ÿWPCR '# 2 %= 0(CU:kw:¥4ßóbU:  0DD 0Jˆ 0TÒ 0^& 0h„ 0rì 0|^ 0†Ú 0` 1uð 0deºÉU *ƒ ý­ Oª 0ˆù c Bä v~vÓ˜HP LaserJet 5/5M - StandardHPPCL5G,,,,0nLŠÎ X($¡¡,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular !-["-[#-$-E%-[&-['-re(-q*-r‚í7"‘a!N3|x*-- ù-,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓSevierconclusoryAss'nRehnquistLenoirGatlinburgRILEYDrowota Reid< Œ 9p`(Arial óÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô€ôÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€42„8„101€through€„105€(1993).Ì EÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔ€€The€Federal€Aviation€Act€of€1958,€as€amended€by€the€Noise€Control€Act€of€1972,€wasÏformerly€codified€at€49€U.S.C.€ðððð1301„1357.Ì(8(2R$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó YÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔ€€The€only€claim€in€the€plaintiffsðð€complaint€was€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€42„8„101,€òòetóó€òòseqóó.,Ïsuspended€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„7„208(b).Ì dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ ` ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑØ ØÓ&€Ðd&ÓÓ&€XÐd&ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÞ ÞÌ€à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€ò òòòFOR€PUBLICATIONó óóóÌÌBOBBY€RIGGS€and€M„HELICOPTERSà à)à àò òòòFiled:€€€March€10,€1997ó óóóÌOF€TENNESSEE,€INC.,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ì€à àà àPlaintiffs„Appellees,à à)à à€€€€SEVIER€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€WILLIAM€R.€HOLT,€JR.,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà à€€€JUDGEÌCHARLES€W.€BURSON,€Tennesseeà à)à àà àÌAttorney€General€and€Reporter,à àà à)ÌCARL€JOHNSON,€Commissionerà à)Ìof€the€Tennessee€Department€ofà àà à)ÌTransportation,à àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€03„S„01„9603„CV„00032Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àDefendants„Appellants.à à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€Appellants:à àà àà àà àà àFor€Appellees:ó óóóÌÌCharles€W.€Bursonà àà àà àà àà àSteven€E.€MarshallÌAttorney€General€&€Reporterà àà àà àMarshall€&€DeliusÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSevierville,€TennesseeÌMichael€E.€MooreÌSolicitor€GeneralÌÌBarry€TurnerÌDeputy€Attorney€GeneralÌNashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌò òÔ€„Ôà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÔ€XÔÌÌÌÌCOURT€OF€APPEALS€REVERSED;ÌTRIAL€COURT€JUDGMENTÌREINSTATED.à àà àà àà àà àà àANDERSON,€J.ÇÑ€ ÑÑ7€™XXdðXXdð7ÑÓÓÑ  Ñà àWe€granted€this€appeal€to€decide€whether€a€state€statute× ƒ ××  ×€prohibiting€theÏuse€of€land€for€a€heliport€within€nine€miles€of€the€boundary€of€a€national€park€isÏconstitutional€and,€if€so,€whether€it€is€preempted€by€federal€law.€ÌÌà àThe€€trial€court€held€the€statute€was€constitutional€and€was€a€regulation€ofÏthe€use€of€land€and€therefore€was€not€preempted€by€the€Federal€Aviation€Act.€ÏThe€court,€therefore,€dismissed€the€plaintiffsðð€action€to€enjoin€enforcement€of€theÏstatute.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€reversed,€deciding€that€it€must€accept€as€true€theÏcomplaintððs€legal€conclusions€as€to€preemption€and€constitutionality,€andÏremanded€the€case€for€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€Ìà àÌà àFor€the€reasons€that€follow,€we€conclude€that€the€state€statute€does€notÏviolate€due€process€or€equal€protection€under€the€Tennessee€or€United€StatesÏConstitutions;€does€not€suspend€general€law€in€violation€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution;€and€is€not€preempted€by€federal€law.€€We€have€further€determinedÏthat€in€addressing€the€motion€to€dismiss,€the€trial€court€was€not€required€toÏaccept€as€true€the€plaintiffsðð€asserted€legal€conclusions€that€the€law€lacked€aÏrational€basis€and€was€preempted.€€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€is€reversed,€and€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reinstated.Ì€Ìà@ àò òòòBACKGROUNDó óóóÌà àThe€plaintiffs,€Bobby€Riggs€and€M„Helicopters€of€Tennessee,€Inc.,€ownÏand€operate€a€heliport€in€Sevier€County,€Tennessee,€from€which€they€launchÏhelicopters€which€carry€tourists€to,€over,€and€from€the€Great€Smoky€MountainsÏNational€Park.€€The€heliport€is€located€within€nine€miles€of€the€boundary€of€theÏnational€park.€€ÌÌà àIn€early€1992,€the€Tennessee€legislature€enacted€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€42„8„101,€òòetóó€òòseqóó.,€which€prohibited€the€helicopter€touring€operations€of€the€plaintiffsÏafter€July€1,€1994.€€In€June€of€1994,€the€plaintiffs€filed€a€declaratory€action€in€theÏSevier€County€Circuit€Court€challenging€the€constitutionality€of€the€statute,Ïwhich€€provides€in€part:ÌÓÓò òÌà8 à42„8„102.€€Certain€land€not€to€be€used€as€heliport„„ÏHeliports€on€such€land.ó ó„„(a)€òòLand€in€a€tourist€resort€countyÏwithin€nine€(9)€miles€of€the€boundary€of€a€national€park€establishedÏpursuant€to€16€U.S.C.