Rhonda Kallman founded a company that produces oonshot 69, a caffeinated beer. E

Question

Rhonda Kallman founded a company that produces oonshot 69, a caffeinated beer. Each bottle of contains about twice as much caffeine as a can of Pepsi. In 2011, Ms. Kallman, along with three other manufac turers, the FDA to remove the caffeine from her beer or stop selling the product. Ms. Kallman has said that what the FDA is doing is like Prohibition 2010 and that it has no authority to regulate the sale or production of alcohol. was served with a cease and desist notice from e also indicates that Moonshot 69 is not an energy drink like those that are subject to FDA regulation. She says that agencies should regulate and not ban products. What information could you share with Ms. Kallman that would help determine what the FDA is trying to accomplish? 6. San Diego Air Sports Center (SDAS) operates a sports parachuting business in Otay Mesa, California. SDAS offers training to beginning parachutists and facil- itates recreational jumping for experienced parachutists. The majority of SDAS jumps occur at altitudes in excess of 5,800 feet The jump zone used by SDAS overlaps the San Diego Traffic Control Area (TCA). Although the aircraft carrying the parachutists normally operate outside the TCA, the parachutists themselves are dropped through must trollers In July 1987, an air traffic controller in San Diego filed an Unsatisfactory Condition Report complaining of the strain that parachuting was put ting on the controllers and raising safety concerns. The report led io a staff study of parachute jumping within the San Diego TCA. In October 1987, representatives of the San Diego Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) facility met with SDAS operators. In December 1987, the San Diego TRACON sent to SDAS a draft letter of agreement outlining agreed-upon proce- dures and coordination requirements. Nonetheless, the San Diego TRACON conducted another study between January 14, 1988, and February 11, 1988, and about two months after the draft letter was sent, the San Diego TRACON withdrew it. SDAS states that the air traffic manager of the San Diego TRACON assured SDAS that it would be invited to attend all meetings on parachuting in the San Diego TCA. However, SDAS was not informed of or invited to any meetings. In March 1988, the Federal Aviation Administration FAA) sent a letter to SDAS informing SDAS that lelffective immediately parachute jumping within or into the San Diego TCA in the Otay Reservoir Jump Zone will not be authorized." The FAA stated that the letter was final and appealable.

Explanation / Answer

ABOUT THE CASE: SDAS is a sports parachuting business in california which offers training to beginner parachutists and also provides recreational parachuting to experiencedsports people.sometimes the jump made by the parachutists go to such height that are above the traffic controller area(TCA) and so for safety reosons of the flyer,the air traffic controller filed an unsatisfactory condition report for flying at such height outside the TCA.SDA recieved a final letter about prohibition of flying at such height.The letter was challenged by SDAS stating that it constituted rule making without compliance but with required APA procedures. JUDICIAL OPINION : AS per the federal aviation act requires that reules affecting the use of navigable airspace be issued in accordance with adminstrative procedure act(APA).The principal purpose ofthe APA is to provide legislation functions of adminstrative agencies shall be as far as possible be excercised only uon public prosecution.There is no such complaints lodged by the public against the safety of SDAS shich is as per the APA contrary to public interest. The FAA letter does not come within either of the 2 exceptions in the APA rules it doesnt give a reasonable ground to the SDAS to be heard and issues a letter to be final.there should be equal participation of both the parties for the requirement of the order to be passed.In this case no record was kept of the process that resulted in the FAA letter,we can only scrutinize the letter itself so this cannot be a ground in promulagating a rule. CONCLUSION: The appeal made by the SDAS in the form of the petition needs to be granted on the various grounds mentioned earlier.and a substantive rule is invalid if the issuing company fails to comply with the APA.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse R
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.