STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ) AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 92-2503

)

TERRY'S AG SERVICES, INC., )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Upon due notice, this cause came on for formal hearing on September 3, 1992, in St. Augustine, Florida, before Ella Jane P. Davis, a duly assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: John S. Koda, Esquire

Senior Attorney

Office of General Counsel

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumers Services

Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800

For Respondent: Terry Bosserman, pro se

Terry's Ag Services, Inc. Route 5, Box 617

Lake City, Florida 32055 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE(S)

1. Whether or not Respondent is subject to an administrative fine pursuant to Section 487.165 F.S. [1991] for application of a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its label which violated Section 487.031(8) F.S.

   
   

2. If Respondent is subject to administrative fine for the violation alleged, what amount of fine should be imposed?

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Terry Bosserman, Jeffrey Schlager, Ping Liu, Dennis Culligan, and Jimmy L. Evans, and had 14 exhibits admitted in evidence.

Respondent presented the oral testimony of William Wells and testified on his own behalf. He had 3 exhibits admitted in evidence.

The Prehearing Stipulation was admitted as Hearing Officer's Exhibit A.

A transcript was filed in due course, and all timely-filed proposed findings of fact have been ruled upon in the appendix to this recommended order, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent, a Florida corporation, is engaged in the business of aerial pesticide spraying in the State of Florida.

   
   

2. Wells Farm is a commercial potato farm owned and operated by Mr. William W. "Billy" Wells on an area of land in St. John's County located approximately 15 miles northwest of St. Augustine, Florida.

   
   

3. The south corner of Wells Farm is located approximately 150 feet from the nearest edge of a man-made finger canal that is connected to Wells Farm by a drainage pipe under Colee Cove Road, which road is parallel to the southern border of Wells Farm. Between the cultivated area of Wells Farm and Colee Cove Road is a culvert or drainage ditch which parallels the border of Wells Farm and Colee Cove Road. This drainage ditch also runs up the eastern border of Wells Farm, perpendicular to Colee Cove Road.

   
   

4. Deputy Sheriff Jimmy L. Evans lives in a house south of Colee Cove Road. The drainage pipe, perpendicular to and running under Colee Cove road, connects the culvert/drainage ditch on the Wells Farm (north) side of the road with the previously described man-made finger canal which is behind and to the south of Deputy Evans' house. This "canal" could legitimately be described as a "big drainage ditch," but it has 1-3 feet of water in it at all times and small boats can be pulled or paddled in it. Motorboats cannot run in it.

   
   

5. All the surrounding fields used for agricultural purposes have interconnected drainage systems which eventually run off into the drainage pipe located under Colee Cove Road and all adjacent canals and ditches are affected by the tidal nature of the St. Johns River. Presumably all of these drainage apparatuses have at least some water in them at all times.

   
   

6. On March 30, 1991 Terry Bosserman, principal of Respondent corporation, aerially applied Manzate 200 fungicide and Thiodan 3 E.C. insecticide to Wells Farm.

   
   

7. Mr. Bosserman has sprayed Wells Farm between 100 and 150 times over the last 15 years. He has been operating the Respondent corporation for 18 years. Thiodan is a pesticide regulated by Petitioner agency. The active ingredient of the pesticide Thiodan is endosulfan. Endosulfan is designated a Class 1 Toxicity chemical, the most severe toxicity level for chemical compounds. Thiodan containers are imprinted with labels containing the following information, in relevant part:

   
   

   This product is toxic to fish, birds, and other wildlife. Birds feeding on treated areas may be killed. Do not apply directly to water or wetlands. Due to the risk of runoff and drift, do not apply within a distance of 300 feet of lakes, ponds, streams

   and estuaries . . . Apply this product only as specified on this label.

8. During the Petitioner agency's investigation of a fish kill of approximately 50 fish in the adjacent canal behind Deputy Evans' home, Mr. Bosserman and Mr. Wells each made statements orally and Mr. Bosserman made a statement in writing, under oath, to the effect that Wells Farm constituted 335 acres and that the entire field had been sprayed by Mr. Bosserman d/b/a Respondent corporation. These statements were taken in the most literal sense by agency investigators who concluded that the March 30, 1991 spraying had been conducted with precision up to each exact edge of the Wells Farm property or the edge of potato cultivation within that property. Accordingly, the agency deemed these statements to be admissions that spraying had deliberately occurred within approximately 150 feet of the canal behind Deputy Evans' home. The potato field cultivation does end no more than 150 feet from the nearest edge of the canal.

