49 U.S.C. § 46101

Complaints and investigations

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

(a)General.—(1) A person may file a complaint in writing with the Secretary of Transportation (or the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration with respect to security duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration or the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration with respect to aviation safety duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration) about a person violating this part or a requirement prescribed under this part. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the Secretary, Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, or Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall investigate the complaint if a reasonable ground appears to the Secretary, Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, or Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration for the investigation.(2) On the initiative of the Secretary, Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, or Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, as appropriate, the Secretary, Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, or Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may conduct an investigation, if a reasonable ground appears to the Secretary, Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, or Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration for the investigation, about—(A) a person violating this part or a requirement prescribed under this part; or(B) any question that may arise under this part.(3) The Secretary of Transportation, Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, or Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may dismiss a complaint without a hearing when the Secretary, Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, or Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration is of the opinion that the complaint does not state facts that warrant an investigation or action.(4) After notice and an opportunity for a hearing and subject to section 40105(b) of this title, the Secretary of Transportation, Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, or Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall issue an order to compel compliance with this part if the Secretary, Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, or Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration finds in an investigation under this subsection that a person is violating this part.(b)Complaints Against Members of Armed Forces.—The Secretary of Transportation, Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, or Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall refer a complaint against a member of the armed forces of the United States performing official duties to the Secretary of the department concerned for action. Not later than 90 days after receiving the complaint, the Secretary of that department shall inform the Secretary of Transportation, Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, or Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration of the action taken on the complaint, including any corrective or disciplinary action taken.(c)Prohibition on Using ADS–B Out Data to Initiate an Investigation.—(1)In general.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not initiate an investigation (excluding a criminal investigation) of a person based exclusively on automatic dependent surveillance–broadcast data.(2)Rule of construction.—Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the use of automatic dependent surveillance–broadcast data in an investigation that was initiated for any reason other than the review of automatic dependent surveillance–broadcast data, including if such investigation was initiated as a result of a report or complaint submitted to the Administrator.(Pub. L. 103–272, § 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1226; Pub. L. 107–71, title I, § 140(b)(1)–(3), Nov. 19, 2001, 115 Stat. 641; Pub. L. 115–254, div. K, title I, § 1991(f)(1)–(4), Oct. 5, 2018, 132 Stat. 3642; Pub. L. 118–63, title VIII, § 829, May 16, 2024, 138 Stat. 1336.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised Section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
46101(a)(1)	49 App.:1482(a) (1st, 2d sentences).	Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, § 1002(a), (b), 72 Stat. 788.
	49 App.:1551(b)(1)(E).	Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, 72 Stat. 731, § 1601(b)(1)(E); added Oct. 4, 1984, Pub. L. 98–443, § 3(e), 98 Stat. 1704.
	49 App.:1655(c)(1).	Oct. 15, 1966, Pub. L. 89–670, § 6(c)(1), 80 Stat. 938; Jan. 12, 1983, Pub. L. 97–449, § 7(b), 96 Stat. 2444.
46101(a)(2)	49 App.:1482(b).
	49 App.:1551(b)(1)(E).
	49 App.:1655(c)(1).
46101(a)(3)	49 App.:1482(a) (3d sentence).
	49 App.:1551(b)(1)(E).
	49 App.:1655(c)(1).
46101(a)(4)	49 App.:1482(c).	Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, § 1002(c), 72 Stat. 789; Feb. 15, 1980, Pub. L. 96–192, § 25, 94 Stat. 47.
	49 App.:1551(b)(1)(E).
	49 App.:1655(c)(1).
46101(b)	49 App.:1482(a) (4th, last sentences).
	49 App.:1551(b)(1)(E).
	49 App.:1655(c)(1).

In subsection (a)(1), the words “the Secretary of Transportation (or the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration with respect to aviation safety duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Administrator) about a person violating this part or a requirement prescribed under this part” are substituted for “the Secretary of Transportation or the Board, as to matters within their respective jurisdictions . . . with respect to anything done or omitted to be done by any person in contravention of any provisions of this chapter, or of any requirement established pursuant thereto” for clarity and because of the restatement. The words “Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section” are added because of the restatement of the source provisions in subsection (b) of this section. The words “If the person complained against shall not satisfy the complaint and” are omitted as surplus.

In subsection (a)(2), before clause (A), the words “the Secretary of Transportation or the Administrator, as appropriate” are substituted for “The Secretary of Transportation or Board, with respect to matters within their respective jurisdictions” to eliminate unnecessary words. The words “if a reasonable ground appears to the Secretary or Administrator for the investigation” are substituted for 49 App.:1482(b) (last sentence) for clarity and to eliminate unnecessary words. Clause (A) is substituted for “in any case and as to any matter or thing within their respective jurisdictions, concerning which complaint is authorized to be made to or before the Secretary of Transportation or Board by any provision of this chapter . . . or relating to the enforcement of any of the provisions of this chapter” for clarity and to eliminate unnecessary words.

