Federal law gives the FAA exclusive authority over aviation safety, airspace use, and the economics of air carriers, and that authority preempts state and local laws that try to regulate the same ground. FAA preemption of state and local laws leaves cities and states with real but narrow tools: land use and zoning near airports, ordinary criminal and tort law that happens to involve aircraft, most taxation of aviation businesses (but not of passengers), and, for the entity that actually owns an airport, a limited ability to manage noise. Anything that looks like a flight rule, a pilot rule, an aircraft standard, or a ticket-price rule belongs to the FAA.
What the FAA Reserves for Itself
The starting point is 49 U.S.C. § 40103, which declares “exclusive sovereignty” of the United States over the navigable airspace and directs the FAA Administrator to develop plans for airspace use and to issue air traffic regulations covering safe altitudes, collision avoidance, and the protection of people and property on the ground.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 49 USC 40103 – Sovereignty and Use of Airspace Lawyers call this field preemption: Congress meant the federal government to occupy the whole regulatory space for air safety and airspace efficiency, leaving nothing for a city council to add.
The reservation runs deeper than airspace management. Under 49 U.S.C. § 44701, the FAA sets minimum safety standards for the design, construction, and performance of aircraft, engines, and propellers, and governs their inspection, servicing, and overhaul, along with maximum work hours for airline employees.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 49 USC 44701 – General Requirements Airworthiness certificates come only from the FAA.3Federal Aviation Administration. Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft So do airman certificates for pilots, from student through airline transport level, issued under 49 U.S.C. § 44703 to individuals found qualified and physically able.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 49 USC 44703 – Airman Certificates A city that tried to run its own aircraft inspections, issue a municipal pilot license, or set an airworthiness standard would be legislating in a field Congress closed, and the ordinance would fall regardless of its intent.
Preemption also extends to airline economics. The Airline Deregulation Act, at 49 U.S.C. § 41713, bars states and their subdivisions from enacting or enforcing any law “related to a price, route, or service” of an air carrier.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 49 USC 41713 – Preemption of Authority Over Prices, Routes, and Services Cities can’t cap fares, order an airline to serve a particular destination, or impose service-quality mandates on top of federal ones. The FAA has applied the same provision to commercial drone operators with interstate authority, so a municipal rule dictating delivery-drone pricing or routes runs into the same wall.6Federal Aviation Administration. State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Fact Sheet
What State and Local Governments Can Still Do
Preemption is broad, not total. Traditional police powers survive as long as the law regulates ground-level conduct rather than how an aircraft is flown or built. Criminal and tort law involving trespass, nuisance, harassment, or property damage still applies when an aircraft is involved, because those laws respond to effects on people and property rather than to flight operations.
Zoning and Building Heights Near Airports
Local zoning authority is intact. Municipalities decide where airports get built, control surrounding land uses for noise compatibility, and cap building heights near runways. Federal regulations at 14 CFR Part 77 define when a structure becomes an obstruction to air navigation: any object taller than 200 feet above ground level within three nautical miles of an airport with a runway longer than 3,200 feet is an obstruction, with the threshold rising 100 feet for each additional nautical mile, out to 499 feet.7eCFR. 14 CFR Part 77 – Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace Local height restrictions that track or exceed those federal figures complement the safety regime rather than compete with it.
Taxes You Can and Cannot Levy
States and cities may impose property taxes, net income taxes, franchise taxes, and sales taxes on aviation businesses, and they may charge reasonable landing fees and rentals for use of publicly owned airport facilities. What they cannot do is reach the passenger. Under 49 U.S.C. § 40116, states and their subdivisions are barred from levying any tax, fee, or charge on a person traveling in air commerce, on that person’s transportation, on the sale of air transportation, or on the gross receipts from air commerce.8GovInfo. 49 USC 40116 – State Taxation The same statute forbids assessing airline property at a higher ratio to market value than comparable commercial property in the jurisdiction. The line runs between taxing ground-based business activity, which is allowed, and taxing the act of flying or the commerce it generates, which is not. A city can tax the airport restaurant and bill the airline for landings; it cannot skim a percentage from ticket sales or charge a per-passenger fee.
