Opinion ID: 795247
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The OTETA

Text: 31 The OTETA provides 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. 49 U.S.C. § 45106(a). It also states that a regulation prescribed under chapter does not preempt a State criminal law that imposes sanctions for reckless conduct leading to loss of life, injury, or damage to property. Id. 32 Because the OTETA allows the FAA to continu[e] in effect previous drug-testing regulations, the OTETA and the FAA's drug-testing regulations, including their respective preemption clauses, are simultaneously effective. Defendant-appellant Whaley argues that the OTETA's preemption clause is seemingly more limited than that of the FAA regulations, and that therefore the proper focus of our analysis should be those regulations. Whaley Br. at 10. We agree that the FAA regulations' preemption clause appears to be broader than that of the OTETA, and that the OTETA is therefore of limited independent significance to our preemption analysis. Compare 14 C.F.R. Pt. 121, App. I § XI(A) (stating that the FAA drug-testing regulations preempt state law covering the subject matter of the regulations) with 49 U.S.C. § 45106(a) (stating that state laws that are inconsistent with federal drug-testing regulations are preempted); see also Frank, 314 F.3d at 199 (It is to [the FAA] regulations that one must turn in order to analyze the scope of preemption.). We therefore turn to consideration of the FAAct and the FAA regulations.