The Issue Issues for consideration in this case were those promoted through an administrative complaint brought by the Petitioner against the Respondent. Under the authority of Chapter 487, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 5E, Florida Administrative Code, the Petitioner seeks to impose an administrative fine against the Respondent for the use or application of certain restricted use pesticides without the benefit of an applicator's license.
Findings Of Fact Chapter 487, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 5E, Florida Administrative Code, empower the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Petitioner) to regulate a category of pesticide known as "restricted- use pesticide." More particularly, as it is related to this dispute, the statute requires that those persons purchasing or using a restricted-use pesticide must be licensed by the Petitioner. The license is known as an applicator's license. Bobby Yon (Respondent) had held an applicator's license through October 31, 1983. On that date the applicator's license expired. Yon did not renew the license within sixty days of the expiration date. Consequently, it was incumbent upon Respondent to obtain a new applicator's license, in contrast to renewing the license as described in this paragraph before purchasing or using restricted-use pesticides in the future. Having failed to renew the license which expired on October 31, 1983, on that date or within the grace period which lasted for sixty days beyond that date, Respondent, without the benefit of a license, made the aerial application of a restricted-use pesticide known as "Nudrin 1.8," EPA Reg. No. 201-347. This application was made by Respondent in his capacity as an agricultural pilot. The application dates were April 25, May 6 and June 2, 1985, on an acreage of gladiolus at a business known as Scott's Gladiolus. On April 25, 1955, Respondent made aerial application of Nudrin to watermelons belonging to Steve Basford. The Nudrin which Respondent applied in the instances mentioned before was obtained by the Respondent from Altha Farmers Coop. That Nudrin was delivered to the airstrip where Respondent has his business and from there loaded on his plane. In a statement prepared by the Respondent upon a form provided by Petitioner through its employee Hal A. Davis, Respondent gave written acknowledgment of his use of Nudrin in the instances spoken to in the course of this recommended order. A copy of that affidavit may be found as Petitioner's composite Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. In the statement he describes the acreage which was sprayed in the four instances mentioned and indicates that his son mixed and loaded the treatment into the plane while wearing rubber boots. It is further indicated that no other safety equipment was utilized. The Nudrin applications at issue are described as being made at the rate of two to four and a half gallons per acre total solution, depending on other things that may have been in the mixture. Respondent described how the Nudrin containers were rinsed in mixing tanks and later burned on site. Respondent points out the records of these applications were photographed by Davis; however, these records or copies of the records were not produced at the final hearing. Finally, in describing the experience with the substance Nudrin, Respondent states in his affidavit that he is aware that a restricted-use pesticide license was necessary to legally apply the restricted-use pesticide Nudrin. On June 30, 1984, without the benefit of an applicator's license, Respondent aerially applied the restricted-use pesticide known as "Red Panther 8 lb Toxaphene," EPA Reg. No. 42761-9. This was applied to a pea crop on the property of James Edenfield. One gallon of Toxaphene was mixed into twenty or twenty-five gallons of water. This substance was delivered to Respondent by the Farmers Coop, in a five gallon can. The balance of this substance is still at the airstrip location at his property and is seen by the Respondent as being part of the Coops inventory. In the affidavit made by the Respondent, he acknowledges that the documents related to this application were made available to Davis and were photographed by Davis. Nonetheless, as with the situation pertaining to Nudrin, copies of the documentation were not presented at hearing. Respondent acknowledges in the affidavit that he was aware at the time that he treated the land with the Toxaphene that a restricted-use pesticide license was needed to make that application. The Toxaphene which was applied to the Edenfield acreage had been purchased by Edenfield from the Farmers Coop. The affidavit that has been alluded to in the course of this recommended order had been prepared by Respondent upon the occasion of an inspection of his business premises in Altha, Florida, conducted by Hal A. Davis on June 5, 1985. As a part of the affidavit, Petitioner's composite Exhibit 1, Respondent makes mention of liability insurance held with Air South Insurance of Dothan, Alabama. On the other hand, Respondent acknowledges that although Florida law requires proof of liability insurance for the use of the subject chemicals or the posting of a bond, his insurance policy did not provide chemical liability. This requirement in law pertains to a necessary prerequisite to obtaining a license for purchase and use of restricted-use pesticides in Florida, as contemplated by Chapter 487, Florida Statutes. In addition to not having the necessary insurance coverage, Respondent had failed to post bond with the Department. Therefore, he could not have been licensed on the date of the inspection. By Respondent's remarks in the course of the final hearing, it is evident that Respondent recognized the necessity of being appropriately licensed before applying the restricted- use pesticides mentioned in this factual rendition, and that he was unable to obtain the necessary license, given the fact that he was without requisite liability insurance and had failed to post a bond in lieu of that insurance. His protestation that he had not renewed his license to apply restricted-use pesticides beyond the expiration date of October 31, 1983, based upon some misunderstanding with officials within the petitioning agency concerning forms for obtaining his new license is without credence. The more likely explanation is the fact that the Respondent, as he alluded to in his testimony, did not feel that he could afford the insurance coverage or bond amount and simply did not renew his license. In any event, it was incumbent upon the Respondent to seek and obtain timely renewal of his existing applicator's license or in the failure to do that, to obtain a new license as an applicator before setting out to apply restricted-use pesticides. Respondent failed to do this and during the hiatus between licenses which existed between October 31, 1983, and June 19, 1985, when he obtained a new applicator's license, Respondent applied restricted-use pesticides without the benefit of a license. In his testimony Respondent makes some reference to a license which he held in the period at question which pertains to dealers who sell restricted-use pesticides, this license being number 002027. This license did not allow him to purchase or use restricted-use pesticides. It only would allow selling to others who had the necessary license or authorization to purchase or use restricted-use pesticides, which, unlike the others, Respondent did not have.