The Issue On February 24, 1987, the Petitioner posted a bond in the amount of $844.80 in lieu of confiscation of 1600 gallons of diesel fuel that was found to be below standard. The ultimate issue in this case is whether some or all of the bond should be refunded to the Petitioner. At the hearing the Petitioner testified on his own behalf. He did not call any other witnesses and did not offer any exhibits. The Respondent presented the testimony of two witnesses and offered one composite exhibit which was received in evidence without objection. Neither party requested a transcript of the hearing and both parties waived the right to file proposed recommended orders. Several days after the hearing, the Petitioner mailed to the Hearing Officer a copy of a letter written by an employee of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services regarding this matter. I have not based any findings of fact on the information in that letter because it was not received in evidence at the time of the hearing
Findings Of Fact Based on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact. On November 17, 1986, an employee of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (hereinafter "Department") inspected various fuels offered for sale at the Mobile Service Station located at 1-75 and State Road 236. The inspection revealed that a quantity of diesel fuel offered for sale at that service station was below standards. On November 18, 1986, an employee of the Department returned to the service station described above and issued a Stop Sale Notice regarding the substandard diesel fuel, placed a seal on the pump to prevent further retail sale of the substandard diesel fuel, and took a second sample of the diesel fuel for the purpose of confirmation testing. The second sample of the diesel fuel was also found to be below standards. The service station described above is owned by the Petitioner. The Petitioner leases the station to an operator and delivers the fuel that is sold at the service station. On November 18, 1987, when the Stop Sale Notice was issued, the person on duty at the service station called Petitioner's office to advise Petitioner that the Stop Sale Notice had been issued and that the diesel pump had been sealed. Mr. Glenn Jones, the president of Petitioner, was not at the office at the time of that call, but was informed about the Stop Sale Notice within the next few days. On February 24, 1987, another representative of the Department visited the subject service station and on that day Mr. Glenn Jones signed a Department form titled Release Notice or Agreement and posted a bond in the amount of $844.80. The terms and conditions of the bond are not part of the evidence in this case. Thereupon, the Department removed the seal from the diesel pump at the subject service station and the 1600 gallons of diesel fuel were released to the Petitioner. During the period between November 18, 1986, and February 24, 1987, diesel fuel could not be sold to retail customers at the subject service station because the diesel fuel pump was sealed. This inability to sell diesel fuel to retail customers for over 90 days caused the service station to lose a substantial amount of business. In the normal course of events, within no more than one week from the time a Stop Sale Notice is issued the owner of substandard fuel can arrange to post a bond and have the seal removed from the fuel pump. It is very unusual for it to take more than 90 days as it did in this case. Several circumstances contributed to the unusual delays in this case. Among those circumstances were the fact that during the period from November 18, 1986, to February 24, 1987, both Mr. Glenn Jones and the Department employee who was supposed to follow up on this matter suffered from serious illnesses. The matter was further complicated by the fact that the fuel samples were taken by a mobile testing unit and the mobile testing unit moved on to another area shortly after the samples in this case were taken. There is no competent substantial evidence in the record of this case regarding the retail price of the substandard diesel fuel which was the subject of the Stop Sale Notice on November 18, 1986, nor is there any evidence as to the amount of such fuel, if any, that was sold to the public.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services issue a final order in this case to the effect that the petitioner, Glenn I. Jones, Inc., is entitled to a refund of the full amount of the bond it posted on February 24, 1987, in the amount of $844.80. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Glenn I. Jones Glenn I. Jones, Inc. Post Office Box 549 Lake City, Florida 32055 Harry Lewis Michaels, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 513, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 The Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Robert Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact On February 16, 1981, John Flanagan, a Graduate Chemist and Inspector for the Petitioner, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, (hereafter "Department") took a gasoline sample (R-247) from an unleaded pump identified as 45321" at the June Avenue Service Station, 1109 West U.S. 98, Panama City, Florida. This sample was field tested and then forwarded to the lab in Tallahassee where it was again tested on February 20, 1981 and found to be contaminated with leaded gasoline. (Testimony of Whitton, Flanagan, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1). As a result of the field test the Department issued a stop sale notice to Mr. Al Barry on February 16, 1981. The laboratory analysis showed that the unleaded gasoline sample exceeded the standards established by the American Society of Testing and Materials ("ASTN") for unleaded fuel which were adopted by the Department as Rule 5F-2.01, Florida Administrative Code. The sample in question contained 0.088 gram of lead per gallon and therefore violated Rule 5F-2.01(1)(j), Florida Administrative Code, which states that unleaded gasoline may not contain more than 0.05 gram of lead per gallon. 4 The Respondent was permitted to post a $1,000 cash bond in lieu of confiscation in order to secure the release of the remaining 1,600 gallons of illegal gasoline for sale as leaded regular. The Respondent has no knowledge as to how the unleaded gasoline was contaminated. The gasoline was purchased from the Hill Petroleum Company and supplied by the Respondent to the June Avenue Service Station as unleaded gasoline.