The Airport Noise Exception
Noise is where the framework gets genuinely complicated, and where most readers find a live dispute. The Supreme Court set the ground rule in City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal in 1973, holding that the “pervasive nature” of federal aviation regulation left “no room for local curfews or other local controls” over aircraft noise when a municipality acts through its police power.9Legal Information Institute. City of Burbank v Lockheed Air Terminal, 411 US 624 (1973) A city that does not own the airport cannot pass a noise ordinance limiting when planes take off or land. The FAA holds the statutory power to prescribe standards for measuring and controlling aircraft noise under 49 U.S.C. § 44715.10Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 49 USC 44715 – Controlling Aircraft Noise and Sonic Boom
The Burbank Court carved out one exception in a well-known footnote: an airport proprietor may deny use of the airport to aircraft on noise grounds, provided the exclusion is nondiscriminatory.9Legal Information Institute. City of Burbank v Lockheed Air Terminal, 411 US 624 (1973) That exception tracks Griggs v. Allegheny County, where the Court placed liability for noise-related takings of neighboring property on the airport proprietor rather than the federal government, reasoning that the local authority chose the site, the runways, and the easements.11Justia. Griggs v Allegheny County, 369 US 84 (1962) Financial responsibility for noise came with some tools to manage it.
Congress narrowed those tools in the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA). Any new noise or access restriction on Stage 3 aircraft (the modern, quieter generation) that was not already in effect on October 1, 1990, can take effect only through unanimous agreement among the airport proprietor and all affected aircraft operators, or with approval from the Secretary of Transportation under 49 U.S.C. § 47524.12Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 49 USC 47524 – Airport Noise and Access Restriction Review Program The category is wide: curfews, hour-of-operation limits, noise budgets, caps on total Stage 3 operations, and individual or cumulative noise ceilings all fall inside. The procedural rules at 14 CFR Part 161 impose public notice and documentation requirements that trip up most poorly prepared proposals.13eCFR. 14 CFR Part 161 – Notice and Approval of Airport Noise and Access Restrictions Proprietors have the authority; the paperwork is what usually defeats them.
Drone Ordinances and How Preemption Applies
The FAA classifies drones as aircraft, so the preemption framework applies to unmanned systems the same way it applies to crewed ones. The agency’s 2023 UAS fact sheet says so directly: the FAA has “exclusive authority to regulate aviation safety and the efficient use of the airspace by aircraft,” and state or local rules that reach into those fields are preempted.6Federal Aviation Administration. State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Fact Sheet
Off Limits to Local Governments
The FAA’s list of preempted subjects for drones includes flight altitude limits, designated UAS flight paths or air highways, local pilot licensing or training, safety-equipment mandates such as geofencing, marking requirements, and local air traffic control systems.6Federal Aviation Administration. State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Fact Sheet A local registration layered on top of the FAA’s registry, or a local Remote ID rule that differs from the federal one, would fall the same way.
Still Within Local Authority
Ground-level concerns survive. The FAA’s fact sheet lists permissible local subjects that include privacy, voyeurism, trespass, harassment, warrant requirements for law enforcement drone surveillance, wildlife protection, hunting interference, prison contraband delivery, and reckless endangerment.6Federal Aviation Administration. State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Fact Sheet Zoning rules prohibiting drone launches from specific parks or public buildings also survive because they govern ground activity rather than flight.
The harder question is impact on airspace access. Conduct rules generally survive; airspace rules generally don’t. But a conduct rule with the practical effect of banning drone operations gets treated as an airspace rule. A city that forbids drone takeoffs and landings on all public and private property is running a de facto flight ban, and the FAA treats it that way.6Federal Aviation Administration. State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Fact Sheet
Challenging a Preempted Local Law
When an ordinance reaches into preempted territory, three routes are available to the people it burdens.
The FAA’s Office of Chief Counsel accepts requests for formal legal interpretations on novel or legally significant questions, including whether a specific local rule is preempted. The Chief Counsel screens requests and issues an interpretation only when the question is genuinely novel.14Federal Aviation Administration. Interpretations Search An interpretation isn’t binding the way a court ruling is, but it carries weight and often pushes a local government to reconsider.
For disputes involving federally funded airports, 14 CFR Part 16 sets up a formal administrative complaint process. Anyone “directly and substantially affected” by an airport’s noncompliance with its federal obligations can file, but only after a good-faith effort at informal resolution. The complaint must identify the federal provisions violated and describe the specific harm.15Federal Aviation Administration. 14 CFR Part 16 Rules and Administrative Decisions – Frequently Asked Questions
The most direct path is a federal lawsuit arguing that the ordinance is preempted by federal aviation statutes. Courts analyze such claims under field preemption (the local law reaches a subject Congress reserved) and conflict preemption (the local law makes federal compliance impossible or frustrates federal purposes). City of Burbank remains the leading authority, and courts continue to apply its reasoning to new categories of local aviation regulation, including drone ordinances.