Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation or to the insurer with respect to an insurance plan or policy under the 1990 Act (7 U.S.C. section 1506(m)).

It is further found that, pursuant to section 506 of the Act (7 U.S.C. section 1506), respondent, and any entity in which he retains substantial beneficial interest after the period of disqualification has commenced, is disqualified from purchasing catastrophic risk protection or receiving noninsured assistance for a period of two years and from receiving any other benefit under the Act for a period of 10 years. The period of disqualification shall be effective 35 days after this decision is served on the respondent unless there is an appeal to the Judicial Officer pursuant to section 1.145 of the Rules of Practice Governing Formal Adjudicatory Administrative Proceedings Instituted by the Secretary.

If the period of disqualification would commence after the beginning of the crop year, and the respondent has a crop insurance policy in effect, disqualification will commence at the beginning of the following crop year, and remain in effect for the entire period specified in this decision.

[This Decision and Order became final October 31, 1997.-Editor]

In re: ALVIN C. RICHARDSON.

FCIA Docket No. 97-0005.

Decision and Order filed September 24, 1997.

Failure to file an answer - Willfully and intentionally providing false and inaccurate information to FCIC or to the insurer - Disqualification.

Janice Bullard, for Complainant.

Respondent, Pro se.

Decision and Order issued by Dorothea A. Baker, Administrative Law Judge.

Pursuant to section 1.136(c) of the Rules of Practice Governing Formal Adjudicatory Administrative Proceedings Instituted by the Secretary, failure of the respondent, Alvin C. Richardson, to file an answer within the time provided is deemed an admission of the allegations contained in the Complaint. Because the allegations in paragraph II of the Complaint are deemed admitted, it is found that the respondent has willfully and intentionally provided false and inaccurate information to the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation or to the insurer with respect to an insurance plan or policy under the 1990 Act (7 U.S.C. section 1506(m)).

It is further found that, pursuant to section 506 of the Act (7 U.S.C. section 1506), respondent, and any entity in which he retains substantial beneficial interest

1

56 Agric. Dec. 1682

after the period of disqualification has commenced, is disqualified from purchasing catastrophic risk protection or receiving noninsured assistance for a period of two years and from receiving any other benefit under the Act for a period of 10 years. The period of disqualification shall be effective 35 days after this decision is served on the respondent unless there is an appeal to the Judicial Officer pursuant to section 1.145 of the Rules of Practice Governing Formal Adjudicatory Administrative Proceedings Instituted by the Secretary.

If the period of disqualification would commence after the beginning of the crop year, and the respondent has a crop insurance policy in effect, disqualification will commence at the beginning of the following crop year, and remain in effect for the entire period specified in this decision.

[This Decision and Order became final November 3, 1997.-Editor]

FEDERAL MEAT INSPECTION ACT and
POULTRY PRODUCT INSPECTION ACT

In re: AMOROSO FOODS, INC.

FMIA Docket No. 96-0011.

PPIA Docket No. 96-0008.

Decision and Order issued June 16, 1997.

Admission of material allegations - Failure to maintain the required level of sanitation - Failure to correct deficiencies - withdrawal of inpsection services.

Sheila Hogan Novak, for Complainant.

Joseph M. Toddy, Philadelphia, PA, for Respondent.

Decision and Order issued by Edwin S. Bernstein, Administrative Law Judge.

This is an administrative proceeding for the indefinite withdrawal of federal meat and poultry inspection services pursuant to Sections 7 and 18 of the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. § 451 et seq.) (PPIA) and Title I of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. § 1.130 et seq.) (FMIA), based on Respondent's failure to eliminate insanitary conditions at its meat and poultry processing establishment, in accordance with the Rules of Practice, 7 C.F.R. § 1.130 et seq., and 9 C.F.R. §§ 335.13, 381.230, 381.234.

This proceeding was instituted by a Complaint filed on September 11, 1996, by the Administrator of the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS), United States Department of Agriculture. The Complaint alleged that Respondent failed to take the necessary actions to eliminate insanitary conditions identified by FSIS on or about July 23, 1996, July 25, 1996, August 6, 1996, and August 13, 1996. Inspection services were withdrawn upon service of the Complaint on Respondent.

