proceeding in her appeal petition. Respondent Wanda McQuary states she "would like to have the opportunity [t]o continue raising dogs" (Respondent McQuary's Appeal Pet.).

The ALJ revoked Respondent Wanda McQuary's Animal Welfare Act license and disqualified Respondent Wanda McQuary from becoming licensed under the Animal Welfare Act and the Regulations (Initial Decision and Order at 8). However, the ALJ's Initial Decision and Order does not prohibit Respondent Wanda McQuary's raising dogs. Individuals who merely raise dogs are not required by the Animal Welfare Act or the Regulations to obtain an Animal Welfare Act license. Therefore, I reject Respondent Wanda McQuary's request that I modify the sanction imposed against her to allow her to raise dogs because nothing in the ALJ's Initial Decision and Order, which I adopt as the final Decision and Order as to Wanda McQuary and Randall Jones, prohibits Respondent Wanda McQuary from raising dogs.

Respondent Randall Jones' Appeal Petition

On August 20, 2003, Respondent Randall Jones filed a letter [hereinafter Jones' Appeal Petition], in which he raises four issues. First, Respondent Randall Jones requests a reduction of the civil penalty assessed against him and the removal of the disqualification from obtaining an Animal Welfare Act license (Respondent Jones' Appeal Pet. at 1-2).

Respondent Randall Jones, by his failure to file an answer within 20 days after the Hearing Clerk served him with the Complaint, is deemed to have admitted the allegations in the Complaint.10 Thus, Respondent Randall Jones is deemed to have admitted that he willfully violated the Animal Welfare Act and the Regulations and Standards 24 times during the period from September 13, 2001, through September 26, 2002.

With respect to the civil monetary penalty, the Secretary of Agriculture is required to give due consideration to the size of the business of the person involved, the gravity of the violation, the person's good faith, and the history

'Respondent Wanda McQuary also addresses a July 22, 2003, United States Department of Agriculture inspection report, a copy of which she attached to her appeal petition (Respondent McQuary's Appeal Pet.). The July 22, 2003, United States Department of Agriculture inspection report is not relevant to this proceeding which relates to September 13, 2001, October 2, 2001, March 26, 2002, and September 26, 2002, violations of the Animal Welfare Act and the Regulations and Standards.

10 See 7 C.F.R. § 1.136(c).

The limited record before me does not provide any indication of the size of Respondent Randall Jones' business; therefore, for the purposes of determining the amount of the civil penalty, I give Respondent Randall Jones the benefit of the lack of a record and assume for purposes of this Decision and Order as to Wanda McQuary and Randall Jones that Respondent Randall Jones' business is a small business.

Many of the violations of the Animal Welfare Act and the Regulations and Standards, which Respondent Randall Jones is deemed to have admitted, are grave. For example, Respondent Randall Jones' September 13, 2001, October 2, 2001, and September 26, 2002, failures to provide veterinary care for animals in need of care are serious violations of the Regulations which affect the health and well-being of Respondents' animals.

Respondent Randall Jones' conduct over a period of 1 year reveals a consistent disregard for, and unwillingness to abide by, the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act and the Regulations and Standards. An ongoing pattern of violations establishes a "history of previous violations" for the purposes of section 19(b) of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. § 2149(b)) and a lack of good faith.

The United States Department of Agriculture's current sanction policy is set forth in In re S.S. Farms Linn County, Inc. (Decision as to James Joseph Hickey and Shannon Hansen), 50 Agric. Dec. 476, 497 (1991), aff'd, 991 F.2d 803, 1993 WL 128889 (9th Cir. 1993) (not to be cited as precedent under 9th Circuit Rule 36-3):

[T]he sanction in each case will be determined by examining the nature of the violations in relation to the remedial purposes of the regulatory statute involved, along with all relevant circumstances, always giving appropriate weight to the recommendations of the administrative officials charged with the responsibility for achieving the congressional purpose.

The recommendations of administrative officials charged with the responsibility for achieving the congressional purpose of the regulatory statute are highly relevant to any sanction to be imposed and are entitled to great weight in view of the experience gained by administrative officials during their

"See 7 U.S.C. § 2149(b).

day-to-day supervision of the regulated industry. In re S.S. Farms Linn County, Inc., 50 Agric. Dec. at 497.

Complainant seeks: (1) revocation of Respondent Randall Jones' Animal Welfare Act license; (2) Respondent Randall Jones' disqualification from becoming licensed under the Animal Welfare Act and the Regulations; (3) the assessment of an $8,800 civil penalty against Respondents; and (4) a cease and desist order (Complainant's Proposed Decision and Order; Complainant's Opposition to Motion by Respondent Randal [sic] Jones to Set Aside Default).

Respondent Randall Jones could be assessed a maximum civil penalty of $66,000 for his 24 violations of the Animal Welfare Act and the Regulations and Standards. 12 After examining all the relevant circumstances, in light of the United States Department of Agriculture's sanction policy, and taking into account the requirements of 7 U.S.C. § 2149(b), the remedial purposes of the Animal Welfare Act, and the recommendations of the administrative officials, I conclude that a cease and desist order, revocation of Respondent Randall Jones' Animal Welfare Act license, disqualification of Respondent Randall Jones from obtaining an Animal Welfare Act license, and assessment of an $8,800 civil penalty are appropriate and necessary to ensure Respondent Randall Jones' compliance with the Animal Welfare Act and the Regulations and Standards in the future, to deter others from violating the Animal Welfare Act and the Regulations and Standards, and to thereby fulfill the remedial purposes of the Animal Welfare Act.

