following willful violations of section 2.100(a) of the regulations (9 C.F.R. 2.100(a)) and the specified standards: 1. Housing facilities for animals were not structurally sound and maintained in good repair so as to protect the animals from injury, to contain the animals, and to restrict the entrance of other animals. (9 C.F.R. § 3.125(a) (1992)); 2. Supplies of food were not stored so as to adequately protect them against deterioration, molding, or contamination by vermin. (9 C.F.R. § 3.125(c) (1992)); 3. Provisions were not made for the removal and disposal of animal wastes so as to minimize vermin infestation, odors, and disease hazards. (9 C.F.R. § 3.125(d) (1992)); 4. Indoor housing facilities were not adequately ventilated to provide for the health and comfort of the animals at all times. (9 C.F.R. § 3.126(b) (1992)); 5. A suitable method was not provided to rapidly eliminate excess water from outdoor housing facilities for animals. (9 C.F.R. § 3.127(c) (1992)); 6. Primary enclosures for animals were not kept clean and sanitized, as required. (9 C.F.R. § 3.131(a), (b) (1992)); 7. The premises (buildings and grounds) were not kept clean and in good repair and free of accumulations of trash. (9 C.F.R § 3.131(c) (1992)); 8. An effective program for the control of pests was not established and maintained. (9 C.F.R. § 3.131(d) (1992)); and 9. A sufficient number of employees were not utilized to maintain the prescribed level of husbandry practices. (9 C.F.R. § 3.132 (1992)). III A. On October 1, 1991, APHIS inspected respondents' premises and records and found that the respondents had failed to maintain complete records showing the acquisition, disposition, and identification of animals, in willful violation of section 10 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2140) and section 2.75(b)(1) of the regulations. (9 C.F.R. § 2.75(b)(1) (1992)). B. On October 1, 1991, APHIS inspected respondents' facility and found the following willful violations of section 2.100(a) of the regulations (9 C.F.R. 2.100(a)) and the specified standards: 1. The facilities for animals were not structurally sound and maintained in good repair so as to protect the animals from injury, to contain the animals, and to restrict the entrance of other animals. The structural deficiencies 53 Agric. Dec. 1101 included the absence of a suitable perimeter fence at least eight feet in height, or equivalent safeguards, necessary for the safe containment of dangerous, carnivorous wild animals. (9 C.F.R. § 3.125(a) (1992)); 2. Supplies of food were not stored so as to adequately protect them against deterioration, molding, or contamination by vermin. (9 C.F.R. § 3.125(c) (1992)); and 3. Provisions were not made for the removal and disposal of animal wastes so as to minimize vermin infestation, odors, and disease hazards. (9 C.F.R. § 3.125(d) (1992)). IV A. On April 3, 1991, APHIS inspected respondents' premises and records and found that the respondents had failed to maintain complete records showing the acquisition, disposition, and identification of animals, in willful violation of section 10 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2140) and section 2.75(b)(1) of the regulations. (9 C.F.R. § 2.75(b)(1) (1992)). B. On April 3, 1991, APHIS inspected respondents' facility and found the following willful violations of section 2.100(a) of the regulations (9 C.F.R. 2.100(a)) and the specified standards: 1. Housing facilities for animals were not structurally sound and maintained in good repair so as to protect the animals from injury, to contain the animals, and to restrict the entrance of other animals. (9 C.F.R. § 3.125(a) (1992)); 2. Primary enclosures for animals were not constructed and maintained so as to provide sufficient space to allow each animal to turn about freely and to easily stand, sit and lie in a comfortable normal position. (9 C.F.R. § 3.128 (1992)); and 3. Animals were not provided with food of sufficient quantity and nutritive value to maintain them in good health. (9 C.F.R. § 3.129(a) (1992)). V A. On March 18, 1991, APHIS inspected respondents' premises and records and found that the respondents had failed to maintain complete records showing the acquisition, disposition, and identification of animals, in willful violation of section 10 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2140) and section 2.75(b)(1) of the regulations. (9 C.F.R. § 2.75(b)(1) (1992)). B. On March 18, 1991, APHIS inspected respondents' facility and found the following willful violations of section 2.100(a) of the regulations (9 C.F.R. 2.100(a)) and the specified standards: 1. Housing facilities for animals were not structurally sound and maintained in good repair so as to protect the animals from injury, to contain the animals, and to restrict the entrance of other animals. (9 C.F.R. §3.125(a) (1992)); 2. A suitable method was not provided to rapidly eliminate excess water from indoor housing facilities for animals. (9 C.F.R. § 3.126(d) (1992)); 3. Primary enclosures for animals were not constructed and maintained so as to provide sufficient space to allow each animal to turn about freely and to easily stand, sit and lie in a comfortable normal position. (9 C.F.R. § 3.128 (1992)); 4. Animals were not provided with food of sufficient quantity and nutritive value to maintain them in good health. (9 C.F.R. § 3.129(a) (1992)); 5. Primary enclosures were not kept clean, as required. (9 C.F.R. § 3.131(a) (1992)); and 6. An effective program for the control of pests was not established and maintained. (9 C.F.R. § 3.131(d) (1992)). Conclusions 1. The Secretary has jurisdiction in this matter. 