STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF )

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 90-5329

)

RONALD L. HURT, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the above matter was heard before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Donald R. Alexander, on February 19, 1991, in Fort Myers, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Albert Peacock, Esquire

1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

For Respondent: C. Neil Gregory, Esquire

4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 404

Naples, Florida 33940 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issue is whether respondent should have his license as a professional engineer disciplined for the reasons cited in the administrative complaint.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This matter began on July 18, 1990, when petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers (Board), issued an administrative complaint charging that respondent, Ronald L. Hurt, a licensed professional engineer, had violated Subsection 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1989), and Rule 21H-19.001(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code (1989), by engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering while performing in the capacity of a professional engineer in August 1989. Respondent disputed the above allegations and requested a formal hearing to contest the allegations.

The matter was referred by petitioner to the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 28, 1990, with a request that a Hearing Officer be assigned to conduct a formal hearing.

By notice of hearing issued on September 17, 1990, the matter was scheduled for final hearing on December 10, 1990, in Naples, Florida. At the request of respondent, the matter was rescheduled to February 19, 1991, at the same location. Venue was later changed to Fort Myers, Florida.

At final hearing, petitioner presented the testimony of James A. Schivinski, a professional engineer, James O. Power, a professional engineer and accepted as an expert in structural and professional engineering, Jack T. Sauerland, a professional engineer and accepted as an expert in professional engineering, Philip R. Boller, city engineer for the City of Cape Coral, and Thomas Graham, the former building official for the City of Cape Coral. Also, petitioner offered petitioner's exhibits 1-6. All exhibits were received in evidence. Respondent testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of Albert Melendez, contracts administrator for the City of Cape Coral, Philip R. Boller, William G. Moore, Jr., a licensed architect, Michael E. Lastovicka, a licensed professional engineer and accepted as an expert in structural engineering, and George M. Ely, a professional engineer and accepted as an expert in national standards for professional engineers. Also, he offered respondent's exhibits 1, 2 and 4-7. All exhibits were received in evidence.

A transcript of hearing (two volumes) was filed on March 6, 1991. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed by petitioner on March 27, 1991. Respondent filed a memorandum of law at hearing. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact is made in the Appendix attached to this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined:

1. Background

   
   

   1. At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Ronald L. Hurt, was a licensed professional engineer having been issued license number PE 0032435 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers (Board). Respondent was first licensed as a professional engineer in Kentucky in 1965 and received his Florida license in 1982. When the events herein occurred, respondent was a shareholder in and served as president of Anchor Engineering Company (Anchor) in Naples, Florida. He also supervised the structural engineering portion of the firm's business. He has since terminated that relationship and is now affiliated with another engineering firm in the same city.

      
      

   2. In August 1989 the City of Cape Coral (the City) issued an invitation to various engineering firms, including Anchor, to submit proposals to investigate the structural integrity of a seven year old abandoned building owned by the City and located on St. Jock Boulevard. The City was considering whether to complete construction of the building and convert it into a community theater or to demolish the existing structure and build a new facility. At that time, the building was approximately 90% complete but without a roof and was between 6,000 and 8,000 square feet in size.

      
      

   3. Anchor was the successful "bidder" and respondent ultimately submitted a final written report to the City. Relying upon that report, the City decided to continue completion of the building. The project was successfully completed and is now known as the Cape Coral Community Theater. However, an engineer from

      another firm in Cape Coral obtained a copy of respondent's report, reviewed it, and based upon his belief that the report was deficient, filed a complaint against respondent with the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR). That prompted an investigation by DPR and the issuance of an administrative complaint charging respondent with negligence in the preparation of his report.

      
      

2. The Scope of the Engagement

   
   

   1. The City's decision to seek a structural report came after another professional engineer, James A. Schivinski, had performed an inspection and prepared a "general physical condition report." The work was performed on an undisclosed date by Schivinski without charge and as a favor to the City. After making a field inspection, Schivinski recommended the City have a structural analysis of the building performed by a professional engineer. This was because he had observed "serious defects in the masonry wall construction of the building". Until a further assessment of the structural integrity of the building was made, Schwinski recommended that "work (should) not be continued." 1/ Schwinski's conclusions and recommendation are contained in a written report submitted to the City and received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 2.

      
      

   2. Acting upon Schivinski's recommendation, on August 1, 1989, the City, through its contracts administrator, Al Melendez, telephonically solicited proposals from various engineering firms. Because the City desired to make a decision on the building as soon as possible, Melendez asked that each firm submit its proposal by the following day. Anchor did so and proposed to complete the work for $4,500. Other proposals included one by the engineering firm of Jenkins and Charland, which submitted a proposal in the amount of

      $14,000. Anchor's proposal was accepted by the city on August 2 and Anchor was told to complete a written report within two weeks from the date on which it was selected.

