Florida Lawyer News Services | Robbins Equitas

Notice of FAA final rule for re-registration/renewal of aircraft

Whether you own, manage, insure or finance aircraft you may have an interest in this overhaul of the FAA Civil Aircraft Registry.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued its final rule regarding the Re-registration and Renewal of U.S. registered aircraft.  Due to the strict timeline, we wish to share this notice with you in a timely manner.  The rule applies to currently registered aircraft.

You may locate a full copy of the FAA final rule online at:  http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-17572.pdf

The FAA has enacted the final rule regarding the Civil Aircraft Registry which has been under consideration for several years.  For reasons including record keeping and investigation for law enforcement and government agencies, the registration of aircraft, previously without expiration, will now be required every 3 years.  To bring currently registered aircraft into compliance, a schedule for re-registration has been provided by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Important notes:

We urge you to keep your address record current with the FAA due to the issuance of important notices regarding registered aircraft.

Aircraft registered after October 1, 2010 will expire 3 years from the last day of the month which the Certificate of Registration was issued.

Notice by mail

The FAA will issue notices of expiration via US mail 180 days prior to the expiration.  The 180 day notice will allow a 90 window to comply allowing the FAA what is expected to be timely processing of the renewal of registration prior to the expiration date.

Owners must be aware, those who have not re-registered or renewed aircraft during the 90 day filing window will receive a 2nd notice at the end of the 90 day filing window.  The FAA will continue accepting the renewal documents after the 90 day window as passed, but there is a greater chance the re-registration or renewal will not be completed prior to the expiration of same.

The FAA will issue a 3rd notice to aircraft not re-registered within the compliance period.  The notice will state that the aircraft has been grounded.

Staying informed

The FAA will post lists reporting the aircraft as they move through the various stages of re-registration and renewal.

A schedule for renewal as determined by month in which the Certificate was issued is available in the printing of the final rule.  Please see page 15 of 16 at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-17572.pdf to review the compliance schedule.

Return of Certificates

Aircraft owners who sell their aircraft will no longer be required to return Certificates of Registration to the FAA.  Invalid Certificates of Registration should be destroyed.

Online Renewal

Re-registration and renewal will be available online and by mail.  The FAA will post necessary forms at http://registry.faa.gov/renewregistration.  Please note the FAA will include a unique code on the mailed notice which the owner will need to renew the aircraft registration online.  Online renewal  is possible when no changes to registration are required.

Risk of Loss of N-Number

30 days following the expiration of the registration of an aircraft, the FAA will send a notice to the owner directing re-registration of the aircraft within 60 days.  If an owner fails to comply with re-registration deadlines the FAA will cancel the N-number for the aircraft.  The N-number will remain unavailable for assignment for 5 years.

Fee schedule

The fee schedule for re-registration and renewal is as yet to be determined. The suggested fee is $45.00 (USD)

Comments

Despite the grumbling and aggravation of countless aircraft owners, the rule will accomplish the reduction in error rate of the Civil Aircraft Registry from 36.5% to 5.7%.  This reduction in error is of great benefit to those in law enforcement and in the civil sector including insurers, financiers, attorneys, brokers and buyers etc.

Please feel free to contact our office with any questions or concerns you may have regarding this final rule.

A Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Update

Defending FLSA “Collective Actions”

By: Vincent Lynch, Managing Partner of Lynch & Robbins, P.A.

Employers are facing a flood of lawsuits under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219, claiming a failure to pay overtime, minimum wage, improper FLSA exemption status or related claims.  Lynch & Robbins knows this a constantly changing and prolific area of employment law that exposes businesses to expensive lawsuits and settlements.  This update summarizes some of the common issues raised in FLSA lawsuits, identifies strategies to prevent or effectively defend such lawsuits, and presents positive solutions on how to respond to the ever prevalent FLSA Collective Action.  For more information, visit us at www.FLSADefense.com.

FLSA Lawsuits Remain on the Rise

Thousands of FLSA lawsuits are filed annually in the United States in Federal and State Court.  Over 100 FLSA cases were filed against Florida companies in Federal Court in June of 2010 alone.  Over 20% of all FLSA lawsuits are filed in Florida.

Most FLSA lawsuits are filed as a Collective Action—where one employee or former employee sues a company seeking damages for himself and anyone else that is similarly situated to the Plaintiff that filed the action.  Attorney’s fees can be awarded to the employee and their lawyer if they prevail.

Florida Federal Judges Order Special Procedures

In response to the volume of FLSA filings over the last few years, many Federal Judges across Florida including in Tampa, Orlando, Miami and Jacksonville issue special scheduling orders to manage these cases and to encourage settlement.  One of the requirements imposed early in FLSA cases is for the employee(s) to file a verified summary or affidavit of the hours worked and amount of pay they claim they were denied.  Employers must file responses to the employee’s claims and counsel must meet in person for a settlement conference.  Some Judges require a settlement conference in the presence of the Judge early in a case.