€ðð403€cannot€be€used€as€a€heliportóó.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àò ò42„8„103.€€Violations„„Heliport€deemed€nuisance„„Abatement,€removal,€conformity.€ó ó„„€Notwithstanding€theÍprovisions€of€ðð€13„7„208€or€any€other€law€to€the€contrary,€a€heliportÏoperating€as€of€April€23,€1992,€that€is€in€violation€of€ðð€42„8„102(a)Ïis€declared€a€public€nuisance€and€shall€be€abated,€removed€orÏchanged€to€conform€with€this€chapter€by€July€1,€1994.€.€.€.€.ÌÌÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added).€ÌÌà àThe€plaintiffs€alleged€that€the€statute€violated€due€process€and€equalÏprotection€under€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions;€that€itÏsuspended€general€law€in€violation€of€article€XI,€section€8€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution;€and€that€it€was€preempted€by€the€Federal€Aviation€Act.€€TheÏplaintiffs€also€argued€that€they€were€permitted€to€maintain€a€non„conforming€useÏpursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„7„208(b).€€The€defendants€filed€a€motion€toÏdismiss€the€complaint€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€could€beÏgranted.ÌÌà àAfter€reviewing€the€statute€and€its€preamble,€and€hearing€arguments€fromÏboth€parties,€the€trial€court€granted€the€defendantsðð€motion€to€dismiss€theÏcomplaint.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€statute€did€not€violate€the€Tennessee€orÏUnited€States€Constitutions;€that€it€was€a€regulation€of€the€use€of€land€that€wasÏnot€preempted€by€federal€law;€and€that€the€plaintiffs€were€not€entitled€to€reliefÏunder€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„7„208(b)€as€a€non„conforming€use.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€Court€of€Appeals€apparently€accepted€the€plaintiffsððÏconclusory€legal€allegations€as€true€and€held:ÌÓÓÌà8 à[t]he€allegations€of€the€complaint€set€forth€the€elements€for€claimsÏof€preemption,€due€process€and€equal€protection,€and€anÏunconstitutional€suspension€of€general€law.€€Our€decision€is€not€toÏbe€construed€to€say€the€statutes€are€free€or€not€free€ofÏconstitutional€defects.€€We€are€remanding€the€case€for€the€partiesÏto€be€afforded€the€opportunity€to€introduce€any€evidence€which€isÏmaterial€and€pertinent€in€considering€the€validity€of€the€statute.à à€ÌÌÌÓÓÌà àWe€granted€the€defendantsðð€appeal€to€address€the€constitutionality€of€theÏstatute,€the€federal€preemption€question,€and€to€clarify€the€standard€to€beÏapplied€by€a€court€in€addressing€a€motion€to€dismiss€a€complaint€which€containsÏconclusory€assertions€that€a€statute€is€unconstitutional.€ÌÌà@ àò òòòMOTION€TO€DISMISSó óóóÌà àThe€first€question€we€must€address€is€the€standard€to€be€applied€by€aÏcourt€in€addressing€a€motion€to€dismiss€a€complaint€which€contains€legalÏconclusions.€€We€begin€our€analysis€by€examining€the€purpose€of€a€motion€toÏdismiss€a€complaint€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted.€ÏSuch€a€motion€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02(6)€tests€the€legal€sufficiency€ofÍa€complaint;€it€admits€the€truth€of€all€relevant€and€material€allegations,€ð ðbutÏasserts€that€such€òòfactsóó€do€not€constitute€a€cause€of€action€as€a€matter€of€law.ððÏòòPursell€v.€First€American€National€Bank€et€al.óó,€___€S.W.2d€___€(Tenn.Ï1996)(emphasis€added).€€ÌÌà àIn€ruling€on€such€a€motion,€courts€must€construe€the€allegations€in€theÏplaintiffððs€favor€and€accept€allegations€of€fact€as€true.€€However,€the€inferencesÏto€be€drawn€from€the€facts€or€the€legal€conclusions€set€forth€in€a€complaint€areÏnot€required€to€be€taken€as€true.€€òòDobbs€v.€Guentheróó,€846€S.W.2d€270,€273Ï(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€ÌÌà àThe€plaintiffsðð€allegations€that€the€statute€violated€due€process€and€equalÏprotection€under€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions€andÏsuspended€general€law€in€violation€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€were€legalÏconclusions€that€should€not€have€been€taken€as€true.€€As€recognized€by€bothÏparties,€these€constitutional€issues€required€a€determination€of€whether€theÏlegislature€had€a€rational€basis€for€passing€the€statute.€€In€this€regard,€if€anyÏreasonable€justification€for€the€law€may€be€conceived,€it€must€be€upheld€by€theÏcourts.€€òòState€v.€Testeróó,€879€S.W.2d€823,€830€(Tenn.€1994);€òòseeóó€òòNewton€v.€Coxóó,Í878€S.W.2d€105,€110€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€115€S.Ct.€189,€130€L.Ed.€2d€122Ï(1994).€€ÌÌà àHere,€the€trial€court€correctly€applied€this€analysis€in€the€context€of€theÏdefendantððs€motion€to€dismiss€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02(6).€€In€òòLilly€v.€Smithóó,Ï790€S.W.2d€539€(Tenn.€App.€1990),€for€example,€the€plaintiff€raised€an€equalÏprotection€challenge€to€the€Stateððs€grade€policy€for€admission€into€state€nursingÏschools.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€defendantððs€motion€to€dismiss€under€RuleÏ12.02(6).