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has a degree in pest control technology. On June 18, 1981, Respondent renewed Petitioner's Pest Control operator's Certificate No. 2303 until June 1, 1982, in the categories of general household pests and rodent control, termite and other wood-destroying organism control, and lawn and ornamental pest control. On May 6, 1982, Petitioner filed his annual Application for Renewal of his certificate in the same categories. On that application, Petitioner answered "yes" to the question: "Have you been convicted by any court of a felony or of a crime involving moral turpitude within the past year?" and he answered "no" to the question: "[H]ave your civil rights been restored?" By letter dated June 15, 1982, Respondent denied Petitioner's Application for Renewal based upon Petitioner's answers to those questions, and Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing on that denial. On December 16, 1982, Respondent wrote to the Division of Administrative Hearings advising that a Hearing Officer had not yet been assigned to hear this matter and attaching only a copy of a July 6, 1982, letter from Respondent requesting the Division to conduct a formal hearing in this cause. Since the July 6 letter had never been received by the Division of Administrative Hearings, and since the December 16 letter failed to transmit Petitioner's request for hearing or any other pleadings or papers setting forth the substance of the cause, the Staff Assistant of the Division telephoned Mrs. Cheryl Ganley of Respondent's Clerk's Office on December 23, 1982, and requested the documents required to open a case before the Division of Administrative Hearings. That telephonic request was followed up with a letter to Mrs. Ganley on January 4, 1983. No response to either the telephonic or written inquiry was made by Respondent until March 24, 1983, when Respondent again wrote to the Division of Administrative Hearings asking why the matter was not scheduled for hearing and attaching only a copy of its December 16, 1982, letter. On March 31, 1983, the Director of the Division wrote Respondent outlining the chronology of the letters to and from Respondent and again advising Respondent that the case could not be heard until Respondent transmitted the pleadings required to open a case file. On April 11, 1983, Respondent finally did so. Petitioner relies upon his licensure by Respondent as a Certified Pest Control Operator for his livelihood and has no other training or means for earning a living. Other than Petitioner's testimony that his involvement in the incident was minimal, the only evidence introduced regarding the circumstances surrounding his arrest and conviction is a letter from Petitioner's Probation Officer, which letter constitutes uncorroborated hearsay and, therefore, cannot support a finding of fact. Petitioner's probation should be terminated in approximately six months, at which time he will be able to seek restoration of his civil rights. He anticipates no problem in having his civil rights restored. At the formal hearing in this cause, the parties stipulated that the only bar to renewal of Petitioner's licensure is his conviction of a felony or of a crime involving moral turpitude without his civil rights being restored.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving Petitioner's Application for Renewal of his Pest Control Operator's Certificate No. 2303 for the annual period commencing June 1, 1983. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 17th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold L. Braynon, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 201 West Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Mr. Christopher M. Hagerty 1141 South West Sixth Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Petitioners seek attorney's fees and costs from Respondent, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners are "small business parties" under that section, and that the fees and costs being sought are "reasonable." The issues remaining for disposition, therefore, are: Whether Petitioners "prevailed" in all four underlying cases, including the two that were settled prior to final hearing; Whether the Department "initiated" the procedures, or was merely a "nominal party"; Whether the Department had a "reasonable basis in law and fact" at the time that it initiated the proceedings; Whether special circumstances exist which would make an award unjust; and Whether the statutory $15,000 cap should be applied collectively or separately to the four underlying cases.
Findings Of Fact (The facts are substantially uncontroverted and the facts established in the underlying cases nos. 94-2801, et al are incorporated by reference. The following facts are recounted to establish a background for the contested issues of law.) As stipulated, the Petitioners are small business parties within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. They are Florida corporations, with their principal offices in Florida, with less than 25 full-time employees and net worth of less than $2 million. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (department) is the state agency responsible for administering and maintaining the pesticide- sensitive and especially pesticide-sensitive person registries as provided in Section 482.2265(3), Florida Statutes (1993). Carol Ann Rodriguez, Jacqueline V. Dilworth, Susan L. Maxwell and Carrietta Kelly are four individuals, among approximately twenty-seven individuals, who applied to the department for designation as "especially pesticide-sensitive" pursuant to subsection 482.2265(3), Florida Statutes, (1993). The pesticide-sensitive and especially pesticide-sensitive registries are described in the department's final order entered August 4, 1995, adopting all but two findings of fact in the Hearing Officer's recommended order in Case No. 94-2801, et al. These findings, and the findings related to the department's review of applications, need not be repeated here. In summary, however, the department did not investigate the merits of the applications but merely determined whether