Click for next page ( 20


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 19
19 person is able to show a significant change in the air- instituted in an effort to coordinate the requirements of port.186 Specifically, in addition to any other elements the missions of military air installations, with the devel- required for the recovery of damages, a plaintiff opment of the surrounding communities. The AICUZ is a must show a change in the type or frequency of air- concept of identifying compatible and incompatible land craft operations at the airport, a change in the airport use around an air station, the purpose being to guide layout or flight patterns, or an increase in nighttime compatible private development through the cooperation operations and that the damages resulted from the with local jurisdictions in order to minimize public expo- changes or increases.187 sure to aircraft noise and accident potential, while at the Constructive knowledge of a noise exposure map is same time maintaining the operational capability of the imputed if "before the person acquired the interest, no- station.194 tice of the existence of the map was published at least 3 An AICUZ for a military air installation consists of times in a newspaper of general circulation in the land areas where certain uses may obstruct or other- county in which the property is located" or if "the per- wise be hazardous to aircraft operations and land son is given a copy of the map when acquiring the inter- uses in the vicinity that are exposed to the health, est."188 safety, or welfare hazards of aircraft operations.195 The Also important to the Typical Airport Fair Disclo- regulations direct that as part of an AICUZ study, con- sure Act P r o v i s i o n s contained in Section VI of this tours for noise zones must be plotted on maps.196 Fur- digest is that noise exposure maps and related informa- thermore, land use compatibility guidelines are speci- tion are inadmissible as evidence in civil actions seek- fied for each Clear Zone, Accident Potential Zone, Noise ing relief for airport noise.189 As held in City of At- Zone, or combination thereof as appropriate.197 The lanta v. Watson,190 the Aviation Safety Noise first priority is given to safety and noise problems.198 Abatement Act of 1979, of which Section 47506 is a AICUZ studies have led to inverse condemnation part, preempts state law "with regard to the admissibil- claims by property owners. In Branning, supra, the ity of airport noise exposure maps and related infor- court held that there had been a taking of the plaintiff's mation in state suits seeking damages due to airport property because low-level flights rendered "the prop- noise."191 erty clearly unacceptable for normal residential use."199 The AICUZ study showed that part of the plaintiff's C. AICUZ Studies and Inverse Condemnation property was in the Composite Noise Rating (CNR) Claims Zone 3, the area with the highest aircraft noise im- The Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) in Title 32, pact--115 decibels and above at ground level, and that 256.1, et seq., sets forth the policy of the Department part of the property was in the CNR Zone 2, the area of Defense "on achieving compatible use of public and with modest noise impact--100 to 115 decibels.200 private lands in the vicinity of military airfields."192 Although publication of an AICUZ study was not Pursuant to the regulations, each of the military sufficient to establish a taking of the plaintiff's prop- branches must study their air installations and develop erty,201 the court did agree that the study was at an AICUZ for each installation. The process requires a least valuable evidence of the impact of aircraft op- detailed study of flight operations, actual noise and erations on the property in the zones.202 safety surveys, best available projections of future fly- It has been alleged also that there was a taking ing activities, and desirable restrictions on land use when a local zoning board was influenced to adopt because of aircraft noise and safety.193 AICUZ studies AICUZ recommendations. In De-Tom Enterprises, Inc. are v. United States203 a property owner claimed that the Air Force's involvement in a local zoning board's deci- sion not to rezone its property for residential use 186 amounted to a taking. The court rejected the claim, 49 U.S.C. 47506(a) (2010). stating that "[i]f plaintiff's position is that the Air Force 187 Id. 47506(a)(1) and (2) (2010). necessarily took plaintiff's property (in the constitu- 188 Id. 47506(b) (2010). tional sense) simply by persuading the County board 189 Id. 47507 not to change the zoning of the property, we must reject (No part of a noise exposure map or related information de- scribed in section 47503 of this title that is submitted to, or pre- 194 Branning, 228 Ct. Cl. at 250, 654 F.2d at 95. pared by, the Secretary of Transportation and no part of a list of 195 land uses the Secretary identifies as normally compatible with 32 C.F.R. 256.3(a) (2010). various exposures of individuals to noise may be admitted into 196 Id. 256.3(d)(2)(i) (2010). evidence or used for any other purpose in a civil action asking 197 Id. 256.4(b) (2010). for relief for noise resulting from the operation of an airport.). 198 190 267 Ga. 185, 191, 475 S.E.2d 896, 901 (1996). Id. 256(f)(1) (2010). 199 191 Id. at 191, 194, 475 S.E.2d at 901, 904 (holding that a Branning, 228 Ct. Cl. at 252, 654 F.2d at 96. 200 "land use compatibility guideline chart prepared by the city as Id. 201 part of its noise exposure map" was inadmissible at trial). Id., 228 Ct. Cl. at 25051, 252, 654 F.2d at 95, 96. 192 202 32 C.F.R. 256.1(a) (2010). Id., 228 Ct. Cl. at 252, 654 F.2d at 96. 193 203 Id. 256.5(a)(1) (2010). 213 Ct. Cl. 362, 552 F.2d 337 (1977).