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order denying Respondent's request for the return of its 1,000 bond which was required to be posted in lieu of confiscation of approximately 1,600 gallons of contaminated unleaded gasoline. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Les McLeod, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 513, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William D. Dickens Dickens Oil Company 1706 Maple Avenue Panama City, Florida 32405 John Whitton, Chief Bureau of Petroleum Inspection Division of Standards Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact For the period of time from January 1, 1986, through December 31, 1989, Co-Op Oil Company, Inc., was a wholesaler and retailer of motor fuel (gasoline) and special fuel (diesel) in the Florida west coast area and held Motor Fuel License Number 09_000447 and Special Fuel License No. 10-003477. During this time, each month Co-Op reported and paid motor fuel and special fuel tax based on the number of "net" gallons purchased during the preceding month. "Net" gallons are an industry standard. They are measured at a temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Meanwhile, during the same month, Co-Op sold motor fuel and special fuel through metered pumps and charged customers motor fuel and special fuel tax on the metered gallons sold through the pumps. Both motor fuel and special fuel are volatile. They expand and contract significantly as temperatures rise and fall. Since the temperature in an underground storage tank generally is around 71-72 degrees Fahrenheit, the "gross" gallons of motor fuel and special fuel stored in Co-Op's underground tanks and for resale to customers generally exceeds the "net" gallons it purchased by approximately one percent. Additional expansion, or some contraction, of the fuels can occur in transit from the tank to the metered pump, depending on outside temperature. As a result, the "gross" gallons pumped through the meter and sold to customers can differ from the "net" gallons purchased by Co-Op Oil. "Losses" due to contraction in cold tempertures also can occur, but a reasonable "shrinkage" allowance was factored into the Department's calculations. (Additional losses can occur due to spillage and evaporation. However, tax is still due on fuel lost to spillage and evaporation.) Except for Chapters 206 and 212, Part II, motor fuel taxes after January 1, 1988, the Department has interpreted the applicable statutes to: (1) require Co-Op to report and pay motor fuel and special fuel taxes monthly on the "gross" gallons it sells to its customers, plus any fuel it loses to spillage or evaporation; (2) hold Co-Op, as a licensee who collects more tax on motor fuel and special sold than was paid on the same gallons purchased, to be liable for the difference; and (3) hold Co-Op, as a licensee who purchased gasoline tax free, recorded such purchases at "net," and adjusted sales on its tax returns to "net," and sold such fuel at "gross," to be liable for the difference in tax. The Sampling Method The parties agreed that, due to the voluminous records that would be the subject of a detailed audit of all pertinent transactions, an audit using a sampling method is not only appropriate but also a practical necessity. The parties agreed that it would be appropriate to average the months of July, a hot month, and December, cold month, to obtain a valid and accurate average for the amount of gains (or losses) in volume of motor and special fuel due to expansion (or contraction) from the "net" gallonage purchased for resale through the metered pumps. An audit of the sample months reveals the following pertinent information (expressed in gallons): Month Motor Fuel Special Fuel JULY, 1986 Beginning Inventory 139,777 37,263 Amount of Fuel Purchased 622,543 124,809 Amount of Fuel Sold 639,640 125,591 Ending Inventory 126,740 37,167 DECEMBER, 1986 Beginning Inventory 103,046 33,648 Amount of Fuel Purchased 644,966 112,297 Amount of Fuel Sold 627,361 106,795 Ending Inventory 119,169 39,608 JULY, 1987 Beginning Inventory 88,937 30,769 Amount of Fuel Purchased 485,783 66,382 Amount of Fuel Sold 471,823 73,261 Ending Inventory 109,542 24,378 DECEMBER, 1987 Beginning Inventory 85,210 30,678 Amount of Fuel Purchased 552,977 76,584 Amount of Fuel Sold 535,767 78,667 Ending Inventory 102,497 28,311 JULY, 1988 Beginning Inventory 17,863 Amount of Fuel Purchased 61,499 Amount of Fuel Sold 52,380 Ending Inventory 27,197 DECEMBER, 1988 Beginning Inventory 24,195 Amount of Fuel Purchased 52,492 Amount of Fuel Sold 47,242 Ending Inventory 29,293 JULY, 1989 Beginning Inventory 19,829 Amount of Fuel Purchased 45,817 Amount of Fuel Sold 42,834 Ending Inventory 25,386 DECEMBER, 1989 Beginning Inventory 20,114 Amount of Fuel Purchased 54,323 Amount of Fuel Sold 55,520 Ending Inventory 18,824 (Under Chapters 206 and 212, Part II, motor fuel was taxed on purchases, as reported and paid by Co-Op, after December 31, 1987, so only special fuel totals are shown after that date.) Additional Taxable Gallons: Motor Fuel Adding the beginning inventory and purchases yields the "available fuel" for the month. Subtracting the ending inventory from this figure yields the month's "inventoried fuel accounted for." "Gain" from expansion of fuel above the "net" gallons purchased would equal the difference between a larger amount of fuel sold through the meters, the "metered sales," and a smaller "inventoried fuel accounted for." "Loss" from contraction of fuel below the "net" gallonage purchased (plus other possible losses from spillage, leakage or evaporation) would equal the difference between a larger "inventoried fuel accounted for" and a smaller amount of fuel sold through the meters, the "metered sales." Using the arithmetic operations described in the preceding paragraph on the samples of motor fuel, it can be calculated that Co-Op had gains of: 4,060 gallons for July 1986; 6,645 gallons for July 1987; and 77 gallons for December 1987. In the month of December 1986, there was a loss of 1,482 gallons. The net gain in motor fuel for those months was 9,300 gallons. Meanwhile, the total purchases of motor fuel for those months was 2,306,269 gallons. Comparing the net gain with the total purchases yields a gain or error ratio of .004032487 for motor fuel. The total number of gallons of motor fuel purchased by Co-Op during 1986 and 1987 was 14,190,105. Application of this gain ratio to the total number of gallons purchased yields 57,223 "additional taxable gallons" of motor fuel for 