STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DE WAYNE MANUEL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 89-4650

) DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This matter came on for hearing in Port St. Joe, Florida, before Robert T. Benton, II, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on August 24, 1990. Proceedings were not transcribed.

Respondent filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on September 20, 1990, and petitioner filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (mistitled as respondent's) on September 24, 1990. The attached appendix addresses proposed findings of fact by number.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Pro Se

For Respondent: Larry D. Scott, Esquire

Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether petitioner was required or entitled to enroll in the Florida Retirement System at any time prior to March of 1989?

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

After informal efforts to secure retroactive enrollment in the Florida Retirement System proved unsuccessful, petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing, and respondent forwarded his request to the Division of Administrative Hearings,

in accordance with Section 120.57(1)(b)3., Florida Statutes (1989).

At hearing, petitioner testified on his own behalf, and called as witnesses Jimmy O. Gortman and Douglas C. Birmingham, who served Gulf County as county commissioners part of the time during which petitioner's status is in dispute. Testifying for the respondent, Carolyn McGlamery explicated pertinent rule provisions.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In the winter of 1979, petitioner DeWayne Manuel began performing building inspection services for Gulf County. He had responded to a newspaper advertisement entitled "JOB OPPORTUNITY," which stated, "Work will be under supervision of Building Inspector . . . Equal Opportunity Employer." Respondent's Exhibit No. 9. On the recommendation of E. F. "Red" Gunn, then head of Gulf County's Building Department, the Board of County Commissioners engaged him "temporarily" as a building inspector on March 13, 1979. Testimony of Manuel and Gortman.

   
   

2. In the view of Commissioner Jimmy O. Gortman, Mr. Manuel was treated no differently than any other county employee. But Gulf County's Building Department was funded from permit fees, rather than from general county revenues. The building department was not "on the ad valorem tax budget." Testimony of Gortman; Stipulation.

   
   

3. For the period March 13, 1979, to September 30, 1979, Gulf County paid petitioner $1,525.52. For the fiscal year ended September 30, 1980, Gulf County paid petitioner $3,840.83. Effective December 1, 1980, petitioner became responsible for all building inspections in Gulf County, not just those on projects north of the intracoastal canal. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1A, Book 11, pp. 366-7.

   
   

4. For the fiscal year ended September 30, 1981, Gulf County paid petitioner $13,319.83. For the fiscal year ended September 30, 1982, Gulf County paid petitioner $22,188.00, which represented permit fees from which a telephone expense of $24.00 a month, aggregating $288.00, had been deducted. Before the fiscal year ended September 30, 1982, Gulf County had deducted no expenses from permit fees, in calculating petitioner's compensation. Deposition of McCroan.

   
   

5. At a county commission meeting on January 11, 1983, Mr. Gunn gave "an oral report on . . . problems" "with Building Inspector DeWayne Manuel's job performance," "fired Building Inspector Manuel and then resigned himself." Petitioner's

   Exhibit No. 1A, Book 12, p. 305. But, before the meeting concluded, "Mr. Gunn agreed to continue working as Building Official . . . and he then rehired Mr. Manuel as Building Inspector." Id., p. 306.

   
   

6. When the county commission met on May 24, 1983, Mr. Gunn resigned, effective June 1, 1983, and "recommended the Board hire DeWayne Manuel as the Building Official." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1A, Book 12, p. 381. At the same meeting, the Board voted unanimously to accept this recommendation. Id.

   
   

7. For the fiscal year ended September 30, 1983, Gulf County paid petitioner $18,894.40. At its meeting on September 13, 1983, the "Board agreed to pay DeWayne Manuel . . . $1,130 per month as long as funds are available from the Building Permit Revenues," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1A, Book 12, p. 447, thereby "capping" his compensation from the Building Department for the first time. Perhaps because he also served an eight- or nine- month stint as acting mosquito control director, however, Gulf County paid petitioner $41,985.28 during the fiscal year ended September 30, 1984. Testimony of Manuel; Deposition of McCroan.

   
   

8. On November 13, 1984, the Board voted to pay "DeWayne Manuel $35,540 per year on a contract basis." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1A, Book 13, p. 215. Although the Board voted changes in his rate of compensation thereafter, his income no longer depended on Building Department collections. For the fiscal year ended September 30, 1985, Gulf County paid petitioner

   $36,532.01; and for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1986, Gulf County paid petitioner $39,011.98. McCroan Deposition.

9. During calendar year 1986, Gulf County paid petitioner

   $39,315.91. During calendar year 1987, Gulf County paid petitioner $41,929.77. During calendar year 1988, Gulf County paid petitioner $44,891.75. Respondent's Exhibit No. 6 to Deposition of Lister.

   
   

10. On May 24, 1988, in response to audit criticisms, the Board entered into its first written contract with petitioner, which provided:

    
    

    1. Revenue source - All monies received from the sale of all types of building permits and interest earned on funds received from the sale of building permits in Gulf County shall be the revenue source for all costs and expenses of the Building Inspection Department.

    2. Separation of Costs and Expenses

       1. The Board of County Commissioners (Gulf County) shall pay or provide the following

          expenses or resources out of the above mentioned revenue source: secretary, office space, office supplies, administrative costs for operation of department utilities, telephone expenses (except for telephone expenses listed in Section II. B.

          1. below) errors and omissions insurance coverage and a contract price of $40,905.00 to the Building Official for FY 87-88 (paid monthly). Contract price is calculated in the following manner.

          A $40,000.00 figure was established by the Board of County Commissioners for FY 86-87 (Book 14 Page 119). The contract price was increased for FY 87-88 by the same amount

          that all other Court House employees received,

          $455.00. In FY 87-88 the contract price was increased by $405.00 represents 2% of $22,500.00 which was estimated to be the salary after the deduction of expenses (listed in section B. 1., 2., 3., and 4. below).

       2. Building Official - Out of the $40,905.00 contract price, the Building Official is to pay the following:

       1. Basic (monthly) mobile telephone expenses

       2. In-county travel expenses

       3. All benefits (i.e. F.I.C.A., retire-ment, vacation, health and life insurance)

       4. All income tax withholdings

    3. Contracted services to be performed by the Building Official

       1. Be available (in office, on inspections,

          in meetings, or etc.) a minimum of 40 hours per week.

       2. Be responsible for the operations of the Building Department.

       3. Be responsible for all inspections required by the Standard Building, Plumbing, Mechanical, Gas, Swimming Pool, and the National Electric Codes, as well as such other codes which may be adopted in Gulf County.

       4. Be responsible for the duties of the Local Administrator as defined in the Gulf County Flood Ordinance.

       5. Such other duties as may be directed by the Board of County Commissioners of Gulf County.

    4. This agreement shall expire September 30, 1988 and may be cancelled at an earlier date

       by either party for good cause, by giving thirty

       (30) days notice.

       Respondent's Exhibit No. 8 to Lister Deposition. The contract provisions reflected the relationship that had existed between petitioner and Gulf County for some time before it was actually signed.

       
       

11. Later the same year, petitioner's status was called into question. On September 27, 1988, Mr. Manuel was a topic of discussion at the County Commission meeting.

    
    

    Chairman Birmingham stated that he is satisfied with the present system, and stated that if the Building Department contract is not valid, he will vote to hire Mr. Manuel as a full-time County employee. Commissioner Branch stated that he has no problem with Mr. Manuel, and stated that he is very dedicated to Gulf County. Commissioner Traylor also stated that Mr. Manuel has done a fine job. After discussion, Chairman Birmingham requested that Attorney Rish check to see if different arrangements need to be made concerning this position (make him a permanent County employee, etc.). Upon inquiry by Ms.

    Arnold about the contract ending on September

    30, 1988, and about being able to apply for the job, Attorney Rish stated that anyone could apply at any time. Upon further inquiry by Ms. Arnold about Mr. Manuel having a life-time contract,

    Chairman Birmingham stated that, as far as he is concerned, Mr. Manuel has the job unless he messes up.

    
    

    Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1A, Book 15, pp. 698-9. Two additional entries in board minutes reflect pertinent developments on February 14 and 28, 1989, respectively:

    
    

    Commissioner Gortman moved that the Board hire Building Inspector Manuel as a permanent County employee, under the direction of the Board (to negotiate salary, travel, etc.), effective March 1, 1989. Chairman Birmingham gave the Chair to Vice Chairman Peters, and seconded

    the motion. After discussion about the history and the financial situation of the Building Department, Commissioner Creamer stated that

    he would like an opportunity to discuss this matter with Mr. Manuel before making a decision. Chairman Peters stated that he is under the same impression as Commissioner Creamer, and he is

    also concerned about whether or not the job should be advertised. Upon inquiry by Commissioner

    Gortman, Attorney Rish reported that it would be legal for the Board to hire Mr. Manuel as a

    regular County employee, if Mr. Manuel is agreeable (he also stated that he will need to read the existing contract). After discussion, the motion passed with the following vote: Commissioners Birmingham, Creamer Gortman, and Parker voted

    yes. Chairman Peters voted no. Chairman Peters returned the Chair to Commissioner Birmingham.

    Chairman Birmingham then requested that Commissioner Gortman and Commissioner Parker work out the details of Mr. Manuel's duties and his salary, travel, etc., and report back

    to the Board at the next regular meeting. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Gortman, Attorney Rish reported that the Board has no problem with breaking the contract, if Mr. Manuel has no problem with it.

    . . .

    Commissioner Gortman moved that the Board hire DeWayne Manuel as a County employee with duties as Building/Fire Official (putting the Building Department under the direction of the Board) for the remainder of this fiscal year at $16,380.00 - salary, $1,230.00 - social security, and

    $2,356.00 - retirement, which totals $19,966.00 plus $.17 per mile for in-County travel not

    to exceed $4,760.00, which will give a grand total of $24,726.00 (to re-negotiate next fiscal year). He also included in his motion that Mr. Manuel will work 40 hours per week (and on weekends, if needed) under this salary, doing the Building Department work plus anything the Board directs him to do. Commissioner Gortman stated that Mr. Manuel is to have 10 years seniority, and is to be allowed to participate in the State retirement program (he will have

    to pay any back retirement). Upon inquiry by Commissioner Creamer and after discussion about the rate per mile for other County employees. Commissioner Gortman also included in his motion that the Board pay all County employees $.17 per mile for in-County travel and that the revenue from the inspections will go into the Building Inspector's budget.

    Commissioner Parker seconded the motion. Commissioner Peters stated that he feels this job should be advertised. Commissioner Parker stated that Mr. Manuel has been working without a contract since September and if he has worked

    this long without a contract, he should have the benefit of the doubt. The motion then passed with the following vote: Chairman Birmingham and Commissioners Creamer, Gortman, and Parker

    voted yes. Commissioner Peters voted no.

    Jean Arnold discussed that she is opposed to

    the Building Department funds not being controlled in the past, and is opposed to Mr. Manuel being the Building Inspector. . . .

    
    

    On March 1, 1988, there was no change in petitioner's hours, duties, job description or the number of people working in the Gulf County Building Department. The separate fund containing building permit fees was abolished, and petitioner began to be paid from general revenues, including ad valorem taxes. He also enrolled as a regular member of the Florida Retirement System on March 1, 1989. Testimony of Gortman and Birmingham.

    
    

12. Gulf county prepared and filed 1099 forms reflecting moneys paid petitioner for the years 1985 through 1988, and for the first two months of 1989. Before 1985, the county did not prepare either a W-2 form or a 1099 form or otherwise report petitioner's income to the Internal Revenue Service. The only W-

    2 form the county produced for him covered the period from March 1, 1989, until he left Gulf County's employ on September 30, 1989. Asked why she had not produced W-2 forms for petitioner before March 1, 1989, Donna R. McCroan, the county payroll clerk, explained that "[h]e had not gone through my payroll system, and that unless you run them through - - put his figures through my payroll system, my figures wouldn't balance." Deposition of McCroan, pages 14 and 15.

    
    

13. At different times, Gulf County paid petitioner weekly, bi-weekly and monthly. Petitioner was listed as a

    vendor, rather than as an employee, for some time before March 1, 1989. At first, petitioner received compensation equivalent to the building permit fees Gulf County took in, during the pertinent period, on account of construction permitted in Gulf County, north of the intracoastal canal. Eventually added to this sum was a fraction of the fees Gulf County collected on behalf of Wewahitchka and Ward Ridge; and fees from permits issued for Gulf County south of the canal.

    
    

14. Originally, petitioner's compensation was never based on invoices he submitted. For each pay period, the county clerk's office prepared a voucher listing the building permits that issued during that pay period. Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 6 and 7. Because applicants for building permits paid fees as or before permits issued, before inspection services were needed, petitioner's compensation varied from period to period, not with

    the number of inspections or other work that he performed, but with the number of building permits "pulled." At no time was he paid for inspections as piecework.

    
    

15. At county expense, petitioner was trained as a building inspector. He performed building inspection services under Mr. Gunn's supervision until the latter's retirement. Petitioner was obliged to follow the methods of inspection prescribed by the building code, but free to determine whether or not code requirements were met in a particular case. He had to use certain receipt and other forms, and keep records in a prescribed fashion to facilitate audits.

    
    

16. No written job descriptions defined the duties of Building Department employees. Even when petitioner answered to Mr. Gunn, the Board of County Commissioners sometimes assigned him tasks directly, in areas unrelated to the building department. Petitioner helped obtain a permit from the state Department of Environmental Regulation for the county landfill, dealt with the state Department of Transportation on questions concerning bridges, dealt with the state Department of Corrections in connection with the county jail, secured a mosquito control grant and various other grants for Gulf County, and performed other jobs as directed. When working on things other than building inspections, the county commissioners often told him "exactly what to do." Testimony of Birmingham.

    
    

17. When Gulf County hired him, Mr. Manuel sold his Western Auto Store and, beginning in April of 1979, devoted 40 hours or more a week to county duties. He never took vacations. His compensation was not reduced the only time he missed work for illness. Except for time in the field, he did all his work on Gulf County's "premises," in an office the county supplied. Gulf County provided not only an office but, eventually, a secretary and other building inspectors. Petitioner supervised these county employees.

    
    

18. The county paid workmen's compensation premiums for petitioner, furnished office supplies and equipment, including a computer; and equipment for use in the field, including piling boring equipment and an electrical inspection tool known as a Megger. Until petitioner acquired a mobile telephone, Gulf County paid all telephone expenses the Building Department incurred. Afterwards, it paid telephone expenses except for the basic mobile telephone charge. Gulf County reimbursed petitioner for travel out of the county on the same basis that it reimbursed all county employees.

    
    

19. Building inspection services petitioner or county employees under his supervision performed for Wewahitchka or Ward

    Ridge occurred under the terms of intergovernmental agreements, and on behalf of Gulf County. Otherwise, petitioner performed no building inspection or other services for any person or entity other than Gulf County while he worked for the county. Upon Mr. Gunn's departure, petitioner assumed supervisory responsibilities for the Gulf County Building Department, and served as department head.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

20. Since the Division of Retirement in the Department of Administration referred respondent's hearing request to the Division of Administrative Hearings, in accordance with Section 120.57(1)(b)3., Florida Statutes (1989), "the division has jurisdiction over the formal proceeding." Section 120.57(1)(b)3., Florida Statutes (1989).

    
    

21. Of course, neither before or after March 1, 1989, should any monies petitioner received as reimbursement for expenses incurred in his work be treated as salary.

22. Because Gulf County is an employer within the meaning of Section 121.021(10), Florida Statutes (1989), petitioner's participation in the Florida Retirement System was compulsory, from the day he began working for the county as an "employee." Section 121.051(1), Florida Statutes (1989); Rule 22B- 1.004(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The statute defines the term:

    
    

    (11) "Officer or employee" means any person receiving salary payments for work performed in a regularly established position and, if employed by a city or special district, employed in a covered group.

    
    

    Section 121.021, Florida Statutes (1989). Employees filling temporary positions are ineligible to participate in the Florida Retirement System. Rule 22B-1.004(5), Florida Administrative Code. But petitioner did not hold a temporary position within the meaning of Rule 22B-1.004(5)(e), Florida Administrative Code.

    
    

23. Respondent has defined the statutory phrase "regularly established position," Section 121.021(11), Florida Statutes (1989) by rule:

    
    

    (46) REGULARLY ESTABLISHED POSITION - A regularly established position in a State agency is a position which is authorized and established pursuant to law and is authorized and established pursuant to law and is compensated from a salaries appropriation pursuant to Section 216.011(1)(x)1. and 2., F.S., or an established position which is authorized pursuant to Section 216.262(1)(a) and (b), F.S., and is compensated from a salaries account in accordance with Rule

    3A-10.031, F.A.C. A regularly established position in a local agency (district school board, county agency, community college, city and special district) is an employment position which will be in existence for a period beyond

    4 consecutive months, except as provided in Rule 22B-1.004(5)(e), F.A.C.

    
    

    Rule 22B-6.001, Florida Administrative Code. With respect to county agencies like the Gulf County Building Department, any position lasting "beyond 4 consecutive months" comprises a regularly established position (with exceptions not pertinent here.)

24. But respondent contends that petitioner was an independent contractor, not an employee, before March 1, 1989, citing Rule 22B-1.004(3)(g), Florida Administrative Code, which excludes from the Florida Retirement System any "person performing services as a consultant or an independent contractor as defined in 22B-6.001(15)." See Browning v. State Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, 471 So.2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Potter v. State Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, 459 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1985); and Henry v. State Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, 431 So.2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Rule 22B-6.001, Florida Administrative Code, provides:

    (

    15) CONSULTANT OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR - Means an individual who: agrees to provide certain services; works according to his own methods; is not subject to the control

    of his employer, except as to the results of his work; and does not receive the fringe benefits offered by the employer. A consultant

    or independent contractor usually: is compensated from another salaries and wages account; does

    not earn annual or sick leave; and may frequently do a majority of his work in his own office rather than on the employer's premises.