      
      

   3. The scope of the engagement was not reduced to writing by the City. However, according to Melendez, Anchor was to look at Schivinski's report, review a set of original drawings, and advise the City if it could "reasonably finish up the building." Anchor was not requested to perform testing to verify the strength of materials nor to furnish a final design report for the project. Further, the City did not expect Anchor to give them actual cost estimates for performing any required modifications.

      
      

   4. In its response to the invitation, Anchor agreed to (a) perform an on- site structural investigation of the existing structure ($1500), (b) review existing drawings of the structure ($1800), and (c) issue a written report based on the findings in the first two steps ($1200). The City agreed with this scope of services and Anchor proceeded in accordance with its proposal. As noted earlier, both the City and Anchor understood that no testing of materials (e. g., compression, prism and compaction tests) was to be performed by Anchor but instead would be done at a later time by a specialized testing firm if the City decided to continue with the project.

      
      

3. The Preparation and Issuance of the Report

   
   

   1. Two Anchor professional engineers, Tony Boumitri and Paul Endres, promptly visited the building site on two occasions and made a visual inspection. In addition, respondent made two subsequent visits to the site to confirm his colleagues' conclusions. They also reviewed Schivinski's report and the original building plans for the structure. After a preliminary draft was prepared by Boumitri on August 11, 1989, respondent met with city officials for

      three hours to explain its content, answer questions and determine if further information was required. A final report entitled Structural Investigation Analysis and Report was then prepared by respondent, and another three-hour meeting with city officials was held to explain its content.

      
      

   2. On August 18, 1989, respondent signed and sealed the final report and delivered it to city officials. Thereafter, respondent met for several hours with the full city commission and gave an oral presentation concerning his report. The record raises an inference that a transcript of the commission meeting is available, and respondent's remarks and explanations given to the commission are available for review by any interested party. Among other things, respondent advised the City that his report was a preliminary report, that testing and confirmation of materials was still required at a later date, that the structure did not meet code requirements, but that with appropriate modifications the building could be used for its intended function.

      
      

4. The Genesis of this Complaint

   
   

   1. On an undisclosed date after the report had been filed, a professional engineer, Jack T. Sauerland, who happened to work for the engineering firm which had submitted the unsuccessful $14,000 bid, requested a copy of respondent's report from the City. Ostensibly for the purpose of acting as a concerned citizen and taxpayer, Sauerland reviewed the preliminary and final reports, noted what he perceived to be various deficiencies in the final report, discussed those observations with certain city employees, and filed a complaint against respondent with DPR. That precipitated the filing of this action against respondent.

      
      

5. Standards Governing Professional Engineers

   
   

   1. Both parties agree there are no written standards which set forth the specific matters that a professional engineer must put in an engineering report. According to the Board's expert, this is because a report can be used for a number of purposes and it would be difficult to write a rule that would fit all situations. However, the Board expert identified two broad standards, both set forth in Rule 21H-19.001(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, that must be followed by a professional engineer when drafting a report. First, the engineer must use "due care" in preparing the report, and secondly, he must have "due regard for accepted engineering principles". According to the expert, these principles include such things as technology, mathematics, logic, and the clear and precise use of language. In other words, a report must proceed logically from evidence to assumption to analysis to conclusion and do so in clear and precise language. It is also inappropriate to omit information from the report even if the client is aware of the information being omitted. This is because persons using the report at a future time would not be privy to that omitted information and would be unable to evaluate its reliability. Thus, while an engineering report must satisfy the clients, it must also be complete enough to safeguard the public health, safety and welfare. The expert also opined that when an engineer's client is a governmental entity, such as a city, it is improper to supplement a written report by oral communications because (a) third parties relying on the written report at a future time would have no way of reviewing those oral comments and (b) the public records law dictates that such reports be reduced to writing.

6. The Contents of the Report

   
   

   1. The report in question has been received in evidence as a part of petitioner's composite exhibit 6 and consists of ten pages including photographs. The written portion of the report is four and one-half pages. In addition, respondent submitted twelve pages of notes and calculations in conjunction with the report. The report is divided into six sections, including summary of findings, background information, field investigation, analysis, recommendations and conclusion. The scope of the report was described on page one as follows:

      
      

      Based on the data obtained, and based on the available drawings, Mr. Boumitri and Mr. Endres performed their structural analysis to deter- mine the adequacy of the structure, in its

      present condition, to serve its intended purposes.