2. The following Order is authorized by the Act and warranted under the circumstances. ADDITIONAL CONCLUSIONS BY THE JUDICIAL OFFICER Respondents and Complainant both note that the Chief ALJ's Order erroneously refers to "dogs" in paragraph 1(a) of the Order, rather than "animals." As stated at the outset, this trivial error has been corrected. Respondents contend that the $2,000 civil penalty and 60-day license suspension are too severe, but the sanctions are entirely appropriate in view of the numerous violations found on four different dates over a period of almost 13 months. The Act authorizes a civil penalty of not more than $2,500 for each violation (7 U.S.C. § 2149(b)). The $2,000 civil penalty for the 2 dozen violations found here is not excessive. The 60-day license suspension is also appropriate in view of the numerous violations. The sanctions sought by Complainant and imposed by the Chief ALJ are consistent with the sanctions imposed in other AWA cases of a somewhat similar nature. See, 53 Agric. Dec. 1101 e.g., In re James Petersen, 53 Agric. Dec. 80 (1994) ($5,000 civil penalty and 1year license disqualification); In re Alex Pasternak, 52 Agric. Dec. 180 (1993) ($10,000 civil penalty and minimum 1-year license suspension); In re Dwight Carpenter, 51 Agric. Dec. 239 (1992) ($3,000 civil penalty and minimum 6month license suspension); In re S.S. Farms Linn County, Inc. (Decision as to James Joseph Hickey and Shannon Hansen), 50 Agric. Dec. 476 (1991) ($10,000 civil penalty and minimum 1-year license suspension), aff'd, 991 F.2d 803 (9th Cir. 1993) (Table) (text in WESTLAW) (not to be cited as precedent under 9th Circuit Rule 36-3). For the foregoing reasons, the following Order should be issued. Order 1. Respondents, their agents and employees, successors and assigns, directly or through any corporate or other device, shall cease and desist from violating the Act and the regulations and standards issued thereunder, and in particular, shall cease and desist from: (a) Failing to maintain housing facilities for animals in a structurally sound condition and in good repair; (b) Failing to maintain their facilities and cages in a clean and sanitized condition so as to provide for the health and comfort of the animals; (c) Failing to remove wastes and control pests; and (d) Failing to maintain complete and accurate records of the acquisition and disposition of animals. 2. Respondents are jointly and severally assessed a civil penalty of $2,000, which shall be paid, within 120 days after service of this Order on Respondents, by a certified check or money order made payable to the Treasurer of United States, and forwarded to Donald A. Tracy, United States Department of Agriculture, Office of the General Counsel, Room 2014, South Building, Washington D.C. 20250-1417. 3. Respondents' license is suspended for a period of 60 days. The suspension provision shall become effective on the 35th day after service of this Order on the Respondents. The cease and desist provisions shall become effective on the day after service of this Order on the Respondents. 1108 FOREST RESOURCES CONSERVATION DEPARTMENTAL DECISIONS In re: STIMSON LUMBER COMPANY. FSSAA Docket No. 94-01. Decision and Order filed June 16, 1994. Sourcing area approved - Review of existing sourcing area. Judge Palmer approved an expanded sourcing area upon the review by the Regional Forester of the sourcing area holder's existing sourcing area. The request for review was initially remanded to the Regional Forester with instructions to comply with the procedural requirements in the applicable rules. The rules require that the Regional Forester provide those parties who are opposed to the expanded sourcing area with an opportunity attend an informal meeting for the purpose of resolving disagreements with regard to the sourcing area being reviewed. Upon remand, the parties indicated that they no longer objected to the proposed sourcing area. Therefore, based upon the recommendation of the Regional Forester, the expanded sourcing area was approved. The United States Department of Interior concurred with this decision. Applicant, Pro se. Decision and Order issued by Judge Victor W. Palmer, Chief Administrative Law Judge. This decision and order is issued pursuant to a request for review and expansion of a current sourcing area by Stimson Lumber Company (Stimson), under § 490 of the Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-382, 104 Stat. 714 (16 U.S.C. §§ 620-620j; the Act). Preliminary Statement The Act generally prohibits substitution of federal timber for exported timber from private lands. Under the Act, no person may purchase unprocessed timber originating from federal lands west of the one-hundredth meridian in the contiguous forty-eight states if (a) such unprocessed timber is to be used in substitution, directly or indirectly, for exported unprocessed timber originating from private lands; or (b) such person has, during the preceding twenty-four month period, exported unprocessed timber originating from private lands. The Act, however, provides that the prohibitions against substitution do not apply to a person who acquires unprocessed timber from federal lands within an approved sourcing area located west of the one-hundredth meridian in the |