   
   

9. However, during formal hearing, both Mr. Bosserman and Mr. Wells testified credibly that over the last 15 years they had always attempted to avoid improper use of pesticides by voluntarily not making aerial application outside the Wells Farm boundaries and by otherwise attempting to avoid potential "drift" of pesticides which were sprayed within the target site. Mr. Bosserman specifically and credibly described affirmative efforts he had made on March 30, 1991 to run up his plane to his spray location (target site) in such a way as to force pesticide material down to the ground and prevent its rolling up and drifting out of the target site. He further credibly described shutting off his spray apparatus at what he believed to be "a safe distance" from the borders of the cultivated potatoes in an effort to prevent drift on March 30, 1991 and so as to comply with the Thiodan package labelling. Both Mr. Wells and Mr. Bosserman explained credibly and reasonably why their prior statements to the agency investigator should not be taken to mean literally that the March 30, 1991 aerial spraying had been done to each square inch of the cultivated area or property itself. For instance, the farm itself is in excess of 400 acres and the estimated amount of potato cultivation was 335 acres. Mr. Bosserman testified from his 18 years experience in aerial pesticide spraying that it is impossible to spray a field with absolute precision so as to cover the metes and bounds thereof within perfect rectangular borders, and that his prior statements were meant to convey to the agency that on March 30, 1991 he had sprayed the potato field, allowing for whatever drift was likely. Mr. Wells testified credibly that both before and after the March 30, 1991 incident he had purchased land sprayers to "trim" the edges of his property with pesticide, thus covering the rim of the cultivated property he had instructed Mr. Bosserman to avoid. Likewise, Mr. Bosserman was credible in asserting that on that date he had tried to spray in accord with Mr. Wells' cautionary instructions and his own hands-on experience. In adhering to his experience and Mr. Wells' instructions, on that date, Mr. Bosserman tried to avoid spraying the five acres closest to the road and hence closest to the canal and did not fly back around the edges of the Wells Farm property to "trim" the unsprayed edges with more pesticide, but left this area for the ground spraying equipment.

   
   

10. Having observed the candor and demeanor of Mr. Wells, Mr. Bosserman, and Mr. Schlager, the agency investigator, and having carefully reviewed all of Petitioner's exhibits, including but not limited to P-1 and P-7, it is found that Mr. Wells' and Mr. Bosserman's testimony at formal hearing is credible to the effect that care was taken to avoid or minimize wind drift of the pesticide and that no willful spraying occurred within 300 feet of the canal in question. Likewise, it is found that the oral testimony of Mr. Bosserman and Mr. Wells on this issue did not actually contradict their prior statements and that their oral testimony is not inconsistent with, but is merely explanatory of, their

    prior statements. This is not a situation of prior inconsistent statements or a poor investigation. There was simply not a "meeting of the minds."

    
    

11. However, Mr. Bosserman's description of when he turned off his spray apparatus was not very specific in that he stated that he could not say with any certainty whether he turned off his pesticide spraying apparatus within 280 feet, 450 feet, 500 feet or any other distance from the edge of potato cultivation or the border of Wells Farm. The most accurate estimate he could give was that he had turned off his pesticide spray "at a safe distance." Mr. Bosserman also conceded that he flew over the houses south of Colee Cove Road, including Deputy Evans' house, two times on March 30, 1991, pursuant to a Federal Aviation Authority waiver.

    
    

12. Deputy Evans testified that on March 30, 1991, he clearly saw a sprayer nozzle on the left wing of Respondent's airplane spraying as it crossed over his property passing from south to north to go over the potato field on Wells Farm. If the plane were flying south to north with an open or leaky nozzle, it had to also have flown with an open or leaky nozzle over the canal behind and to the south of Deputy Evans' house. Respondent maintained he could have seen a leaky jet on the left wing of his plane and he did not see one. The fact that Mr. Wells felt entitled to receive $11,000 from Deputy Evans for damage allegedly caused to a prior Wells Farm potato crop by Deputy Evans' son, which damages Mr. Wells voluntarily did not collect from Deputy Evans, is insufficient to diminish Deputy Evans' credibility on the issue of Respondent's open nozzle. On this issue, the undersigned accepts Deputy Evans' testimony that the nozzle was leaking over the testimony of Respondent to the effect Respondent did not see that it was leaking, and finds that despite all reasonable precautions, Respondent had a leaky nozzle when he flew over Deputy Evans' house and over the canal south of Colee Cove Road on March 30, 1991.

    
    

13. During his investigation of the fish kill in the canal which had been reported by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the agency's investigator collected water samples and dead fish for analysis on April 6, 1991. He collected a water sample from the canal south of the Deputy Evans' home, dead fish from the same location, and a water sample from the culvert/drainage ditch immediately adjacent to the southeast corner of Wells Farm. The sample from the canal behind Deputy Evans' home was taken from a location well in excess of 150 feet from the potato field, but upon the evidence in this record it is impossible to say if this sample site was more or less than

    300 feet from the target site.

    
    

14. The agency's tests revealed that the water sample collected from the culvert/drainage ditch adjacent to Wells Farm contained endosulfan at a concentration of 1.75 parts per billion. This means there was 1.75 gallons of contaminant in proportion to every one billion gallons of water. The sample collected from the canal south of Deputy Evans' home contained endosulfan at a concentration of 0.05 parts per billion. This means there was .05 gallons of contaminant in proportion to every one billion gallons of water. It may reasonably be inferred that there was some contaminant in the water at all points between the two sample points including within 300 feet of the target site. Numerically, these are very low concentrations of contaminant. Although it was the agency's witnesses' collective view that any amount of pesticide is bad, none clearly testified that these concentrations were "severe" or "not severe."

15. Between March 30, 1991 and the date of taking samples, there was a heavy rain which would have contributed to runoff of the pesticide properly applied to the target area into the several connected drainage ditches/culverts/canals.

    
    

16. The fact that the concentration of endosulfan diminished the further from the potato patch the sample was taken, is indicative of runoff of pesticide residue from the target site rather than a direct spray application to the canal behind Deputy Evans' home. There is no evidence of what level of endosulfan would be in the canal or drainage ditch simply from natural runoff from the properly sprayed target site.

    
    

17. Evidence was also admitted (R-3) to the effect that an early "suspicion" of Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission biologists was that the fish kill here at issue resulted from runoff caused by heavy rains. This early, uncorroborated "suspicion" is probative of nothing.

    
    

18. No samples were taken to determine if the presence of endosulfan in the canals was the result of wind drift from a distance deemed "safe" by the labelling.

    
    

19. The fish sample was not analyzed by the agency. There is no evidence of how much thiodan or endosulfan it takes to kill a fish, but the label of the product provides, in pertinent part,

    
    

    This product is toxic to fish . . . shrimp and crab may be killed at application rates

    recommended on this label. Do not apply where fish, shrimp, crab, or other aquatic life are important resources.

    
    

20. There was no evidence presented that the fish killed in Colee Cove were an important resource.

    
    

21. There is no evidence that either of the respective concentrations of the endosulfan in the water samples analyzed were sufficient to kill fish, but endosulfan is not naturally found in Florida waters.

    
    

22. Evidence (R-1) shows that a Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission inspector witnessed fish kills in the same man-made canals in Colee Cove almost every spring and summer resulting from lack of oxygen rather than endosulfan.

    
    

23. It was Respondent's contention that heavy rains in combination with the tidal action of the St. Johns River which is only a quarter of a mile away, would have flushed the contents of the finger canals into the St. Johns River so that the pesticide on the canal waters was not attributable to Respondent, but no competent evidence of this supposed effect was introduced.

    
    

24. There is no evidence that Respondent benefited from any deviation from the pesticide label above and beyond the usual payment for spraying the farm. Respondent would have received the same amount for correctly spraying Wells Farm, so there was no monetary inducement for him to spray contrary to the pesticide label. The amount he was paid by Mr. Wells is not in evidence.

    
    

25. Respondent has a past history of compliance problems with Petitioner, but none involve endosulfan or deliberate, premeditated defiance of pesticide

    laws and regulations. On July 21, 1989, Respondent was issued two Notices of Warning, one for spray "drift" which had occurred on March 27, 1989. The other July 21, 1989 Notice of Warning was for a December 27, 1989 [sic] investigation showing that a fungicide had been applied at a higher concentration than the label recommendation, that there had been an aerial application to a non-target site through wind drift, that proper paperwork on chemicals used had not been maintained at Respondent's place of business, and that there had been a failure, on a single occasion, to use required protective equipment. On October 25, 1990, Respondent was cited for a December 9, 1988 elevated pesticide residue in the mixing area at Respondent's airport. Respondent demonstrated that regardless of the choice of words employed in these agency citations, he was not guilty of repeat offenses and that he had taken all reasonable steps to correct the violations cited and to prevent their reoccurrence. These violations are few and far between for 18 years of operation.