the certifying physicians were qualified according to the department's liberal interpretation of its own rule. That review function was delegated primarily to the secretary for the administrator of the department's pest control section. After review, the department published quarterly notices in the Florida Administrative Weekly of its intent to grant applications of especially pesticide-sensitive persons. The notices listed the names and addresses of the applicants and described the process for pest control operators to request hearings pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. These were clear points of entry. Petitioners here, and the Florida Pest Control Association, Inc. filed their requests for hearings, challenging the department's proposed action. The underlying consolidated cases resulted. Prior to the formal hearing, several individual applicants, including Carol Ann Rodriguez and Jacqueline Dilworth, settled their cases by withdrawing their applications and agreeing to be placed on the less restrictive pesticide- sensitive registry. This outcome was favorable to Petitioners because they were thereby relieved of the more onerous notification requirements which attach when an individual is designated "especially pesticide-sensitive." This was the relief Petitioners sought. After vigorous prehearing motion and discovery activity, approximately twenty consolidated cases proceeded to formal hearing. Among those were the individual cases of Susan L. Maxwell and Carrietta Kelly. The department, through counsel, participated in the formal hearing. It presented evidence through exhibits and witnesses, and cross-examined witnesses presented by other parties. Evidence to support Susan Maxwell's application was limited to a certification signed by Dr. Albert Robbins, an osteopathic physician. The certification was not supported by any non-hearsay evidence. Evidence to support Carrietta Kelly's application was limited to Dr. Robbins' testimony that he signed her certificate after she and her physician husband called him and wrote him a letter. Mrs. Kelly was never Dr. Robbins' patient and he never met her. The outcome of the formal hearing was a recommended order which found that no individual in the multiple cases presented adequate proof of the need for notification at greater distance than that specified for pesticide-sensitive persons. In other words, the applicants failed to prove entitlement to designation as "especially pesticide-sensitive." The department entered its final order on August 4, 1995, and adopted all but two findings by the hearing officer. The first rejected finding was that nothing in evidence indicated that one of the certifying individuals, "Roy P. Doyle," was a physician. The second finding rejected by the department was that the department had failed to justify or explicate its policy for qualifying physicians other than those specified in its own rule. The department's final order removed all of the individual parties from the registry as "especially pesticide-sensitive" and left them on the pesticide-sensitive list. Petitioners thus prevailed on the central issue in dispute: whether the individuals were entitled to designation as "especially pesticide- sensitive." The fees and costs incurred by Petitioners in their successful defense, as well as fees incurred in pursuing the instant claims, are appropriately described in affidavits filed with the petitions and amended petitions. The department accedes to the reasonableness of the fees and costs, except where they are duplicated in more than one case. The affidavits establish that the Petitioners incurred $22,348.70 in attorney's fees and $4,085.26 in costs related to the four underlying cases. In addition, and not included in the above total, are minor fees incurred in individual cases: Rodriguez $374.00 Dilworth $368.50 Maxwell $115.50 $858.00 Petitioners also claim $2,530.00 (23 hours x $110/hour) for fees incurred in their Section 57.111 cases here. These costs and fees are reasonable, and amount to a total of $29,821.96. The calculation which leads to that total avoids duplication (charges for the same work computed more than once). The calculation also reflects that the three Petitioners joined together, two Petitioners each, in the four underlying cases, hired a single attorney and avoided duplication of effort by separate attorneys for each Petitioner.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint, as amended and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the operation of the pest control industry pursuant to Section 482.032, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Clinton Killingsworth was the owner and Certified Operator in Charge (COIC) of Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc., a licensed pest control company in Cantonment, Florida. Counts 4 and 6 2. Counts 4 and 6 of the Administrative Complaint allege as follows: Count 4 During an inspection on July 11, 2003, the Department found that Environmental Security of Okaloosa operated an unlicensed business location at 9100 Hamman Avenue, Pensacola, at which sales solicitations were made and remuneration received. This is a violation of Chapters 482.071(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. Count 6 During an inspection on July 11, 2003 the Department found that Environmental Security of Okaloosa phone numbers terminated in an unlicensed location as 9100 Hamman Avenue. This is a violation of Chapter 5E-14.142(3)(b). Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc., d/b/a Environmental Security, is physically located at 4141 Pine Forest Road in Cantonment, Florida, and is listed at this address on its application for business license filed with the Department. Cantonment is located in Escambia County near Pensacola, Florida. Two other pest control companies, Killingsworth Environmental, Inc., and Atlas Termite and Pest Control of Cantonment, Inc., are located at the same address. On July 11, 2003, the Department conducted an inspection of a company called Home Services Marketing and Management, LLC, (hereinafter Home Services) which is located at 9100 Hamman Avenue in Pensacola. Clifford Killingsworth and Clinton Killingsworth2/ are the managers of Home Services. On March 26, 2002, entered into a Management and Marketing Agreement with Home Services, executed by Clinton Killingsworth on behalf of Environmental Security of Okaloosa and by Clifford Killingsworth on behalf of Home Services. Since that agreement was signed, the telephone number for Environmental Security of Okaloosa listed in the local telephone directory terminated at Home Services. Home Services also answers calls for Killingsworth Environmental, Inc. and Atlas Exterminating. Home Services employees do not make "cold calls" to new customers. They receive calls from existing