It is another example of implementing regulations that reflect a hostile attitude toward the alternative monetary sanction Congress enacted in 1988.”27 • The Secretary should have followed Congress’ direction to make “the punishment more closely fit the crime” and “follow principles of fairness that Congress has more clearly delineated in other laws administered by [the Secretary], such as the Packers and Stockyards Act, 7 U.S.C. § 213(b),” which takes into account (1) the gravity of the offense, (2) the size of the business involved, and (3) the person’s ability to pay.28 • “We conclude that a fine based entirely on this formula . . . must be overturned as arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to the statute.”29 The Eighth Circuit’s analysis is as correct in Corder as it is in Ghattas.