U.S. Code » Title 49 » Subtitle SUBTITLE VII— AVIATION PROGRAMS › Part PART A— AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY › Subpart subpart iii— safety › Chapter CHAPTER 451— ALCOHOL AND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES TESTING

49 U.S.C. § 45106

Relationship to other laws, regulations, standards, and orders

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Effect on State and Local Government Laws, Regulations, Standards, or Orders.—A State or local government may not prescribe, issue, or continue in effect a law, regulation, standard, or order that is inconsistent with regulations prescribed under this chapter. However, a regulation prescribed under this chapter does not preempt a State criminal law that imposes sanctions for reckless conduct leading to loss of life, injury, or damage to property.(b)International Obligations and Foreign Laws.—(1) In prescribing regulations under this chapter, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration—(A) shall establish only requirements applicable to foreign air carriers that are consistent with international obligations of the United States; and(B) shall consider applicable laws and regulations of foreign countries.(2) The Secretaries of State and Transportation jointly shall request the governments of foreign countries that are members of the International Civil Aviation Organization to strengthen and enforce existing standards to prohibit crewmembers in international civil aviation from using alcohol or a controlled substance in violation of law or a United States Government regulation.(c)Other Regulations Allowed.—This section does not prevent the Administrator from continuing in effect, amending, or further supplementing a regulation prescribed before October 28, 1991, governing the use of alcohol or a controlled substance by airmen, crewmembers, airport security screening employees, air carrier employees responsible for safety-sensitive functions (as decided by the Administrator), or employees of the Administration with responsibility for safety-sensitive functions.(Pub. L. 103–272, § 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1224; Pub. L. 107–71, title I, § 139(3), Nov. 19, 2001, 115 Stat. 640.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised

Section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

45106(a)

49 App.:1434(e)(1).

Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, 72 Stat. 731, § 614(e); added Oct. 28, 1991, Pub. L. 102–143, § 3(a), 105 Stat. 956.

45106(b)

49 App.:1434(e)(3).

45106(c)

49 App.:1434(e)(2).

In subsection (a), the word “prescribe” is substituted for “adopt” for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code. The word “rule” is omitted as being synonymous with “regulation”. The word “ordinance” is omitted as being included in “law” and “regulation”. The words “actual” and “whether the provisions apply specifically to employees of an air carrier or foreign air carrier, or to the general public” are omitted as surplus.

In subsection (c) the word “prevent” is substituted for “restrict the discretion of” to eliminate unnecessary words.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2001—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 107–71 substituted “screening employees” for “screening contract employees”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1996–2023 · leading case: Christopher Scott Hughes v. Eleventh Jud., 377 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Christopher Scott Hughes v. Eleventh Jud., 377 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2004). · cites it 8× “In 1994, Congress passed 49 U.S.C. § 45106 , which states in part: (a) Effect on State and local government laws, regulations, standards, or orders.”
Philip J. Frank v. Delta Airlines Inc., Delta Airlines Inc., 314 F.3d 195 (5th Cir. 2002). · cites it 6× “The issue on appeal is whether Frank’s state-law tort claims are preempted by 49 U.S.C. § 45106 of the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 (OTETA) and FAA regulations.”
Drake v. Lab'y Corp. of Am. Holdings, 290 F. Supp. 2d 352 (E.D.N.Y 2003). · cites it 3× “49 U.S.C. § 45106 (a). In subsection (c), the FAA was authorized to “continu[e] in effect” pre-existing drug regulations.”
Aeronautical Repair Station Ass'n v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 494 F.3d 161 (D.C. Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “See 49 U.S.C. § 45106 (a) ("A State or local government may not prescribe, issue, or continue in effect a law, regulation, standard, or order that is inconsistent with regulations prescribed under this chapter.”
Schmeling v. Nordam, 97 F.3d 1336 (10th Cir. 1996). “Both parties have proceeded under the assumption that the propriety of NORDAM’s removal hinges only on whether federal law preempts the Oklahoma Act.”
Yasuko Ishikawa v. Delta Airlines, Inc., a Georgia Corp., & Labone, Inc., a Delaware Corp., 343 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2003). “49 U.S.C. § 45106 (a) (emphasis added). 9 .”
Drake v. Lab'y Corp. of Am. Holdings, 458 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2006). · cites it 4× “at 956 (codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. § 45106 (c)). III. Scope of Preemption A.”
Drake v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 387 (E.D.N.Y 1996). “” 49 U.S.C. § 45106 . See 14 C.F.R. pt. 121, app.”
Fifie v. Cooksey, 403 F. Supp. 2d 1131 (M.D. Fla. 2005). · cites it 2× “quoting 49 U.S.C. § 45106 (c). The statutory preemption language provided that a state or local government “may not prescribe, issue, or continue in effect a law, regulation, standard, or order that is inconsistent with regulations prescribed under this chapter.”
Frank v. Delta Airlines Inc (5th Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “49 U.S.C. § 45106 (a). 4 Aircraft mechanics, like Frank, are included in the category of employees who perform safety-sensitive functions.”
Cara Jones v. Google LLC (9th Cir. 2022). “2003) (statute preempted any “law, regulation, standard, or order that is inconsistent with regulations prescribed under this chapter” (quoting 49 U.S.C. § 45106 (a))); Beffa v. Bank of the West, 152 F.”
Cara Jones v. Google LLC (9th Cir. 2023). “2003) (statute preempted any “law, regulation, standard, or order that is inconsistent with regulations prescribed under this chapter” (quoting 49 U.S.C. § 45106 (a))); Beffa v. Bank of the West, 152 F.”
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.