Second, Respondent Randall Jones states all of the violations alleged in the Complaint occurred at “9470 Hwy[.] 251[,] [P]ocahontas, AR 72455[,]" and his "site" is located at "565 Lawerance Rd. 131[,] Black Rock, AR 72415[,]" a site that "has always been in good standing except for small write ups" which "are always fixed" (Respondent Jones' Appeal Pet. at 1).

Respondent Randall Jones' denial that the violations alleged in the Complaint occurred on a premises in which he had an interest comes far too late. Respondent Randall Jones is deemed to have admitted the allegations in the Complaint by his failure to file a timely answer. Complainant alleged the violations occurred on "respondents' premises" (Compl. ¶¶ II-V). Therefore,

12Section 19(b) of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. § 2149(b)) provides that the Secretary of Agriculture may assess a civil penalty of not more than $2,500 for each violation of the Animal Welfare Act and the Regulations and Standards. Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended (28 U.S.C. § 2461 note), the Secretary of Agriculture adjusted the civil penalty that may be assessed under section 19(b) of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. § 2149(b)) for each violation of the Animal Welfare Act and the Regulations and Standards by increasing the maximum civil penalty from $2,500 to $2,750 (7 C.F.R. § 3.91(b)(2)(v)).

62 Agric. Dec. 452

Respondent Randall Jones is deemed to have admitted that the violations occurred on a premises in which he had an interest.

Third, Respondent Randall Jones contends he recently bought a whelping building which he is currently fixing (Respondent Jones' Appeal Pet. at 1).

Respondent Randall Jones' recent purchase of a whelping building and his efforts to fix that building are not relevant to his violations of the Animal Welfare Act and the Regulations and Standards that occurred during the period from September 13, 2001, through September 26, 2002.

Fourth, Respondent Randall Jones states he is "in the process now of getting [his] own license." (Respondent Jones' Appeal Pet. at 2.)

This Decision and Order as to Wanda McQuary and Randall Jones disqualifies Respondent Randall Jones from obtaining an Animal Welfare Act license. Respondent Randall Jones' initiation of the process to obtain an Animal Welfare Act license does not alter the sanction imposed against Respondent Randall Jones. If Complainant intends to issue Respondent Randall Jones an Animal Welfare Act license and no longer believes disqualification of Respondent Randall Jones from obtaining an Animal Welfare Act license is necessary to accomplish the remedial purposes of the Animal Welfare Act, Complainant is instructed to file a petition for reconsideration requesting modification of the sanction imposed in this Decision and Order as to Wanda McQuary and Randall Jones and setting forth the reasons for any requested modification.

Basis for Adopting the ALJ's Initial Decision and Order

Respondent Wanda McQuary and Respondent Randall Jones are deemed, for purposes of this proceeding, to have admitted the allegations in the Complaint because they failed to answer the Complaint within 20 days after the Hearing Clerk served them with the Complaint.

The Hearing Clerk served Respondent Wanda McQuary and Respondent Randall Jones with the Complaint, the Rules of Practice, and the Hearing Clerk's February 14, 2003, service letter on February 15, 2003.13 Sections 1.136(a), 1.136(c), 1.139, and 1.141(a) of the Rules of Practice clearly state the time within which an answer must be filed and the consequences of failing to file a timely answer, as follows:

13 See note 1.

§ 1.136 Answer.

(a) Filing and service. Within 20 days after the service of the complaint..., the respondent shall file with the Hearing Clerk an answer signed by the respondent or the attorney of record in the proceeding....

(c) Default. Failure to file an answer within the time provided under paragraph (a) of this section shall be deemed, for purposes of the proceeding, an admission of the allegations in the Complaint, and failure to deny or otherwise respond to an allegation of the Complaint shall be deemed, for purposes of the proceeding, an admission of said allegation, unless the parties have agreed to a consent decision pursuant to § 1.138.

§ 1.139 Procedure upon failure to file an answer or admission of facts.

The failure to file an answer, or the admission by the answer of all the material allegations of fact contained in the complaint, shall constitute a waiver of hearing. Upon such admission or failure to file, complainant shall file a proposed decision, along with a motion for the adoption thereof, both of which shall be served upon the respondent by the Hearing Clerk. Within 20 days after service of such motion and proposed decision, the respondent may file with the Hearing Clerk objections thereto. If the Judge finds that meritorious objections have been filed, complainant's Motion shall be denied with supporting reasons. If meritorious objections are not filed, the Judge shall issue a decision without further procedure or hearing.

§ 1.141 Procedure for hearing.

(a) Request for hearing. Any party may request a hearing on the facts by including such request in the complaint or answer, or by a separate request, in writing, filed with the Hearing Clerk within the time in which an answer may be filed.... Failure to request a hearing within the time allowed for the filing of the answer shall constitute a waiver of such hearing.