C.F.R. » Title 16 » CHAPTER II—CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION › SUBCHAPTER C—FEDERAL HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ACT REGULATIONS › PART 1500—HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND ARTICLES: ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS

16 C.F.R. § 1500.268

Hearing

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) If it appears that the hazardous substance may be subject to refusal of admission, the area office director shall give the owner or consignee a written notice to that effect, stating the reasons therefor. The notice shall specify a place and a period of time during which the owner or consignee shall have an opportunity to introduce testimony. Upon timely request, giving reasonable grounds therefor, such time and place may be changed. Such testimony shall be confined to matters relevant to the admissibility of the hazardous substance, and may be introduced orally or in writing.

(b) If such owner or consignee submits or indicates his intention to submit an application for authorization to relabel or perform other action to bring the hazardous substance into compliance with the act, such testimony shall include evidence in support of such application. If such application is not submitted at or prior to the hearing, the area office director shall specify a time limit, reasonable in the light of the circumstances, for filing such application.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1999–2002 · leading case: United States v. Shelton Wholesale, Inc., 34 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (W.D. Mo. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Shelton Wholesale, Inc., 34 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (W.D. Mo. 1999). · cites it 3× “§ 1273 (a) and 16 C.F.R. § 1500.268 . Shelton also reasserts its non-neutral fact-reviewer argument, largely based on the lack of the allegedly statutorily provided hearing process.”
Shelton v. Consum. Prods. Saf. Comm'n, 277 F.3d 998 (8th Cir. 2002). · cites it 5× “7 Citing 16 C.F.R. § 1500.268 , the Shelton parties argue that the regulations promulgated pursuant to the FHSA also require a full administrative hearing.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.