Conditional Certification and Notice to Potential Class Members

Employees and their lawyers often ask the Court to conditionally certify the case as a Collective Action and order notice to all of the company’s former and current employees who are similarly situated to the Plaintiff.  Courts routinely allow this because the legal standard for authorizing conditional certification and class notice is very lenient.

However, employers can defend themselves from this process. Fortunately, the Court has absolute discretionary power to deny the sending of notice to potential class members in an FLSA collective action. Rappaport v. Embarq Mgmt. Co., No. 6:07-cv-468-Orl-19DAB, 2007 WL 4482581, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2007).  The employer can argue that the lack of evidentiary support for a motion seeking to conditionally certify a collective action can lead to significant inefficiency and waste of litigant and judicial resources dealing with conditionally certified collective actions that have virtually no chance for final certification.

Effectively and Efficiently Defending an FLSA Lawsuit

In many instances, the key to efficiently defending an FLSA case is to immediately determine if any actual FLSA violations exist and remedy those claims voluntarily.  Lynch & Robbins evaluates each FLSA case for our clients independently and creatively based upon the particular circumstances present.  We have sometimes immediately asked the Court to stay (cease activity in the lawsuit) pending our client’s efforts to investigate the alleged claims and fix any problems.  This can greatly reduce the fees and costs incurred by both sides.  We are also able to aggressively defend and seek dismissal of any claims that lack merit and take strong action that may prevent the case from being treated by the Court as a Collective Action.

FLSA Lawsuit Prevention

Florida businesses can and should conduct periodic audits of their pay practices to catch any wage and hour issues before getting sued.  The United States and Florida Departments of Labor have useful information and tools on their websites at www.dol.com and www.stateofflorida.com.

Our Experience

Lynch & Robbins represents many companies hit with FLSA individual and Collective Actions.   We are committed to providing our clients the most current methods for preventing and defending claims under the FLSA and other employment laws.  For more information visit www.FLSAdefense.com.

Vincent Lynch is the Managing Partner of Lynch & Robbins.  In addition to representing businesses on FLSA matters, his practice includes complex federal and state court litigation, arbitration and administrative law.  Mr. Lynch has over 18 years of legal experience, and served as a state and Federal Court law clerk. He has been a member of The Florida Bar since 1992.

Current Florida Litigation Trends (July 2010)

By: Vincent Lynch, Managing Partner of Lynch & Robbins, P.A.

At Lynch & Robbins, our Florida lawyers continually monitor trends in recent lawsuit filings in Federal and state courts and administrative tribunals across Florida. We focus our research and advice to clients on the most prolific areas of the moment such as the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), securities, partnerships, and intellectual property law. We also track favorable developments in our other core practice areas including Commercial Litigation, Product Liability, Franchise, and administrative law cases. Lynch & Robbins has offices in Tampa, St. Petersburg, Orlando and Miami.

Florida Court Dockets Remain Flooded

The tidal wave of foreclosure and eviction cases coupled with the reduction in the Florida State Court budget have greatly impacted the number of cases on the dockets of the state court judges in Florida. However, many Florida judges and their staff are working hard to manage their dockets and we have seen surprising progress on state court cases we handle for clients throughout the Circuit Courts of Florida.

The Federal Courts in Florida

FLSA, ADA, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and intellectual property law cases are among the most filed lawsuits in the Federal Courts in Florida–that encompasses the Southern, Middle and Northern District Courts. Approximately 150 FLSA cases were filed against Florida companies in Federal Court in June of 2010 alone and over 20% of all FLSA lawsuits filed in Federal Court are filed in Florida. Over 50 intellectual property law cases were filed in Federal Court in Florida in June of 2010 including Patent Litigation, Trademark Infringement, and alleged Copyright violations.

In response to the extremely high volume of filings in certain areas including the FLSA and ADA, many Federal Judges across Florida including in Tampa, Orlando, Miami and Jacksonville issue special scheduling orders to manage and progress these cases quickly. Some Judges, particularly in the Southern District Courts in Miami and Fort Lauderdale enter orders allowing for shortened discovery periods and setting cases for a trial date a relatively short period of time from the date the case was filled—otherwise known as a “Rocket Docket.” These Judges know that nothing disposes of cases more efficiently than a firm and early trial date.

Over 750 lawsuits are filed monthly under the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and other Consumer Protection Laws in Federal Courts in the United States. At least 30 FDCPA cases were filed in Federal Court in Florida in June, 2010.

Employment Litigation

Employment litigation consistently remains one of the most prolific areas of litigation in Florida and across the U.S. Over 220 employment related lawsuits were filed against employers in federal court in Florida in June, 2010 including 150 FLSA and 75 employment discrimination cases.

Our Experience

Whether you need an employment lawyer (to defend and FLSA or discrimination case under Title VII, the Florida Civil Rights Act or the ADA), an intellectual property attorney or are involved in commercial litigation, the lawyers of Lynch & Robbins can help you. We are committed to providing our clients the most current methods for preventing and defending litigation efficiently and effectively. For more information, please visit us at www.floridalawyer.com.

