Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Decision and Order issued by Marc R. Hillson, Administrative Law Judge.

This is an administrative proceeding for the assessment of a civil penalty for a violation of the regulations governing the movement of animal products (9 C.F.R. § 94 et seq.), hereinafter referred to as the regulations, in accordance with the Rules of Practice in 7 C.F.R. §§ 1.130 et seq. and 380.1 et seq.

This proceeding was instituted under the Act of August 30, 1890, as amended (21 U.S.C. §§102-105), the Act of February 2, 1903, as amended (21 U.S.C. §111), and the Act of July 2, 1962 (21 U.S.C. §134a-134f)(Acts), and the regulations promulgated thereunder (9 C.F.R. §94 et seq.) (regulations), by a complaint filed on October 30, 2001, by the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture. The respondent failed to file an answer within the time prescribed in 7 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). Section 1.136(c) of the Rules of Practice (7 C.F.R. §1.136(c)) provides that the failure to file an answer within the time provided under 7 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) shall be deemed an admission of the allegations in the complaint. Further, the admission of the allegations in the complaint constitutes a waiver of hearing (7 C.F.R. § 1.139). Accordingly, the material allegations in the complaint are adopted and set forth in this Default Decision as the Findings of Fact, and this Decision is issued pursuant to section 1.139 of the Rules of Practice applicable to this proceeding (7 C.F.R. § 1.139).

Findings of Fact

1. Jurgita Sniriene, hereinafter referred to as respondent, is an individual with a mailing address of 158 Third Street, 3 Fl. R, Elizabeth, New Jersey 87206.

2. On or about September 1, 2000, the respondent imported into the

United States at Detroit, Michigan from Lithuania approximately one (1) kilogram of pork in violation of 9 C.F.R. § 94.9 because the importation into the United States of pork products from Lithuania, without a health certificate specifying treatment against hog cholera is prohibited.

3. On or about September 1, 2000, the respondent imported into the United States at Detroit, Michigan from Lithuania approximately one (1) kilogram of pork in violation of 9 C.F.R. § 94.12 because the importation into the United States of pork products from Lithuania, without a health certificate specifying treatment against swine vesicular disease is prohibited.

Conclusion

By reason of the Findings of Fact set forth above, the respondent has violated the Acts and the regulations issued under the Acts. Therefore, the following Order is issued.

Order

The respondent is hereby assessed a civil penalty of five hundred dollars ($500.00). This penalty shall be payable to the "Treasurer of the United States" by certified check or money order, and shall be forwarded within thirty (30) days from the effective date of this Order to:

United States Department of Agriculture

APHIS Field Servicing Office

Accounting Section

P.O. Box 3334

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403

Respondent shall indicate that payment is in reference to A.Q. Docket No. 020001.

This order shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing and shall be final and effective thirty five (35) days after service of this Default Decision and Order upon respondent, unless there is an appeal to the Judicial Officer pursuant to section 1.145 of the Rules of Practice applicable to this proceeding (7 C.F.R. § 1.145).

[This Decision and Order became final October 16, 2003-Editor]

62 Agric. Dec. 713

DEFAULT DECISIONS

ANIMAL WELFARE ACT

In re: WANDA MCQUARY, RANDALL JONES AND GARY JACKSON.

AWA Docket No. 03-0013.

Decision and Order.

Filed July 21, 2003.

AWA - Default.

Frank Martin, Jr., for Complainant.

Respondent, Pro se.

Decision and Order as to Gary Jackson issued by James W. Hunt, Administrative Law Judge.

Preliminary Statement

This proceeding was instituted under the Animal Welfare Act ("Act"), as amended (7 U.S.C. § 2131 et seq.), by a Complaint filed by the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that the respondents wilfully violated the Act and the regulations and standards issued thereunder (9 C.F.R. § 1.1 et seq.).

Copies of the Complaint and the Rules of Practice governing proceedings under the Act, 7 C.F.R. §§ 1.130-1.151, were served upon the respondents by the Hearing Clerk. Respondents were informed in the letter of service that an Answer should be filed pursuant to the Rules of Practice and that failure to answer any allegation in the complaint would constitute an admission of that allegation.

Respondents failed to file an Answer addressing the allegations contained in the complaint within the time prescribed in the Rules of Practice. Therefore, the material facts alleged in the Complaint, which are admitted by respondents' failure to file an Answer pursuant to the Rules of Practice, are adopted and set forth herein as Findings of Fact.

