1747, 1751, 138 L.Ed.2d 21 (1997) (citation omitted) (ERISA). See also Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597, 111 S.Ct. 2476, 115 L.Ed.2d 532 (1991) (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Ro-denticide Act (“FIFRA”)); Hillsborough County, Florida v. Automated Medical Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 105 S.Ct. 2371, 85 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985) (Public Health Service Act (“PHSA”)); New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645, 115 S.Ct. 1671, 131 L.Ed.2d 695 (1995) (ERISA); Pacific Gas and Elec. Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Dev. Comm’n, 461 U.S. 190, 206, 103 S.Ct. 1713, 1723, 75 L. lding that FIFRA did not pre-empt local governmental regulation of pesticide use); Automated Medical, 471 U.S. at 716, 105 S.Ct. at 2376 (<HOLDING>); Travelers, 514 U.S. at 668, 115 S.Ct. at 1683
holding that federal law did not preempt state law policy procurementbased claims unlike claims handling disputes governed as here by federal regulations holding that federal regulations governing the collection of blood plasma from paid donors did not preempt local ordinances which imposed additional testing requirements including hepatitis and blood alcohol tests upon such donors holding that pmpa preempted new york statutory law governing the termination or nonrenewal of franchises but did not preempt state contract claim which did not involve the termination of the franchise relationship holding fifra does not preempt local use regulations holding that statute allowing states to regulate the sale or use of any federally registered pesticide or device  if and to the extent the regulation does not permit any sale or use prohibited by the federal statute did not preempt local regulation since mere silence  cannot suffice to establish a clear and manifest purpose to preempt local authority