€€The€Court€of€Appeals€upheld€the€dismissal€upon€finding€that€thereÏwas€a€ð ðrational€relationship€between€the€admissions€requirement€and€legitimateÏstate€policy.ðð€ÌÌà àLikewise,€the€plaintiffsðð€assertion€that€the€statute€was€preempted€by€theÏFederal€Aviation€Act€was€a€legal€conclusion€that€should€not€have€beenÏaccepted€as€true.€€Whether€a€federal€law€expressly€or€implicitly€preempts€a€stateÏlaw€requires€an€investigation€of€Congressððs€intent€in€passing€federal€legislation.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòCipollone€v.€Liggett€Group,€Inc.óó,€505€U.S.€504,€112€S.Ct.€2608,€2617,€120ÏL.Ed.2d€407€(1992).€€Here,€both€parties€argued€their€interpretations€of€theÏFederal€Aviation€Act€and€offered€supporting€legal€authority€for€whether€the€ActÏexpressly€or€implicitly€preempted€the€statute.€€The€trial€court€properly€addressedÍthe€preemption€issue€in€the€context€of€the€motion€to€dismiss,€without€anÏevidentiary€hearing.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòBroyde€v.€Gotham€Tower,€Inc.óó,€13€F.3d€994€(6thÏCir.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€114€S.Ct.€2137,€128€L.Ed.2d€866€(1994).ÌÌà àAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€Court€of€Appeals€erred€in€acceptingÏthe€legal€conclusions€in€the€plaintiffsðð€complaint€as€true€and€in€remanding€theÏcase€for€an€evidentiary€hearing,€and€that€the€trial€court€acted€correctly€inÏaddressing€all€the€legal€issues€in€the€motion€to€dismiss.ÌÌà@ àò òòòPREEMPTIONó óóóÌà àThe€preemption€doctrine€stems€from€the€Supremacy€Clause€of€the€UnitedÏStates€Constitution:€ð ð[t]he€Constitution€and€laws€of€the€United€States€which€shallÏbe€made€in€Pursuance€thereof€...€shall€be€the€supreme€Law€of€the€Land.ðð€€U.S.ÏConst.,€art.€VI,€cl.€2.€€A€state€law€which€conflicts€with€federal€law,€therefore,€isÏpreempted€or€ð ðwithout€effect.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòMaryland€v.€Louisianaóó,€451€U.S.€725,€746,Ï101€S.Ct.€2114,€2128,€68€L.Ed.2d€576€(1981).€€ÌÌà àThe€plaintiffs€charged€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€42„8„101,€òòetóó€òòseqóó.,€isÏaimedat€the€ð ðflight€of€aircraft€and€aircraft€noiseðð€and€is€therefore€preempted€byÍthe€Federal€Aviation€Act.€€€òòSeeóó€49€U.S.C.€ðð40101„41901€(Supp.€1996).× ƒ! ××  ×€€TheÏdefendants€maintained,€and€the€trial€court€found,€that€the€statute€is€notÏpreempted€because€it€relates€to€the€use€of€land€and€not€the€flight€of€aircraft.€€TheÏCourt€of€Appeals,€however,€ruled€that€the€elements€of€a€preemption€claim€hadÏbeen€alleged€and€that€an€evidentiary€hearing€was€required€to€determineÏwhether€the€statute€is€directed€at€aircraft€noise.€ÌÌà àConsideration€of€preemption€issues€under€the€Supremacy€ClauseÏð ðœstart[s›]€with€the€assumption€that€the€historic€police€powers€of€the€States€[are]€notÏto€be€superseded€by€...€Federal€Act€unless€that€[is]€the€clear€and€manifestÏpurpose€of€Congress.ðð€€€òòRice€v.€Santa€Fe€Elevator€Corp.óó,€331€U.S.€218,€230,€67ÏS.€Ct.€1146,€1152,€91€L.Ed.€1447€(1947).€€The€purpose€of€Congress€in€enactingÏa€federal€law€is,€therefore,€the€ð ðultimate€touchstoneðð€of€preemption€analysis.€ÏòòRetail€Clerks€Intern.€Assððn€v.€Schermerhornóó,€375€U.S.€96,€103,€84€S.Ct.€219,Ï222,€11€L.Ed.2d€179€(1963).€€The€intent€of€Congress€may€be€ð ðexplicitly€stated€inÏthe€statuteððs€language€or€implicitly€contained€in€its€structure€and€purpose.ðð€ÏòòJones€v.€Rath€Packing€Co.óó,€430€U.S.€519,€525,€97€S.Ct.€1305,€1309,€51€L.Ed.2dÏ604€(1977).€€However,€where€there€is€no€express€preemption€provision€in€aÍfederal€statute,€a€state€law€is€implicitly€preempted€if€that€law€actually€conflictsÏwith€the€federal€law,€òòseeóó€òòPacific€Gas€&€Elec.€Co.€v.€State€Energy€ResourcesÏConservation€and€Development€Commððnóó,€461€U.S.€190,€204,€103€S.Ct.€1713,Ï1722,€75€L.Ed.2d€752€(1983),€or€if€the€federal€law€so€thoroughly€occupies€theÏlegislative€field€ð ðas€to€make€reasonable€the€inference€that€Congress€left€no€roomÏfor€the€States€to€supplement€it.ðð€€òòFidelity€Federal€Savings€&€Loan€Assððn€v.€De€laÏCuestaóó,€458€U.S.€141,€153,€102€S.Ct.€3014,€3022,€73€L.Ed.2d€664€(1982);€òòseeóóÏòòalsoóó€òòWatson€v.€Cleveland€Chair€Co.óó,€789€S.W.2d€538,€542€(Tenn.€1989)Ï(discussing€parameters€of€preemption€doctrine).ÌÌà àThe€Federal€Aviation€Act€reflects€congressional€intent€to€place€exclusiveÏauthority€for€regulating€the€airspace€above€the€United€States€with€the€FederalÏAviation€Administration.€€49€U.S.C.€ðð40103(b)(1).€ÌÌà àApplying€the€foregoing€principles,€the€plaintiffs€concede€that€the€FederalÏAviation€Act€does€not€expressly€preempt€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€42„8„101,€òòetóó€òòseqóó.,Ïbut€instead€claim€that€the€law€was€implicitly€preempted€under€the€ruleÏestablished€in€òòCity€of€Burbank€v.€Lockheed€Air€Terminal,€Inc.óó,€411€U.S.€624,€93ÏS.Ct.€1854,€36€L.Ed.2d€547€(1973).€€There,€the€City€of€Burbank€adopted€anÏordinance€making€it€unlawful€for€jet€aircraft€to€take€off€from€the€Hollywood„Burbank€airport€between€the€hours€of€11:00€p.m.€and€7:00€a.m.