Respondent filed a timely Answer which denied all material allegations of the Complaint. However, on May 16, 1997, Respondent telefaxed a letter that stated, "This confirms that my client will be withdrawing its opposition to the USDA Complaint in this matter. Also, my client will not execute the consent order proposed by the USDA. Please contact me should you have any questions regarding the above."

On May 29, 1997, Complainant filed a Motion for Adoption of Proposed Decision and Order. On June 5, 1997, I issued an Order to Show Cause directing Respondent to show cause within five days of its receipt of the Order why Complainant's motion should not be granted. Respondent's attorney received a copy of the order on June 9, 1997. Respondent has failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause.

According to the material allegations in the Complaint and adopted order, I issue

56 Agric. Dec. 1684

the following findings, conclusions and Order.

Findings of Fact

1. Amoroso Foods, Inc. is now, and at all times material was, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Pennsylvania which operates a meat and poultry processing establishment (Establishment 8761/P-8761) at 6005 Vine Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

2. At all times material, Respondent was the recipient of federal meat and poultry inspection services under the PPIA and Title I of the FMIA.

3. Between May 29, 1995 and May 28, 1996, Respondent was notified through written Process Deficiency Reports issued by officials of FSIS, USDA, that at least 55 sanitation deficiencies existed at its meat and poultry processing establishment.

4. Between May 29, 1996 and July 18, 1996, Respondent was notified through written Process Deficiency Reports issued by officials of FSIS, that at least 22 sanitation deficiencies existed at its meat and poultry processing establishment.

5. On July 23, 1996, July 25, 1996, August 6, 1996, and August 31, 1996, Respondent was notified through letters from FSIS that several reviews revealed a continued failure to maintain the required level of sanitation at its establishment. Respondent was notified on July 19, 1996, that inspection services were being refused because the premises, facilities, or equipment, or the operation thereof, failed to meet the requirements of section 7(a) of the PPIA, and regulations promulgated thereunder, and because the insanitary conditions of the establishment were such that any meat or meat food products prepared therein would be rendered adulterated within the meaning of section 1(m) of the FMIA.

6. FSIS specifically identified the following 11 sanitation deficiencies:

a. Baking oven showed extensive buildup of product residue;

b. Tray racks, some with flaking paint, were used for exposed products;

c. Ceiling in the chipping/grinding area was loose, cracked and had exposed openings with product residue;

d. All refrigerated units throughout the establishment were rusty and in poor repair;

e. Deep fryers showed product residue, flaking paint, extensive buildup in filters, and overall poor sanitation;

POULTRY PRODUCT INSPECTION ACT

f. Mixer in the spice room showed rough welding and spice residue;

g. Product storage lugs contained product residue;

h. Overhead ceiling and structure (back cooler) showed flaking paint and plaster;

i. No letter of guarantee for garlic from China;

j. Rodent droppings found in dry storage area, basement, and second floor storage area;

k. Ceiling in processing room was leaking water directly over meat grinder.

7. FSIS stated in its August 13, 1997 letter that, unless satisfactory corrections of the described deficiencies were made within 15 calendar days from the receipt of the letter, a formal Complaint to withdraw inspection service would be initiated pursuant to sections 7 and 18(b) of the PPIA and sections 8 and 104 of the FMIA, and the applicable rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, 9 C.F.R. § 305.5, 335.13, 381.29, 381.230, 381.234, and 7 C.F.R. § 1.130 et seq. This letter was served on Respondent on August 14, 1996.

8. On August 20, 1996, the establishment was reviewed to determine whether satisfactory corrective actions were taken to eliminate the insanitary conditions specified above. The review revealed that the following 5 sanitation deficiencies had not been satisfactorily corrected:

a. Refrigerated units throughout the establishment were rusty and in poor repair;

b. Deep fryers showed product residue, flaking paint, extensive buildup in filters, and overall poor sanitation;

c. Product storage lugs contained product residue;

d. Rodent droppings and insects were found;

e. Ceiling in processing room.

9. On August 30, 1996, FSIS officials were refused entry into Respondent's

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »