempted,

its refusal was explicitly based on the fact that no significant

conflict between state law and its regulations existed. See, e.g.,

FCC First Order, 11 F.C.C.R. at 15182 (“To date the

Commission has declined to preempt on health and safety

matters. However, the Commission has noted that should nonFederal RF radiation standards be adopted that adversely affect
 Farina also contends Wyeth precludes deference to agency

27

statements made outside of notice-and-comment rulemaking

procedures. In Wyeth, the Supreme Court refused to defer to the

FDA’s views in part because they were expressed in a preamble

to an FDA regulation whose notice of proposed rulemaking had

declared it would not contain preemptive regulations. 129 S. Ct.

at 1201. The FDA’s views were “inherently suspect in light of

this procedural failure.” Id. 

We do not read this passage as standing for the

proposition that only statements made pursuant to notice-andcomment rulemaking can be afforded deference. The deference

at issue in Wyeth was Skidmore deference, see Skidmore v. Swift

& Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), not Chevron deference, see

Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467

U.S. 837 (1984). The latter level of deference applies only to

statements carrying the force of law, but Skidmore deference is

not so limited. See United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218,

234–35 (2001) (applying Skidmore deference to an advisory

ruling letter). Instead, we read the Court’s reference to the

69

a licensee’s ability to engage in Commission-authorized

activities, the Commission would consider reconsidering

whether Federal action is necessary.”); Responsibility, 100

F.C.C.2d at 558 (same). The FCC has always reserved the

question of the preemptive authority of its RF regulations

pending the existence of an actual conflict, and its current

position is consistent with that approach. Accordingly, we think

the FCC’s position on preemption merits deference.

27
FDA’s “procedural failure” to be more properly considered a

defect in the thoroughness of the FDA’s views. Having

disavowed any intent to issue preemptive regulations in its

notice of proposed rulemaking, the FDA would not have

received and considered the comments of all interested parties.

In light of the lack of exposure to conflicting views, the FDA’s

position would lack thoroughness. Here, in contrast, the FCC

received numerous comments regarding preemption, see FCC

First Order, 11 F.C.C.R. at 15128 (“[A] significant number of

parties addressed the issue of Federal preemption of state and

local regulations for RF exposure.”), and did not disavow

issuing preemptive regulations in its notice of proposed

rulemaking prior to the FCC First Order, see NPR FCC First

Order, 8 F.C.C.R. 2849.

Although the fact that an agency’s views on preemption

are expressed informally can limit the deference given, see

Fellner, 539 F.3d at 250–51, at least here, where the FCC was

exposed to conflicting views, we do not think deference is

unwarranted, cf. id. at 250 n.8 (citing the agency’s lack of

exposure to competing views as a rationale for refusing to defer

to an informal agency statement). Regardless, the FCC’s

recognition of the balance behind its RF regulations was also

expressed in a formal proceeding, and we believe that deserves

deference. FCC Second Order, 12 F.C.C.R. at 13496.

70

Farina raises several objections to a finding of

preemption. First, he argues preemption is unwarranted because

the FCC lacks authority to regulate the safety effects of RF
 The district court concluded that the FCC regulated cell 28

phone RF emissions pursuant only to its authority under NEPA.

The court in Murray did not believe that whether the FCC

promulgated its RF regulations under NEPA or “pursuant to

specific radio-communications legislation,” Murray, 982 A.2d

at 778 n.19, was important because, in the TCA, Congress

explicitly instructed the FCC to “make effective rules regarding

71

emissions. Because the FCC is not an agency in the field of

health and safety, Farina contends it cannot pass preemptive

safety regulations. Moreover, he argues that, in passing its RF

standards, the FCC acted pursuant to its obligations under

NEPA. See, e.g., FCC Second Order, 12 F.C.C.R. at 13499

(“To meet its responsibilities under NEPA, the Commission has

adopted requirements for evaluating the environmental impact

of its actions. One of several environmental factors addressed

by these requirements is human exposure to RF energy . . . .”

(footnote omitted)). Because NEPA applies broadly to all

federal agencies and is not a statute within the FCC’s exclusive

purview, he argues it cannot have preemptive effect. 

But although the FCC’s RF regulations were triggered by

the Commission’s NEPA obligations, health and safety

considerations were already within the FCC’s mandate, 47

U.S.C. §§ 151, 332(a), and all RF regulations were promulgated

under the rulemaking authority granted by the FCA, see, e.g.,

FCC Second Order, 12 F.C.C.R. at 13562; FCC First Order, 11

F.C.C.R. at 15185. Furthermore, while the FCC arguably 28
the environmental effects of [RF] emissions.” Pub. L. No. 104-

104, § 704(b), 110 Stat. 56, 152. The Murray court concluded

that § 704(b) delegated authority to the FCC to regulate RF

radiation from cell phones. See Murray, 982 A.2d at 786 n.37.

This interpretation has some force, but we do not rely on §

704(b).

72

lacks the expertise to design its own scientific health and safety

standards, see Responsibility, 100 F.C.C.2d at 551, it does

possess the expertise to select a standard developed by other

expert agencies and organizations and balance that against

efficiency, see id. (recognizing the FCC “does have the expertise

and authority to recognize technically sound standards

promulgated by reputable and competent organizations”

(emphasis omitted)). The FCC need not be expert enough to

devise its own SAR standard to adopt a preemptive regulation.

In City of Burbank, the Supreme Court evaluated FAA

regulations of airplane noise control under the Noise Control

Act of 1972. 411 U.S. at 628–29. These regulations were

promulgated only after the EPA submitted to the FAA proposed

regulations “necessary to protect the public health and welfare.”

Id. at 630. Despite the fact that the EPA assisted in the

formulation of federal standards, the Court held the FAA’s

authority preempted state law. Id. at 640.

Farina’s second argument is that the Supreme Court’s

recent opinion in Wyeth requires us to reject preemption here.
73

In Wyeth, the plaintiff, Diana Levine, suffered injuries resulting

from the administration of phenergan, an antihistamine, by the

IV-push method. 129 S. Ct. at 1191. Phenergan can be

administered in two possible ways—either through the IV-push

method, in which the drug is injected directly into the vein, or

through its introduction into saline solution that drips into the

vein via a catheter. Id. Levine alleged the drug’s labeling,

although approved by the FDA, was inadequate because it failed

to instruct practitioners not to use the riskier IV-push method.

Id. at 1191–92. 

The Court held Levine’s suit was not preempted by the

FDA’s approval of phenergan’s label. Id. at 1204. The Court

first found that Congress had long recognized a complementary

role for state-law causes of action under the Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”). Id. at 1199–1200. This awareness,

when paired with Congress’s refusal to enact an express

preemption provision dealing with prescription drugs, indicated

Congress did not intend to displace state law. Id. at 1200.

Moreover, the Court refused to defer to the FDA’s current

position on preemption, id. at 1201–02, and the agency itself had

traditionally regarded state law as a complement to federal

regulations, id. at 1202. Finally, the FDA’s approval of

phenergan’s label did not reflect a balancing of competing

objectives, as in cases like Geier, because the FDA had not even

considered requiring a warning against the IV-push method. Id.

at 1203 n.14.

Farina argues these aspects of Wyeth support his
 Farina also emphasizes that the Wyeth Court recognized 29

state law as a necessary complement because the FDA lacked

the resources to monitor all new information about the vast

amount of pharmaceuticals on the market. See id. at 1202 &

n.11. Farina argues this counsels against finding preemption

here because the FDA has stated that it lacks adequate resources

to regulate the health and safety effects of RF radiation. It is not

clear how the sufficiency of the FDA’s resources would have an

effect upon the preemptive authority of FCC regulations. Farina

makes no corresponding argument that the FCC lacks sufficient

resources to monitor the risks of RF emissions. Moreover, the

costs of monitoring the adequacy of a generally applicable set of

RF standards would presumably be far less than those of

monitoring the adequacy of the labels for thousands of distinct

pharmaceuticals.

74

argument against preemption. We disagree. First, there is no

indication, as there was in Wyeth, that either Congress or the

FCC traditionally viewed state regulation of RF emissions as a

necessary complement to federal regulation. The FCC has

acknowledged that traditionally little state regulation of RF

emissions existed. FCC First Order, 11 F.C.C.R. at 15183 (“It

would appear from the comments that a few [state and local RF]

