(a) Whenever funds are allocated for developing new runways or landing strips, or to improve or repair existing runways, the sponsor must own, acquire, or agree to acquire, runway clear zones. Exceptions are considered (on the basis of a full statement of facts by the sponsor) upon a showing of uneconomical acquisition costs, or lack of necessity for the acquisition.
(b) For the purpose of this part, a runway clear zone is an area at ground level which begins at the end of each primary surface defined in § 77.27(a) and extends with the width of each approach surface defined in § 77.27 (b) and (c), to terminate directly below each approach surface slope at the point, or points, where the slope reaches a height of 50 feet above the elevation of the runway or 50 feet above the terrain at the outer extremity of the clear zone, whichever distance is shorter.
(c) For the purposes of this section, an airport operator or owner is considered to have an adequate property interest if it has an easement (or a covenant running with the land) giving it enough control to rid the clear zone of all obstructions (objects so far as they project above the approach surfaces established by § 77.27 (b) and (c) of part 77 of this chapter), and to prevent the creation of future obstructions; together with the right of entrance and exit for those purposes, to ensure the safe and unrestricted passage of aircraft in and over the area.
[Docket 1329, 27 FR 12349, Dec. 13, 1962, as amended by Amdt. 151-7, 30 FR 7484, June 8, 1965; Amdt. 151-21, 33 FR 258, Jan. 9, 1968]
Notes of Decisions
Cnty. of Westchester v. Town of Greenwich, Conn., 793 F. Supp. 1195 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).
· cites it 2× “See 14 C.F.R. § 151.9 (b). Effectively, federal law has pruned the bundle of property rights held by surface landowners rather than uprooted it in its entirety.”
City of Oakland v. Nutter, 13 Cal. App. 3d 752 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970).
· cites it 2× “(See 14 C.F.R. § 151.9 , fn. 8 below.) [3] Code of Civil Procedure section 1244 requires in pertinent part: "The complaint must contain: .”
Highland Realty, Inc. v. Indianapolis Airport Auth., 395 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979).
“Due to the compelling safety considerations discussed in the previous section, Highland has simply failed to demonstrate any abuse of discretion by the Airport in determining the necessity of condemning so much of this land as may be necessary for a clear zone, but not for a…”
United States v. City of New Haven, 367 F. Supp. 1338 (D. Conn. 1973).
· cites it 2× “There is no dispute that the airspace above the 73 acres the city attempted to acquire in East Haven falls within the definition of “clear zone” set out in 14 C.F.R. § 151.9 (b). Nor in view of the statutes and ease law previously discussed is there any doubt that the FAA had…”
United States v. City of New Haven, & Town of East Haven, 496 F.2d 452 (2d Cir. 1974).
“It is quite evident, as Chief Judge Blumenfeld found, that the airspace above the East Haven land acquired by New Haven is within the meaning of “clear zone” as defined by 14 C.F.R. 151.9(b). The clear zones, as part of the navigable airspace, are subject to federal regulation,…”
Cnty. of Westchester v. Town of Greenwich, 870 F. Supp. 496 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
“See 14 C.F.R. § 151.9 (whenever federal funds are allocated for airports to develop new runways, or improve or repair existing runways, the airport must acquire property rights “giving it enough control to rid the clear zone of all obstructions .”
Silver Bow Cnty. v. Hafer, 532 P.2d 691 (Mont. 1975).
“Such an easement is entirely consistent with the regulations established by the Federal Aviation Administration enunciated in 14 CFR § 151.9 : “(a) Whenever funds are allocated for developing new runways or landing strips, or to improve or repair existing run *334 ways, the…”
Cnty. of Westchester v. Town of Greenwich, 76 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 1996).
“We perceive no reason to import into the common law the contrary proposition that an airport’s neighbors bear the responsibility for limiting the quite ordinary use of their land to permit an airport to engage in a particular level of operations.”
— 14 C.F.R. § 151.9(b) — 1 case
United States v. City of New Haven, & Town of East Haven, 496 F.2d 452 (2d Cir. 1974).
“It is quite evident, as Chief Judge Blumenfeld found, that the airspace above the East Haven land acquired by New Haven is within the meaning of “clear zone” as defined by 14 C.F.R. 151.9(b). The clear zones, as part of the navigable airspace, are subject to federal regulation,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.