As the scheme of regulation at issue had many remedies to ensure state compliance, federal courts had jurisdiction to equitably enjoin the prospective enforcement of state agency determinations; the court therefore had subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.
As evinced by the direct and positive effect on the federal regulatory scheme, state risk allocation determinations are subject to conflict preemption by the federal statute; informal consultations with the agency were not sufficiently final to signal agency approval, and the agency's appellate-stage amicus asserting preemption is accorded Auer deference.