Question

Four Paws Protection. The United States Congress created a new agency to more closely regulate testing of personal and cosmetic products on animals. Legislation was enacted naming the agency the "Animal Protection Commission" and setting forth the function of the agency and its specific powers. Congress provided the agency with the power to make rules, investigate violations, and adjudicate charges of wrongdoing. The agency proceeded to properly give notice and issue rules. The rules provided for civil as well as for criminal penalties. Agency personnel issued an order for Fluffy Shampoo Corporation to attend a hearing regarding its animal testing and to bring to the hearing all company documents pertaining to animal testing. Fluffy Shampoo resisted on the basis that the agency had no power to compel its attendance at a hearing or to require it to provide any documents. Fluffy Shampoo also claimed that criminal penalties may not flow from violation of agency rules. The agency proceeded to issue a ruling that Fluffy Shampoo cease all activity based upon its refusal to cooperate.

Which of the following is true regarding the claim of Fluffy Shampoo that criminal penalties may not result from violation of agency rules?
(BUS LAW)
Multiple Choice
A) Fluffy Shampoo is incorrect, and criminal penalties may be imposed assuming statutory authority exists for the agency to do so.
B) Fluffy Shampoo is incorrect, but any criminal penalties may not exceed a fine of $1,000.
C) Fluffy Shampoo is correct.
D) Fluffy Shampoo is incorrect, but any criminal penalties may not exceed a fine of $10,000.
E) Fluffy Shampoo is incorrect regarding its claim that all agencies lack the authority to institute a criminal penalty, but correct in that the Animal Protection Commission cannot enforce a criminal penalty because an agency can only enforce a criminal penalty if human health or national security is involved.

Answer 1

Fluffy Shampoo is incorrect as criminal penalties can be imposed if the enabling legislation grants such authority to the agency. Agencies like the FDA wield the power to ensure adherence to regulations surrounding the safety and labeling of products, under the threat of civil and criminal penalties.

Step-by-step explanation:

Regarding the claim by Fluffy Shampoo that criminal penalties may not result from violation of agency rules, the correct answer is: Fluffy Shampoo is incorrect, and criminal penalties may be imposed assuming statutory authority exists for the agency to do so. When Congress establishes an agency such as the Animal Protection Commission, it sets forth the agency's functions and powers, which can include the issuance of rules.

If the legislation provides the agency with the power to enforce rules with civil and criminal penalties, then the agency can indeed compel adherence to their rules under the threat of criminal penalties.

The authority of agencies like the FDA is broad, covering areas such as the enforcement of laws to ensure the purity, effectiveness, and truthful labeling of food, drugs, cosmetics; this also includes conducting inspections and regulating product safety.