Unit 2: Questions
Submit one MSWord document with clear labeling and distinctions for each response. To obtain full points you must apply the concepts we’ve studied to date and use the tools and skills studied in your response. Always cite any paraphrasing and quotes from your textbook, lecture, or other sources.
· Answer: Chapter 5 – Case 5.1 Questions 1-3.
· Discuss: Ethical issues p. 159.
· Answer: Chapter 5- Case 5.6 Questions 1-3.
· Answer: Chapter 6 – Questions 5, 7.
Submit one MSWord document with clear labeling and distinctions for each response. To obtain full points you must apply the concepts we’ve studied to date and use the tools and skills studied in your response. Always cite any paraphrasing and quotes from your textbook, lecture, or other sources.
· Answer: Chapter 5 – Case 5.1 Questions 1-3.
· Discuss: Ethical issues p. 159.
· Answer: Chapter 5- Case 5.6 Questions 1-3.
· Answer: Chapter 6 – Questions 5, 7.
2. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is reconsidering a rule it first proposed in 1997 that would require child-resistant caps on household prod- ucts, including cosmetics. When the rule was first pro- posed, it was resisted by the cosmetics industry and abandoned. However, in May 2001, a 16-month-old baby died after drinking baby oil from a bottle with a pull-tab cap. The proposed rule would cover products such as baby oil and suntan lotion and any products contain- ing hydrocarbons such as cleansers and spot remov- ers. The danger, according to the commission, is simply the inhalation by children, not necessarily the actual ingestion of the products. Five children have died from inhaling such fumes since 1993, and 6,400 children under the age of five were brought into emer- gency rooms and/or hospitalized for treatment after breathing in hydrocarbons. There is no medical treat- ment for the inhalation of hydrocarbons. • Rule must survive challenges based on stan- dards of “arbitrary and capricious,” “substantial evidence,” “ultra vires,” “procedural errors, and constitutionality.” How do agencies enforce the law? • Consent decree—settlement (nolo contendere plea) of charges brought by an administrative agency • Administrative law judge (ALJ)—overseer of hearing on charges brought by administrative agency Several companies in the suntan oil/lotion industry have supported the new regulations. The head of a con- sumer group has said, “We know these products cause death and injury. That is all we need to know.”3 What process must the CPSC follow to promulgate the rules? What do you think of the consumer group head’s statement? Will that statement alone justify the rulemaking?
3. Because of overcrowded conditions at the nation’s airports during the late 1960s, the Fed- eral Aviation Administration (FAA) promulgated a regulation to reduce takeoff and landing delays at airports by limiting the number of landing and takeoff slots at five major airports to 60 slots per hour. The airports were Kennedy, LaGuardia, O’Hare, Newark, and National. At National Airport (Washington), 40 of the 60 slots were given to com- mercial planes, and the commercial carriers allocated the slots among themselves until October 1980. In 1980, New York Air, a new airline, requested some of the 40 slots, but the existing airlines refused to give up any. The secretary of transportation, in response and “to avoid chaos in the skies” during the upcom- ing holidays, proposed a rule to allocate the slots at National. The allocation rule was proposed on Octo- ber 16, 1980, and appeared in the Federal Register on October 20, 1980. The comment period was seven days starting from the October 16, 1980, proposal date. The airlines and others submitted a total of 37 comments to the secretary. However, Northwest Airlines filed suit on grounds that the APA required a minimum of 30 days for a public comment period. The secre- tary argued that the 30-day rule was being suspended for good cause (the holiday season). Who is correct? Should an exception be made, or should the FAA be required to follow the 30-day rule? [Northwest Airlines, Inc. v Goldschmidt, 645 F.2d 1309 (8th Cir. 198