In subsection (a)(4), the words “an opportunity for a” are added for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code. The words “compel compliance with this part” are substituted for “compel such person to comply therewith” for clarity. The words “in an investigation under this subsection” are substituted for “in any investigation instituted upon complaint or upon their own initiative” to eliminate unnecessary words. The words “is violating this part” are substituted for “has failed to comply with any provision of this chapter or any requirement established pursuant thereto” for clarity and to eliminate unnecessary words. The words “with respect to matters within their jurisdiction” are omitted as unnecessary because of the restatement.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2024—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 118–63 added subsec. (c).

2018—Pub. L. 115–254, § 1991(f)(4), substituted “Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration,” for “Under Secretary,” wherever appearing.

Pub. L. 115–254, § 1991(f)(2), substituted “or Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration” for “or Administrator” wherever appearing.

Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 115–254, § 1991(f)(3), substituted “by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration)” for “by the Administrator)”.

Pub. L. 115–254, § 1991(f)(1), substituted “Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration with respect to security duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration” for “Under Secretary of Transportation for Security with respect to security duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Under Secretary”.

2001—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 107–71, § 140(b)(1), (2), inserted “the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security with respect to security duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Under Secretary or” after “(or” and substituted “, Under Secretary, or Administrator” for “or Administrator” in two places.

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 107–71, § 140(b)(2), (3), in introductory provisions, substituted “, Under Secretary, or Administrator, as” for “of Transportation or the Administrator, as” and substituted “, Under Secretary, or Administrator” for “or Administrator” in two places.

Subsec. (a)(3), (4). Pub. L. 107–71, § 140(b)(2), substituted “, Under Secretary, or Administrator” for “or Administrator” wherever appearing.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 107–71, § 140(b)(2), substituted “, Under Secretary, or Administrator” for “or Administrator” in two places.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesAuthority for Legal Counsel To Issue Certain Notices

Pub. L. 115–254, div. B, title III, § 396, Oct. 5, 2018, 132 Stat. 3327, provided that: “Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 5, 2018], the Administrator [of the Federal Aviation Administration] shall designate the appropriate legal counsel of the [Federal Aviation] Administration as an appropriate official for purposes of section 13.11 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 56 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: Richard Drake v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 291 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Richard Drake v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 291 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir. 2002). · cites it 5× “Under the FAA’s organic statute, the agency “may dismiss a complaint without a hearing when the Secretary [of Transportation] or Administrator is of the opinion that the complaint does not state facts that warrant an investigation or action.”

Penobscot Air Servs., Ltd. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 164 F.3d 713 (1st Cir. 1999). · cites it 9× “The complaint also claimed that Penobscot was entitled to an evidentiary hearing pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §§ 46101 , 46104. The FAA rejected Penobscot’s claims; we affirm.”

Cynthia Love v. Delta Air Lines, 310 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “This requirement that the DOT investigate each complaint of an ACAA violation is augmented by a comprehensive administrative enforcement mechanism. A disabled individual may file a complaint directly with the DOT: “A person may file a complaint in writing with the Secretary of…”

J. Andrew Lange, Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 208 F.3d 389 (2d Cir. 2000). · cites it 6× “Evidentiary Hearing Petitioner argues on appeal it was entitled to an evidentiary hearing pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46101 (a), FAA regulations, and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.”

Boswell v. Skywest Airlines, Inc., 361 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 2004). · cites it 3× “In particular, under 49 U.S.C. § 46101 (a)(1), “[a] person may file a complaint in writing with the Secretary of Transportation .”

Lopez v. Jet Blue Airways, 662 F.3d 593 (2d Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “§§ 40101-46507 ), including the ACAA, 49 U.S.C. § 46101 (a)(1); the DOT is generally required to investigate complaints that appear to be based on reasonable grounds, id 2 If, following such an investigation, including notice to the air carrier and an opportunity to be heard,…”

Philip J. Frank v. Delta Airlines Inc., Delta Airlines Inc., 314 F.3d 195 (5th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “49 U.S.C. § 46101 (a)(1). If there are reasonable grounds for an investigation, the Administrator will investigate the complaint, id.”

Robert Segalman v. Sw. Airlines Co., 895 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “745 , 1226 (1994) (codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. § 46101 ); Pub. L. No. 85-726, Title X, § 1002, 72 Stat.”

Kellie Stokes v. Sw. Airlines, 887 F.3d 199 (5th Cir. 2018). “To wit: • Rather than suing airlines directly, aggrieved passengers are to notify the DOT, 49 U.S.C. § 46101 (a), which "shall investigate each [ACAA] complaint," id.”