    
    

26. Since the March 30, 1991 incident, Mr. Wells has purchased additional ground spraying equipment which in the future will be used for all "trim" areas, thereby permitting Respondent to spray aerially even further within the perimeter of Wells Farm than he did on March 30, 1991. Mr. Wells has also replanted his rows of potatoes in the opposite direction so as to further minimize pesticide problems.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

27. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this cause, pursuant to Section 120.57 (1), F.S,

    
    

28. The Petitioner agency has the burden of proving the allegations within the Administrative Complaint and establishing a basis for an administrative fine or lesser penalties it seeks to impose on Respondent, by a preponderance of the evidence. See, Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

29. Section 487.021(45), F.S. defines a "pesticide" as, in relevant part: [A]ny substance or mixture of substances

    intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any insects, rodents, nematodes, fungi, weeds, or other forms of plant or animal life or viruses, except viruses, bacteria, or fungi on or in living man or other animals, which the department declares to be a pest, and any substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant.

    
    

30. Thiodan is a pesticide as defined in Section 487.021(45), F.S.

    
    

31. Section 487.031, F.S. provides, in relevant part: It is unlawful: . . .

    (8) For any person to use any pesticide, including a restricted-use pesticide, or to dispose of any pesticide containers in a manner other than those stated in the labeling

    or on the label or as specified by the department or the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

    
    

32. The label to be interpreted here provides, in pertinent part,

    
    

    . . . Do not apply directly to water . . . Due to risk of runoff and drift, do not apply within a distance of 300 feet of lakes, ponds, streams and estuaries . . .

    
    

33. Although the parties spent considerable time at formal hearing exploring whether or not the interconnecting canals/culverts/and drainage ditches constituted "bodies of water" and comparing them to the St. Johns River, which is clearly a body of water, that issue is a red herring. The words that must be applied from the label are "water, lakes, ponds, streams, and estuaries." Chapter 487 F.S. defines none of these terms. The undersigned has perused the statutes via a computer "word-search" and various dictionaries, and is satisfied that Respondent's inadvertent spraying over the canal behind Deputy Evans' house constituted spraying over "water" and/or a "stream," as those terms are commonly understood. Having so determined, it is not necessary to determine distances from the potato patch or from Wells Farm's borders or to further determine whether or not the culvert/drainage ditches around Wells Farm constitute any of the named elements.

    
    

34. Section 487.165(1), F.S. provides:

    
    

    Any person who violates any provision of this chapter or any rule adopted pursuant to this chapter is subject to the imposition of an administrative fine not to exceed $10,000 for each violation. When imposing any fine under this subsection, the department shall consider the degree and extent of harm caused by the violation, the cost of rectifying the damage, the amount of money the violator benefited from by noncompliance, whether the violation was committed willfully, and the compliance record of the violator. (Emphasis supplied) [Redesignated as paragraph (e) of subsection

    1. of Section 487.175, F.S. Chapter 92-115, Section 34, Laws of Florida, effective July 1, 1992.]

       
       

35. Section 487.165(1) F.S. as above-cited was only in effect from June 30, 1990 to July 1, 1992. As in effect on March 30, 1991, it contemplated assessing a fine for the proven offense whether or not the offense was willfully committed. Here, every indication is that it was not willfully committed.

    There were many assumptions made with regard to the fish kill, but none were proven. No cost of rectifying the damage was submitted, presumably because no assessment of money damages was made. The violator has not benefited by noncompliance. While not exemplary, his compliance record does not reflect any deliberate, substantial, or repetitive noncompliance. This is a situation which would be better served by the multiple choices for discipline [warning letter, probation with or without continuing education, testing, and/or supervision] provided by the 1992 amendments to Section 487.165(1) F.S., [1991] found now at Section 487.175 F.S. [1992]. That not being possible, the fine should be

    sufficient to get Respondent's attention and to insure proper checks of his equipment on spraying operations in the future, while not crippling him financially.

    
    

36. In determining the proper fine, the undersigned has considered that Respondent remains simultaneously subject to criminal prosecution for this event. See Sections 487.165(2) [1991]; 487.175(2) [1992] F.S.

RECOMMENDATION

Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter

a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating the statutes cited and

assessing the nominal fine of $250.00.

RECOMMENDED this 13th day of January, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida.

ELLA JANE P. DAVIS

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1993.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 92-2503 DOAH CASE NO. 92-2503

The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59 (2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF)

Petitioner's PFOF:

1 Covered under preliminary matters. 2,3,4,7,8,9,10,

11,12,17 Accepted.

5,6 Rejected for the reasons covered in Facts of Finding 8-12 of the Recommended Order.

18 Rejected as immaterial as stated, but covered peripherally.

13,14,15,16,19 Except for unnecessary, subordinate, irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative material, accepted.