      
      

      The intent of this investigation and report

      is to determine whether the existing structure can be safely completed to serve its intended purposes according to sound engineering and construction practices.

      
      

      Under the field investigation portion of the report, there are eight evidentiary findings. Because they (and other portions of the report) are in issue, they are repeated below:

      
      

      1. The foundation seems to have been con- structed according to the architectural plans, based on the test pits that have been excavated at three different locations of the building.

      2. Some of the pilaster columns have not been completed or may not have been constructed according to the architectural plans. Some

         of the pilasters on the north side as well as the south side of the building do not extend to the top of the tie beam.

      3. Using an "R" meter we have been able to determine the actual location of the existing bars. Some of the vertical reinforcement is mislocated and other vertical reinforcement is missing. Most of the horizontal joint rein- forcement was placed at approximately 4'-0" O.C.

      4. Numerous cracks were found in the walls and slabs. Other cracks or separations exist between the walls and the concrete masonry pilasters as shown on the north wall of the building.

      5. Most of the masonry units were constructed as running bond, yet some of the units were constructed as stack bond.

      6. Some features of less importance such as the interior stairs on the East end of the building are rotated 90 degrees from their original design as shown on the plans. Other walls and windows may have been added, de- leted or relocated and they no longer conform

         to the architectural plans.

      7. The workmanship in placing the masonry units varies from adequate to far below ade- quate level of today's standards.

      8. Most of the walls are in a wavy condition which may require a varying thickness of stucco finishes.

         
         

         Immediately after the foregoing findings, the report contains a section entitled "Analysis" consisting of six paragraphs, with the caveat that such analysis "takes into consideration the lack of inspection." They read as follows:

         
         

         1. The foundation seems adequate to carry the intended load in the interior locations around the stage and exterior locations as well.

         2. The number and location of the existing vertical reinforcement is not adequate enought to carry the intended lateral load and doesn't meet the minimum requirements of the 1979 edition or the 1985 /86 edition of the "Standard Building Code".

         3. The quantity and spacing of the existing horizontal joint reinforcement is adequate to meet the minimum area of steel reinforcement specified in the 1985/86 edition of the "Standard Building Code" for reinforced masonry.

         4. The height to thickness ratio of most of the masonry walls, interior and exterior, is above the recommended value in the 1979 or the 1985/86 edition of the "Standard Building Code."

         5. The beam over the stage area appears to be capable of carrying its intended load. This beam, due to the direction of the joists carries little of the roof load and is loaded

            nearly to its intended load presently. Little or no deflection is currently visable (sic).

         6. The steel joists appear to be capable of carrying their intended load based on data given by Tom Rayburr of Florida Aluminum.

         
         

         There are also five recommendations in the report which follow the analysis. They read as follows:

         
         

         1. A field survey be implemented to document the as built features of the building.

         2. Finish the construction of all pilasters as shown on the architectural plans. Provide a #5 bar in each pilaster, dowel the bottom end into the footing, dowel the top end into the tie beam, then fill with grout.

         3. Where the existing vertical reinforcement, whether in term of pilasters or filled cells, exceed the 5'-0" maximum spacing, provide a #5 hook bar at each roof joist location or at 5'-0" maximum spacing where no roof joist exits at

            exterior walls and at 13'-0" o.c. at interior walls. Weld the bar directly to the plate or to the bar of the tie beam. The other end of the #5 bars will extend to the bottom of the wall and will be drilled and epoxied into the foundation using epoxy non-shrink grout. Form and pour a minimum 8"x8" pilaster around it subject to Architectural approval.

            Where a pilaster is not feasible, provide a flat A36 steel bar (2"x1/4" minimum) instead of the #5 bar. The flat steel bar shall be hooked top and bottom to the tie beam and footing respectively.

         4. Alternatively, instead of the proposed pilasters, place 6x6 W2.XW2.9 W.W.F. flat sheets along both faces of the masonry walls. A minimum of 1" thick non-shrink grout shall be placed on each wall face. The welded wire fabric mesh shall be connected with metal ties thru the masonry wall at 32" intervals.

         5. Stucco finishes with standard metal lath shall be provided or as specified by the Architect.

         
         

         The ultimate conclusion of the report reads as follows:

         
         

         Although the building in its present condition does not meet the minimum code requirements, it can be reinforced in an efficient manner that would render it capable of serving its intended function.

         
         

7. Criticisms of the Report

   
   

   1. It should be noted that the agency did not allege nor prove that the scope of investigation and review by respondent in preparing the report was improper or that the client was dissatisfied with his services. Also, the Board does not question the competency of respondent. Rather, the Board contends that respondent was negligent by failing to include greater detail and explanation in the written report. To support this charge the Board presented its consulting professional engineer, James O. Power, and the testimony of Sauerland, the complaining witness and also a professional engineer. Besides himself, respondent presented the testimony of two professional engineers, an architect, and the city engineer. The more credible and persuasive testimony is set forth below.

      
      

   2. It is true, as respondent points out, that in preparing his report, the agency's consulting engineer did not review the original building plans, make an on-site inspection or read the transcript of the city commission meeting when the report was formally presented to the commission. Thus, the expert was not privy to the many discussions between respondent and the City during the preparation of the report. However, Power considered none of these matters to be essential since his criticisms related only to the actual contents of the report itself.

   3. The DPR expert first found that "the scope of the investigation was never clearly defined" in the report. Although the witness did not specifically identify which portion of the report he considered to be deficient, it may be inferred that the witness was referring to the statement of intent (scope of report) recited in finding of fact 12 and the following language found in the first paragraph of the "Field Investigation" section of the report:

      
      

      Our field investigation has been performed for the purpose of establishing whether the structure is constructed according to plans and specification by Stout & Gerald, Inc.

      Architects of Cape Coral, Florida.

      
      

      According to Power, the report should have included a description of services to be provided by respondent to the client pursuant to their agreement. This would include such matters as whether or not (a) testing would be performed, (b) the structure would be evaluated for code compliance, (c) a design for corrective measures would be furnished, (d) a cost estimate for such modifications would be given, and (e) the investigation, evaluation and recommendations would be based on sound engineering principles. Although the parties clearly understood the scope of the investigation through several meetings and conversations, the written report itself did not adequately memorialize that agreement. 2/ Therefore, respondent is in technical violation of the engineering principle that he use due care in preparing the report.

      
      

   4. The expert also pointed out that respondent merely stated his assumptions without giving any justification for the same in the report or attached calculations. Those assumptions pertained to the foundation capacity, strength of the reinforcing steel, strength of the concrete, and strength of the concrete block masonry. While DPR's expert found most of the assumptions to be reasonable, the report itself does not state on what basis (e.g., testing, estimates, visual inspection, industry standards, experience, or other factors) the assumptions were made. Unless the logic underlying the assumptions is disclosed, a third party using the report would have no way to ascertain the reliability of the conclusions. While respondent may have orally explained the basis for his assumptions to city officials, and there was no uncertainty on the part of the client, a technical deviation from the due care principle occurred through this omission.

      
      

   5. Finally, the expert opined that the report contained no logical justification for the conclusions and recommendations. Put another way, the analysis proceeded illogically from the four assumptions in the report. For example, even though the report found a number of deficiencies in the masonry construction, including findings that the work did not adhere to the original drawings and that ratios did not meet building code requirements, the analysis concluded that the masonry work was done in accordance with "acceptable standards under engineering inspection." To this extent, the written report deviated from the engineering principles of logic and clear and precise language, and that it be prepared with due care. Based upon the deficiencies cited in this and the previous two findings, it is found that respondent was negligent in the practice of engineering in that he failed to use due care and to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles. 3/

      
      

   6. At hearing, respondent explained the scope of his investigation, gave the bases for the assumptions made in the report and recited the manner in which the conclusions and recommendations were drawn from the facts and assumptions. While these were valid and competent explanations, and had previously been

      orally given to the City, they were not fully incorporated into the written report. Testimony on behalf of respondent by the project architect established that, from an architect's as opposed to an engineer's perspective, he found the report satisfactory and "in keeping with the standards of other reports" given to him by engineers in the community. However, this testimony has not been accorded the weight given to the testimony of petitioner's consultant. Finally, the testimony of respondent's two engineering experts simply confirmed the fact that no specific written standards exist as to the content of engineering reports, and that in addition to the written report, it is a common practice for an engineer to supplement that report with oral advice to his client.

      
      

8. Mitigation

1. In mitigation, it must be noted that respondent's competence as a professional engineer is not in issue. Further, the City was completely satisfied with the report and encountered no problems during the subsequent completion of the building. Indeed, at hearing two city officials expressed satisfaction with respondent's work and the project architect found the report to be satisfactory. Moreover, there were no damages suffered by the client, and the public was not endangered by respondent's misfeasance. Respondent's only fault was in not reducing to writing the additional detail and explanation which he gave to city officials in face to face meetings. Finally, during respondent's twenty-five year career as a professional engineer, he has never been subjected to disciplinary action.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

2. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties hereto pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1989).