Michelle Gilstrap v. United Air Lines, Inc., 709 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2013). “49 U.S.C. § 46101 (a)(1). After investigation, 8 notice, *1002 and an opportunity for a hearing, the Secretary “shall issue an order to compel compliance” if a violation is found.”

Shqeirat v. Us Airways, Grp. Inc., 515 F. Supp. 2d 984 (D. Minnesota 2007). · cites it 2× “49 U.S.C. § 46101 (a)(1); 49 U.S.C. § 41705 (c)(1).”

Weiss v. El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd., 433 F. Supp. 2d 361 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). “, 49 U.S.C. § 46101 (permitting individual to file complaint with Secretary of Transportation for violation of FAA, and Secretary to investigate such complaints and any suspected violations); id.”

Drake v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 387 (E.D.N.Y 1996). · cites it 3× “See 49 U.S.C. § 46101 , et seq. Amongst them is one that enables an individual to initiate an investigation by the Secretary of Transportation.”

Bowling Green v. Martin Land Dev. Co., Inc., 561 F.3d 556 (6th Cir. 2009). “See 49 U.S.C. § 46101 (a)(1). And pursuant to § 46106, the Secretary or Administrator may bring a civil action to enforce the statute.”

Richard W. Drake v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 147 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 1998). “9 (citing 49 U.S.C. § 46101 (a)). 3 . As the district court noted, see Drake I, 923 F.”

Drake v. Lab'y Corp. of Am. Holdings, 290 F. Supp. 2d 352 (E.D.N.Y 2003). “Delta teaches, there is no private right of action for the violation of the drug testing regulations, and, as shown in this case, constitutional claims will rarely be cognizable. In the absence of a constitutional violation, the sole recourse for one who has been wronged is to…”

Michael P. Cronin v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 73 F.3d 1126 (D.C. Cir. 1996). “See 49 U.S.C.A. § 46101 (a)(1), (4) (1995). Ultimately, one or more of these procedures may provide procedural due process for employees facing adverse actions under the regulations.”

Gill v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 836 F. Supp. 2d 33 (D. Mass. 2011). “JetBlue argues that 49 U.S.C. § 46101 (a) allows any person to file an administrative complaint identifying violations of ADA regulations.”

Cerqueira v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 520 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008). “Department of Transportation administrative enforcement mechanisms to protect the rights of passengers, 49 U.S.C. §§ 46101 , 46301, do not preclude the filing of actions under 42 U.”

Wright ex rel. D.W. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 572 (E.D. Mo. 2008). · cites it 2× “-, 49 U.S.C. § 46101 (a)(1). The statute gives DOT the power to compel compliance with the ACAA, to revoke an air carrier’s carrier certificate, and to impose fines.”

Pew v. Scopino, 904 F. Supp. 18 (D. Me. 1995). · cites it 2× “§ 1482(a), reenacted as 49 U.S.C. § 46101 (a)(1) (1994), it is up to the Secretary to determine whether there is “any reasonable ground for investigating the complaint,” id.”

Al-Tawan v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 570 F. Supp. 2d 925 (E.D. Mich. 2008). “Department of Transportation administrative enforcement mechanisms to protect the rights of passengers, 49 U.S.C. §§ 46101 , 46301, do not preclude the filing of actions under 42 U.”

Drake v. Lab'y Corp. of Am. Holdings, 458 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2006). · cites it 4× “See 49 U.S.C. § 46101 (procedure for individuals or government officials to instigate investigation regarding violations of the FAAct or of regulations prescribed thereunder); see also Drake v.”

Summers v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 805 F. Supp. 2d 874 (N.D. Cal. 2011). “See 49 U.S.C. §§ 46101 , 46301. Moreover, as the Ninth Circuit has noted, the general provisions of the FAA state that "[a) remedy under this part [which includes the ACAA and the administrative enforcement scheme] is in addition to any other remedies provided by law.”

Salomon v. Roche Compuchem Labs., Inc., 909 F. Supp. 126 (E.D.N.Y 1995). · cites it 2× “Under 49 U.S.C. § 46101 (a)(1), however, an individual may complain in writing to the Secretary of Transportation about an alleged violation of the drug testing regulations.”

41 North 73 West, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Transp., 408 F. App'x 393 (2d Cir. 2010). “We have held that no hearing is required under 49 U.S.C. § 46101 (a), which empowers the FAA to investigate complaints “if a reasonable ground appears.”

Byrne v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 196 F. Supp. 2d 77 (D. Mass. 2002). “The Second Circuit also pointed out that in 49 U.S.C. § 46101 , OTETA provides an administrative mechanism for bringing grievances and claims arising under the Act.”

Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 585 F.3d 310 (7th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “§ 554 (g) (Cable Communications Policy Act) (complaint by employee or applicant for employment who believes he or she was victim of discrimination by cable operator "shall be in writing, and shall be signed and sworn to by that person"); 49 U.”

Evac, LlC v. Pataki, 89 F. Supp. 2d 250 (N.D.N.Y. 2000). “See 49 U.S.C. § 46101 . In fact, prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Blessing , which changed the analytical framework for deciding whether a federal statute creates an enforceable right, the Second Circuit found that “[t]he comprehensive enforcement scheme provided in the…”

King v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 284 F.3d 352 (2d Cir. 2002). “49 U.S.C. § 46101 . The FAA prohibits air carriers, including foreign air carriers, from subjecting a person to “unreasonable discrimination.”

Nat. Resources Def. Council v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 292 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “In the event Vortex’s actual flights violate the Act in the opinion of the NRDC, the NRDC can file a complaint with the FAA, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46101 (a), whereupon the FAA would be required to “investigate the complaint if a reasonable ground appears to the .”

AL-WATAN v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 658 F. Supp. 2d 816 (E.D. Mich. 2009). “Department of Transportation administrative enforcement mechanisms to protect the rights of passengers, 49 U.S.C. §§ 46101 , 46301, do not preclude the filing of actions under 42 U.”

Town of Fairview v. United States Dep't of Transp., 201 F. Supp. 2d 64 (D.D.C. 2002). “See 49 U.S.C. § 46101 (“A person may file a complaint in writing with the .”

Sheehan v. Broadband Access Servs., Inc., 889 F. Supp. 2d 284 (D.R.I. 2012). “This provision for an administrative remedy weighs against an inference that Congress intended also to create an independent cause of action.”

Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Dep't of Transp., 202 F.3d 788 (5th Cir. 2000). “Additionally, this case involves the operation of flights from Love Field, a matter on which Congress has twice specifically legislated.”

United States v. Wagner (S.D. Cal. 2023). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to 21 49 U.S.C. § 46101 , Congress authorized the FAA to conduct investigations.”

City of Los Angeles v. U.S. Fed. Aviation Admin., 239 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2001). “, 49 U.S.C. § 46101 (a)(4), and then those terms are used throughout the statute, the structure supports the conclusion that § 46110(a) does not provide for judicial review of the Final Policy as applied to §§ 47107(b) and 47133, both of which are contained in Part B.”

De Feyter v. FAA, 2011 DNH 049 (D.N.H. 2011). “” 49 U.S.C. § 46101 (a) (emphases added). Neither of those provisions is at issue here, because de Feyter is seeking to compel the imposition of civil penalties, not merely an investigation (which, he alleges, has already occurred) or an order of compliance (he views the FAA’s…”

Star Marianas Air, Inc. v. Commonwealth Ports Auth., & Does I-V (N. Mar. I. 2018). · cites it 2×

Faris v. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (W.D. Ky. 2024). · cites it 2× “49 U.S.C. §§ 46101 (a), 41705(c)(1). As the Defendants explain, Motion to Dismiss at 9, Faris may file a complaint with the Secretary of Transportation and if necessary petition for review of its adjudication in one of two United States Courts of Appeals, see 49 U.”

Saliba v. Fed. Aviation Adm'r (D. Ariz. 2025). · cites it 2× “The statutory 20 language Plaintiffs seek to compel agency action under reflects this discretion: pursuant to 21 49 U.S.C. § 46101 (3), the FAA Administrator “may dismiss a complaint without a hearing 22 when .”

Frank v. Delta Airlines Inc (5th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2×

Bowling Green & Warren Count v. Martin Land Dev. Co. (6th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2×

Skydive Myrtle Beach Inc. v. Horry Cnty. Dept of Airports (4th Cir. 2018).

Wright-phillips v. United Airlines, Inc. (D.N.J. 2021).

Alvarado v. Allegiant Travel Co. (S.D. Tex. 2020).

Wright-Smith v. FAA (10th Cir. 2024).

Odynocki v. Delta Air Lines Inc (E.D. La. 2025).

Howard v. United Airlines Inc (D. Maryland 2025).

United States v. Midwest Aerial Photography (S.D. Ohio 2025).

Martsenyak (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pedro Garcia v. White Cap Mgmt., LLC et al. (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Kevin Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plast (7th Cir. 2009).

Guy Heide v. Marion C. Blakey, 245 F. App'x 562 (8th Cir. 2007).

United States v. Jay Stout, 629 F. App'x 384 (3rd Cir. 2015).

Fenn v. Trans Nat'l Travel, Inc., 14 Mass. L. Rptr. 714 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2002).

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.