York, in violation of 7 C.F.R. § 319.56, because the importation of mangoes from the Dominican Republic into the United States is prohibited.

Conclusion of Law

By reason of the findings of fact, Respondent violated 7 C.F.R. § 319.56.

ADDITIONAL CONCLUSIONS BY THE JUDICIAL OFFICER

Respondent raises two issues in her letter, dated November 21, 2001, to Ms. Regina Paris (hereinafter Appeal Petition]. First, Respondent states "it was not my intention to break any laws of this country" (Appeal Pet.).

Respondent's contention that she did not intentionally violate 7 C.F.R. § 319.56 is not relevant to this administrative proceeding for the assessment of a civil penalty. The plain language of section 10 of the Plant Quarantine Act (7 U.S.C. § 163) establishes that intent is not an element of a violation of a regulation issued under the Plant Quarantine Act in a disciplinary administrative proceeding for the assessment of a civil penalty. The term knowingly in section

2See In re Herminia Ruiz Cisneros, 60 Agric. Dec. 610, 628-29 (2001) (stating, in order to achieve the congressional purpose of the Plant Quarantine Act, violators are held responsible for their violations irrespective of their lack of evil motive or intent to violate the Plant Quarantine Act or the regulations issued under the Plant Quarantine Act); In re Rafael Dominguez, 60 Agric. Dec. 199, 207 (2001) (stating, in order to achieve the congressional purpose of the Plant Quarantine Act and to prevent the spread of plant pests, violators are held responsible for any violation irrespective of their lack or evil motive or intent to violate the Plant Quarantine Act); In re Cynthia Twum Boafo, 60 Agric. Dec. 191, 195 (2001) (stating, in order to achieve the congressional purpose of the Plant Quarantine Act and to prevent the spread of plant pests, violators are held responsible for any violation irrespective of their lack or evil motive or intent to violate the Plant Quarantine Act); In re Bibi Uddin, 55 Agric. Dec. 1010, 1021-22 (1996) (stating, in order to achieve the congressional purpose of the Plant Quarantine Act and to prevent the importation of items that could be disastrous to United States agriculture, it is necessary to hold violators responsible irrespective of their lack of evil motive or intent to violate the Plant Quarantine Act or the regulations issued under the Plant Quarantine Act); In re Francisco Escobar, Jr., 54 Agric. Dec. 392, 418 (1995) (stating it is irrelevant to the assessment of a civil penalty under the Federal Plant Pest Act, the Plant Quarantine Act, and the Act of February 2, 1903, that the respondent had no intention of bringing items into the United States), aff'd per curiam, 68 F.3d 466 (5th Cir. 1995) (Table); In re Robert N. Watts, Jr., 53 Agric. Dec. 1419, 1428 (1994) (stating, under the Federal Plant Pest Act and the Plant Quarantine Act, intent is not an element of a violation in a disciplinary administrative proceeding for the assessment of a civil penalty); In re Unique Nursery & Garden Center (Decision as to Valkering, U.S.A., Inc.), 53 Agric. Dec. 377, 421-22 (1994) (stating, under the Federal Plant Pest Act and the Plant Quarantine Act, intent is not an element of a violation in a disciplinary administrative proceeding for the assessment of a civil penalty), aff'd, 48 F.3d 305 (8th Cir. 1995); In re Shulamis Kaplinsky, 47 Agric. Dec. 613, 636 (1988) (assessing the respondent a civil penalty under the Plant Quarantine Act for the unlawful importation of approximately 4 peaches and approximately 5 plums placed in the respondent's baggage without her knowledge); In re Kathleen D. Warner, 46 Agric. Dec. 763 (1987) (Ruling on Certified Question) (concluding the respondent could be assessed (continued...)

61 Agric. Dec. 259

10 of the Plant Quarantine Act (7 U.S.C. § 163) is only used in connection with criminal proceedings. Therefore, even if I were to find that Respondent's violation of 7 C.F.R. § 319.56 was unintentional, as Respondent contends, that finding would not constitute a basis for my reversing the ALJ's conclusion that Respondent violated 7 C.F.R. § 319.56.

Second, Respondent requests that she be allowed to pay the $500 civil penalty assessed against her by the ALJ in installments. Respondent does not indicate either a number of installments or a time between each installment. (Appeal Pet.) Complainant has no objection to my issuing an Order that assesses Respondent a $500 civil penalty to be paid in 10 monthly installments of $50 each (Complainant's Response to Respondent's Appeal to Judicial Officer at second and third unnumbered pages).

Pursuant to Respondent's request that she be allowed to pay the $500 civil penalty assessed against her by the ALJ in installments and Complainant's lack of objection to Respondent's paying a $500 civil penalty in installments of $50 per month, I issue an Order assessing Respondent a $500 civil penalty to be paid in installments of $50 per month.

Complainant contends Respondent "has not offered an appropriate basis for an appeal and has not satisfied the rules of practice governing appeals." Complainant "believes that Respondent's appeal should be denied." (Complainant's Response to Respondent's Appeal to Judicial Officer at second unnumbered page).