regulations have been imposed . . . .”). The Commission has

historically recognized a role for state law only to the extent it

does not conflict with federal law, and has taken the position

that state-law suits like Farina’s would conflict with its

regulations.29
75

Moreover, the lack of an express preemption provision

covering claims like Farina’s does not necessarily mean

Congress intended to preserve conflicting state law. We do not

read Wyeth’s reference to Congress’s decision not to enact an

express preemption provision, see id. at 1200 (“If Congress

thought state-law suits posed an obstacle to its objectives, it

surely would have enacted an express pre-emption provision at

some point during the FDCA’s 70-year history.”), as standing

for the proposition that conflict preemption should not be found

absent an express preemption provision. Such a reading would

come too close to subsuming conflict preemption into express

preemption analysis, and is inconsistent with the axiom that an

express preemption provision does not “bar the ordinary

working of conflict pre-emption principles,” Geier, 529 U.S. at

869. In any case, we recognize that Congress did pass two

express preemption provisions in the TCA. See 47 U.S.C. §§

332(c)(3)(A), (c)(7)(B)(iv). While they do not cover Farina’s

claims, they do manifest Congress’s express intent to preempt

some state law, which distinguishes this case from Wyeth.

Finally, as the Court itself recognized, Wyeth was not a

balancing case. 129 S. Ct. at 1203. State-law actions seeking to

impose liability for inadequate warnings would not conflict with

the FDA’s labeling approval because both were designed to

serve the same objective—protecting public safety. Id. at

1199–1200. State tort law would merely provide additional

protection. Protecting public safety is clearly within the

mandate of the FCC. See 47 U.S.C. § 332(a)(1); H.R. Rep. No.
76

104-204(I), at 94, reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 61

(discussing the need for “adequate safeguards of the public

health and safety” in RF regulations). But the Commission was

not charged only with protecting the public from RF emissions;

it was also required to ensure the development of an efficient

wireless network. The Commission’s balance of these interests

would be skewed by additional state restrictions on RF

emissions in a manner that the objectives behind pharmaceutical

labels would not be. Accordingly, Wyeth does not provide

sufficient grounds to alter our conclusion.

Farina’s third argument posits that the presence of a

savings provision in the TCA limits the preemptive authority of

FCC regulations. Section 601(c)(1) of the TCA provides: “This

Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not be construed

to modify, impair, or supersede Federal, State, or local law

unless expressly so provided in such Act or amendments.” Pub.

L. No. 104-104, §601(c)(1), 110 Stat. 56, 143 (codified as Note

to 47 U.S.C. § 152). It is entitled “No Implied Effect.” Farina

argues this section demonstrates Congress’s intent to limit the

preemption of state law to only those situations covered by an

express preemption provision. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-458, at

201 (1996) (Conf. Rep.) (“This provision prevents affected

parties from asserting that the bill impliedly preempts other

laws.”). Because neither § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) nor § 332(c)(3)(a)

reach Farina’s claims, he would have us conclude his suit cannot

be preempted.

Farina’s argument is not without some force. It is a
77

possible reading of § 601(c)(1) to conclude Congress made a

conscious effort to limit the scope of any subsequent preemption

analysis. And because congressional intent is the “ultimate

touchstone” of our inquiry, Lohr, 518 U.S. at 485 (internal

quotation marks omitted), it is conceivable that § 601(c)(1)

could be dispositive, see Pinney, 402 F.3d at 458 (concluding

that the presence of § 601(c)(1) counseled against a finding of

conflict preemption). But it is a general rule in preemption

analysis that a savings provision does not “bar the ordinary

working of conflict pre-emption principles.” Geier, 529 U.S. at

869. Moreover, where the federal regulatory scheme reflects a

careful balancing, savings provisions should not be given broad

effect, id. at 870, lest they “permit[ a] law to defeat its own

objectives, or potentially . . . to ‘destroy itself.’” Id. at 872

(quoting AT&T Co. v. Cent. Office Tel., Inc., 524 U.S. 214, 228

(1998)).

Why, in any event, would Congress not have

wanted ordinary pre-emption principles to apply

where an actual conflict with a federal objective

is at stake? Some such principle is needed. In its

absence, state law could impose legal duties that

would conflict directly with federal regulatory

mandates . . . . [I]t would take from those who

would enforce a federal law the very ability to

achieve the law’s congressionally mandated

objectives that the Constitution, through the

operation of ordinary pre-emption principles,
78

seeks to protect.

Id. at 871–72.

Such a reading would be odd, then, given the fact that the

FCC’s RF regulations represent a balance of competing

objectives. In cases where an agency’s regulation reflects a

single objective, it may make sense for Congress to declare that

state law is displaced only in the specific situations covered by

an express preemption provision. By doing so, Congress could

ensure state law serves as a complement to federal regulation,

which would further advance the agency’s statutory objective.

But where the agency’s regulations represent a balance, the

presence of state-law regulations does not serve as a

complement, but rather re-balances the relevant considerations.

See Buckman, 531 U.S. at 348. This is precisely the type of

situation where a broad reading of a savings provision could

allow the law to “defeat its own objectives.” Geier, 529 U.S. at

872.

Accordingly, we hesitate to read § 601(c)(1) in a way that

disclaims preemption even in the face of an actual conflict. “We

do not claim that Congress lacks the constitutional power to

write a statute that mandates such a complex type of

state/federal relationship.” Id. But where the language permits

another reasonable reading, it may be more prudent to adopt that

alternative rather than the one that could do violence to the

statute’s objectives. It is not clear that § 601(c)(1) indicates

Congress was willing to preserve state law that created actual
79

conflicts with federal law. Even assuming that Congress may

have been clarifying its intent not to preempt some state law, a

clarification of intent not to preempt some state law is not a

statement of intent to permit actual conflicts between state and

federal law. 

While the presence of a savings provision does not affect

the actual workings of conflict preemption, it can provide an

indication of congressional intent as to a statute’s objectives. As

such, a savings provision could inform our analysis of whether

a conflict exists without offending the principles of conflict

preemption. Section 601(c)(1), then, could indicate that

Congress’s objectives are more limited than they might

otherwise be characterized. While an actual conflict would still

be preempted, such a conflict would be harder to find under this

less expansive view of the statute’s objectives.

But this is merely one data point out of many we use to

discern congressional intent, and “a narrow focus on Congress’

intent to supersede state law is misdirected, for a pre-emptive

regulation’s force does not depend on express congressional

authorization to displace state law.” City of New York v. FCC,

486 U.S. 57, 64 (1988) (alterations and internal quotation marks

omitted); see also Geier, 529 U.S. at 884. Moreover, the broad

instruction in the TCA to promulgate rules governing RF

emissions appears sufficient to authorize the FCC to pass

preemptive regulations. See De la Cuesta, 458 U.S. at 153–54

(recognizing that when an agency issues preemptive regulations,

the question of congressional intent focuses on whether those
80

regulations fall within the agency’s delegated authority).

In addition, Congress has already shown the intention to

override nonuniform state-law RF standards that conflict with

federal regulation of the wireless infrastructure. In passing §

332(c)(7)(B)(iv), Congress recognized that “current State and

local requirements, siting and zoning decisions by non-federal

units of government, have created an inconsistent and, at times,

conflicting patchwork of requirements which will inhibit . . . the

rebuilding of a digital technology-based cellular

telecommunications network.” H.R. Rep. No. 104-204(I), at 94,

reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 61. The presence of

inconsistent state-law regulations of the infrastructure created

conflicts with the FCC’s RF regulations and led to the

enactment of an express preemption provision. Congress,

therefore, was clearly concerned with state-law RF standards

applicable to infrastructure that threatened to limit the efficiency

and uniformity of the wireless network. Cell phones are as

integral to the wireless network as the infrastructure, and

regulations of phones can have similar effects on the

effectiveness of wireless service as regulations of the

infrastructure. Cf. NPR Rural, 18 F.C.C.R. at 20830 (stating

that the biggest limitations on the ability of a base station to

reach a cell phone are the power level of the signal and the

location of the phone in relation to the base station). We think

Congress would be equally concerned with state regulations of

cell phones that could impose similar limitations on the range

and efficiency of the wireless network. Section 601(c)(1),
 Farina also points to an additional savings provision in 47 30

U.S.C. § 414, providing: “Nothing in this chapter contained

shall in any way abridge or alter the remedies now existing at

common law or by statute . . . .” This provision applies

generally, and as such, does not provide strong evidence of the

congressional objectives bound up with the regulation of RF

emissions. We decline to read this provision in a way that limits

our conflict preemption analysis.

 Although Farina primarily requests the provision of 31

headsets or compensation for the cost of headsets, his complaint

requests several additional forms of relief, including money

damages, punitive damages, and a declaratory judgment.

81

therefore, does not bar the preemption of Farina’s suit.30

Farina’s final argument is that even if the FCC did strike

a balance to protect safety and efficiency, the precise relief he

seeks—requiring cell phones to carry headsets—would have no

effect upon the efficiency of the wireless network. The Fourth 31

Circuit found this argument convincing. See Pinney, 402 F.3d

at 458 (“It is difficult to understand how a headset requirement

(the specific relief sought) would affect the establishment of a

nationwide wireless service network or the availability of

wireless service coverage. . . . [A]ccordingly, a headset

requirement would not stand as an obstacle to Congress’s goal

of achieving nationwide coverage.”). 

