49 U.S.C. § 40120

Relationship to other laws

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Nonapplication.—Except as provided in the International Navigational Rules Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), the navigation and shipping laws of the United States and the rules for the prevention of collisions do not apply to aircraft or to the navigation of vessels related to those aircraft.(b)Extending Application Outside United States.—The President may extend (in the way and for periods the President considers necessary) the application of this part to outside the United States when—(1) an international arrangement gives the United States Government authority to make the extension; and(2) the President decides the extension is in the national interest.(c)Additional Remedies.—A remedy under this part is in addition to any other remedies provided by law.(Pub. L. 103–272, § 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1117.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised Section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
40120(a)	49 App.:1509(a).	Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, §§ 1106, 1109(a), 1110, 72 Stat. 798, 799, 800.
40120(b)	49 App.:1510.
40120(c)	49 App.:1506.

In subsection (a), the words “International Navigational Rules Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)” are substituted for “sections 143 to 147d of title 33” because those sections were repealed by section 3 of the Act of September 24, 1963 (Public Law 88–131, 77 Stat. 194), and replaced by 33:ch. 21. Chapter 21 was repealed by section 10 of the International Navigational Rules Act of 1977 (Public Law 95–75, 91 Stat. 311) and replaced by 33:1601–1608. The words “including any definition of ‘vessel’ or ‘vehicle’ found therein” and “be construed to” are omitted as surplus.

In subsection (b), before clause (1), the words “to the extent”, “of time”, and “any areas of land or water” are omitted as surplus. The words “and the overlying airspace thereof” are omitted as being included in “outside the United States”. In clause (1), the words “treaty, agreement or other lawful” and “necessary legal” are omitted as surplus.

Subsection (c) is substituted for 49 App.:1506 to eliminate unnecessary words and for clarity and consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code.

Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The International Navigational Rules Act of 1977, referred to in subsec. (a), is Pub. L. 95–75, July 27, 1977, 91 Stat. 308, which is classified principally to chapter 30 (§ 1601 et seq.) of Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1601 of Title 33 and Tables.

Executive DocumentsEx. Ord. No. 10854. Extension of Application

Ex. Ord. No. 10854, Nov. 27, 1959, 24 F.R. 9565, as amended by Ex. Ord. No. 11382, Nov. 28, 1967, 32 F.R. 16247, provided:

The application of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 731; 49 U.S.C.A. § 1301 et seq. [see 49 U.S.C. 40101 et seq.]), to the extent necessary to permit the Secretary of Transportation to accomplish the purposes and objectives of Titles III [former 49 U.S.C. 1341 et seq., see Disposition Table at beginning of this title] and XII [see 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(3), 46307] thereof, is hereby extended to those areas of land or water outside the United States and the overlying airspace thereof over or in which the Federal Government of the United States, under international treaty, agreement or other lawful arrangement, has appropriate jurisdiction or control: Provided, That the Secretary of Transportation, prior to taking any action under the authority hereby conferred, shall first consult with the Secretary of State on matters affecting foreign relations, and with the Secretary of Defense on matters affecting national-defense interests, and shall not take any action which the Secretary of State determines to be in conflict with any international treaty or agreement to which the United States is a party, or to be inconsistent with the successful conduct of the foreign relations of the United States, or which the Secretary of Defense determines to be inconsistent with the requirements of national defense.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 113 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind v. United Airlines Inc., 813 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind v. United Airlines Inc., 813 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 8× “§ 1506 (1976) (recodified at 49 U.S.C. § 40120 (c));6 see also Morales, 504 U.”

Martin Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 747 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 4× “To the contrary, in his 7 Seeking to avoid the FAA’s preemptive effect, Ventress relies upon the FAA’s savings clause, 49 U.S.C. § 40120 (c), and the Third Circuit’s reasoning in Abdullah v.”

Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp., 274 F. Supp. 2d 86 (D.D.C. 2003). · cites it 2× “Notwithstanding section 40120(c) of title 49, United States Code [ 49 U.S.C.A. § 40120 (c)], this cause of action shall be the exclusive remedy for dam *93 ages arising out of the hijacking and subsequent crashes of such flights.”

Michelle Gilstrap v. United Air Lines, Inc., 709 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “The FAA includes two important statements indicating a general congressional intent not to preempt state-law tort suits against airlines: the savings clause providing that “[a] remedy under this part is in addition to any other remedies provided by law,” 49 U.S.C. § 40120 (c),…”

Taj Mahal Travel, Inc. v. Delta Airlines Inc. Air Canada Airlines Reporting Corp., 164 F.3d 186 (3rd Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “Application of state law in these circumstances does not frustrate Congressional intent, nor does it impose a state utility-like regulation on the airlines.”

Ins. Co. of North Am., a Corp. Zomaya Grp., Inc., a Corp. v. Fed. Express Corp., a Corp.,defendant-Appellee, 189 F.3d 914 (9th Cir. 1999). · cites it 3× “Federal common law has preempted state law in this area since at least 1918, and this preemption has been preserved by the federal Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (“ADA”), 49 U.S.C. §§ 40120 (c), 41713(b)(1). See Boston & Maine R.”

Bradshaw v. Am. Airlines, 123 F.4th 1168 (10th Cir. 2024). · cites it 5× “” 49 U.S.C. § 40120 (c). In interpreting this language, the parties turn to two cases from our circuit: Cleveland v.”

Charas v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 160 F.3d 1259 (9th Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “However, the Act did not expressly preempt state regulation, and further, it contained a “savings clause” providing that “[njothing .”

Anna Botz, Formerly Known as Anna Hollenkamp v. Omni Air Int'l, 286 F.3d 488 (8th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier 49 U.S.C. § 41713 (b)(1) (1994).”

Brown v. United Airlines, Inc., 720 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “5 The plaintiffs’ fourth argument centers on a statutory saving clause, 49 U.S.C. § 40120 (c). We pause to place this clause into perspective.”

Musson Theatrical, Inc., & Modernage Photo Serv., Inc., for Themselves & All Others Similarly Situated v. Fed. Express Corp., 89 F.3d 1244 (6th Cir. 1998). “49 U.s.c. § 40120(c) ("A remedy under this part is in addition to any other remedies provided by law.”

Sikkelee Ex Rel. Est. of Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 822 F.3d 680 (3rd Cir. 2016). “” 8 49 U.S.C. § 40120 (c) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court observed that this statutory scheme permits states to retain their traditional regulatory power over aspects of aviation.”

Show all 113 citing cases →

— 49 U.S.C. § 40120(c) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.