The Issue The issue in this case is whether the allegations of the Amended Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Petitioner), against Tillie’s Twistee Treat, Inc., d/b/a Tillie’s Twistee Treat (Respondent) are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulation of restaurants pursuant to chapter 509, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was operating as a licensed food service establishment located at 16801 East Colonial Drive, Orlando, Florida, 32820. The Respondent sells an ice cream product. On December 2, 2015, Maelyn Arroyo, a Sanitation and Safety Specialist employed by the Petitioner, performed an unannounced routine inspection of the Respondent, during which she observed various violations of the Code. At the conclusion of the inspection, Ms. Arroyo prepared a written report documenting the Code violations she had observed. Before leaving the premises, Ms. Arroyo provided a copy of the inspection report to Kathy Collins, identified on the report as the manager of the Respondent. According to the inspection report, the cited code violations were to be corrected by 8:00 a.m. on December 9, 2015, at which time a “callback” inspection was scheduled to occur. The purpose of the callback inspection was to determine whether the Code violations identified during the routine inspection had been corrected. On December 9, 2015, Ms. Arroyo returned to the Respondent’s location to conduct the callback inspection. At that time, Ms. Arroyo observed that many, but not all, of the Code violations observed during the routine inspection had been corrected. At the conclusion of the callback inspection, Ms. Arroyo prepared a written report documenting the uncorrected Code violations. Before leaving the premises, Ms. Arroyo provided a copy of the inspection report to an employee identified as Amanda Sanchez, who was present at the time of the inspection. Ms. Arroyo also recommended that administrative charges be filed against the Respondent for the uncorrected violations. The Code classifies violations as either “high priority,” “intermediate,” or “basic,” essentially reflecting the level of threat to public health posed by a deficiency. A high priority violation is one that poses a direct or significant threat of causing food borne illness to a person who consumes the product. The violations cited herein are high priority violations because the failure to maintain the product at or below the required temperatures can result in bacteria growth that can cause food borne illness in persons who consume the product. The Respondent’s ice cream product can be potentially hazardous if not maintained at the required temperature prior to service. In relevant part, Code Section 3-501.16(A)(2) requires that potentially hazardous food must be maintained at 41 degrees Fahrenheit or less, except during preparation, cooking, or cooling. At the time of the routine inspection on December 2, 2015, Ms. Arroyo determined that the temperature of chocolate ice cream mix held in the front line ice cream machine was 54 degrees, and that the temperature of vanilla ice cream mix held in the front line ice cream machine was 51 degrees. Other flavors of ice cream mix tested by Ms. Arroyo apparently met temperature requirements. At the time of the callback inspection on December 9, 2015, Ms. Arroyo determined that the temperature of chocolate ice cream mix held in the front line ice cream machine was 50 degrees, and that the temperature of vanilla ice cream mix held in the front line ice cream machine was 43 degrees. Ms. Arroyo also determined that the strawberry ice cream mix was 42 degrees. Ms. Arroyo testified that she calibrates her thermometer on a daily basis prior to beginning her assigned inspections. Ms. Arroyo testified that on December 9, 2015, she tested the calibration of the thermometer used by the Respondent to maintain the appropriate food temperatures and discovered that the Respondent’s thermometer was not properly calibrated. A properly calibrated thermometer should provide a temperature reading of 32 degrees when subjected to an ice water calibration test. According to Ms. Arroyo, when she performed an ice water calibration test on the Respondent’s thermometer, the thermometer indicated that the temperature of the water was 28 degrees. Accordingly, the Respondent’s thermometer was indicating that the product being tested was four degrees lower than the actual temperature of the product.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants enter a Final Order imposing a fine of $250 against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 2016.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent The Heidrich Corporation owes Petitioner money for watermelons and, if so, how much.