But we think the focus on the headset requirement is
82

misplaced. For the purposes of preemption analysis, it is the

cause of action, and not the specific relief requested, that

matters. Preemption speaks in terms of claims, not in terms of

forms of relief. See, e.g., Wyeth, 129 S. Ct. at 1191 (“The

question we must decide is whether the FDA’s approvals

provide Wyeth with a complete defense to Levine’s tort claims.”

(emphasis added)); Riegel, 552 U.S. at 323 (reading Lohr to

have held that “common-law causes of action for negligence and

strict liability” were subject to preemption by certain federal

regulations (emphasis added)); see also Wood v. Prudential Ins.

Co. of Am., 207 F.3d 674, 678 (3d Cir. 2000) (noting that

preemption “does not depend on the type of relief requested in

a complaint”). Any form of relief shapes a defendant’s

behavior, which can conflict with federal law objectives. See

Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 521 (Stevens, J., concurring) (“[S]tate

regulation can be as effectively exerted through an award of

damages as through some form of preventative relief. The

obligation to pay compensation can be . . . a potent method of

governing conduct and controlling policy.” (quoting San Diego

Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 247 (1959))

(alteration omitted)); see also Riegel, 552 U.S. at 324; cf. N.Y.

Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 277 (1964) (“What a State

may not constitutionally bring about by means of a criminal

statute is likewise beyond the reach of its civil laws . . . .”).

Furthermore, although Farina attempts to characterize his

suit as setting a headset requirement, this misapprehends the

effect a finding of liability would have in this kind of suit. The
 We do not imply that a state statute or regulation 32

prescribing a specific means of reducing or eliminating SAR

exposure—such as one requiring a headset for all cell phones

sold within a state—would not be preempted. We merely

recognize that a distinction exists between the two forms of state

regulation. See Riegel, 552 U.S. at 325 (“Indeed, one would

think that tort law, applied by juries . . . , is less deserving of

preservation. A state statute, or a regulation adopted by a state

agency, could at least be expected to apply cost-benefit analysis

similar to that applied by the experts at the FDA . . . .”). We

reference this distinction only because Farina’s characterization

of his suit as setting a headset requirement insinuates no

distinction is present.

83

nature of jury decisions is not to prescribe a specific prospective

remedy. It is merely to say that defendants’ conduct does not

abide by the operative legal standard—in this case, that

defendants’ cell phones are unsafe—and to provide relief for the

specific case or cases before the court. How defendants

achieved safe levels of SAR exposure for cell phones sold in the

future would be left up to them. Whether they complied by 32

reducing RF emissions or by bundling headsets with phones—or

by some other means—would be irrelevant for the purposes of

the new state-law standard. In both situations, the phones would

be considered “safe” under state law. Nor should the specific

means of compliance matter for preemption purposes. 

Accordingly, we conclude that Farina’s claims are
 Farina also alleges defendants’ cell phones are defective 33

because they represent a safety risk when used without headsets

while driving. Third Am. Compl. ¶ 151. But whether or not the

FCC has authority over the matter of driver safety, the effect of

Farina’s suit would be to require the redesign of cell phones.

This presents the same conflict as his other claims. We

84

preempted by the FCC’s RF regulations. The inexorable effect

of allowing suits like Farina’s to continue is to permit juries to

second-guess the FCC’s balance of its competing objectives.

The FCC is in a better position to monitor and assess the science

behind RF radiation than juries in individual cases. Regulatory

assessments and rulemaking call upon a myriad of empirical and

scientific data and medical and scientific opinion, especially in

a case, such as RF radiation, where the science remains

inconclusive. Though we foreclose relief for the members of

this putative class, this does not render them devoid of

protection. The FCC has pledged to serve an ongoing role in the

regulation of RF radiation and to monitor the science in order to

ensure its regulations remain adequate to protect the public.

OET Bulletin at 8; see also EMR Network v. FCC, 391 F.3d

269, 273 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (noting the FCC’s “determination to

keep an eye on developments” and accommodate changes in the

science). Allowing juries to determine instead whether those

regulations are adequate to protect the public would “stand[] as

an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full

purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hillsborough Cnty., 471

U.S. at 713 (internal quotation marks omitted).33
therefore reject Farina’s driver safety argument for the same

reasons as his other claims.

85

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District

Court’s dismissal of Farina’s complaint.