discussions/2.3.docx Briefly address whether, when the rulemaking which transferred civil aviation authority from the FAA to the TSA, the above normal rulemaking guidelines were followed. If not, how did the process differ, e.g., was there a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, was there a comment period, and was there any comment period before the rule became final (effective). According to the Jennings text, there are predetermined rules that need to be adhered to if an Agency is to create a new regulation(s). Some of the preconditions include the presence of a problem and the proposed regulation must be included in the federal register and it has to follow the proper criteria. Finally, the regulation must be open to the public commitment period which is usually 30 days or more (2015). With regards to the rule making which transferred the civil authority from the FAA to the TSA meets all the aforementioned conditions. The rule justified the need to enhance the security measures after the events of 9/11. The second construct was also adhered to; the proposed rule was posted in the federal register on the February of 2002. It is noteworthy that the regulation was marked as final and took effect from 17 of February of the same year. The reasoning behind this was because of the intensity of the events of 9/11 and the eagerness to prevent anything similar from taking place which made it worth contravening the law about the same. Who now possesses the appeal authority described above? When it comes to the appeal authority and certification revocation, the NTSB (national transport safety board) is supposed to hear the appeal according to 49 U.S.C. § 44709 (d). References https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/44709 Finally, according to the United States Code, is appeal to the federal courts from the final agency decision on such an appealed decision possible, and if so, by whom? Again, also provide the citation. Affirmative, an appeal to the feeral court is possible and must be filed in 60 days or less after the initial ruling according to 49 U.S. Code § 46110 (b). References https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46110 discussions/2.4.docx What USC defines as “aircraft piracy?” This term is defined in USC title 49 subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart iv, chapter 465, section 46502 (a)(1). Reference https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46502  Are potential penalties more severe if one commits an act of aircraft piracy inside or outside “special aircraft jurisdiction”, or are they identical? The potential penalties are the same regardless of whether they are committed inside or outside o the US Aircraft Jurisdiction. If committed outside the country punishment can only be enforced given any of the three provisions; an American was aboard the aircraft, the offender is an American or the offender is found in the US after the crime. When was the law amended to include “conspiracy” language? Is this provision related to any international treatie.

1. discussions/2.3.docx
Briefly address whether, when the rulemaking which transferred
civil aviation authority from the FAA to the TSA, the above
normal rulemaking guidelines were followed. If not, how did
the process differ, e.g., was there a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, was there a comment period, and was there any
comment period before the rule became final (effective).
According to the Jennings text, there are predetermined rules
that need to be adhered to if an Agency is to create a new
regulation(s). Some of the preconditions include the presence of
a problem and the proposed regulation must be included in the
federal register and it has to follow the proper criteria. Finally,
the regulation must be open to the public commitment period
which is usually 30 days or more (2015).
With regards to the rule making which transferred the civil
authority from the FAA to the TSA meets all the
aforementioned conditions. The rule justified the need to
enhance the security measures after the events of 9/11. The
second construct was also adhered to; the proposed rule was
posted in the federal register on the February of 2002. It is
noteworthy that the regulation was marked as final and took
effect from 17 of February of the same year. The reasoning
behind this was because of the intensity of the events of 9/11
and the eagerness to prevent anything similar from taking place
which made it worth contravening the law about the same.
Who now possesses the appeal authority described above?
When it comes to the appeal authority and certification
revocation, the NTSB (national transport safety board) is
supposed to hear the appeal according to 49 U.S.C. § 44709 (d).
References
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/44709
Finally, according to the United States Code, is appeal to the

2. federal courts from the final agency decision on such an
appealed decision possible, and if so, by whom? Again, also
provide the citation.
Affirmative, an appeal to the feeral court is possible and must
be filed in 60 days or less after the initial ruling according to 49
U.S. Code § 46110 (b).
References
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46110
discussions/2.4.docx
What USC defines as “aircraft piracy?”
This term is defined in USC title 49 subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart iv, chapter 465, section 46502 (a)(1).
Reference
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46502
Are potential penalties more severe if one commits an act of
aircraft piracy inside or outside “special aircraft jurisdiction”,
or are they identical?
The potential penalties are the same regardless of whether they
are committed inside or outside o the US Aircraft Jurisdiction.
If committed outside the country punishment can only be
enforced given any of the three provisions; an American was
aboard the aircraft, the offender is an American or the offender
is found in the US after the crime.
When was the law amended to include “conspiracy” language?
Is this provision related to any international treaties regarding
air piracy?
The law was amended to include conspiracy language in 1996.
I could not find anything regarding the provision related to any
international treaties with relation to air piracy
discussions/2.5.docx
2-8 Jennings text, p. 260 Ethical Issues
Should J.C Penny have been aware of the difficulties earlier?
While the good performance at the work place showed by Mr.

3. Locklear would have made it almost impossible to detect the
hardships in his life, the company should have known about the
difficulties he was facing. They could have done this by
conducting due diligence on their employees after receiving the
anonymous phone call.
Was Mr. Locklear’s personal life responsible for his poor value
choices at work?
There is a definite relation between the hardships in his life and
the bad choices that he made in the work place.
Is anyone really harmed by Mr. Locklear’s activity?
The vendor can be considered to be harmed since they had to
result into crime so as to remain solvent.
Wasn’t he a good buyer?
He was definitely a bad buyer since he knowingly engaged in
criminal behavior.
2-10 - Jennings text, p. 274, Questions and Problems #9
Can someone be convicted for a crime related to conduct that is
not illegal? Was the mens rea present here?
I don’t think that it is possible for one to be convicted of a
crime based on conduct that is not illegal. For a crime to be
considered so there must be the intent and the physical activity.
Since the conduct is not illegal, any resulting crime does not
have intent and therefore cannot constitute a crime. According
to Jennings, mens rea means the calculated intent to committing
a crime or at least the mental knowledge of doing wrong.
Without this, the act of an individual cannot be considered to be
criminalist in nature.
discussions/3.3.docx
3.3 - Assignment: Web Search - Federal Tort Law
· The legislation was introduced by Senator Chuck Grassley on
January 25th 2005.
· The bill number was S.5 removal of interstate class actions to

4. Federal District Court.
· In the Senate, the bill passed without amendment on February
10th 2005 and in the House of Representatives on 17th of
February 2005. The votes were 71-26 and 279-149 respectively.
· The President finally signed it on February 18th 2005.
· The public law number of this bills is 109-2
· Citation for the civil action is 28 USC 1446 Civil Actions and
the citation for the class action is 28 USC 1453 Class Actions.
References
S.5 - Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. (n.d.) Retrieved
from https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-
congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/5 (Links to an
external site.)
discussions/3.4.docx
Provide an example, i.e., a citation (bill number) of another bill
introduced in Congress after the 111th Congress of proposed
tort reform and/or product liability
Another bill that fits the description is S.1360-114th Congress
2015-2016.
Reference
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1360
Give a brief description of what specifics the bill actually
proposed.
This bill is supposed to amend the limitation of liability for a
passage rail accidents or any other incident under 49 USC S
28103. The bill raises the limit of liability from 2 million to 5
million dollars to rail service providers.
discussions/3.5.docx
3.5- Discussion: Module 3 Questions
3-1 Jennings text, p. 279, Consider
A law firm representing Britney Spears filed a libel suit against

5. US Weekly magazine because of a story that the magazine ran
for an explicit film that Ms. Britney made with her then
husband. The court dismissed the case claiming that Spears
performs sexuality for profit which rendered her firm unable to
justify the defamation claim.
Was the Court right??
Contrary to popular opinion, the court was right in its ruling.
Since a defamation claim is only supported by proof of having
said a statement that is not true about a person, the fact that
Spears and her husband taped themselves having consensual sex
ensures that the magazine is innocent of any defamation claims.
Reference
www.billboard.com/articles/news/56733/judge-dismisses-
spears-libel-suit-vs-us-weekly
3-2 Jennings text, p.295 Consider:
Dorothy was abducted in the Walmart parking lot that belonged
to the Delta Square shopping mall. She was later found
murdered in the trunk of her car in Arkansas. Her husband sued
both the companies for her death.
As unfortunate as the case might be, I don’t believe that the
companies were responsible for her death. If the killer had
malicious intent against Dorothy, there is nothing that the
companies would have done to counter the situation. The
companies can only be considered viable if it is proven that they
endangered her life which made it easier for the killer to
commit the crime.
discussions/4.3.docx
Assignment 4.3
Provide its citation(s) that equate to the “Section 1-303. Course
of Performance, Course of Dealing, And Usage of Trade” which
define what those terms mean.
State: Arkansas
Arkansas’ Uniform Commercial Code is located under Title 4,
Subtitle 1, Article 1, Part 3.
Finally, the state’s UCC will most likely have a hierarchy of

6. these provisions
The hierarchy of provisions is as follows:
Course of performance
Course of dealing
Usage of trade
References
http://uniformcommercialcode.uslegal.com/states-adopting-the-
ucc/arkansas/