€€The€lowerÏfederal€courts€found€that€the€curfew€sought€to€regulate€aircraft€noise€byÏrestricting€flights€and€held€that€the€ordinance€was€preempted€by€federal€law.€€òòIdóó.,Ï411€U.S.€at€626,€93€S.Ct.€at€1856.€€ÌÌà àThe€Supreme€Court€agreed.€€The€Court€said€that€the€Federal€Aviation€ActÏgave€the€Federal€Aviation€Administration€control€over€the€regulation€of€aircraftÏnoise,€and€that€it€and€other€federal€agencies€had€ð ðcomprehensively€regulatedððÏin€this€area.€€Thus,€the€Court€concluded€that€the€ð ðpervasive€nature€of€the€schemeÏof€federal€regulation€of€aircraft€noiseðð€preempted€the€City€of€Burbankððs€curfew,Ïwhich€had€sought€to€regulate€noise€by€restricting€flights.€€òòIdóó.,€411€U.S.€at€633„634,€93€S.Ct.€at€1859„1860.€ÌÌà àIn€claiming€that€the€statute€in€question€is€aimed€at€the€regulation€of€ð ðtheÏflight€of€aircraft€and€aircraft€noise,ðð€the€plaintiffs€rely€in€great€measure€on€theÏimplied€preemption€holding€in€òòCity€of€Burbankóó,€òòsupraóó.€€The€defendants,Ïhowever,€maintain€that€òòCity€of€Burbankóó€does€not€extend€to€state€laws€which,€likeÏthis€statute,€regulate€the€use€of€land€and€not€the€flight€or€noise€of€aircraft.€€In€thisÏrespect,€the€defendants€note€the€limitation€of€òòCity€of€Burbankóó€as€expressed€byÏthe€dissenting€justices:ÌÓÓÌà8 àA€local€governing€body€could€...€use€its€traditional€police€power€toÏprevent€the€establishment€of€a€new€airport€or€the€expansion€of€anÏexisting€one€within€its€territorial€jurisdiction€by€declining€to€grantÏthe€necessary€zoning€for€such€a€facility.€€òòEven€though€the€localÏgovernmentððs€decision€in€each€case€were€motivated€entirelyÏbecause€of€the€noise€associated€with€airports,€I€do€not€read€theÏCourtððs€opinion€as€indicating€that€such€action€would€be€prohibitedÏby€the€Supremacy€Clause€merely€because€the€FederalÏGovernment€has€undertaken€the€responsibility€for€some€aspects€ofÏaircraft€noise€controlóó.€€Yet€if€this€may€be€done,€the€Courtððs€opinionÏsurely€does€not€satisfactorily€explain€why€a€local€governing€bodyÏmay€not€enact€a€far€less€ððintrusiveðð€ordinance€such€as€that€of€theÏcity€of€Burbank.ÌÌòòÌIdóó.,€411€U.S.€at€653,€93€S.Ct.€at€1869€(Rehnquist,€J.,€dissenting)€(emphasisÏadded).Ìà àò òÌÓÓÌà àó óOther€jurisdictions€have€elaborated€on€this€point€and€have€limited€theÏapplication€of€òòCity€of€Burbankóó.€€In€our€own€Sixth€Circuit,€in€òòGustafson€v.€City€ofÏLake€Angelusóó,€76€F.3d€778€(6th€Cir.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€117€S.Ct.€81,€136€L.Ed.2d€39Ï(1996),€the€plaintiff€claimed€that€ordinances€which€prohibited€the€operation€ofÏseaplanesò ò€ó óon€a€lake€near€his€home€were€preempted€by€the€Federal€AviationÏAct.€€The€district€court€agreed€and€granted€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€theÏplaintiff€on€the€basis€of€òòCity€of€Burbankóó.€€The€Sixth€Circuit€reversed:ÌÓÓÌà8 àòò[œI]n›€the€present€case,€an€examination€of€the€Federal€Aviation€ActÏand€regulations€concerning€seaplanes€and€aircraft€landing€sitesÏindicates€that€the€designation€of€plane€landing€sites€is€notÍpervasively€regulated€by€federal€law,€but€instead€is€a€matter€leftÏprimarily€to€local€controlóó.€€In€contrast€to€the€pervasive€scheme€ofÏfederal€regulation€of€aircraft€noise€found€in€òòBurbankóó,€we€fail€toÏidentify€any€language€in€the€Act,€the€regulations€promulgatedÏpursuant€to€the€Act,€or€the€legislative€history€of€the€Act,€which€byÏimplication€preempts€enforcement€of€the€Cityððs€ordinances.€.€.€.ÌÌòòÓÓÌIdóó.,€76€F.3d€at€784€(emphasis€added).€€Accordingly,€the€Sixth€Circuit€concludedÏthat€ð ðthere€is€a€distinction€between€the€regulation€of€the€navigable€airspace€andÏthe€regulation€of€ground€space€to€be€used€for€aircraft€landing€sites.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€76€F.3dÏat€789.€€à àÌÌà àSimilarly,€in€òòCondor€Corp.€v.€City€of€St.€Paulóó,€912€F.2d€215€(œ8th›€Cir.Ï1990),€when€a€request€to€use€the€property€as€a€heliport€for€helicopter€servicesÏwas€denied€by€the€city,€Condor€Corporation€challenged€the€restrictions€asÏpreempted€under€the€Federal€Aviation€Act.€€The€district€court€denied€relief,€andÏthe€Eighth€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed:€€ð ðWe€see€no€conflict€between€aÏcityððs€regulatory€power€over€land€use,€and€the€federal€regulation€of€airspace,Ïand€have€found€no€case€recognizing€a€conflict.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€912€F.2d€at€215.€ÏòòSeeóóòòalsoóóòòFaux„Burhans€v.€County€Comððrs€of€Frederick€Countyóó,€674€F.€Supp.Ï1172€(D.€Md.€1987),€òòaffððdóó.,€859€F.2d€149€(4th€Cir.€1988)(county€restrictions€onÏsize€and€scope€of€private€airfield€not€preempted).ÌÌà àIn€a€state€court€case,€òòGarden€State€Farms,€Inc.€v.€Bayóó,€390€A.2d€1177Ï(N.J.€1978),€the€plaintiff€sought€to€construct€a€heliport€on€property€located€nearÏð ða€heavily€traveled€thoroughfare,€opposite€a€residential€neighborhood.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€atÏ1179.