This decision and order, therefore, is issued pursuant to section 1.139 of the Rules of Practice, 7 C.F.R. § 1.139.

Findings of Fact

1. Wanda McQuary, Randall Jones and Gary Jackson, hereinafter referred to as respondents, are individuals with a business mailing address of 565

County Rd 131, Black Rock, Arkansas 72455.

2. The respondents are, and at all times material hereto were, operating as a dealer as defined in the Act and the regulations.

3 On September 13, 2001, respondents willfully violated section 2.40 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.40) by failing to provide veterinary care to animals in need of care.

4. On September 13, 2001, respondents willfully violated section 11 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2141) and section 2.50 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.50) by failing to individually identify dogs.

5. On September 13, 2001, respondents willfully violated section 16 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2146) and section 2.126 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.126) by failing to have the records of animals on hand, program of veterinary care and sales records located at their premises.

6. On September 13, 2001, respondents willfully violated section 2.100(a) of the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.100(a) and the standards specified below:

(a) Housing facilities were not equipped with disposal facilities and drainage systems that are constructed and operated so that animal waste and water are rapidly eliminated and animals stay dry (9 C.F.R. § 3.1(f));

(b) Surfaces of outdoor housing facilities for dogs were not maintained on a regular basis (9 C.F.R. § 3.4(c));

(c) Primary enclosures for dogs were not structurally sound and maintained in good repair (9 C.F.R. § 3.6(a)(1));

(d) Primary enclosures for dogs were not structurally sound and maintained in good repair so that they protect the animals from injury and have no sharp points or edges that could injure the animals, (9 C.F.R. §§ 3.6(a)(1); 3.6(a)(2)); and

(e) Excreta was not removed from primary enclosures daily, to prevent soiling of the dogs and to reduce disease hazards, insects, pests and odors (9 C.F.R. § 3.11(a)).

7. On October 2, 2001, respondents willfully violated section 2.40 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.40) by failing to provide veterinary care to animals in need of care.

8. On October 2, 2001, respondents willfully violated section 11 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2141) and section 2.50 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.50) by failing to individually identify dogs.

9. On October 2, 2001, respondents willfully violated section 2.100(a) of the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.100(a) and the standards specified below:

(a) Primary enclosures for dogs were not structurally sound and maintained in good repair (9 C.F.R. § 3.6(a)(1)); and

(b) Primary enclosures for dogs were not structurally sound and

62 Agric. Dec. 713

maintained in good repair so that they protect the animals from injury and have no sharp points or edges that could injure the animals, (9 C.F.R. §§ 3.6(a)(1); 3.6(a)(2)).

10. On March 26, 2002, respondents willfully violated section 11 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2141) and section 2.50 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.50) by failing to individually identify dogs.

11. On March 26, 2002, respondents willfully violated section 2.100(a) of the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.100(a) and the standards specified below:

(a) Indoor housing facilities for dogs were not adequately ventilated and cooled so as to provide for the health and comfort of the animals at all times (9 C.F.R. § 3.2(b));

(b) Dogs in outdoor housing facilities were not provided with adequate protection from the elements (9 C.F.R. § 3.4(b)); and

(c) The premises including buildings and surrounding grounds, were not kept in good repair, and clean and free of trash (9 C.F.R. § 3.11).

12.

On September 26, 2002, respondents willfully violated section 2.40 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.40) by failing to provide veterinary care to animals in need of care.

13.

On September 26, 2002, respondents willfully violated section 11 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2141) and section 2.50 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.50) by failing to individually identify dogs.

14.

On September 26, 2002, respondents willfully violated section 16 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2146) and section 2.126 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.126) by failing to have the records of animals on hand, program of veterinary care and sales records located at their premises.

15. On September 26, 2002, respondents willfully violated section 2.100(a) of the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.100(a) and the standards specified below:

(a) Indoor housing facilities for dogs were not sufficiently ventilated to provide for the health and well-being of the animals and to minimize odors, drafts, ammonia levels, and moisture condensation (9 C.F.R. § 3.2(b));

(b) The building surfaces in contact with the animals in outdoor housing facilities for dogs were not impervious to moisture (9 C.F.R. § 3.4(c)); (c) Primary enclosures for dogs were not structurally sound and maintained in good repair (9 C.F.R. § 3.6(a)(1));

(d) Primary enclosures for dogs were not kept clean and sanitized as required (9 C.F.R. §§ 3.11(b)(2)); and

(e) The premises including buildings and surrounding grounds, were not kept in good repair, and clean and free of trash (9 C.F.R. § 3.11).

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »