Difference between revisions of "Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal (1973)"

From Federalism in America
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
''Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal'' (1973) concerns an ordinance passed by the City of Burbank, California, prohibiting jet aircraft from taking off from the city’s airport between the hours of eleven P.M. and seven A.M. The city enacted the legislation to protect its residents from unwanted noise. A closely divided [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] held the ordinance invalid because Congress had preempted state and local control over aircraft noise by its passage of the 1958 Federal Aviation Act (giving the national government sovereignty over airspace) and the 1972 Noise Control Act (which sets noise emission standards for a wide variety of product categories, and specifically targets aircraft noise and sonic booms). According to Justice William O. Douglas, curfews such as the one enacted by the City of Burbank increase airport congestion, cause a loss of efficiency, and aggravate the noise problem. Therefore, because there is need for efficient control of air traffic, only the Federal Aviation Administration, in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency, may regulate the subject of aircraft noise. The pervasive nature of the scheme of federal regulation of aircraft leaves no room for state or local regulation.  
 
''Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal'' (1973) concerns an ordinance passed by the City of Burbank, California, prohibiting jet aircraft from taking off from the city’s airport between the hours of eleven P.M. and seven A.M. The city enacted the legislation to protect its residents from unwanted noise. A closely divided [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] held the ordinance invalid because Congress had preempted state and local control over aircraft noise by its passage of the 1958 Federal Aviation Act (giving the national government sovereignty over airspace) and the 1972 Noise Control Act (which sets noise emission standards for a wide variety of product categories, and specifically targets aircraft noise and sonic booms). According to Justice William O. Douglas, curfews such as the one enacted by the City of Burbank increase airport congestion, cause a loss of efficiency, and aggravate the noise problem. Therefore, because there is need for efficient control of air traffic, only the Federal Aviation Administration, in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency, may regulate the subject of aircraft noise. The pervasive nature of the scheme of federal regulation of aircraft leaves no room for state or local regulation.  
 +
 +
{| class="wikitable"
 +
|-
 +
| '''BIBLIOGRAPHY:'''
 +
|}
  
 
==== Robert W. Langran ====
 
==== Robert W. Langran ====

Revision as of 05:11, 17 July 2018

Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal (1973) concerns an ordinance passed by the City of Burbank, California, prohibiting jet aircraft from taking off from the city’s airport between the hours of eleven P.M. and seven A.M. The city enacted the legislation to protect its residents from unwanted noise. A closely divided Supreme Court held the ordinance invalid because Congress had preempted state and local control over aircraft noise by its passage of the 1958 Federal Aviation Act (giving the national government sovereignty over airspace) and the 1972 Noise Control Act (which sets noise emission standards for a wide variety of product categories, and specifically targets aircraft noise and sonic booms). According to Justice William O. Douglas, curfews such as the one enacted by the City of Burbank increase airport congestion, cause a loss of efficiency, and aggravate the noise problem. Therefore, because there is need for efficient control of air traffic, only the Federal Aviation Administration, in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency, may regulate the subject of aircraft noise. The pervasive nature of the scheme of federal regulation of aircraft leaves no room for state or local regulation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Robert W. Langran

Last updated: 2006

SEE ALSO: Commerce among the States; Hines v. Davidowitz; Pennsylvania v. Nelson; Preemption; Southern Railway Company v. Reid; Supremacy Clause: Article VI, Clause 2