Section 1.145(a) of the Rules of Practice provides the basis for filing an appeal and the requirements for the appeal petition, as follows:

§ 1.145 Appeal to Judicial Officer.

(a) Filing of petition. Within 30 days after receiving service of the Judge's decision, a party who disagrees with the decision, or any part thereof, or any ruling by the Judge or any alleged deprivation of rights,

(...continued)

a civil penalty for an inadvertent or unintentional violation of the plant quarantine laws caused by a misunderstanding or failure of communication between the respondent and an oriental inspector); In re Mercedes Capistrano, 45 Agric. Dec. 2196, 2198 (1986) (assessing the respondent a civil penalty under the Plant Quarantine Act for the unlawful importation of plantains placed in the respondent's luggage without her knowledge); In re Rene Vallalta, 45 Agric. Dec. 1421, 1423 (1986) (assessing the respondent a civil penalty under the Plant Quarantine Act for the unlawful importation of a cacao seed pod placed in the respondent's luggage without his knowledge); In re Richard Duran Lopezain, 44 Agric. Dec. 2201, 2209 (1985) (stating, under the Plant Quarantine Act, intent is not an element of a violation in a disciplinary administrative proceeding for the assessment of a civil penalty).

may appeal such decision to the Judicial Officer by filing an appeal petition with the Hearing Clerk. As provided in § 1.141(h)(2), objections regarding evidence or a limitation regarding examination or crossexamination or other ruling made before the Judge may be relied upon in an appeal. Each issue set forth in the petition, and the arguments thereon, shall be separately numbered; shall be plainly and concisely stated; and shall contain detailed citations of the record, statutes, regulations or authorities being relied upon in support thereof. A brief may be filed in support of the appeal simultaneously with the petition.

7 C.F.R. § 1.145(a).

Respondent's Appeal Petition establishes that she disagrees with the ALJ's Initial Decision and Order. Moreover, Respondent plainly and concisely states each issue in her Appeal Petition. Respondent fails to number each issue in her Appeal Petition and does not provide citations of the record, statutes, regulations, or authorities upon which she relies. However, based on the small number of issues in Respondent's Appeal Petition and the nature of the issues in Respondent's Appeal Petition, I do not find that Respondent's failure to number the issues which she raises or Respondent's failure to provide citations of the record, statutes, regulations, and authorities upon which she relies, sufficient to deny Respondent's Appeal Petition, as Complainant requests.

For the foregoing reasons, the following Order should be issued.

ORDER

Respondent is assessed a $500 civil penalty. The civil penalty shall be paid by certified checks or money orders, made payable to the "Treasurer of the United States," and sent to:

United States Department of Agriculture

APHIS Field Servicing Office

Accounting Section

P.O. Box 3334

Minneapolis, MN 55403

Respondent shall make payments of $50 each month for 10 consecutive months. Respondent's initial payment of $50 shall be sent to, and received by, the United States Department of Agriculture, APHIS Field Servicing Office, Accounting Section, within 60 days after service of this Order on Respondent. If Respondent is late in making any payment or misses any payment, then all

61 Agric. Dec. 259

remaining payments shall become immediately due and payable in full. Respondent shall state on each certified check or money order that payment is in reference to P.Q. Docket No. 99-0045.

MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS

In re: CAMARA RAISIN PACKING, INC., A CALIFORNIA

CORPORATION.

AMMA Docket No. 01-0005.

Complaint Withdrawn.

Filed January 15, 2002.

Colleen A. Colleen, for Complainant.

Respondent, Pro se.

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

By Notice filed January 9, 2002, the Complainant unilaterally withdrew the Complaint herein, filed January 27, 2001. Accordingly, it is Ordered that said Complaint be withdrawn and the matter concluded.

Copies of this Order shall be served by the Hearing Clerk upon each of the parties. The Hearing Clerk is requested to show the addresses to which the copies were mailed, and the mailing dates.

In re: PETER A. LANG, d/b/a SAFARI WEST.

AWA Docket No. 96-0002.

Order to Show Cause.

Filed February 25, 2002.

Colleen A. Carroll, for Complainant.

Respondent, Pro se.

Order issued by William G. Jenson, Judicial Officer.

On January 13, 1998, I issued a Decision and Order: (1) concluding that Peter A. Lang, d/b/a Safari West [hereinafter Respondent], violated section 2.131(a)(1) of the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.131(a)(1)) issued under the Animal Welfare Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. §§ 2131-2159); (2) assessing Respondent a $1,500 civil penalty; and (3) ordering Respondent to cease and desist from failing to handle animals as expeditiously and carefully as possible, in a manner that does not cause trauma, overheating, excessive cooling, behavioral stress, physical harm, or unnecessary discomfort. In re Peter A. Lang, 57 Agric. Dec. 59, 70, 91 (1998).

On June 30, 1998, Respondent filed a Motion for Stay pending the outcome of proceedings for judicial review. On July 1, 1998, I granted Respondent's