    
    

    In its proposed recommended order, respondent explains how it concluded that petitioner was an independent contractor rather than a county employee:

    
    

    In its analysis, the Division was mindful of the tests set forth by the court in Messer v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 500 So.2d 1372, 1373, (Fla. 5 DCA 1987):

    In determining whether one acting for another is a servant or independent contractor, the following matters of fact, among others, are considered

    1. the extent of control which, by the agreement, the master may exercise over the details of the work

    2. whether or not the one employed is engaged in a distinct occupation or business;

    3. the kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is

       usually done under the direction of the employer or by a specialist without supervision;

    4. the skill required in the particular occupation;

    5. whether the employer or the workman

       supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and

       the place of work for the person doing the work;

    6. the length of time for which the person is employed;

    7. the method of payment, whether by the time or by the job;

    8. whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the employer;

    9. whether or not the parties believe they are creating the relationship of master and servant; and

    10. whether the principal is or is not in business.

    The primary factor in the determination of whether the petitioner was an independent contractor is the right of control. Under the facts presented the petitioner did have control of the method utilized to complete his task.

    The county was concerned about the end product and not the details of petitioner's work. The lack of control is evidence of independent contractor status.

    If control is confined only to results, generally the work is an independent contractor;

    if control extends to the means used to achieve the results, normally there is an employer-employee relationship.

    Global Home Care, Inc. v. State of Florida, Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Unemployment Compensation, 521 So.2d 220, 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988): Cantor v. Cochran,

    184 So.2d 173, (Fla. 1966).

    Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order, pp. 5 and 6. Although the Board of County Commissioners only exercised control over details in areas other than building inspections, the evidence showed that the Board had the right to control details of petitioner's work; that building inspection and all the other tasks petitioner was assigned are part of the County's regular business; that petitioner was not "engaged in a distinct occupation or business"; that the County supplied petitioner's place of work and, for the most part, his "instrumentalities" and "tools"; and that petitioner worked for Gulf County for ten years, during which he was never paid by the job.

    
    

25. In its proposed recommended order, the Division makes no mention of its own prior decision in Frank A. Howard, Jr. v. State of Florida, Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, No. 81-417 (DOA; Dec. 11, 1990). Mr. Howard, who did legal work as an attorney for the Dade County School Board, was allowed to enroll in the Florida Retirement System. Like Mr. Manuel, he supervised other agency employees and did work in an office the school board furnished. Unlike Mr. Manuel, he did not work a consistent 40-hour week for the school board, performed some of the work he did for the school board in the private law office he maintained, and, while engaged by the school board, handled matters for other clients as a partner in a law firm. Mr. Manuel did all office work on county premises,

    worked full time for Gulf County, and did no work for private clients.

26. Unlike Mr. Manuel, before March 1, 1989, Mr. Howard was paid from a regular salary account, and received W-2 forms.

Under Rule 22B-6.001(46), Florida Administrative Code, however, the account from which payments are made is not pertinent to whether employees of county agencies hold regularly established positions. Under the contract dated May 24, 1988, which called for Mr. Manuel to pay "F.I.C.A., retirement, vacation, health and life insurance . . . [and a]ll income tax withholdings," the County prepared 1099 forms. But the contract, in calling for

F.I.C.A. and retirement payments and income tax "withholding" contemplated an employment relation and not an agreement between independent contractors.

RECOMMENDATION

It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED:

That respondent grant petitioner regular membership in the Florida Retirement System for the period April 1, 1979, to February 28, 1989.

DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida.

ROBERT T. BENTON, II

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 1990.

APPENDIX

Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material.

Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 and 2 refer to a county ordinance not in evidence.

Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 9 pertains to a subordinate matter.

Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 4 through 8 and 10 through 16 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 2, the fees were for building permits, not for inspections as such.

With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 3, the evidence showed he took sick leave.

With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 9, there was testimony that the County's payroll clerk prepared the vouchers.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Administration Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center Building C

2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560

De Wayne Manuel

P.O. Box 7593

Daytona Beach, FL 32116

De Wayne Manuel

212 Tapper Drive

P.O. Box 305

Port St. Joe, FL 32456

Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration

435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550

Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., General Counsel Department of Administration

435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550

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. 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.

Docket for Case No: 89-004650

Orders for Case No: 89-004650