lnre: 

John Zook 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE 

BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR 

Administrator's Decision 

APL-016-17 

120 Horst Road 

Myerstown, PA 17067 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

This Decision responds to an appeal (APL-016-17) of a Notice of Proposed Suspension 

· ofNational Organic Program certification issued to John Zook of Myerstown, Pennsylvania by 

Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association (OEFFA). The operation has been deemed.not in 

compliance with the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 {Act)1 and the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) organic regulations.2 

BACKGROUND 

The Act authorizes the Secretary to accredit agents to certify crop, livestock, wild crop, 

and/or handling operations to the USDA organic regulations (7 C.F.R. Part 205). Certifying 

agents also initiate compliance actions to enforce program requirements, as described in section 

205.662, Noncompliance procedure for certified operations. Persons subject to the Act who 

believe they are adversely affected by a noncompliance decision of a certifying agent may appeal 

such decision to the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) pursuant to § 205.680 

Adverse Action Appeals Process- General, and§ 205;681, Appeals of the USDA organic 

regulations. 

1 7 u.s.c. 6501-6522 2 7 C.F.R. Part 205 

1 
FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. OEFF A is an accredited certifying agent under the USDA organic regulations. John 

Zook, Myerstown, Pennsylvania, is certified under USDA organic regulations for crops 

and livestock. 

2. On August 30, 2013, OEFFA issued a Notice of Noncompliance to Zook for insufficient 

recordkeeping for crop inputs, crop harvest, equipment clean-outs, buffer harvest and 

disposition, and the feed supplement ingredients. 

3. · On September 10, 2014, OEFFA issued a Notice of Proposed Suspension to Zook 

because the recordkeeping noncompliances found in 2013 had not been fully resolved. 

During the July 23, 2014 inspection, the inspector noted missing documentation for 

equipment clean-outs and buffer harvest and disposition ( end use of product). 

4. On October 24, 2014, after receiving Zook' s plan for correcting the recordkeeping issues 

and sample record forms, Zook and OEFF A entered into mediation. OEFF A explained to 

Zook that mediation would be considered successful if implementation of these 

corrective actions were verified at the next inspection. 

5. On April 30, 2015, OEFFA conducted an inspection of the Zook operation. The inspector 

found that the recordkeeping issues were not fully corrected. OEFF A provided additional 

time for Zook to correct the noncompliances. 

6. On June 24, 2015, OEFFA conducted a spot check inspection. The inspector found that 

Zook had not fully corrected the recordkeeping noncompliances. 

7. On February 22, 2016, OEFFA and Zook entered a Settlement Agreement which· 

included terms to address the recordkeeping issues as well as other noncompliances 

2 
related to dry matter intake calculations for livestock and the use of micronutrients as a 

soil amendment. 

· 8. On August 30, 2016, OEFFA conducted an inspection of the Zook operation. The 

inspector reported the continuation of noncompliances related to recordkeeping: 

incomplete equipment cleaning and purge records and hay harvest records. The 

inspection also found additional noncompliances related to other practices of the 

operation. 

9. On December 20, 2016, OEFFA issued a Notification ofTe1mination of Mediation 

because the terms of the 2016 Settlement Agreement were not met and recordkeeping 

noncompliances remained unresolved. 

10. On January 24, 2017, Zook submitted an appeal of the September 10, 2014, Notice of 

Proposed Suspension. 

DISCUSSION 

OEFFA proposed a suspension of John Zook's organic certification. The effect of 

suspension would prohibit all sale, labeling or representation of its products as organic. 

From 2013 to 2016, OEFFA repeatedly notified John Zook of missing records that were 

needed to verify compliance with the USDA organic regulations. During that time, OEFFA 

clearly described the recordkeeping issues to John Zook, what corrective actions he needed to 

take and provided a reasonable timeframe for when the corrective actions would be verified. 

These efforts included two mediations and a Settlement Agreement in 2016, between OEFF A 

and John Zook. 

In the appeal, John Zook described how future equipment cleaning records would 

indicate how and when the equipment was purged prior to use on Zook's organic farm. The 

3 
record in this case shows a pattern of Zook proposing resolutions to fmdings of noncompliance 

and inspectors unable to verify that corrective actions are fully implemented, plus finding new 

noncompliances at each inspection. The appeal does not address the broader issue of failing to 

have an organized recordkeeping system in place to prevent the armual recurrence of missing 

records. 

CONCLUSION 

The operation of John Zook has shown systemic and repeated noncompliance with the 

USDA organic regulations regarding recordkeeping practices. The USDA organic regulations 

require that_producers maintain clear and thorough records concerning the production, 

harvesting, and handling of agricultural products. Records must be adequate to demonstrate 

compliance with the organic standards, and must be available during inspection (§205.103). 

Recordkeeping is a basic and essential requirement for organic certification. An 

operation's records are key to verifying compliance with the USDA organic regulations. In 

addition to repeated issues with recordkeeping, which are the basis for this decision, three 

consecutive inspections since 2013 have found other noncompliances related to livestock 

treatments, crop inputs, cleanliness oflivestock, separate legal entities sharing certification and 

missing information on feed ration records. 

Despite John Zook consistently responding to certifier notices, as he did by submitting a 

timely appeal, the evidence shows that it is unlikely that another opportunity to implement 

corrective actions would bring the operation into compliance. The operation shows a clear 

pattern of noncompliance and inability to fulfill a settlement agreement to resolve this case. 

4 
DECISION 

The appeal is denied and OEFFA's Notice of Proposed Suspension is upheld. John Zook 

is to be suspended. 

Attached to this formal Administrator's Decision denying John Zook's appeal is a 

Request for Hearing form. John Zook has thirty (30) days to request an administrative hearing 

before an Administrative Law Judge. 

If John Zook waives the hearing, the Agricultural Marketing Service will direct OEFFA 

to issue a Notice of Suspension. After a 30-day suspension period, the operation may," ... submit 

a request to the Secretary for reinstatement of its certification. The request must be accompanied 

by evidence demonstrating correction of each noncompliance and corrective actions talcen to 

comply with and remain in compliance with the Act and the regulations in this part." 

. ,J 

Done at Washington, D.C., on this Z-; 

dayof f+,.,j_,st ,2017. --

Bruce Summers 

Acting Administrator 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

5