Analysis of Federal Laws, Regulations, and Case Law Regarding Airport Proprietary Rights (2010)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

34 towers in the airspace. It determined that the majority of courts have held that “federal aviation law does not preempt all local or state land use regulations which may affect aviation.” As a part of its inquiry in this case, the court exam- ined FAA’s statements regarding zoning for radio tow- ers. In a letter from the Airports District Office to the county, FAA stated that the county is obligated, through…federal grant agreements, to pro- tect the terminal airspace of the Rowan County Airport. This is control that must be exercised at the local and/or state level as the federal government does not have the power to protect that airspace for you…. It is important that local communities recognize these assets [airspace] and provide the necessary protection both in terms of land usages and height restrictions.365 Because the federal government did not have this power, the court found that federal law did not preempt local zoning ordinances. Federal law thus strongly supports a proprietor’s ac- tions to manage its own lands. It also can support an airport proprietor’s rights when the proprietor defends against some actions by nonproprietary entities that might constrict the use of the airport. But the federal government must rely on local proprietary rights to protect aviation in the larger community. In general, federal preemptive powers will not preempt local land- use decisions that affect aviation when they do not im- pact existing airport facilities. The three overviews presented in this study illus- trate the scope of current proprietary rights analysis. When proprietors address the local effects of flight, they may face a variety of legal challenges and complex processes. Airport rates and charges favor voluntary agreements, but guidance on the reasonableness of a proprietor’s actions remains in flux. Yet when proprie- tors manage an airport campus, their actions are met with substantial deference under a proprietary rights analysis, and that analysis can help protect the airport from nonproprietor actions. Federal law even relies on proprietary rights to protect aviation interests more generally in the community. These wide-ranging results are the product of how different laws affect aviation and nonaviation interests as proprietors exercise their state- granted powers, to the extent not superseded by federal law or modified by federal contract, and in light of the proprietor’s longstanding purpose and function. V. CONCLUSION The task of airport proprietors across the country over the past century has been to establish aviation in the community and to protect the legal framework that makes that act possible. That framework was already in existence at the outset of aviation in the traditional municipal powers that airport proprietors held. Over time federal law and contracts have shaped airport pro- prietary rights, but they have also recognized the need 365 Id. at 911. for those rights and have firmly established them in the law. Thus the proprietor’s core state rights, to the ex- tent not superseded by federal law or modified by con- tract, continue to support its role as a participant in the aviation system.