The Experts below are selected from a list of 939 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Milligan Jack - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Bet on the Field: Why Field Preemption Should Apply to the Federal Aviation Act
SMU Scholar, 2020Co-Authors: Milligan JackAbstract:One of the primary challenges facing the American Aviation industry is the issue of Federal preemption. Although Congress has a long history of heavy involvement in regulating the Aviation industry, the Federal Aviation Act (FAAct) does not include an express preemption provision, leaving states, courts, and industry members with little guidance about the proper reach of Federal and state regulations. The circuit courts are sharply divided on their approaches and answers to this question. The issue of preemption is especially important in the context of Aviation manufActuring, where the Federal government has prescribed a litany of different safety standards, but state law product liability claims continue to be governed by state law standards of care. ManufActurers are therefore subjected to a variety of potential requirements across each state, which is problematic for a number of reasons. Exacerbating the issue, the Supreme Court recently declined to hear two cases regarding FAAct preemption, each from a different side of the circuit split. Until this split is resolved, in the interest of uniformity and certainty, undecided circuits should adopt the Second Circuit’s field preemption approach and reject the Third Circuit’s conflict preemption approach. Field preemption is more consistent with both the intended purpose of the FAAct and the unique nature of the Aviation industry. This Comment will analyze the differing approaches taken by the circuit courts and will make the argument that the Federal design regulations establish a standard of care which should be integrated into various state law claims. Uniformity is necessary for the Aviation industry given its interconnection with interstate commerce and will provide clarity for both manufActurers and courts. Finally, this Comment will explain why and how other circuit courts should adopt the field preemption approach while awaiting Supreme Court guidance
Edelman Jonathan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Reviving Antitrust Enforcement in the Airline Industry
University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository, 2021Co-Authors: Edelman JonathanAbstract:The Department of Transportation (DOT) has broad but oft overlooked power to address antitrust issues among airlines through section 411 of the Federal Aviation Act. However, the DOT’s unwillingness to enforce antitrust more aggressively may be translating into higher fares and fees for airline travelers. More aggressive antitrust enforcement is urgently needed. Recent research has revealed a widespread prActice of common ownership in the airline industry, whereby investment firms own large portions of rival airline companies. Although this prActice leads to higher prices and reduced competition, antitrust regulators, from the DOT to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, have declined to take Action. This Note argues that the DOT has the clear legal authority—and the responsibility—under section 411 to address common ownership among airlines by promulgating a rule that limits investors’ ability to own large shares of multiple airlines. DOT regulation in this area could pave the way for more muscular antitrust regulation among industry-specific agencies
Edward J. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Vol. 3 No. 2, Spring 2012; Grounding the Preemptive Effect of the Federal Aviation Act: A Look at the Third Circuit’s Recently Modified Field Preemption Ruling in Elassaad v. Independence Air, Inc. and the Effect of Wyeth v. Levine
2012Co-Authors: Edward J.Abstract:Whether claims of negligence or product liability are preempted by the Federal Aviation Act currently splits the Federal circuits. Despite over sixty years of Federal control and significant changes to the statutory scheme, there is no consensus among courts as to what extent the Federal Aviation Act preempts state-based standards of care. Through interpretation of the Federal Aviation Act, most circuits have attempted to delineate how, why, and to what extent claims are preempted, but have reached markedly different results. Instead of clarifying the issue, the Supreme Court further complicated the matter in a recent decision which could pose implications on current interpretations. The Third Circuit recently modified its decade old interpretation of the Act in Elassaad v. Independence Air, Inc. Given the new interpretation and its likely effect on the other circuits, the focus of the article is to address whether the modified ruling is reconcilable with the Supreme Court’s recent preemption decision in Wyeth v. Levine. By discussing other Circuit’s interpretation of the Federal Aviation Act, most notably, the Ninth Circuit, as well as other statutory and regulatory schemes, the author concludes that the ill-defined, contextual interpretation of the Federal Aviation Act by the Third Circuit is improper. Instead, the claim-by-claim approach employed by the Ninth Circuit, is proper because it is more in line with congressional intent and does not change depending on the state of the aircraft or where the plaintiff pleads
Travis D. Breaux - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
legal requirements acquisition for the specification of legally compliant information systems
Legal requirements acquisition for the specification of legally compliant information systems, 2009Co-Authors: Annie I. Antón, Travis D. BreauxAbstract:U.S. Federal and state regulations impose mandatory and discretionary requirements on industry-wide business prActices to achieve non-functional, societal goals such as improved accessibility, privacy and safety. The structure and syntax of regulations affects how well software engineers identify and interpret legal requirements. Inconsistent interpretations can lead to noncompliance and violations of the law. To support software engineers who must comply with these regulations, I propose a Frame-Based Requirements Analysis Method (FBRAM) to acquire and specify legal requirements from U.S. Federal regulatory documents. The legal requirements are systematically specified using a reusable, domain-independent upper ontology, natural language phrase heuristics, a regulatory document model and a frame-based markup language. The methodology maintains traceability from regulatory statements and phrases to formal properties in a frame-based model and supports the resolution of multiple types of legal ambiguity. The methodology is supported by a software prototype to assist engineers with applying the model and with analyzing legal requirements. This work is validated in three domains, information privacy, information accessibility and Aviation safety, which are governed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998, and the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, respectively.
John E Gillick - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
chapter 13 the u s Federal Aviation administration
2012Co-Authors: Paul B. Larsen, Joseph C Sweeney, John E GillickAbstract:It is the obligation of the U.S. Federal government, through the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), to implement the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annexes in the United States (U.S) as well as on international flights of U.S. registered aircraft. The FAA also supplements ICAO oversight of foreign registered aircraft for compliance with the international standards and recommended prActices under its International Aviation Safety Assessment Program (IASA). The legal authorities governing the FAA are the Federal Aviation Act and international law, including the International Civil Aviation Convention (Chicago Convention), the hijacking treaties, and all the bilateral air transport agreements. The FAA was a separate government agency until adoption of the 1967 Department of Transportation Act , when the FAA became the largest administration within the new U.S. Department of Transportation. The FAA is responsible for civilian Aviation uses of the U.S. Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), called GPS.Keywords:compliance; Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS); International Aviation Safety Assessment Program (IASA); International Civil Aviation Convention (Chicago Convention); International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO); registered aircraft; United States (U.S)