§ 14706 (a) (1) may only be applied in actions brought against a carrier. In contrast, 49 USC § 14705 (a) applies to claims, like those of Sigma in this case, which are brought by a carrier to recover for transportation charges. Thus, the trial court erred in applying 49 USC § 14706 (a) (1) to this case. Sigma nonetheless contends that 49 USC § 14705 does not preempt its state law causes of action for breach of contract or suit on an open account and, therefore, the state limitation periods apply. Again, we disagree. The federal statute of limitation of “[49 USC] § 14705 (a) necessarily preempts any state law providing for a longer limitations period.” Emmert Indus. Corp., 497 F3d at 989-990. See also J. F. Barton Contracting Co. v Southern R. Co., 191 Ga. App. 13 (380 SE2d 724) (1989) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, “nothing in the text or context of
holding the employee remedies available under the commercial motor vehicle safety act 49 usc  31105 adequately protected truck drivers who refuse to violate commercial motor vehicle safety laws even though a statute declared these remedies do not preclude others holding that the customs court lacked jurisdiction when plaintiff failed to comply with all terms of consent by the united states mandated by 28 usc  1582 1976 the predecessor to 28 usc  1581a 2000 holding that visa revocations pursuant to 8 usc  1155 are not made unreviewable by either 8 usc  1252a2bii or 5 usc  701a2 holding unconstitutional the provision in a georgia abortion statute limiting abortions to georgia residents holding that former 49 usc  11706 1993 predecessor to 49 usc  14705 a preempted georgia renewal statute