Findings Of Fact In June 1996, Petitioners, who are growers, sold watermelons to Respondent The Heidrich Corporation (Respondent), which is a broker. Respondent shipped the watermelons directly from Petitioners' fields to Canada for resale. This case involves eight deliveries of watermelons from Petitioners to Respondent. Petitioners' invoice numbers and dates of sale are as follows: 1392 on June 14, 1393 on June 15, 4004 on June 18, 4005 on June 19, 4013 and 4015 on June 22, 4016 on June 23, and 4034 on June 25. The understanding between Petitioners and Respondent relieved Respondent of the responsibility of paying for watermelons that were nonconforming when received by Respondent's customer. Nonconforming melons are melons that are decayed, undermature, overmature, destroyed for inspection, or otherwise reasonably unacceptable to Respondent's customer. However, nonconforming melons do not included melons that are unacceptable due to damage in transit; such damage would consist of cracking or bruising. The parties did not explicitly agree who would bear freight, inspection, and disposal expenses of nonconforming melons. After deduction for nonconforming melons, the June 14 shipment comprised 40,102 pounds. The parties agreed to a price of 4.5 cents per pound for this shipment, so the amount due Petitioners is $1804.59. Respondent paid freight of $92.31 attributable to decayed watermelons. After deduction for nonconforming melons, the June 15 shipment comprised 45,181 pounds. The parties agreed to a price of 4.5 cents per pound for this shipment, so the amount due Petitioners is $2033.15. Respondent paid freight of $33.75 attributable to decayed watermelons. After deduction for nonconforming melons, the June 18 shipment comprised 35,963 pounds. The parties agreed to a price of five cents per pound for this shipment, so the amount due Petitioners is $1798.15. Respondent paid freight of $226.16 attributable to decayed watermelons. The June 19 shipment was substantially nonconforming. Sixty-eight percent of the watermelons were defective on receipt in Canada, possibly due to excessive rainfall and premature cutting. Respondent's customer rejected the entire load, rather than try to find the few salable melons. For the purposes of the present case, the proper accounting for this shipment is to multiply the unloaded weight of 32,890 pounds by the percentage of conforming watermelons (32 percent). The result of 10,525 pounds represents the weight of conforming melons on receipt in Canada. The parties agreed to a price of five cents per pound, so the amount due Petitioners is $526.25. Respondent did not separately state the freight attributable to the nonconforming fruit that was not the result of shipping. Expressed as percentages of the shipping weight (not unloaded weight), eight percent of the melons were decayed, 38 percent were undermature, and five percent were overmature, for a total of 51 percent, or 20,981 pounds, of nonconforming melons. Freight on this shipment was 5.5 cents per pound, so the freight expenses for these nonconforming melons is $1153.96. Respondent also credited its customer with $700 to pay for the disposal of the melons. There were two relevant shipments on June 22. The first is documented by Petitioners' invoice 4013. After deduction for nonconforming melons, this shipment comprised 41,316 pounds. The parties agreed to a price of five cents per pound for this shipment, so the amount due Petitioners is $2065.80. Respondent paid freight of $231.20 attributable to decayed watermelons. The second June 22 shipment is documented by Petitioners' invoice 4015. The deduction for nonconforming melons requires two calculations. On arrival in Canada, prior to governmental inspection, Respondent's customer reasonably rejected 13,572 pounds out of 47,270 shipped pounds; 12,612 pounds were nonconforming (the remaining 960 pounds were bruised). Of the remaining 33,698 pounds, 15 percent, or 5055 pounds, were also nonconforming, as reflected in an ensuing governmental inspection. This means that 18,627 pounds of the original shipment were nonconforming, leaving 28,643 pounds of conforming melons. The parties agreed on five cents per pound for this shipment, so the amount due Petitioners is $1432.15. Respondent paid freight of $931.35 attributable to the nonconforming melons. Respondent's customer reasonably rejected 68 percent of the June 23 shipment of 44,120 pounds. However, 19 percent of the rejected melons were bruised, so the net deduction for nonconforming melons in the June 23 shipment is 20,736 pounds, leaving conforming melons of 23,384 pounds. The parties agreed to a price of five cents per pound for this shipment, so the amount due Petitioners is $1169.20. Respondent paid freight of $1036.80 35 attributable to the nonconforming melons. Respondent also paid its customer $850 for dumping and inspection fees. The final shipment, which took place on June 25, was by bins, rather than loose watermelons. There were no nonconforming melons in this shipment. The parties agreed that Respondent would pay $1272.55 for this shipment.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order determining that Respondent owes Petitioners the sum of $12,101.84. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Francis A. Oakes Oakes Produce Company 2744 Edison Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33916 Francis X. Heidrich, President The Heidrich Corporation Post Office Box 151059 Altamonte Springs, Florida 32715-1059 Aetna Casualty & Surety Company 151 Farmington Avenue Hartford, Connecticut 06156
The Issue Is Pioneer Farms (E. T. Usher) entitled to the issuance of a permit from the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection which would allow the construction of a 0.033MGD dairy waste management system which includes rotational grazing of the dairy herd and the application of spray effluent derived from a solids separation chamber and an anaerobic lagoon?