customers. They contact customers with active accounts to set up renewals. They also contact homeowners whose homes were treated during construction and whose initial accounts were with the builder of the home. If a new customer calls, a Home Services employee answers the call, gets the contact information from the potential new client, and then calls the appropriate technician who would then call or visit the potential customer. The appropriate technician is generally determined by the geographic location of the caller. While a Home Services employee might send a preprinted contract to the technician to take to the job site or mail a contract to a customer, Home Services does not enter into any contract to perform pest control services. No pest control trucks or chemicals are stored at Home Services. Home Services also has a payment processing component. Home Services sends bills to pest control customers which instruct customers to make out the check to the appropriate pest control company, not to Home Services. Payments from customers for pest control services are deposited into the account of the appropriate pest control company. No evidence was presented that 9100 Hamman Avenue is an advertised permanent location of Environmental Security of Okaloosa from which business was solicited, accepted, or conducted. After the July 11, 2003, inspection of Home Services, Clinton Killingsworth took steps to get Home Services licensed as a pest control company. Mr. Killingsworth did this because it was his understanding that the Department took the position that Home Services was in the business of practicing pest control services. He employed his brother, Daniel Killingsworth, to be the required licensed person in charge, and contacted several insurance companies to obtain the required insurance. He had difficulty obtaining the required insurance since Home Services does not offer pest control services. Despite these difficulties, Home Services was issued a license in December 2003. Count 5 Count 5 of the Administrative Complaint, as amended, reads as follows: During an inspection on July 16, 2003, the Department found that Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Incorporated stored pesticides at an unlicensed business location at 1830 Galvez Road, Gulf Breeze, Florida, which is a violation of Chapter 5E-14.142(5)(f) and (g), Florida Administrative Code. That in addition, the Respondent, Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc., regularly parked trucks containing pesticide at that location during nighttime hours, published in the 2002-2003 Bell South Telephone Directory under Pest Control Services in the yellow pages of the telephone directory, a listing for "Environmental Security", a name under which it did business, and its employees received by facsimile daily work assignments that were sent to them at that location. That the Respondent, Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc operated an unlicensed business location at 1830 Galvez Road, Gulf Breeze, Florida, in violation of Section 482.071(2)(a), Florida Statutes.[3/] The property located at 1830 Galvez Drive is surrounded by a fence and contains a structure. The structure is not enclosed. Both Environmental Security of Okaloosa and Killingsworth Environmental park trucks there overnight. They entered the property when the pest control employees arrived. The Department conducted an inspection of 1830 Galvez Drive on July 16, 2003. The gate to the property was locked and the trucks were locked. On the day of the inspection, the Department's inspectors found unmixed chemicals in the trucks. Clinton Killingsworth acknowledges that at the time of the inspection, company trucks parked at the Galvez Drive location overnight and pesticides were in the locked trucks. Company records or contracts are not stored at the Galvez Drive location. No customer contact takes place at or from the Galvez Drive location. The Pest Control Business License Application Form contains a space in which the licensee must respond to the following: "Designate location where pest control records and contracts will be kept and the exact location address for storage of chemicals if other than licenses business location." The applications for business license for Environmental Security of Okaloosa do not reference 1830 Galvez Road as a location where storage of chemicals occurs. Environmental Security of Okaloosa does not have a license for operating a business at this location. The yellow pages for the Pensacola area contains a listing in red ink for "Environmental Security, Inc." It lists an address of 4141 Pine Forest Road with the telephone number 473-1060. There is another reference to "Environmental Security" in black ink in smaller type which lists the address 1830 Galvez Drive with the number 916-7731.4/ Clinton Killingsworth brother, Clifford Killingsworth, arranged to have a phone line for a fax machine to be located in a trailer at the Galvez Drive location. The purpose of installing a fax line at Galvez Drive was for employees to receive daily schedule assignments. The 916-7731 number listed in the yellow pages is the number of the fax machine. Clinton Killingsworth did not request a listing for the number of the fax machine. However, the telephone company listed it in the phone book. Clinton Killingsworth has requested the local telephone company to remove the erroneous listing a number of times.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered assessing a fine against Respondent Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc., in the amount of $2,600.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is the regulatory agency charged with regulating the terminate and pest control industry in Florida. Respondent, Howard R. Kempton, is a certified operator licensed by the Petitioner. During times material, Respondent was a certified pest control operator for Pinellas Termite and Pest Control, Inc., in St. Petersburg. On July 24, 1991, Respondent was the certified operator in charge of fumigation of a residential structure at 3318 Shamrock in Tampa, Florida. In carrying out the fumigation, Respondent used the fumigant product VIKANE (sulfuryl fluoride). Respondent did not provide Petitioner a notice of the intended fumigation at 3318 Shamrock in Tampa within 24 hours in advance of the fumigation as is required by the Petitioner's rules and the labeling provisions for the product VIKANE. In addition, Petitioner's inspector, William Bargen, who has been employed by Petitioner in the office of entomology in excess of 28 years, visited the residence on the day of the fumigation and the tarpaulin that Respondent used was not air tight as practicable in that it contained numerous slits and tears that was not properly sealed at the ground level encompassing the structure. The safety warning signs fastened to the exterior of the tarpaulin were not printed in indelible ink or paint and the emergency phone numbers for the certified operator were not legible. As a result of the improper seals, the fumigant VIKANE was escaping from the tarpaulin while the gas was being pumped into the structure at 3318 Shamrock on July 24, 1991. Inspector Bargen took photos of the fumigation tent as it was in place at 3318 Shamrock on the day in question, July 24, 1991 and it depicts the condition of the tarpaulin and the improper signs that were utilized by Respondent on that jobsite. The owner of the property called Petitioner's office and Inspector Bargen visited the site on July 24, 1991. It is undisputed that Respondent alerted the homeowner to call Petitioner who in turn dispatched Inspector Bargen to the site based on instructions from Respondent that he alert the Department of the on-going problems that he was having with his employer, Pinellas Termite and Pest Control, Inc. Respondent admits that the manner in which the fumigation occurred on July 24, 1991 at 3318 Shamrock in Tampa was improperly performed. However, Respondent offers that he did as much as he could under the circumstances to comply with the Petitioner's rules and regulations and the labelling instructions for the fumigant VIKANE as set forth by the manufacturer. Respondent related numerous occurrences whereby he attempted to convey the importance of carrying out the proper instructions to his employer without success. As a result, Respondent sought other employment and is no longer employed as a certified operator with Pinellas Pest Control. Finally, while Respondent recognized that a certified operator is responsible for the overall operations of the fumigation projects that he is in charge of, he relates that instructions were given to office personnel at Pinellas Pest Control to advise the Petitioner of the 24 hour notice prior to the date of fumigation and he was under the impression that timely notice was forwarded to Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $250.00 payable to Petitioner within 30 days of the entry of the Petitioner's final order.1/ DONE and ENTERED this 29 day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 29 day of May, 1992.
The Issue The issues to be resolved are as follows: With regard to Count Four of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge and more particularly whether sufficient facts have been alleged to identify the challenged rule, whether existing, proposed, or unpromulgated; and whether, through an unpromulgated rule, the Department (Respondent) has prohibited the installation of "pest control insulation" or borate containing insulation by anyone other than a card-carrying employee of a certified pest control operator or licensee. If so, it must be determined whether such action is outside the Respondent's rulemaking authority, whether it is contrary to statute, whether it disregards the exceptions proved in Section 482.211(9), Florida Statutes, and whether it violates Section 482.051, Florida Statutes. With regard to Count Five of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge to a proposed or existing rule or have offered evidence legally sufficient to establish a rule, proposed, or existing, which the Petitioners are challenging relating to the Respondent allegedly having selectively investigated pest control operators performing 100 or more pre-construction termite treatments annually, and whether such action is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. With regard to Count Six of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge to a proposed or existing rule or have offered evidence legally sufficient to establish a rule, proposed, existing, or unpromulgated, which the Petitioners are challenging relating to the Respondent's alleged enforced application of termiticide arbitrarily and capriciously by not requiring the best available technology and not regulating according to acceptable standards in the manner in which it conducts field investigations. With regard to Count Seven of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge based on a proposed or existing rule or have offered legally sufficient evidence to establish a rule, proposed, existing, or unpromulgated, which the Petitioners are challenging relating to the Respondent's enforcement of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, as it relates to preventive soil treatments for new construction and its alleged failure to protect the public. With regard to Counts Two, Three, and Eight of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have alleged any facts or presented any evidence to establish a proposed, existing, or unpromulgated rule substantially affecting the interests of the Petitioners. Whether either the Petitioners or the Respondent are entitled to recovery of attorney's fees and costs.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners conceded at hearing that the Order on the Motion to Dismiss, prior to the hearing, concerning the mootness caused by the withdrawal of the above-referenced agency memos not only disposed of Count One of the Amended Petition, but had rendered moot Counts Two and Three, as well. No evidence was presented as to the those counts. Neither was any evidence or argument presented regarding Count Eight of the Amended Petition. Thus, Counts Two, Three, and Eight, as well as Count One, should be dismissed. The Petitioners, with regard to Count Four of the Amended Petition, did not allege the text of any statement or description of one which could be construed as an unpromulgated rule by the agency, which prohibited the installation of insulation containing borate by anyone other than a "card- carrying" employee of a certified pest control operator or licensee. There was no evidence to establish the existence of such an unpromulgated statement or rule of general application. Cliff Killingsworth testified that he was an officer and party representative of the Petitioners' companies in this case. "In-cide" is a cellulose fiber with borate or borate- containing materials for fire retardancy and fungal control. The manufacturer had increased the borate content in the material so that it could make claims with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the product's pest control value. Mr. Killingsworth acknowledged that it was a licensed and registered "pest control product." While Mr. Killingsworth agreed that claims to the public about the pest control value of the product should be done by a pest control operator, he felt that should not prevent him from subcontracting the installation of the insulation material to a professional insulation installer so that the material would be properly installed in a home or other building. Mr. Killingsworth met with Steve Dwinell and Joe Parker, representatives of the Respondent agency, in Jacksonville, Florida, in the summer of 1997. He provided them with a 30-to-40-page report regarding installation of the insulation with its pest control properties. He received no communication from the Respondent following this meeting and sought no written opinion from the Respondent about the use of the material before he began using it. Mr. Killingsworth invited George Owens, a field inspector for the Respondent in the Northwest Florida area, to observe the product being installed in a structure. Mr. Killingsworth testified that Mr. Owens, thereafter, sent him a letter stating that the Respondent was not going to regulate that material. Mr. Killingsworth, however, did not produce that letter or a copy of it. Mr. Owens testified that he had visited a site in Destin, Florida, at Mr. Killingsworth's invitation, where "Green Stone" insulation was being applied by being blown into a small section of a wall. He did not know that a subcontractor was making the application when he visited the site. He thought that an employee of Mr. Killingsworth was performing the installation of the material. Mr. Owens did not recall telling Mr. Killingsworth or any of his representatives that application of the product by an agent other than Mr. Killingsworth's own company would be prohibited. It was not Mr. Owens' belief that he had authority to make those decisions. He did not believe that he had authority to approve or disapprove the application of a pesticide. Mr. Killingsworth invited Mike McDaniels, another field investigator with the Respondent in the Gainesville, Florida, area to observe the installation of the product in the spring of 1998. Mr. McDaniels commented to Mr. Killingsworth that he was glad that they were doing it, but he made no report. After the Petitioners' companies had been operating for two or three months in the Gainesville area, sharing space with Green Stone Industries, the company producing the insulation, Mr. McDaniels returned. He informed Mr. Killingsworth that the Respondent agency had changed its position on the application of the product. Because it was a "labeled material," that is, labeled and promoted as a certified pest control product, for purposes of EPA regulations, it had to be installed and handled only by a pest control operator meeting the definition of an employee under Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. Mr. McDaniel was shown the insulation in question by Mr. Killingsworth and how it was installed at a job site. He never told Mr. Killingsworth whether he could use the product or not, but during a "non-adversarial inspection," he told him that he had to have "ID cardholders" (i.e., employees of a licensed pest control operator) install the insulation, since it had advertised pesticide qualities. Mr. McDaniel was shown a warehouse with two different types of insulation. One had borate advertised as a fire retardant. The other had a higher content of borate which was advertised to have pesticide qualities. Mr. McDaniel determined that employees applying the second type of product were conducting pest control by installing that product and should, therefore, have pest control operator identification cards. He explained that to Mr. Killingsworth and thought he may have written that opinion on an inspection form which he supplied to Mr. Killingsworth. He also believes he notified his supervisor, Phil Helseth. His normal practice, when a new material is reported to him or observed, is to inform his superior of the facts concerning that product. He never told Mr. Killingsworth or his representatives that they could not install the product in question. He informed them that since it was listed as a pesticide that they would have to be have employees of a licensed pest control operator to legally install the product. Mr. McDaniel did not consult with anyone at the Respondent agency about this, but rather relied on his own judgment as to agency policy and the interpretation of the statutes and rules enforced by the Respondent. He testified that he had no central direction from his superiors at the Department on the issue and was unaware what other districts or regions under the Department's regulation were doing to address this question. He simply determined that if the Petitioners' personnel were applying a product that was a registered pesticide insulation that, under his understanding of the broad statutory definition of pesticides as anything that "curbed, mitigated, destroyed, or repelled insects," then the installers would have to be employees of a registered pesticide operator. Mr. Dwinell testified as the bureau chief for the Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control. He met with Mr. Killingsworth along with Mr. Parker, another employee of the bureau. Mr. Killingsworth made a presentation regarding the product in dispute, the borate-impregnated cellulose insulation. He determined that the product was a pesticide because it was advertised as a registered pesticide and performed pesticide functions, in addition to its insulation function. He did not recall that the precise issue of subcontracting with a non- licensed pest control operator or insulation installer was a topic of their conversation. Following that meeting, he may have discussed the question with Mr. Helseth, in a general way, but does not recall discussing it with any other person. He recalls some discussion concerning the Gainesville office of the Killingsworth companies and whether Mr. Killingsworth, or that office of his company, was licensed as a certified operator. He believes he recalls that a cease and desist letter informing the Killingsworth companies of the need to have the application of the product performed by someone licensed to do pest control may have been sent, although he is not certain. Mr. Dwinell established that the Respondent agency had never published anything regarding pest control insulation. He noted that a pesticide was a pesticide under the statutory definition, whether a corn bait, insulation, or mixed in a jug. The same laws applied to it and under Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, a pesticide must be applied by a licensed applicator. Mr. Killingsworth insisted that the insulation product, though a registered pesticide, was exempt from the provisions of Section 482.211(9), Florida Statutes, because it was a derivative wood product. He agreed that the product in question was a wood by-product and not wood. If a product did not meet the statutory definition of being exempt, then it would be appropriate for the Respondent to issue a cease and desist directive until the Petitioners came into compliance with Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. Mr. Dwinell opined that the