€€An€ordinance€was€adopted€prohibiting€the€use€of€land€in€the€area€for€aÏheliport€because€the€ð ðgeneral€quality€of€life€would€be€adversely€affected€by€low„level€air€traffic€with€its€concomitant€increased€noise,€air€pollution€and€automobileÏtraffic€and€its€anticipated€distraction€and€anxiety€to€residents.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àThe€New€Jersey€Supreme€Court€held€the€ordinance€was€not€preemptedÏby€the€Federal€Aviation€Act.€€The€Court€noted€that€the€Act€did€not€ð ðreach€down€toÏthe€level€of€the€location€of€small,€relatively€isolated,€privately€owned€helistops€orÏheliports,ðð€€and€stressed€that€while€ð ðit€is€clear€that€state€and€local€authority€overÏthe€ððoperation€and€navigation€of€aircraftðð€is€supplanted€by€.€.€.€federal€regulation,Ï..€.€òòsignificant€local€power€over€ground€operation€of€aircraft€remains€visibleóó.ðð€€òòIdóó.,Ïat€1180„1181€(emphasis€added).Ìà àÌà àReturning€to€this€case,€an€analysis€of€the€Tennessee€statute€and€itsÏpreamble€indicates€that€the€law€regulates€the€use€of€land€and€not€the€flight€ofÏaircraft€or€the€use€of€airspace.€€The€law€restricts€ð ðland€in€a€tourist€resort€countyÏwithin€nine€miles€of€the€boundary€of€a€national€parkðð€from€being€ð ðused€as€aÍheliport.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€42„8„102(a).€The€preamble€to€the€law€reflects€thatÏthe€Legislature€had€several€interests€under€consideration€including€the€noise,Ïdisruption€and€safety€risks€caused€by€locating€heliports€near€main€roads€andÏheavily€populated€areas.€€€It€is€clear€that€the€police€powers€of€the€LegislatureÏinclude€restricting€use€of€property€if€it€is€reasonably€related€to€the€public€health,Ïsafety,€and€welfare.€€€òòSeeóó€òòSpencer„Sturla€Co.€v.€City€of€Memphisóó,€155€Tenn.€70,Ï83,€290€S.W.€608,€612€(1927).€€Our€examination€of€the€language€of€the€statuteÏindicates€it€is€not€expressly€preempted€by€the€Federal€Aviation€Act,€and€it€doesÏnot€establish€a€curfew€or€restrict€flights€in€a€manner€that€is€implicitly€preemptedÏunder€the€òòCity€of€Burbankóó€decision.€€ÌÌà àOur€conclusion€is€shared€by€the€Federal€Aviation€Administration,€whichÏstated€in€a€letter€offered€in€evidence€by€the€defendants,€that€ð ðthe€FAA€hasÏconcluded€that€the€statute€as€written€is€not€preempted€on€its€face€by€the€expressÏpreemption€provisions€of€section€105€of€the€Federal€Aviation€Act€of€1958,€asÏamended.€.€.€.€Likewise€the€statute€is€not€preempted€.€.€.€€by€implication€under€theÏholding€of€òòCity€of€Burbank€v.€Lockheed€Air€Terminal,€Inc.óó,€411€U.S.€624€(1973).ðð€€ÏWe€observe€that€interpretations€of€statutes€by€administrative€agencies€areÏcustomarily€given€respect€and€accorded€deference€by€courts.€€òòChevron€U.S.A.€v.ÍNatural€Resources€Defense€Councilóó,€467€U.S.€837,€844,€104€S.Ct.€2778,€2782,Ï81€L.Ed.2d€694€(1984).€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€we€agree€with€the€persuasive€federal€and€state€authority€thatÏhas€upheld€laws€which€restrict€the€use€of€land€for€the€operation€of€helicopters€orÏother€aircraft.€€The€plaintiffs€seek€to€distinguish€these€cases€as€involvingÏrestrictions€on€future€uses,€and€not,€as€in€this€case,€an€existing€use.€€ThisÏdistinction,€however,€does€not€alter€our€conclusion.€€First,€a€land€use€law,€ifÏotherwise€constitutional,€may€permissibly€restrict€or€eliminate€an€existing€use€ofÏland.€€€òòSeeóó€101A€C.J.S.€òòZoning€and€Land€Planningóó€ðð157;€òòRives€v.€City€ofÏClarksvilleóó,€618€S.W.2d€502,€508„509€(Tenn.€App.€1981)(ð ða€zoning€ordinanceÏthat€restricts€a€future€use€and€one€that€requires€existing€uses€to€stop€after€aÏreasonable€time€is€not€a€difference€in€kind,€but€one€of€degreeðð).€Second,Ïalthough€the€preemption€analysis€may€have€differed€if€the€statute€eliminated€anÏexisting€use€based€solely€on€aircraft€noise,€òòseeóó€òòWright€v.€County€of€Winnebagoóó,Ï391€N.E.2d€772,€777€(Ill.€App.€1979),€the€law,€as€we€have€discussed,€is€relatedÏto€numerous€legislative€interests.€òòSeeóó€òòGustafsonóó,€76€F.3d€at€791;€òòGarden€StateÏFarmsóó,€390€A.2d€at€1180„1181.€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€we€hold€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€42„8„101,€òòetóó€òòseqóó.,€is€notÏpreempted€by€federal€law€under€the€Supremacy€Clause€of€the€United€StatesÏConstitution.€€Having€so€held,€we€must€now€address€whether€the€law€withstandsÏconstitutional€scrutiny.€€€€€à àÌÌà@ àò òòòDUE€PROCESSó óóóÌà àThe€plaintiffs€charge€that€the€statute€lacks€a€rational€basis€and€violatesÏdue€process€under€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€ConstitutionÏand€article€I,€section€8€of€Tennessee€Constitution.€€The€defendants€counter€thatÏthe€law€is€rationally€related€to€the€health,€safety,€and€welfare€of€tourists€andÏresidents€in€the€tourist€resort€counties.€€The€defendants€point€to€the€preamble€toÏthe€law€which€reflects€the€Legislatureððs€concern€with€the€rapid€growth€of€tourismÏin€the€resort€counties€and€the€disruption€and€safety€risks€caused€by€locatingÏheliports€in€heavily€populated€centers€and€near€main€roads.