1986 and 1987. Computation of Additional Motor Fuel Tax, Penalty and Interest Multiplying each month's additional taxable gallons by .057 for the Chapter 212, Part II, motor fuel tax, and by .04 for the Chapter 206 motor fuel tax, the total taxes due for motor fuel are $3,262.29 for Chapter 212, Part II, and $2,288.92 for Chapter 206. Computed at 12 percent per annum or 1 percent monthly, interest or motor fuel taxes under Chapter 212, Part II, Fla. Stat., was $2,592.51 through July 28, 1993, with daily interest accruing at $1.07 per day from that day forward. Also computed at 12 percent per annum or 1 percent monthly, interest on the motor fuel tax under Chapter 206, Fla. Stat., was $1,500.15 through July 28, 1993, with daily interest accruing at $.75 per day from that day forward. To calculate the penalty for motor fuel for both Chapter 212, Part II, and Chapter 206, the tax due is multiplied by 25 percent to arrive at total amounts for penalties of $815.57 and $572.23, respectively. Additional Taxable Gallons: Special Fuel Using the same arithmetic operations described for motor fuel, the taxable gains for special fuel can be calculated for the sample months. (Special fuel was taxable upon resale at the pump for the entire audit period, and the sample months are examined for the entire audit period.) These calculations show the total net gain for the eight month sample period to be 3,892 gallons, as follows: Month Gain/Loss Gallons 686 458 488 284 215 152 July, 1986 December, 1986 July, 1987 December, 1987 July, 1988 December, 1988 July, 1989 Gain Gain Gain Loss Gain Loss Gain + + + - + - +2,574 December, 1989 93 Loss - (net gain) +3,892 Meanwhile, the total purchases of special fuel for those months was 594,203 gallons. Comparing the net gain with the total purchases yields a gain or error ratio of .00655 for special fuel. The total number of gallons of special fuel purchased by Co-Op during the years 1986 through 1989 was 3,910,608. Application of the gain ratio for special fuel to the total number of gallons purchased yields 25,614 "additional taxable gallons" of special fuel for 1986 through 1989. Computation of Additional Special Fuel Tax, Penalty and Interest Multiplying each month's additional taxable gallons of special fuel by $.057 per gallon for the Chapter 212, Part II, special fuel tax, and by $.04 per gallon for the Chapter 206 special fuel tax (except for the months July, 1987, through December, 1987, for which they are multiplied by the $.09 per gallon tax during that period of time), yields Chapter 212, Part II, special fuel tax due in the amount of $1,460.32, and Chapter 206 special fuel tax due in the amount of $1,171.76. Computing interest using exactly the same method as for the motor fuel taxes yields interest on the special fuel tax due under Chapter 212, Part II, in the amount of $1,067.32 through July 28, 1993, with daily interest accruing at $.48 per day from that day forward, and in the amount of $858.69 for the special fuel tax due under Chapter 206 through July 28, 1993, with daily interest accruing at $.39 per day from that day forward. The penalty for overdue special fuel tax for both Chapter 212, Part II, and Chapter 206 is calculated at 25 percent of the tax due, for total amounts of penalty of $365.08 and $292.94, respectively. The total of special fuel tax, interest and penalty due as of July 28, 1993, was $2,892.72 for special fuel under Chapter 212, Part II, and $2,323.29 for special fuel under Chapter 206. Rejection of Co-Op's Proposed Alternative Method Co-Op pointed out that for the month of July, 1986, it sold 17,097 gallons more than it purchased, but that for the subsequent sample months it was actually purchasing more gallons than it was selling. Co-Op argues that this demonstrates the payment of tax on 31,695 gallons more than it actually sold. However, a review of each month shows that, although purchases did exceed sales in several months, the ending inventories generally were larger than the number calculated by subtracting metered sales for the month from the total of beginning inventories plus purchases for the month. Actual dip stick measurements of the inventory in the tanks demonstrates a net increase over the computed book inventory of 9,300 gallons for motor fuel and 3,892 gallons for special fuel. In addition, sales of motor fuel for 1986 and 1987 totalled 14,247,541 gallons (8,228,593 for 1986, and 6,018,948 for 1987), while total purchases for that same period were only 14,190,105 gallons. For special fuel, sales of special fuel for 1986 through 1989 totalled 3,962,263 gallons (1,685,959 for 1986, 945,775 for 1987, 721,547 for 1988, and 608,982 for 1989), while total purchases of special fuel were only 3,910,608 gallons. In each case, due to expansion gains in the fuels, sales always exceeded purchases. Local Option Taxes The Chapter 336 local option taxes on motor fuel were not affected by the amendments to Chapters 206 and 212, Part II, effective January 1, 1988. The total that Co_Op reported for motor fuel purchases for the period January 1, 1986, through December 31, 1989, was 24,798,440. Multiplying by the gain ratio for motor fuel of .004032487 yields 100,000 gallons of additional taxable motor fuel. Adding the additional taxable gallons of motor fuel to the 25,614 gallons of additional taxable special fuel yields of 125,614 additional taxable gallons or net gain for the period. Throughout the audit period, the local option tax rate under Section 336.025 was $.04 per gallon for Lake and Lee County and $.06 per gallon for Manatee and Orange County. Polk County started with a $.04 per gallon rate and increased that to a $.06 per gallon rate in September, 1986. Pinellas and Citrus County increased the tax rate from the beginning figure of $.04 per gallon to $.06 per gallon in September, 1987. Because of the difference in rates between counties and the changes of rates within counties, it is necessary to calculate effective tax rates and compute the percentage of reported taxable gallons for Co-Op's business in each of the respective counties, as follows: Ratio of Reported Effective Tax County Gallons Rate .051 .040 .040 .060 Citrus 21 percent Lake 01 percent Lee 03 percent Manatee 11 percent .060 .050 .055 Orange 02 percent Pinellas 37 percent Polk 25 percent Taking the total net gain of 125,614 gallons and multiplying it by the appropriate percentage (i.e., the ratio of fuel sold in an individual county) yields the total taxable gains in each county. To ascertain the additional local option taxes due under