subject insulation product was not exempt under the provisions of Section 482.211(9), Florida Statutes. Unlike pre-treated lumber, which is exempt, the installation product at issue is a registered pesticide. Pre-treated lumber, though treated with pesticide in the manufacturing process, is not intended to be used as pesticide, nor is it a registered pesticide. The Petitioners have not stated a basis for a rule challenge pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, as to Counts Five and Six of the Amended Petition. Although references were made to alleged "actions" by the Respondent agency, the Petitioners have not alleged with particularity, nor adduced any competent, substantial evidence of any rule provisions alleged to be invalid, nor have they shown, in an evidential way, any to be invalid. The evidence does not show that there is a rule, either proposed, existing, or as an unpromulgated agency statement of general applicability, which is actually being challenged by the Petitioners. There has not been a definitive showing by preponderant evidence that such exists concerning the product and operation at issue. The Petitioners in Count Seven of the Amended Petition have not stated any basis for a rule challenge in accordance with Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. There are numerous references to provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, but it is not alleged with any particularity which rule provisions are purported to be invalid, nor has preponderant evidence been adduced to establish any rule provisions either proposed, existing, or as unpromulgated agency statements, which have imposed a substantial effect on the Petitioners. In this regard, the Petitioners' counsel argued at the hearing: Your Honor, what we have suggested is that the rule that's being challenged is the Department's statutory obligation under the statute as it relates to their promulgated Rule 5E-14.105, and as it relates to their treatment guarantees or warranties that are required by that regulation for a treatment that just doesn't work. The Department rule requires a certain warranty and requires a renewable warranty, placing that upon the pest control operator under the guise of protecting the consumer, but the fact of the matter is, it doesn't protect the consumer, and it just endangers the pest control operator. And so I guess the actual rule is the 5E-14.105. In addition to that we have the statutory obligations of the Department, which is to provide a protection to the public health and the economic benefit of the consumer and evaluate these chemicals that they are requiring warranties for. That's the basis of the rule challenge, and admittedly, this one is a little bit nebulous, but there is a regulatory, I guess, mandate of these preconstruction soil treatments as a method, as the preferred method, and to the extent that the operators, who are the regulated entity in this case are required to--is mandated to require a warranty for a method they know doesn't work . . . . Mr. Killingsworth acknowledged in his testimony that he was not contending that there should not be a warranty requirement for treatments of subterranean termites, as stated in the above-cited Rule 5E-14.105, Florida Administrative Code. He also acknowledged that he was not contending that the Respondent should require warranties from pest control companies for every kind of pest control performed. He thought there were a lot of factors not within a pest control operator's control affecting particular wood fungi, but what was in the pest operator's control was the opportunity to do a preventive treatment for more than just subterranean termites and they, in his view, should not be prevented from doing so. When asked what preventive treatment he had been prevented from doing by the Respondent, his reply was: The effect of memos and other actions prevented us from doing our choice of preventative treatment, the borate application, through the effects of raising questions in building officials' eyes, through the effects of increasing the economic impact to us to get it done. Builders will not pay enough to do both soil treatment and bait and borate. The memoranda referred to as preventing Mr. Killingsworth from doing his choice of preventive treatment were not actually identified in the record, however. Mr. Dwinell testified that the EPA guidelines require an efficacy standard for soil treatments which states: "Data derived from such testing should provide complete resistance to termite attack for a period of five years." The EPA also provides guidelines for preventive treatment/wood impregnation: "When acceptable data derived from testing for at least two years, or less than five years, shows complete resistance to termite attack, the product may be registered." The efficacy standard for borate, thus, was not five years, but two years. Mr. Dwinell had concerns about the type of data that had been relied upon by the EPA for registration and how that data related to the situation in Florida. That was the basis for the negotiated rulemaking process that the Respondent was engaged in at the time of the hearing in this case. The purpose of the negotiated rulemaking process was to comply with the statute that required a rule, but ultimately the purpose was to have a mechanism in the State of Florida where the product was registered for use under construction and a reliable set of data that could show whether the product would actually protect against termites when applied. The ultimate goal of the statute at issue is to protect the consumer, which is the Respondent's statutory duty. Borate pesticides are registered for use, with label directions for use during construction. They are one of three categories of materials for use in construction, including soil- applied pesticide materials, baiting products, and wood treatments, the last being the borates. There are no directives issued by the Respondent that specifically preclude the use of either borate as a stand-alone treatment or a baiting system as a stand-alone treatment. The Respondent does not require soil treatments only. Mr. Dwinell has never told any licensee that he could not use borate products if he were licensed.