€ÌÌà àThis€Court€has€held€that€the€ð ðlaw€of€the€landðð€provision€of€article€I,€sectionÏ8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€ð ðis€synonymous€with€the€due€process€clause€ofÏthe€Fourteenth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution.ðð€€òòNewton€v.€Coxóó,Ï878€S.W.2d€at€110;€òòState€ex€rel.€Anglin€v.€Mitchellóó,€596€S.W.2d€779,€786€(Tenn.Ï1980).€€Thus,€unless€a€fundamental€right€is€implicated,€a€statute€comports€withÍsubstantive€due€process€if€it€bears€ð ða€reasonable€relation€to€a€proper€legislativeÏpurposeðð€and€is€ð ðneither€arbitrary€nor€discriminatory.ðð€€òòNewton€v.€Coxóó,€878ÏS.W.2d€at€110.€€ÌÌà à€€€Here,€the€parties€recognize€that€the€statute€does€not€implicate€aÏfundamental€right,€and€that€the€ð ðrational€basisðð€analysis€applies€to€the€plaintiffsððÏdue€process€challenge.€€òòIdóó.€€Thus,€the€question€we€must€address€is€whether€theÏstatute€is€reasonably€related€to€a€legitimate€legislative€purpose.ÌÌà àWe€begin€our€analysis€with€the€presumption€that€an€act€of€the€GeneralÏAssembly€is€constitutional.€€€òòSeeóó€òòPetition€of€Bursonóó,€909€S.W.2d€768€(Tenn.Ï1995);€òòDavis„Kidd€Booksellers,€Inc.€v.€McWherteróó,€866€S.W.2d€520€(Tenn.Ï1993).€€In€evaluating€a€statute,€we€must€indulge€every€presumption€and€resolveÏevery€doubt€in€favor€of€constitutionality.€€€òòPetition€of€Bursonóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€775.€ÏWe€also€recognize€that€the€Legislature€has€the€authority€to€enact€laws€for€theÏpublic€safety,€comfort€and€welfare.€€òòSpencer„Sturla€Co.€v.€City€of€Memphisóó,€155ÏTenn.€at€83,€290€S.W.€at€612;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòFallin€v.€Knox€County€Bd.€of€Comððrsóó,€656ÏS.W.2d€338€(Tenn.€1983).€€ÌÌà àThe€preamble€to€the€statute€reflects€these€legitimate€legislative€interestsÏof€public€safety,€comfort,€and€welfare.€€It€notes€that€the€growth€of€the€touristÏindustry€in€the€resort€counties€near€the€Great€Smoky€Mountains€National€ParkÏhas€attracted€heliport€operations€of€the€sort€owned€and€operated€by€theÏplaintiffs.€€Moreover,€it€indicates€that€the€location€of€these€heliports€near€heavilyÏpopulated€areas€and€main€roads€has,€in€the€Legislatureððs€determination,Ïdisturbed€the€peace€and€enjoyment€of€tourists€and€residents,€interruptedÏenjoyment€of€the€area€by€tourists,€and€created€a€safety€risk€to€tourists€andÏresidents.€€The€statute€seeks€to€prevent€this€harm€not€by€regulating€where€orÏwhen€helicopters€may€fly,€but€by€restricting€where€land€may€be€used€to€locateÏheliports.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòGustafsonóó,€òòsupraóó,€the€Sixth€Circuit€addressed€whether€the€ordinanceÏprohibiting€the€operation€of€seaplanes€on€a€lake€survived€due€process€scrutinyÏand€determined€that€its€review€was€limited€to€ð ðwhether€the€legislative€actionÏ[was]€rationally€related€to€legitimate€land€use€concerns.ðð€€The€court€concludedÏthat€the€cityððs€concern€with€the€ð ðnoise,€danger,€apprehension€of€danger,€.€.€.Ïdestruction€of€property€values,€and€interference€with€other€lawful€uses€.€.€.Ïfulfill[ed]€the€requirements€of€this€test.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€76€F.3d€at€791.ÌÌà àSimilarly,€we€conclude€that€the€restriction€on€the€location€of€heliportsÏcontained€in€this€statute€is€reasonably€related€to€the€legitimate€legislativeÏinterests€of€securing€the€public€safety,€comfort,€and€welfare.€€The€plaintiffsððÏarguments€that€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€to€establish€a€genuine€safetyÏrisk€from€helicopter€operations,€and€that€the€law€will€increase€any€potential€riskÏand€disruption€by€forcing€longer€flights,€do€not€establish€that€the€statute€isÏirrational.€€To€the€contrary,€under€the€rational€basis€test,€specific€evidence€is€notÏnecessary€to€show€the€relationship€between€the€statute€and€its€purpose.€ÏòòSeeóóòòNewton€v.€Coxóó,€878€S.W.2d€at€110.€€€Rather,€this€Court€asks€only€whetherÏthe€law€is€reasonably€related€to€proper€legislative€interests.€€òòIdóó.€€We€concludeÏthat€it€is.ÌÌà@ àò òòòEQUAL€PROTECTIONó óóóÌà àThis€Court€has€said€that€ð ð[œb]oth›€the€United€States€and€TennesseeÏConstitutions€guarantee€to€citizens€the€equal€protection€of€the€laws.ðð€€€òòBrown€v.ÏCampbell€County€œBd›.€of€Educ.óó,€915€S.W.2d€407,€412€(Tenn.€1995),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,Ï116€S.Ct.€1852,€134€L.Ed.2d€952€(1996).€€Article€I,€section€8€and€article€XI,Ïsection€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€confer€the€same€protections€as€theÏFourteenth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution.€òòSeeóó€òòBrown€v.ÏCampbell€County€Bd.€of€Educ.óó,€915€S.W.2d€at€413.€€ÌÌà àThe€plaintiffs€allege€that€the€statute€improperly€classifies€helicopterÏoperations€within€nine€miles€of€the€Great€Smoky€Mountains€National€Park€fromÏall€others€in€the€state€of€Tennessee€in€violation€of€equal€protection€of€the€laws.€ÏThey€argue€that€ð ðthe€failure€of€the€statute€is€that€it€does€not€attempt€to€apply€theÏlegislatureððs€concern€for€noise€and€safety€to€all€the€commercial€heliports€in€theÏstate.