Findings Of Fact Pioneer applied for necessary environmental permits to construct a 0.033 MGD dairy waste management system in Levy County, Florida. Pioneer sought permission for this construction from DEP. DEP has regulatory authority over the construction of Pioneer's proposed waste management system in accordance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes and Chapter 62, Florida Administrative Code. Desmond owns property in Levy County, Florida. His property is adjacent to the Pioneer property where the dairy waste management system would be established. When Desmond received notice that DEP intended to grant a permit to Pioneer to construct the dairy waste management system, he petitioned in opposition to that grant. Desmond asserts that the proposed waste management system is experimental in nature and will adversely affect surface and subsurface water quality, that use of spray irrigation is not appropriate for the area, that the property upon which the project would be located is prone to flooding and has flooded in the past, that the applicant has failed to delineate the landward extent of wetlands and surface waters, that the supporting engineering studies do not contain historical data on flood duration periods, that there is no record of plant species surveyed, that the property in question ponds during the rainy seasons and that the ponding lasts longer than seven days, that the property is saturated during the rainy season and the saturation is of a duration greater than 20 days, that the subsurface water level during the rainy season is less than 18 inches from the surface, that the percolation rate of the properties soils are equal to or greater than 20 inches per hour or 40 feet per 24 hours, that the engineering report does not contain sufficient data for supporting adequate modeling of manure and nitrate transport, that the Floridan Aquifer is highly vulnerable to contaminants in the area of the project, and that pollution will certainly occur with the advent of the project, that facts indicate that ammonia and nitrate deposits will be washed through the soils before sufficient retardation and denitrification can occur, that the holding pond design fails to meet the 25-year, 24-hour storm event, that there are records of storms greater than the 25-year storm as frequent as 13 times in the last 94 years, that the piezometric head in the northwest portion of the property is unknown, and that as a consequence the subsurface directional water flow has not been determined. Desmond failed to prove these facts. By contrast, Pioneer and DEP have proven that the necessary reasonable assurances have been presented to allow the construction project to be permitted subject to general and specific conditions set forth in the notice of intent to issue the permit. The dairy waste management system is designed to accommodate a herd of 978 lactating cows on 374 acres of rotationally grazed pastures and 200 dry cows and 224 heifers pastured on a 124 acre effluent spray field and 112 acres of rotationally grazed pastures. The calves that are part of this herd will be grazed off-site. The waste management system consists of a concrete solids separation chamber; a 54,000 cubic foot anerrobic lagoon, and the 124-acre effluent spray field. Effluent, by way of solids in the barn area where the separation chamber is found, are transported by gravity to a pond referred to as the anerobic lagoon. That effluent is then sprayed on certain pasture land. While there are areas within the project site which are subject to ponding, the herd will not be allowed to access the ponded areas. The ponded areas are not sufficiently wide spread to compromise the project design. Waste solids associated with the herd's grazing activities will be applied to a pine forest adjacent to the site. The waste management system is designed to collect and treat wastewater that is generated at the milking barn and contaminated storm-water runoff that is processed through the solids separation chamber and that enter the lagoon. The lagoon/pond is designed to respond to a storm event that is greater than the 25 year/24 hour storm event. Well sites will be located on the property to monitor the effects of solid wastes from the herd grazing on pasture land and the effects of spray effluent on the pasture land as these sources influence groundwater quality, having in mind compliance with Chapter 62-522, Florida Administrative Code. The engineering design is set forth in Usher Exhibit No. 2, the report in support of the permit application. Usher Exhibits Nos. 3 and 5, are responses to the DEP requests for additional information about the permit application. Adequate information has been provided concerning the soils in the area, their structure and drainage potential. Emphasis has been placed on the excavation of the lagoon/pond and the existing soil structure in that area and any need to over-excavate and fill. Any necessary fill will be constituted of sand or limestone with sufficient compaction to meet design specifications for the lagoon/pond. Appropriate attention has been paid to grade elevations of the primary structures associated with the project, the side slopes of embankments against the barn floor, concrete cattle lanes, solids separator and entrance ramp to the storage pond and the storage pond itself, as these engineering features respond to drainage issues. Appropriate attention has been paid to hydro-geology of the region in which this project is located by specific information obtained through soil borings made at on-site monitoring wells as this information anticipates percolation rates. Studies at the project site reveal that the information from potentiometric maps of the Floridan Aquifer are incorrect concerning the direction of groundwater flow. The more specific studies done by the applicant show that the flow is in a northeastern direction. In determining the direction of flow of groundwater, 13 wells were drilled. While the concept in this project of using frequent and intensive grazing rotations in the pasture land, referred to as paddock areas, is a new concept in Florida, the expected performance by the herd, the pasture land and the overall waste management system in this