Vincent Lynch is the Managing Partner of Lynch & Robbins. Mr. Lynch represents businesses, employers and individuals in complex federal and state court litigation, arbitration and administrative matters. Mr. Lynch has over 18 years of legal experience, and served as a state and Federal Court law clerk for 4 years before entering private practice. He has been a member of The Florida Bar since 1992.

Battle Over Airport Noise Ordinances Goes Bi-Coastal

A battle over the authority of a local municipality to enact aircraft noise ordinances is shaping up simultaneously on both the “left coast” (California) and the “right coast” (Florida). In California, the city of Santa Monica has appealed an FAA decision that prohibited the city from banning certain jets from operating at the Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO). The city adopted an ordinance in March 2008, banning Category C and D jets (e.g. Gulfstreams, Challengers, and some Citations) based on what the city called “safety issues.” The FAA issued a cease and desist order on April 24th, the day that the ordinance was to go into effect, and a District Court granted the FAA a temporary restraining order which stopped the ordinance from being enforced. The city then appealed the FAA decision and the case will soon be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit.

Both AOPA and NBAA have been actively involved in the dispute (which has been going on for more than 7 years) and each will file briefs as amicus curiae or “friends of the court” with the D.C. Circuit. Kathy Yodice, legal counsel for AOPA, explained why this issue is important to the national “alphabet” aviation groups, and why they are weighing in on this issue: “The implications of this case extend beyond the instant dispute between the city and the FAA, and any decision by this court could potentially affect how similar circumstances are treated elsewhere . . . If the city of Santa Monica is allowed to implement its desired bans, such precedent could provide airport sponsors nationwide with a basis to implement restrictions at a publicly funded airport, an action that should and always has been within the exclusive province of the FAA.”

Meanwhile, back here in Florida, a similar battle is brewing at the Vakaria Airport which proves AOPA’s point. Although the Valkaria Airport (X59) is owned and operated by Brevard County, it sits within the Town of Grant-Valkaria. The Town (which is located between Melbourne and Sebastian on the east coast of Florida) passed an ordinance that prohibited commercial flight training/instruction at the airport and prohibited commercial flight training/instruction schools from being located at the airport. Like Santa Monica, the Town cited noise and safety concerns as the basis for its ordinance claiming that homeowners have been “victimized and harassed by the
noise associated with certain low flying aircraft over or near their property.”

After passing the ordinance, the Town asked the FAA if it could enforce the ordinance and the FAA was unequivocal in pointing out that it could not. In its August letter to the Town, the FAA cited the abundant legal authority giving the FAA the sole and exclusive authority to regulate “airspace use, management and efficiency, air traffic control, safety, navigational facilities, and the regulation of aircraft noise at its source.” Based on this authority, the FAA advised the Town that the ordinance is not enforceable because, among other things, the Town is not the “proprietor” of the airport: “Nonproprietor jurisdictions such as the Town of Grant- Valkaria have no role in determining the legal requirements affecting the operation of the airport or airport development. This would include prohibiting the basing of commercial flight schools and flight instruction at the Airport for purposes of controlling aircraft noise and safety.” It is presently uncertain whether the Town will appeal the decision, or whether the airport proprietor (Brevard County) will take steps to enact regulations that mirror the ordinance adopted by the Town.

These two battles provide us with an example of federal preemption of state and local law, as discussed in an article that appeared in the Fall, 2008, edition of Florida Aviation Business (“Pre What? The Fight Over Federal Preemption and What it Means to You”). As we have seen at the Naples Municipal Airport, the power of the FAA is not unlimited, and a municipality can enact “reasonable” regulations to reduce aircraft noise at an airport that is owned and operated by the municipality. In such cases, the FAA may not withhold airport improvement grants based on the FAA’s determination that the municipality violated grant assurances. The problem for both Santa Monica and Valkaria airports, however, is that the ordinances the municipality wishes to enact will most likely be found to be unreasonable and discriminatory. That is so because the ordinances prohibit one activity, while another similar activity has precisely the same noise and/or safety impact.

Nevertheless, the process underway at Santa Monica (and possibly Valkaria) airport provides an excellent example of the process of FAA/federal preemption at work. A municipality enacts an ordinance, the FAA decides that the ordinance is either expressly preempted and/ or unreasonably discriminates against certain flight activities, the municipality appeals, and the D.C. Circuit decides the issue. We know how the process turned out at Naples, and it will be important to monitor the outcome of the Santa Monica and Valkaria disputes. While it might appear on the surface that only aviation businesses at Santa Monica and Valkaria will be affected by the outcome of these disputes, there is no question that the entire aviation industry will be adversely impacted if the FAA loses either one of these battles. This is one time that it might serve all of us to cheer, rather than jeer, the FAA.