20 Rejected as not supported by the record as stated; covered in FOF 5.

21-22 Rejected as stated as cumulative, argumentative and conclusory as opposed to factual. Also, as stated, not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence. See FOF 8-12 of the Recommended Order.

23 Rejected because, as stated, it is not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. However, covered in FOF 25 of the Recommended Order. The undersigned also notes date discrepancies of certain exhibits that render them of questionable probative value.

Respondent's PFOF:

Respondent has not numbered his proposals. However, starting with the first paragraph under his "Findings of Fact," the Hearing Officer has regarded each paragraph as a single proposed finding of fact and accordingly has numbered the paragraphs sequentially.

1,2,3,4,5, Except for unnecessary, subordinate, irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative material, accepted.

As stated, this proposal was not affirmatively proven in its entirety. What was proven was accepted.

7 Accepted that this was testified - to. Rejected as a finding of material fact. Covered in FOF

12 of the Recommended Order.

COPIES FURNISHED:

John S. Koda, Esquire Senior Attorney

Office of General Counsel

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumers Services

Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800

Terry Bosserman, pro se Terry's Ag Services, Inc. Route 5, Box 617

Lake City, Florida 32055

The Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol PL-10

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350

Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture

and Consumer Services The Capitol PL-10

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES,

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO. 92-2503

TERRY'S AG SERVICES, INC.,

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER

The Administrative Complaint filed in this cause against the Respondent Terry's AG Services, Inc., alleged violations of Section 487.031(8), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent failed to apply a pesticide in a manner consistent with the label. The final hearing in this case was held on September 3, 1992, in St. Augustine, Florida, before Ella Jane P. Davis, a Hearing Officer assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings. A Recommended Order was filed on January 13, 1993. A copy of the Recommended Order is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein. Neither party filed exceptions to the Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Department accepts the findings of fact as stated in the Recommended Order.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Department accepts the conclusions of law as stated in paragraphs 1-8 of the Recommended Order but is compelled, for reasons herein stated, to reject, in part, the conclusions of law contained in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Recommended Order.

The Hearing Officer having found that the Respondent had a past history of compliance problems, concludes that there was no deliberate, substantial or repetitive noncompliance and that the matter may have been better dealt with by warning letter or the like. (RO - 10, 14) 1/ The hearing Officer incorrectly minimized the seriousness of Respondents violations--both past and present.

The Hearing Officer correctly found that the chemical pesticide endosulfan is a Class 1 Toxicity chemical, the most severe toxicity level for chemical compounds. (RO - 4). The warnings appearing on the label are not trifling statements; the law requires compliance therewith. We believe that Respondent's offense should carry a greater penalty that a "nominal fine." (RO -15) Further, we doubt, as the Hearing Officer concludes, that a fine of $250 is "sufficient to get the Respondent's attention." (RO - -14)

Clearly, the Hearing Officer's consideration that the Respondent remains subject to criminal prosecution for the offense cannot be considered by this Department in establishing and imposing fines. (RO - 14) No consistency or fairness could possibly result from such considerations.

The Department cannot and does not accept the Hearing Officer's evaluation of this offense and rejects the fine recommended. Criminal Justice Standards v. Bradley, 596 So.2d 661 (Fla. 1992).

DISPOSITION

The Respondent is found guilty of violation of Section 487.031(8), Florida Statutes, in failing to apply the pesticide chemical endosulfan in a manner consistent with the label. The Department concludes that the offense committed by the Respondent is of such a serious nature as to demand a fine in excess of the amount recommended by the Hearing Officer.

IT IS ORDERED that the Respondent pay an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00.

NOTICE OF RIGHTS

Any party to these proceedings adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to seek review of this Order pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Proceedings must be instituted by filing a Petition or notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk, at 515 Mayo Building, Tallahassee, Florida, and a copy of the same with the appropriate district court of appeal within thirty (30) days of rendition of this Order.

ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida this 24th day of February , 1993.

BOB CRAWFORD

COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE

1. H. WAINWRIGHT Assistant Commissioner

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

ENDNOTE

1/ The symbol "RO' refers to the Recommended Order.

Copies furnished to:

John S. Roda, Attorney for Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Room 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800

Terry Bosserman

Terry's AG Service, Inc. Rout 5, Box 617

Lake City, Florida 32055

Filed with the Agency Clerk this 24th day of February, 1993.

The Leslie McLeod, Jr. Agency Clerk

Docket for Case No: 92-002503

Orders for Case No: 92-002503