ðð€€On€the€other€hand,€the€defendants€maintain€that€the€statuteððsÏclassification€is€reasonably€related€to€a€legitimate€legislative€interest€andÏtherefore€valid.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòTennessee€Small€School€Systems€v.€McWherteróó,€851€S.W.2d€139,€153Ï(Tenn.€1993),€we€said€that€ð ð[t]he€concept€of€equal€protection€espoused€by€theÏfederal€and€of€our€state€constitutions€guarantees€that€ððall€persons€similarlyÏcircumstanced€shall€be€treated€alike.ðððð€(quoting€òòF.S.€Royster€Guano€Co.€v.ÏVirginiaóó,€253€U.S.€412,€415,€40€S.Ct.€560,€562,€64€L.Ed.€989€(1920)).€€ThingsÏwhich€are€different€in€fact€or€opinion€are€not€required€by€either€Constitution€to€beÏtreated€the€same.€€òòTennessee€Small€School€Systemsóó,€851€S.W.2d€at€153Ï(citing,€òòPlyler€v.€Doeóó,€457€U.S.€202,€216,€102€S.Ct.€2382,€2394).€€In€this€regard:ÌÓÓÌà8 àThe€initial€discretion€to€determine€what€is€ððdifferentðð€and€what€isÏððthe€sameðð€resides€in€the€legislatures€of€the€States,€andÏlegislatures€are€given€considerable€latitude€in€determining€whatÍgroups€are€different€and€what€groups€are€the€same.€.€.€.€€€€In€mostÏinstances€the€judicial€inquiry€into€the€legislative€choice€is€limited€toÏwhether€the€classifications€have€a€reasonable€relationship€to€aÏlegitimate€state€interest.€.€.€.€ÌÌÌ851€S.W.2d€at€153€(citations€omitted).à à€ÌÌÌÓÓà àWe€have€consistently€followed€the€framework€developed€by€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court,€which,€depending€on€the€nature€of€the€right€asserted€orÏa€class€of€persons€affected,€applies€one€of€three€standards€of€scrutiny:€(1)€strictÏscrutiny,€(2)€heightened€scrutiny,€and€(3)€reduced€scrutiny€or€the€rational€basisÏtest.€€òòNewton€v.€Coxóó,€878€S.W.2d€at€109.€€€Strict€scrutiny€analysis€is€requiredÏð ðonly€when€[a€legislative]€classification€interferes€with€the€exercise€of€aÏððfundamental€rightðð€or€operates€to€the€peculiar€disadvantage€of€a€ððsuspectÏclass.ðððð€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àHere,€the€parties€agree€that€the€statute€does€not€interfere€with€aÏfundamental€right€nor€does€it€involve€a€suspect€class;€thus,€like€the€due€processÏchallenge,€the€equal€protection€analysis€of€this€state€statute€involves€the€rationalÏbasis€test.€€Under€this€standard,€ð ð[i]f€some€reasonable€basis€can€be€found€for€theÏclassification€[in€the€statute]€or€if€any€state€of€facts€may€reasonably€be€conceivedÏto€justify€it,€the€classification€will€be€upheld.ðð€€òòTennessee€Small€School€SystemsÏv.€McWherteróó,€851€S.W.2d€at€153;€òòNewton€v.€Coxóó,€878€S.W.2d€at€110.€€ThisÍstandard,€compared€to€the€heightened€or€strict€scrutiny,€places€upon€thoseÏchallenging€a€statute€ð ðthe€greatest€burden€of€proof.ðð€€òòBrown€v.€Campbell€CountyÏBd.€of€Educ.óó,€915€S.W.2d€at€413.ÌÌà àAs€we€have€discussed,€the€statute€restricts€the€location€of€heliports€withinÏnine€miles€of€the€Great€Smoky€Mountains€Park€in€an€effort€to€achieve€legitimateÏinterests€related€to€the€public€safety,€health,€and€welfare.€€The€preamble€to€theÏstatute€indicates€that€the€Great€Smoky€Mountains€National€Park€is€ð ðanÏinvaluable€natural€resourceðð€which€has€attracted€growing€numbers€of€touristsÏand€residents.€€It€also€states€that€locating€heliports€in€the€heavily€populatedÏareas€and€near€main€roads€poses€a€ð ðunique€problem,ðð€as€it€creates€a€disruptionÏand€safety€risk€to€tourists€and€residents.€€Although€the€plaintiffs€contend€thatÏthere€is€no€evidence€to€support€classifying€helicopter€operators€within€nineÏmiles€of€the€park€differently€from€any€others€in€Tennessee,€such€evidence€isÏunnecessary;€the€relevant€inquiry€is€whether€there€is€a€reasonably€conceivableÏset€of€facts€to€justify€the€classification€within€the€statute.€€We€have€concluded€thatÏthere€is€such€a€set€of€facts€which€justifies€the€classification.ÌÌà@ àò òòòSUSPENSION€OF€LAWSó óóóÌà àArticle€XI,€section€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€provides:ÌÓÓÌà8 àGeneral€laws€only€to€be€passed.€€The€Legislature€shall€have€noÏpower€to€suspend€any€general€law€for€the€benefit€of€any€particularÏindividual,€nor€to€pass€any€law€for€the€benefit€of€individualsÏinconsistent€with€the€general€laws€of€the€land;€nor€to€pass€any€lawÏgranting€to€any€individual€or€individuals,€rights€privileges,Ï[immunities]€or€exemptions€other€than€such€as€may€be€by€the€sameÏlaw€extended€to€any€member€of€the€community,€who€may€be€ableÏto€bring€himself€within€the€provisions€of€such€law.ÌÌÓÓÌThe€plaintiffs€charge€that€the€statute€suspended€general€law€in€violation€ofÏarticle€XI,€section€8€of€the€Constitution.€€Specifically,€the€plaintiffs€argue€that€theÏlaw€suspended€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„7„208(b),€which€provides€for€theÏcontinuation€of€non„conforming€uses€following€the€enactment€of€zoningÏordinances,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€42„2„211,€which€governs€the€licensing€ofÏairports,€and€the€general€ð ðright€to€earn€a€livelihood.ðð× ƒ# ××  ×€€The€defendants€maintainÏthat€the€statute€does€not€suspend€a€general€law€and,€in€any€event,€is€rationallyÏrelated€to€legitimate€legislative€interests.