as we explained in our initial opinion The proponents of the GARA legislation recognized the essential role of preventative maintenance in the aviation industry. See H.R.Rep. No. 103-525(11), at 6, reprinted in 1994, 103rd Cong. & Admin. News, at 1647 (“Over the lifespan of a general aviation aircraft, almost every major component will be replaced.”). Because we believe that the status of type certificate holder and/or designer fall under the umbrella of manufacturer conduct for purposes of GARA, it would wholly undermine the general period of repose if original manufacturers were excepted from claims relief for replacement parts under the rolling provision by virtue of that status alone. Cf. Campbell [v. Parker-Hannifin Corp.], 69 Cal.App.4th 1534, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d [202,] 209 [(1999)] (<HOLDING>). Pridgen, 588 Pa. at 427, 905 A.2d at 436. As
holding that the fourteenth amendment only applies to state action holding that if property is not part of the individuals estate at the time he files a bankruptcy petition no automatic stay provision applies to the property holding that the rolling provision applies only to the entity that manufactured the replacement part holding in part that the leedom v kyne exception applies only when the board violates a clear and mandatory provision of the act holding that a provision of the constitution is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the framers and the people at the time of its adoption but that if new products or circumstances that did not exist at the time the constitutional provision was enacted fall within the meaning of the provision the constitutional provision applies to them