Section 336.025, Fla. Stat., the total taxable gains calculated for each county option tax must be multiplied by each county, as follows: County for the purposes of the local effective tax rate for Tax Due Citrus $1,345.33 Lake 50.25 Lee 150.74 Manatee 829.05 Orange 150.74 Pinellas 2,323.86 Polk 1,727.19 Total $6,577.14 The statutory 25 percent penalty on the past due local option taxes amounts to $1,644.29. The statutory interest due on the past due local option taxes amounted to $4,415.33 through July 28, 1993, and has been accruing at a daily rate of $2.16 from that date (the date of the hearing). In sum, as of July 28, 1993, Co-Op owed local option tax under Section 336.025, penalty follows: and interest as Tax $6,577.14 Penalty 25 percent 1,644.29 Interest thru 7/28/93 4,415.33 Total $12,636.76 Interest continues to accrue at the $2.16 daily rate. Of the seven counties in which Co_Op was doing business that had enacted the local option tax under Section 336.025, Fla. Stat., only Lake, Lee and Manatee Counties had enacted the Section 336.021, Fla. Stat., tax of $.01 per gallon. They had only approximately 14.26 percent of the 125,614 additional taxable gallon (net gain) for purposes of local option taxes, or 17,913 additional taxable gallons. Using the statutory 1 percent taxable rate, Co-Op owes the following additional taxes: County Total Tax Percent Ratio Tax Due 8.60 Lake 171.93 5 Lee 171.93 28 48.14 Manatee 171.93 67 115.19 The statutory 25 percent penalty on the additional Section 336.021 local option tax amounts to $42.98. At the statutory rate, interest owing on the additional Section 336.021 local option tax totalled $127.97 through July 28, 1993, with interest accruing at the rate of $.06 per day thereafter. In sum, as of July 28, 1993, Co-Op owed local option tax under Section 336.021, penalty and interest in the amount of $342.88, with interest accruing at $.06 per day from that day forward. Estoppel Since 1957, each month Co-Op reported and paid motor fuel and special fuel tax based on the number of "net" gallons purchased during the preceding month. Four years before the audit which is the subject of this case, Co-Op was audited and was not told that it was in error in reporting and paying motor fuel and special fuel tax based on the number of "net" gallons purchased. However, at all times when Co-Op reported and paid motor fuel and special fuel tax based on the number of "net" gallons purchased, it also collected tax from the ultimate purchasers on the number of "gross" gallons pumped through the meter. Offer to Compromise Penalty The Department, in its Notice of Decision and Notice of Reconsideration offered to compromise the penalty on all taxes from the 25 percent level to a 5 percent level, but Co-Op protested both of these notices. The offer of compromise was only good for the duration of the Closing Agreement which was attached to the Notice of Reconsideration. In light of the prior audit, which did not alert Co-Op that it was reporting and paying taxes incorrectly, it could perhaps initially have been argued by Co-Op that its failure to report and pay these taxes when due was reasonable, and not fraudulent or willful neglect or negligence. But the prior audit cannot justify its decision to contest its liability for these taxes through formal administrative proceedings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue enter a final order finding the Petitioner, Co- Op Oil Company, Inc., liable for the following taxes: Ch. 212, Part II, Motor Fuel.--$6,670. 37, with interest accruing at $1.07 per day from July 29, 1993. Ch. 212, Pt. II, Special Fuel.-- $2,892.72, with interest accruing at $.48 per day from July 29, 1993. (3) Ch. 206, Motor Fuel.--$4,361.30, with interest accruing at $.75 per day from July 29, 1993. (4) Ch. 206, Special Fuel.--$2,323.39, with interest accruing at $.39 per day from July 29, 1993. Ch. 336.025, Motor/Special Fuel.-- $12,636.76, with interest accruing at $2.16 per day from July 29, 1993. Ch. 336.021, Motor/Special Fuel.-- $342.88, with interest accruing at $.06 per day from July 29, 1993. TOTAL - $29,277.42, with interest accruing at $4.91 per day from July 29, 1993. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. 1550 J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399- (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of September, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: James E. Smith, President Co-Op Oil Company, Inc. 4911 - 8th Avenue South Gulfport, Florida 33707 Ralph R. Jaeger, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Linda Lettera, Esquire General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs Executive Director Department of Revenue 102 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether the Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement for clean up costs associated with the Initial Remedial Action, (IRA), activities of the Abandoned Tank Restoration Program performed at his facility, and if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact At all times the Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, (Department), has been the state agency in Florida responsible for the administration of the state's Abandoned Tanks Restoration Program. Petitioner is the owner and operator of Mohammad's Supermarket, Department facility No. 29-8628197, a food market and gasoline station located at 3320 Hillsborough Avenue in Tampa. Petitioner has owned and operated the facility for approximately the last ten years. The facility in question included three 5,000 gallon gasoline underground storage tanks and one 5,000 diesel underground storage tank. The diesel tank has not been used for the storage of diesel product for the entire time the Petitioner has owned the facility, at least ten years, but the three gasoline tanks were in use after March 1, 1990. Gasoline tanks were reinstalled at the facility and are still in use. In March, 1993, Petitioner removed all four underground storage tanks from the facility and performed initial remedial action. The field and laboratory reports of the soil and groundwater samples taken at the site at the time the tanks were removed showed both gasoline and diesel contamination. In October, 1993, the Petitioner submitted an application for reimbursement of certain costs associated with the IRA program task to the Department. Thereafter, by letter dated August 5, 1994, the Department notified Petitioner that it had completed its review of the reimbursement application and had allowed Petitioner 25% of