project are based upon reasonable assumptions and do not lead to the results that violate the DEP statutes and rules for the protection of surface water and groundwater. This system is one in which the lactating cows within the herd would spend 85 percent of their time in the paddock areas/pasture land. There are four separate grazing areas with individual irrigation pivots. There is a fifth pivot not involved with the lactating herd. This pivot is associated with the spray effluent process from the lagoon. The lactating herd will spend 15 percent of their time in the barn area, known as the milk/feed barn. That barn will be flushed after each milking with the wastewater traveling into the storage lagoon and eventually applied to the pasture land associated with the fifth center pivot. The spray effluent will be applied to parts of that paddock area served by the fifth pivot only at times when the cows are not there. Dry cows and heifers will be located in the field area served by the fifth pivot, and an area just north of the fifth pivot area will also serve as pasture land for the non-lactating cows. In the fifth pivot area the non- lactating cows will rotate through paddock areas within that pasture. Likewise the lactating herds will rotate through the other four pivot areas. The rotation in these pastures is a fourteen day rotation. One day is spent in each paddock. Within each individual pivot of pivots 1 through 4, one herd of cows will be located under pivot 1, another herd under pivot 2 and a third under pivots 3 and 4. Each day the lactating herds will spend about 20 hours in the pasture land under the pivots and roughly 4 hours walking to and from the milk/feed barn and being milked. More specifically, the manure deposited in the milk barn will be flushed from floors to a gutter collector. From there the waste goes by a gravity flow from the gutter collector to a concrete lined ditch and into a solids separator trap. The solids separator is designed to remove all of the sand and the majority of the course solids associated with waste. This assists in the reduction of solids accumulation in the storage pond. The solids that are collected at the separator will undergo dewatering and then will be transported and spread on adjacent land owned by Pioneer. The amount of solids that enter the lagoon/pond are expected to be applied to the pasture land under pivot number 5. Nonetheless, on a quarterly basis, solids accumulations are noted when the lagoon/storage pond is pumped. If there is a significant accumulation, then solids will be removed from the pond. As well as accommodating the 25 year 24 hour design storm, the storage lagoon/pond is designed to hold 10 days of dairy operation wastewater and direct rain fall simultaneously. As extra capacity, the lagoon/pond has one foot of free board for safety in the operation. The effect of the one foot free board is to create a condition where it would require approximately a 1,000 year storm event to over-top the pond. Approximately two and a half hours of effluent irrigation per week is necessary to accommodate the wastewater from the milk barn. The irrigation system for effluent is sensitive to the level of water in the lagoon/pond. The pasture under the fifth pivot also uses fresh water irrigation separately. Attention will be paid to the maintenance of grass in the pasture areas available to the dairy herd. The health of the grass is supported by freshwater irrigation, effluent spray irrigation and direct waste deposits from the herd. The applicant has given the necessary assurances concerning nutrient management of nitrogen and phosphorus. As part of stormwater management system, the herd will not be allowed into areas of the property which are within the 100 year flood plain. There are five groundwater monitoring wells, the second, third and fifth of which are to determine compliance with DEP water quality standards. Under wet conditions where there is a high incidence of rainfall, pivot number 5 may be in operation; however, without intention to operate that pivot in a manner which will cause spray effluent to be applied to ponded areas, thereby producing runoff on the surface. The soils in the area have high permeability rates in the range of 6- 20 inches per hour. Thus, waste water easily infiltrates the soil at acceptable rates unless there is an extremely high water table, which is not anticipated. It is especially unlikely that a high water table of long duration will be experienced. Dr. Dale Bottcher is an expert in agricultural engineering and dairy design. He established that the project as proposed by Pioneer will provide the necessary reasonable assurances to the DEP that the activities associated with the dairy will not contaminate surface waters or exceed standards for the protection of groundwater. To arrive at those assurances, the applicant has assessed the location of the herd densities in the dairy operation, the soil uptakes related to nutrient balance, with specific emphasis on the assurance that there will not be excess nitrogen available that could migrate from the project site to adjacent property and contaminate that adjacent property by exceeding DEP standards. As established by Dr. Bottcher the animal waste produced that is immediately dropped on the pasture land and the spray effluent from the lagoon/pond is used up by the grass on the pasture land. In fact, there is not enough animal waste generated to produce the grasses. It is anticipated the animal waste will produce 50-70 percent of the necessary nutrients for the grasses. Therefore, a supplemental fertilization program is to be put in place for the grass production. To make certain that the grass is uptaking the nutrients adequately the monitoring wells will be installed. The monitoring wells are strategically located to insure groundwater protection. Under pivot 5, the spray effluent pasture, in combination between the spray effluent and direct deposits by the animals, 250 pounds of nitrogen will be produced a year of the needed 700 pounds. As Dr. Bottcher established there are areas on the property that are subject to periodic flooding for no more than a few weeks per year. During those times that land will not be available to