   
   

3. Because respondent's professional license is at risk, petitioner is obligated to prove the allegations in the administrative complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

   
   

4. Respondent is charged with violating Subsection 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1989). That subsection authorizes the Board to take disciplinary action against a licensee whenever the licensee is found guilty of

   
   

   (g) Fraud or deceit, negligence, incompe- tence, or misconduct, in the practice of engineering;

   
   

   In this case, respondent is charged only with negligence in the practice of engineering. The word "negligence" is defined in Rule 21H-19.001(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code (1989) as follows:

   
   

   A professional engineer shall not be negligent in the practice of engineering. The term neg- ligence set forth in 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, is herein defined as the failure by a professional engineer to utilize due care in

   performing in an engineering capacity or failing to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles. Professional engineers shall approve and seal only those documents that

   conform to acceptable engineering standards and safeguard the life, health, property and welfare of the public.

   
   

5. By clear and convincing evidence, petitioner has established that respondent is in violation of rule 21H-19.001(3)(a) and subsection 471.033(1)(g) in that he negligently prepared a written report by failing to use due care and to adhere to acceptable standards of engineering principles.

   
   

6. In reaching the above conclusion, the undersigned has given thoughtful consideration to respondent's contention that the rationale in Bowling v. Department of Insurance, 394 So.2d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) and its progeny compels a different result. In Bowling, the court established the broad principle that in a disciplinary action a regulatory board is charged with the burden of showing by competent evidence that a licensee violated some discernable standard of conduct. Thus, respondent contends that since there are no written rules which set forth the specific information that must be placed in a report, he cannot be held accountable for the shortcomings cited by petitioner's expert. However, as the record indicates, it would be impractical to adopt such a rule to cover all situations since engineering reports can be used for so many purposes. Under these circumstances, where a precise rule cannot be promulgated, the standard of conduct imposed on a licensee must be reasonably clear. Cf. Guest v. Department of Professional Regulation, 429 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). In this case, the standard of conduct required by subsection 471.033(1)(g), as amplified by rule 21H-19.001(3)(a), is not so nebulous that engineers cannot conform to it. That is to say, in preparing engineering reports, professional engineers must use due care and have due regard for acceptable engineering principles. These terms, to the extent they are nonspecific, may be determined on a case-by-case basis. See, e. g., Solloway v. Department of Professional Regulation, 421 So.2d 573, 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)("case-by-case determination of prevailing standards is permissible"). Because there is competent evidence of record in this proceeding to determine such a standard, it is concluded that a "discernible standard of conduct" existed and that respondent deviated from that standard.

   
   

7. Rule 21H-19.004, Florida Administrative Code (1989) sets forth the suggested range of penalties to be imposed on licensees found guilty of violating chapter 471. For a violation of Subsection 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1989), subsection (2)(m) of the rule suggests a penalty ranging from a reprimand, two year probation and a $1000 fine to a five year suspension and ten years probation. Section (3) of the same rule recites circumstances which may be considered in aggravation or mitigation of penalty. Given the absence of any aggravating factors, and the presence of mitigating circumstances, including the lack of danger to the public, an unblemished 25-year record, complete satisfaction by the client, and an extremely minor violation, a private reprimand is appropriate. 4/

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1989) and that he be given a private reprimand.

RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida.

DONALD R. ALEXANDER

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 3rd day of April, 1991.

ENDNOTES

1/ In May or June 1989, the City had begun to complete construction on the building without the benefit of any engineering analysis. However, a stop work order was issued on the project by the city building official after questions were raised concerning the building's structural integrity.

2/ On page one of the report, respondent indicated that the investigation would take into account "sound engineering and construction practices." Thus, as to this ingredient, the report was not deficient.

3/ The testimony of the complaining engineer has been discounted as being biased and thus unreliable.

4/ Through counsel, petitioner has recommended the imposition of a reprimand and a $1000 administrative fine.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5329

Petitioner:

1. Partially adopted in findings of fact 15-17.

2. Rejected as being unnecessary.

3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 11. 15-16. Rejected as being unnecessary.

1. Partially adopted in findings of fact 8-9.

2. Partially adopted in finding of fact 11.

3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6.

4. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8.

5. Rejected as being unnecessary.

Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially adopted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, not supported by the evidence, subordinate, or a conclusion of law.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Albert Peacock, Esquire

1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792

C. Neil Gregory, Esquire

4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 404

Naples, FL 33940

Jack L. McRay, Esquire

1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792

Carrie Flynn, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS:

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to the 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 consult with the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning their 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: 90-005329

Orders for Case No: 90-005329