the total amount eligible for reimbursement. This was because since the Petitioner continued to use the gasoline tanks after March 1, 1990, the Petitioner's ATRP eligibility is limited to clean up of only the diesel contamination. Petitioner's application for reimbursement covered the entire cost of the tank removal, both gasoline and diesel, and did not differentiate between the costs associated with the remediation of the gasoline contamination and those associated with the diesel contamination. The 25% allowance was for the one tank, (diesel fuel), which was eligible for ATRP clean up reimbursement. The Department subtracted from the personnel costs in the amount of $5,996.25, claimed in Section 2A of the claims form, the sum of $45.00 for costs associated with ATRP eligibility status; $497.50 claimed as a cost associated with the preparation of a Tank Closure Report, and $3,508.75 claimed as costs associated with the preparation of a preliminary Contamination Assessment Report, (CAR). These deductions were made because costs associated with ascertaining ATRP eligibility status, the preparation of a Tank Closure report, and the preparation of a preliminary CAR are all costs ineligible for reimbursement. These three ineligible costs total $4,051.25. When this sum is deducted from the amount claimed, the remainder is $1,944.50. The Department then reduced this figure by prorating it at 25% for the diesel tank and 75% for the gasoline tanks, disallowing the gasoline portion. With that, the total reimbursement for Section 2A, personnel, costs is $486.25. Petitioner claimed $1,765.00 for rental costs, (Section 2C), associated with soil removal, from which the Department deducted the sum of $1,550.00 which represents costs associated with the preparation of a preliminary Contamination Assessment Report, (CAR), which is not eligible for reimbursement. The balance of $215.00 was reduced by the 75%, ($161.27), which related to the three gasoline tanks, leaving a balance of $53.75 to be reimbursed for rental costs attributable to the diesel contamination. Petitioner also claimed $12,865.75 for miscellaneous costs associated with soil removal. This is listed under Section 2I of the application. From that figure the Department deducted the sum of $9,455.99 as costs attributable to the three gasoline tanks. In addition, $2,017.43 was disallowed because it related to the preliminary CAR, and $3,151.99 was deducted because the tank was removed after July 1, 1992. The applicable rule requires justification in the Remedial Action Plan, (RAP), for removal of tanks after that date. Such costs, when justified, can be reimbursed as a part of a RAP application. A further sum of $1,759.66 was deducted from the 2I cost reimbursement since the applicant got that much as a discount on what it paid. Together the deductions amounted to $16,385.07, and when that amount is deducted from the amount claimed, a negative balance results. Section 3 of the application deals with soil treatment. Subsection 3I pertains to such miscellaneous items as loading, transport and treatment of soil. The total amount claimed by Petitioner in this category was $13,973.44. Of that amount, $10,480.00 was deducted because it related to the three gasoline tanks. The amount allowed was $3,493.44, which represents 25% of the total claimed. Category 7 on the application form deals with tank removal and replacement. Section 7A relates to personnel costs and Petitioner claimed $4,187.00 for these costs. Of this, $3,140.25 was deducted as relating to the three gasoline tanks and amounted to 75% of the claimed cost. In addition, $1,046.75 was deducted because the diesel tank was removed after July 1, 1992 and there was no justification given for the removal at that time. This cost might be reimbursed through another program, however. In summary, all personnel costs were denied, but so much thereof as relates to the diesel tank may be reimbursed under another program. Section 7C of the application form relates to rental costs for such items as loaders, trucks and saws. The total claimed was $2,176.00. Of this amount, $1,632.00 was deducted as relating to the three gasoline tanks, and an additional $544.00 was deducted as being associated with the non-justified removal of the diesel tank after July 1, 1992. As a result, all costs claimed in this section were denied. In Section 7D, relating to mileage, a total of $12.80 was approved, and for 7G, relating to permits, a total of $28.60 was approved. In each case, the approved amount constituted 25% of the amount claimed with the 75% disallowed relating to the three gasoline tanks. Section 7I deals with miscellaneous expenses relating to tank removal and replacement. The total claimed in this section was $2,262.30. A deduction of $1,697.11 was taken as relating to the three gasoline tanks, and $565.69 was deducted because the removal after July 1, 1992 was not justified in the application. This cost may be reimbursed under a separate program, but in this instant action, the total claim under this section was denied. Petitioner asserts that the Department's allocation of 75` of the claimed costs to the ineligible gasoline tanks is unjustified and inappropriate. It claims the majority of the costs where incurred to remove the eligible diesel fuel contamination and the incidental removal of overlapping gasoline related contamination does not justify denial of the costs to address the diesel contamination. To be sure, diesel contamination was detected throughout the site and beyond the extend of the IRA excavation. The soil removed to make room for the new tanks was contaminated and could not be put back in the ground. It had to be removed. The groundwater analysis shows both gasoline and diesel contamination at the north end of the property furthest from the site. The sample taken at that point, however, contains much more gasoline contaminant than diesel. Petitioner contends that the costs denied by the Department as relating to gasoline contamination were required in order to remove the diesel contamination and Petitioner should be reimbursed beyond 25%. It contends that the diesel contamination could not have been removed without removing all four tanks.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner request for additional reimbursement of $27,653.82 and affirming the award of $6,629.07. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 25th day of September, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Francisco J. Amram, P.E. Qualified Representative 9942 Currie Davis Drive, Suite H Tampa, Florida 33619 Virginia B. Wetherell Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, is an agency of state government charged, among other responsibilities, with establishing and enforcing standards related to quality of motor fuels, as pertinent hereto, the standard for volatility contained in Rule 5F-2.01(1)(c) 2, Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner has charged that the Respondent has technically not met this standard with fuel sold at the two stores, one in Tampa and one in Winter Haven, Florida, because the subject product (which contained ethanol) does not comply with that standard which states that the fuel should be 50 percent evaporated at a temperature of not less that 1700. There is no dispute that the fuel involved did not meet this standard because it was ethanol enriched and was intended to be sold as such by the Respondent. The notice of stop sale was filed herein because this product, which did not comply with the standard for regular or unleaded gasoline, was not labeled to disclose that it was other than unleaded gasoline, that is gasoline containing ethanol. The Petitioner however withdrew its allegation that "super unleaded gasoline" enriched with ethanol was sold in an unlabeled fashion. The Respondent is a corporation authorized to do business in Florida, headquartered in Dallas, Texas. It recently elected to convert many of its gasoline outlets to sell ethanol enriched gasoline, which is characterized by a higher per gallon profit-margin and a higher octane than regular unleaded gasoline. Thus, a memorandum was sent from the Respondent's home office in Dallas, Texas, to all the Respondent's district managers and zone managers providing them with detailed instructions for conversion of stations from selling non-enriched unleaded gasoline to ethanol enriched gasoline, including detailed instructions on preventing adulteration by water in underground tanks, as well as detailed instructions regarding proper labeling and disclosure of the contents of the new type fuel to consumers. Some 130 retail outlets in Florida were converted to sell the ethanol product and booklets were published and distributed to be provided to customers to explain the characteristics of the ethanol fuel to customers. There is no dispute that a good faith effort was consistently followed to adequately disclose the characteristics of the fuel to customers and to properly label the pumps. The Respondent's Tampa store converted to ethanol product on March 26, 1983, and received its first load of ethanol enriched gasoline that day. It was cited or notified to stop sale by the Petitioner on March 29, 1983, because the pumps through which the product was dispensed were mislabeled. The parties agree that this was due to a communication failure between the regional office in Orlando and that station and that the clerk at that Tampa store simply did not get notified to change the labeling on the pumps before the Petitioner observed the violation some two days later and ordered sale of the product stopped. A similar situation is true of the Winter Haven retail outlet which sold ethanol enriched products without disclosure labeling on the pumps. In this instance the labeling had been placed on the pumps, but had been torn off by person unknown and the notice to stop sale was issued against the Respondent with regard to that store before new labeling could be properly placed on the pumps. There is no question, and indeed the parties have stipulated, that the two violations which occurred were inadvertent, and due, with regard to the Tampa instance, to a lack of communication between the Respondent's regional management office and the retail outlet involved, such that proper labeling did not get placed on the pumps timely. With regard to the Winter Haven facility, there is no dispute that the labeling was timely and properly done when the first load of fuel was placed in the underground tanks for sale, but that persons unknown wrongfully removed the labeling. There is no evidence to establish that any such violations have been committed by the Respondent in the past. There is no question that enough of the product was sold to the public to exceed the $1,000 bond posted in lieu of confiscation. It was also established that the violations were inadvertent and were not perpetrated through any intent or scheme to defraud the consuming public.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be required to forfeit $250 of the $1,000 bond posted and that the remaining $750 be returned to the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank Graham, Esquire Department of Agriculture Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Debbie Hunn, Esquire 5500 Diplomat Circle Suite 105 Orlando, Florida 32810 The Honorable Doyle Conner, Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact In a letter dated March 12, 1990, the Department informed the Petitioner, Howard Miller, that it was denying the Petitioner's request that the assessment of $2,150.00 which he had previously paid to the Department be refunded to him. In a letter received by the Department on April 12, 1990, the Petitioner requested an administrative hearing to contest the Department's decision . The address included on the Petitioner's letter was the address used by the Department to notify the Petitioner of its decision to deny his request for a refund. A Notice of Assignment and Order was issued on June 1, 1990, giving the parties an opportunity to provide the undersigned with suggested dates and a suggested place for the formal hearing. The information was to be provided within ten days of the date of the Notice. This Notice was sent by United States mail to the Petitioner at the address listed in his letter requesting a formal hearing. Neither party responded to the Notice. On July 12, 1990, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting the formal hearing for 10:00 a.m., September 11, 1990. The location of the hearing was listed in the Notice. The Notice of Hearing was sent by United States mail to the Petitioner at the address listed in his letter requesting a formal hearing. The Petitioner did not appear at the place set for the formal hearing at the date and time specified on the Notice of Hearing. The Department was present at the hearing. The Petitioner did not request a continuance of the formal hearing or notify the undersigned that he would not be able to appear at the formal hearing. After waiting fifteen minutes for the Petitioner to appear, the hearing was commenced. At the commencement of the formal hearing the Department was informed that it could proceed with the formal hearing or, since Petitioner had the burden of proof in this case, move for dismissal of the case. The Department elected to make an ore tenus motion for dismissal. The Department was informed that a Recommended Order would be issued recommending dismissal of this case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's request for hearing in this case for failure to appear at the final hearing. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 18th day of October, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard Miller Route 2, Box 123 A Buffalo, MO 65622 Vernon L. Whittier, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact During a routine inspection on March 30, 1983, a sample diesel fuel taken from Respondent's place of business in Clearwater, Florida, was tested and was found to have a flash point of 660F. Normal flash point for diesel fuel is 1000F. A Stop Sale Notice was issued March 30, 1983, and sales from this tank were stopped. On March 31, 1983, Respondent posted a $1,000 bond in lieu of having the fuel confiscated. Before the Stop Sale Notice, 1,282 gallons of contaminated diesel fuel had been sold from this tank at a price of $1.099 per gallon.
Findings Of Fact On January 13, 1983, an inspector from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services drew a sample of the gasoline in one of the pumps at the station of K & S Imports, Inc., in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and submitted the sample for laboratory testing. This test determined that the evaporation rate for the sample was too high, having a 10 percent evaporated temperature of 155 degrees, instead of less than the allowable 140 degrees. Based on these test results, the Petitioner issued its stop-sale order to the Respondent on January 14, 1983. The tested sample came from a tank containing Cam 2 racing fuel. This is a special product distributed by Sun Oil Company, and it is not generally available to the public at gasoline stations. Cam 2 racing fuel performs well in engines designed for racing because racing cars often are pushed off in order to start the engines. However, the high evaporation rate of this fuel lessens the starting power of ordinary engines. The racing fuel tested at the Respondent's station came from a pump which was in the same location as the pumps containing other gasolines for sale to the public, and there was no obvious identification on the pump notifying purchasers that the product was a racing fuel not generally suitable for use in standard-use cars. Subsequent to the issuance of the stop-sale order, Sun Oil Company delivered another load of product, and added to the subject tank enough gasoline with a lower evaporation temperature to bring the sample at the pump down to an acceptable level. During the two to three month period prior to the issuance of the stop- sale order on January 14, 1983, the Respondent had sold 645 gallons of the Cam 2 racing fuel at a price of $3.50 per gallon. The Respondent contends that it informed the office of Consumer Services when it decided to market the Cam 2 fuel, and was advised that this fuel could be sold if the pump dispensing it was separated from other pumps, and if this pump was clearly marked to show that the fuel therein was sold as racing fuel not generally suitable for use in ordinary engines. However, there is not sufficient credible evidence to support a finding of fact that this instruction was implemented.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the request of K & S Imports, Inc., for a return of the $1,000 bond posted by it to secure the release of the fuel confiscated by the Department, be DENIED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 24 day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24 day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark Klein, President K & S Imports, Inc. 3955 North Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 The Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in these cases are (1) whether four tax warrants issued by Petitioner against Respondent, Frances Bowers, a/k/a Francis Bowers, d/b/a Shannon Oil Company and Shannon Service Stations, were properly issued; (2) whether two Notices of Freeze and two Notices of Intent to Levy on Respondent were properly issued; (3) whether the allegations of an Administrative Complaint entered March 1, 1995 by Petitioner against Respondent are correct; and (4) whether an Emergency Order of Suspension issued by Petitioner on or about March 3, 1995 was warranted.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent, Frances Bowers, a/k/a Francis Bowers, held a Special Fuel Dealers License #10-011382, a Motor Fuel Jobbers License #09-001450 and Retail Dealer License #’s 77- 000320 and 40-001175. The motor fuel and special fuel licenses were held at Highway 90 East, Caryville, Florida 32427. The retail dealer licenses were held at 1007 North Waukesh Street, Bonifay, Florida 32425 and Highway 279 South, Caryville, Florida 32427. Ms. Bowers operated under the business names of Shannon Oil Company or Shannon Service Station. Ms. Bowers has been engaged in the sale of fuel at various retail locations since 1986. She has engaged in the sale of special fuels (diesel) since May 10, 1985. She has operated as a motor fuel jobber (gasoline) since January 18, 1989. From April 1994 through December 1994, Ms. Bowers purchased special fuel from Murphy Oil Co. From May 1994 through July 1994, Ms. Bowers purchased special fuel from Beards Oil Co. For the period July 1993 through December 1994 Ms. Bowers delivered unsigned, no-remit tax returns to Petitioner, the Department of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as the “Department”). Those returns were delivered by Ms. Bowers to Kathy Jones, a Department Revenue Specialist, at the Department’s Marianna offices. Returns for some months were not remitted. Ms. Bowers subsequently returned to the Department’s Marianna offices and signed the no-remit returns she had filed in the presence of Ms. Jones. The no-remit returns filed by Ms. Bowers indicate that she owed taxes pursuant to Chapters 206, 212, Part II and 336, Florida Statutes. No part of the tax Ms. Bowers indicated was owed was remitted by Ms. Bowers to the Department. For months for which no return was filed, the Department estimated the amount of tax owed. The Department issued Notices of Assessment and Jeopardy