ÌÌà àArticle€XI,€section€8€is€implicated€when€a€statute€ð ðœcontravene[s›]€someÏgeneral€law€which€has€mandatory€statewide€application.ðð€€òòCivil€Service€MeritÏBoard€v.€œBurson›óó,€816€S.W.2d€725,€727€(Tenn.€1991);€òòseeóó€òòKnox€County€ex€rel.ÍœKessell›€v.€Lenoir€Cityóó,€837€S.W.2d€382€(Tenn.€1992).€€If€a€statute€does€suspendÏa€general€law,€article€XI,€section€8€is€not€violated€unless€it€creates€classificationsÏwhich€are€capricious,€unreasonable,€or€arbitrary.€€òòCivil€Service€Merit€Boardóó,€816ÏS.W.2d€at€727.€€If€any€reason€can€be€conceived€to€justify€the€classification,€it€willÏbe€œupheld›€as€reasonable.€€òòœStalcup›€v.€City€of€Gatlinburgóó,€577€S.W.2d€439€(Tenn.Ï1978).€ÌÌà àWe€need€not€determine€whether€the€provisions€cited€by€the€plaintiffs€areÏlaws€with€mandatory€statewide€application.€€As€already€discussed,€article€XI,Ïsection€8€is€commonly€cited€as€one€of€two€provisions€which€guarantee€equalÏprotection€of€the€law€under€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€The€analysis€forÏdetermining€whether€a€statute€suspends€a€general€law€in€violation€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution€is€similar€to€that€for€determining€whether€there€is€aÏrational€basis€for€a€classification.€€As€we€have€held,€the€statute,€and€theÏclassification€therein,€is€rationally€related€to€several€legitimate€legislativeÏinterests.€€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€it€does€not€violate€article€XI,€section€8€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution.ÌÌò òà@ àòòTENN.€CODE€ANN.€ðð13„7„208(b)€ó ó€à@ àóóÌà àFinally,€the€plaintiffs€argue€that€they€have€a€statutory€right€to€maintainÏtheir€non„conforming€use€after€the€enactment€of€the€statute.€€They€rely€on€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€13„7„208(b),€which€states:ÌÓÓÌà8 àIn€the€event€that€a€zoning€change€occurs€in€any€land€area€whereÏsuch€land€area€was€not€previously€covered€by€any€zoningÏrestrictions€of€any€governmental€agency€of€this€state€or€its€politicalÏsubdivisions,€and€such€zoning€restrictions€differ€from€zoningÏrestrictions€imposed€after€the€zoning€change,€then€any€industrial,Ïcommercial,€or€business€establishment€in€operation,€permitted€toÏoperate€under€zoning€regulations€or€exceptions€thereto€prior€to€theÏzoning€change€shall€be€allowed€to€continue€in€operation€and€beÏpermitted;€provided,€that€no€change€in€the€use€of€land€isÏundertaken€by€such€industry€or€business.ÌÌÓÓà àÌThe€trial€court€held€that€the€plaintiffs€were€not€entitled€to€relief€under€this€sectionÏand€the€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€held€that€the€statutoryÏprovision€was€limited€to€municipal€zoning€ordinances€and€that,€in€any€event,€theÏprovision€was€specifically€addressed€and€rejected€by€the€statute.€€ÌÌà àA€basic€principle€of€statutory€construction€is€to€ascertain€and€give€effect€toÏlegislative€intent€without€unduly€restricting€or€expanding€a€statuteððs€coverageÏbeyond€its€intended€scope.€€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2d€923,€926€(Tenn.€1995).€ÌThis€means€examining€the€language€of€a€statute€and€applying€its€ordinary€andÏplain€meaning.€€òòIdóó.€€Moreover,€we€must€presume€that€the€Legislature€knows€ofÍits€prior€enactments€and€knows€of€the€existing€state€of€the€law€at€the€time€itÏpasses€legislation.€€òòWilson€v.€Johnson€Countyóó,€879€S.W.2d€807,€810€œ(Tenn.Ï1994).›ÌÌà àAs€noted€by€the€Court€of€Appeals,€the€statute€specifically€excluded€theÏprovisions€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„7„208(b).€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€42„8„103,€which€clearly€states:€ð ðNotwithstanding€the€provisions€of€ðð13„7„208€or€anyÏother€law€to€the€contrary€.€.€.€.ðð€€The€plain€language€of€the€statute€provides€thatÏheliports€which€did€not€conform€to€the€nine„mile€restriction€were€to€be€eliminatedÏwithin€the€time€period€set€forth€in€the€statute.€€Moreover,€the€terms€of€the€statuteÏspecifically€reject€the€notion€that€a€non„conforming€use€could€continue€underÏany€other€provision€of€law.€€We€conclude€that€the€Legislature€intended€toÏexclude€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„7„208(b).€€It€follows€that€the€plaintiffs€are€notÏentitled€to€relief.€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóÌà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€hold€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€42„8„101,€òòetóóÏòòseqóó.,€does€not€violate€either€the€United€States€or€Tennessee€Constitutions€andÏthat€the€trial€court€properly€granted€the€defendantsðð€motion€to€dismiss.€€TheÍjudgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€is€reversed,€and€the€judgment€of€the€SevierÏCounty€Circuit€Court€is€reinstated.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€plaintiffs.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRILEY€ANDERSON,€JUSTICEÌÌÌœò òConcur:ó óÌÌBirch,›€œC.J.ÌDrowota›€and€Reid,€œJJ.›ÌÌÌ€ÌÌ