the herd in its grazing activities. Again, those ponded areas will not receive spray effluent under pivot 5. Dr. Bottcher gave the opinion, within a reasonable degree of engineering certainty, that the dairy waste management system would abate and prevent water pollution to the extent required by applicable statutes and rules and that the activities in the project would not allow for discharge or cause water pollution in violation of those applicable DEP rules. His opinion is accepted. Dr. Bottcher established that the phosphorus produced on the site is bound up in the soils and the groundwater is further protected in some places by an underlying clay layer. Mark Bardolph, DEP Environmental Manager within the Industrial Wastewater Section is an expert in dairy design. His opinion that no problems will be experienced with ponding of water is accepted. The opinion by Mr. Bardolph that this design is a better alternative to traditional diary designs is accepted. John Davis is a Professional Geologist. He is employed by DEP. He is an expert in hydro-geology. His opinion as a hydro-geologist that reasonable assurances have been given that the proposed dairy waste management system will comply with applicable laws and rules is accepted. David Bolam is an expert in environmental engineering who works for DEP. He does not believe that there is a problem with ponding of water on the site that would interfere with the operation of the dairy waste management system. That opinion is accepted. His professional opinion that reasonable assurances have been given that the construction and operation of the waste management system would comply with the applicable DEP laws and rules is accepted.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which grants Pioneer permission to construct the 0.033 MGD dairy waste management system as proposed by DEP in its draft permit with general and specipic conditions. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 1st day of May, 1995. APPENDIX The following discussion is given concerning the proposed findings of fact by the parties: Petitioner's Facts: Desmond: Paragraph 1 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 2 is rejected in its suggestion that Pioneer has not adequately met applicable DEP rules. Paragraph 3 is accepted in its suggestion that the Floridan Aquifer is vulnerable to contamination but is rejected in the suggestion that the activities by Pioneer will cause such contamination. Paragraph 4 is contrary to facts found. Pioneer and DEP: Paragraph 1 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragrap 2 through 4 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are accepted to the extent that they correspond to the findings in the recommended order related to testimony from witnesses for Pioneer and DEP and the suggestion that the allegations by Desmond have not been proven. COPIES FURNISHED: Noel K. Desmond Post Office Box 1771 Chiefland, FL 32626-1771 Marty Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 3310 Ocala, FL 34478-3310 Thomas I. Mayton, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue Whether or not the Petitioner should be entitled to an extension of the shelf life on its milk and milk products from a ten day period to a twelve day period.
Findings Of Fact Testimony offered by Jay Boosinger, Director of Dairy Industry, for the Department of Agriculture and Gene Smith, Supervisor of Dairy Products Inspection Enforcement, indicated that the Respondent had investigated the request for extension of shelf life from ten days to twelve days on the milk and milk products of the Petitioner. Based on the laboratory analysis of the test samples, they felt that the request should be accepted. This position was stated notwithstanding the fact that the samples taken in the Miami plant were limited in numbers, due to the fact that the petition for extension of shelf life was filed later than a similar petition filed by the Petitioner. Jay Boasinger has as his duty the direction of the program which is designed to regulate the quality of dairy products within the State of Florida. Gene Smith, as his title indicates, is charged with the function of inspection and enforcement of the laws and regulations associated with the diary industry in the State of Florida. Testimony was offered in this hearing which indicated that certain samples of the Petitioner's milk and milk products had been collected at the Petitioner's Miami, Florida plant, the Petitioner's trucks and selected stores which were serviced by the Petitioner. These samples were collected by a dairy plant specialist of the Respondent and in turn were taken to a laboratory of the Respondent for analysis. The laboratory analysis was designed to ultimately determine the number of days that the samples would be acceptable beyond the code expiration date found on the container, which expiration date would have been at the ten day point. There is an exhibit, which is Respondent's Exhibit #1 that identifies the product, collection point, the established expiration date, the laboratory evaluation date and the days that the product was found to be acceptable beyond the ten day, established expiration date. In addition this exhibit contains the laboratory analysis of the products together with attendant correspondence on the issue of the extension of the shelf life. The test samples in Respondent's Exhibit #1 show in the date acceptable pass column, how many days past the ten days the product would have held up without losing flavor and becoming unacceptable in terms of shelf life. The laboratory analyses and summary of those analyses showed available shelf life above the ten day life expressed in the regulation found in Chapter 5D-104(7)(d), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent grant a shelf life of twelve days on the milk and milk products identified in the course of the hearing held on the question of the petition. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of June, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: R. D. Saunders, Zone Manager Sealtest Foods 109 Governors Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Jack Shoemaker, Esquire Resident Counsel 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