Finding to Ms. Bowers in January 1995. These Notices informed Ms. Bowers of the Department’s intent to cause tax warrants for the outstanding taxes owed by Ms. Bowers to be filed with the Clerk of Court. Based upon the no-remit returns, the Department filed four tax warrants. The warrants were for total taxes of $218,801,56. Additionally, penalties, filing fees and interest was included in the tax warrants. The total amount for the four warrants, without the filing fees, was $187,167.18 attributable to Shannon Service Stations and $183,548.97 attributable to Shannon Oil Company. Included in the no-remit returns filed by Ms. Bowers were Special and Alternative Fuel Tax Returns. These returns indicated that Ms. Bowers had purchased “tax-paid” special fuel, meaning that she had paid the tax at the time she purchased the fuel. The tax was allegedly paid to Murphy Oil Co. or Beard’s Oil Co. Based upon the Special Fuel Tax Returns of Murphy Oil Co. and Beard’s Oil Co. no tax was paid by Ms. Bowers on purchases of special fuel purchased by Ms. Bowers. Copies of these returns were accepted into evidence without objection from Ms. Bowers. Ms. Bowers has admitted during her deposition testimony that she owes the outstanding taxes at issue in this proceeding. See Department’s exhibit 14. On or about February 28, 1995, the Department issued two Notices of Freeze and two Notices of Intent to Levy on Frances Bowers, a/k/a Francis Bowers, d/b/a Shannon Oil Company and Shannon Service Stations. Pursuant to the Notices, the Department notified Ms. Bowers that it intended to levy against her assets, consisting of deposits at the Bank of Bonifay, for outstanding taxes. The Department indicated that it was taking this action for nonpayment of taxes, penalty and interest in the sum of $183,548.97 attributable to Shannon Oil Company and in the sum of $187,267.18 attributable to Shannon Service Stations. On or about March 20, 1995, Ms. Bowers filed a Request for Administrative Hearing with the Department. Ms. Bowers contested the proposed levy and alleged that she had not failed to pay any taxes owed. On or about March 1, 1995, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint against Ms. Bowers. Pursuant to the Administrative Complaint, the Department informed Ms. Bowers that Special Fuel Dealers License #10-011382, Motor Fuel Jobbers License #09-001450 and Retail Dealer License #’s 77-000320 and 40-001175 were being revoked. This action was premised upon allegations that Ms. Bowers “failed to file or pay fuel taxes collected for the period of July, 1993 through December, 1994”. The Department also issued an Emergency Order of Suspension on or about March 3, 1995. Pursuant to this Order, the Department suspended the licenses held by Ms. Bowers which the Department sought to revoke in the Administrative Complaint. On or about March 22, 1995, Ms. Bowers sent a Petition for Administrative hearing to the Department in response tot he Administrative Complaint. Ms. Bowers disputed in the Petition whether she had failed to remit outstanding taxes or that she owed such taxes as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. All of the exhibits and the facts of this matter were stipulated to by Ms. Bowers. Ms. Bowers also stipulated to the revocation of her licenses, the emergency suspension order issued by the Department, the issuance of the tax warrants and the Notices of Freeze and Notices of Intent to Levy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered upholding the Emergency Order of Suspension, the Department’s Administrative Complaint, the four tax warrants issued by the Department against Respondent and the Notices of Intent to Freeze and Notices of Intent to Levy. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of February 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry Fuchs Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Linda Lettera General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Albert J. Wollermann John N. Upchurch Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol - Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Owen N. Powell, Esquire Post Office Box 789 Bonifay, Florida 32425
Findings Of Fact On November 18, 1991, Douglas & Sons, Inc. was operating a commercial vehicle on SR 9 (1-95) when it stopped at a Department of Transportation weigh station in Flagler Beach, Florida. The vehicle was checked by a DOT inspector who determined that the vehicle displayed a Florida decal outside the truck, but that the identification number on the fuel use cab card in the truck varied by one digit from the vehicle identification number on the North Carolina apportioned license registration. The DOT inspector issued a temporary fuel use permit for a $45.00 fee, which he collected to allow the vehicle to proceed on its way; and he collected a $50.00 civil penalty for violation of Chapter 207, Florida Statutes, as provided in Section 316.545(4), Florida Statutes. The Respondent produced evidence that the owner of the vehicle had purchased and returned six fuel use cards, which the Respondent did not use. These cards consist of a decal displayed on the outside of the truck and a card which is carried in the truck. Patricia Lloyd stated that the fuel use card in the inspected vehicle had the wrong vehicle identification number typed in by a clerk in the Respondent's office. The Respondent showed, by introducing the unused fuel use cards, that it had not attempted to violate the statute prohibiting switching fuel use cards between two vehicles. The fuel use cards are ordered by owners of out-of-state commercial vehicles who are responsible for filling out the cards with the vehicles' identification numbers. The fuel use cards may be bought in any quantity. The cost is $4.00 per card per year. The owner is statutorily responsible for the proper use of the card, and transfer of the card is prohibited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the penalty of $50.00 and the $45.00 be remitted to the Respondent. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3 day of April, 1992. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esq. Assistant General Counsel Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3 day of April, 1992. Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Ms. Patricia M. Lloyd Douglas & Sons, Inc. Route 5, Box 238 Statesville, NC 28677 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Attn: Eleanor F. Turner Thornton J. Williams, Esq. General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
