CPSC and Administrative Procedure Act: Kids Toys Research

ADMIN
Name
Institution of affiliation
Date
ADMIN
1 Kids Toys has an opportunity to appeal the decision by the presiding officer. This is provided under 5 U.S.C. § 554. Adjudications of the Federal Administrative Act. The CPSC as a federal agency is bound by this law CITATION Con16 \l 1033 (Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2016). The presiding officer siting as an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rendered the decision and under section 5 U.S.C. § 557 of the law the decision is binding on the agency unless there is an appeal. The decision can be appealed within 30 days subject to filing a notice of appeal within 14 days. The case would be appealed to the full agency. The agency would then be expected to render a decision. When the decision is provided, the law provides judicial review for final agency decisions. If Kids Toys is not satisfied with the decision it can appeal to judicial courts which would sit and determine the case. The company can file the notice to appeal by presenting the memoranda to the agency by mail, fax or at its headquarters. The agency upon receiving the appeal would be required to review the entire file of the case. This includes; the agency's investigation on the substantial product hazard, the decision of the administrative law judge, transcripts of the hearing and any statements presented by the parties. The agency would be required to render judgment on the case. The agency will normally not accept new evidence during the appeal.
2 CSPS failed to show that Kids Toys failed to comply with the law. The law as provided under 16 C.F.R. § 1115.12 allows a company ten days to investigate the problem if and when it receives information related to product safety. CPSC also found documents showing that Kids Toys has information related to the product's substantial hazard. Kids Toys can argue that the employee who had these documents did not understand the significance of that information. Thus, Kids Toys cannot be held liable due to the negligence of an employee. The firm can further argue that due to the complexity of the firm's bureaucracy. It took longer than the five stipulated working days for the information to reach the Chief Executive Officer of the organization (16 C.F.R. § 1115.12). The agency carried out its investigations and hearings in accordance with the law under 5 U.S.C. § 554. Adjudications (...