The Issue Petitioner has challenged a series of emergency rules promulgated by the Respondent to address the discovery of Mediterranean fruit flies (medflies) in parts of central Florida. Specifically, Petitioner contends that 5BER 97-3, 5BER 97-4, 5BER 97-6, and 5BER 97-7 are invalid to the extent that they make any geographical area subject to emergency rule for more than 90 days. The issue for determination, therefore, is whether the emergency rules are invalid as claimed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Rick Martinez resides and operates an organic farming business in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. As stipulated, Mr. Martinez is substantially affected by the emergency rules at issue. The Mediterranean fruit fly (medfly) is considered one of the world's most serious pests affecting fruits and vegetables. It has a host range of over 260 different fruits and vegetables, 80 of which are grown in the state of Florida. It is an exotic pest of grave concern to commercial agricultural interests as well as to home gardeners. In the adult stage, the female medfly deposits or lays eggs in ripe fruit. The eggs develop into larva or maggots that feed on pulp of the interior portion of fruit, causing damage and secondary pathogens to enter the fruit and causing the fruit to rot and fall from the tree. The medfly reproduces very rapidly. It can complete a life-cycle in as little as 18 days under optimum conditions; in Florida and in recent months, it completed its life-cycle in approximately 23-25 days. As a winged insect the medfly can move several miles from its point of introduction in search of a host to deposit eggs or in search of a food source. Over a lifetime, the female can lay hundreds or thousands of eggs. The medfly enters an area via the traveling public or on commercial fruits and vegetables. Host plants or fruits can include plants or fruits that are not grown in Florida. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) maintains a detection program, including 13,000 traps to detect the presence of the medfly. Under certain circumstances for every medfly detected, there can be hundreds of others in the area. Because of the biology of the medfly, mere control is difficult to achieve. Eradication, or complete elimination of the pest from a particular area, is the goal when the medfly is detected. To further this goal, Florida cooperates with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other states. On or about May 28 or 29, 1997, a medfly was discovered in the Seminole Heights area of Hillsborough County. Very quickly other medflies were discovered in Hillsborough County, with the epicenter determined to be in the Brandon area. Soon other detections occurred in Manatee, Sarasota, Orange, and Polk Counties. This was determined to be the most severe infestation of medflies in Florida in several decades. On May 30, 1997, Commissioner of Agriculture, Bob Crawford, issued a proclamation announcing an immediate danger to the public health, safety, or welfare in the state of Florida on account of the infestation by the Mediterranean fruit fly. The proclamation cited authority and powers conferred by Article IV, Section 4, Florida Constitution and Sections 120.54(4) and 570.07(21), Florida Statutes. The proclamation called for immediate eradication procedures including aerial and ground pesticide applications in infested areas. FDACS also promulgated and filed an emergency rule, 5BER 97-2, Florida Administrative Code, "Mediterranean Fruit Fly Rule and Quarantine." The rule provided definitions, designated a quarantine area and treatment area, identified regulated articles and host plants, and provided for entry of authorized representatives to inspect, confiscate suspect fruit, or apply treatment on property on which the medfly is known or suspected to exist. The rule also declared the medfly a pest and nuisance pursuant to Section 581.031(6), Florida Statutes, and described the rule's purpose: . . . to provide detailed direction for conducting a regulatory and eradication program to prevent spread of the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata, within the State. This rule is promulgated to provide a quarantine on areas regulated due to the presence of the Mediterranean fruit fly, and to specify conditions under which regulated articles may be certified as free of Mediterranean fruit fly when moved from the quarantined area. This rule also provides for the treatment and eradication of the Mediterranean fruit fly within the State of Florida. (5BER 97-2(2), Florida Administrative Code) The quarantine area within 5BER 97-2 is an area of Hillsborough County described with specificity with references to road boundaries. The treatment area was defined as "[a]ny location including urban and residential areas within a nine- square-mile area around an [sic] Mediterranean fruit fly detection. " Quarantine areas are generally 81 square miles; treatment areas are 9 square miles and may be wholly outside of a quarantine area. In the words of FDACS Director of the Division of Plant Industry, Richard Gaskalla, "[t]his was a very active infestation. For the first 90 days of the program, it was a very fluid and dynamic situation. Each day brought a new challenge, a new area to place traps in or regulate fruit in. So it was giving us quite a challenge." (transcript, 48-49) As new medflies were discovered subsequent to the end of May 1997, FDACS expanded the treatment and quarantine areas. Additional emergency rules on the infestation were filed: 5BER 97-3, on June 20, 1997; 5BER 97-4, on July 3, 1997; 5BER 97-6, on July 28, 1997; and 5BER 97-7, on August 11, 1997. With the exception of the specifically described quarantine area in section (4), each emergency rule is substantially the same. 5BER 97-3 repeats the quarantine area described in 5BER 97-2 and adds a specific portion of Polk County. 5BER 97-4 repeats the quarantine area described in 5BER 97-3 and adds a specific portion of Manatee County. 5BER 97-6 and 5BER 97-7 include a much larger quarantine area to include portions of Hillsborough, Polk, Manatee, Orange, and Sarasota Counties. There are portions of Hillsborough County which are found in the quarantine area described in all five emergency rules. Other geographical areas overlap in two or more of the five rules. The "treatment area" remains described in each of the five emergency rules as the nine-square-mile area around a medfly detection. As more medflies were found, this area obviously expanded. Eventually the treatment area became almost as large as the quarantine area in Hillsborough County. FDACS developed its series of emergency rules to address the medfly eradication program as it evolved. The agency consulted a science advisory panel that was put together to review the eradication program, and the agency received public comment and suggestions from public meetings. As new detections were made, the emergency rules were promulgated to cover the areas which the agency considered important for its regulation and control (quarantine). Richard Gaskalla did not consider each new emergency rule to be a renewal but rather a response to the unpredictable expansion of the medfly within existing areas. As soon as FDACS adopted the first emergency rule, it began work on a permanent rule and scheduled a rule development workshop in June to receive public comment. Citizens in Hillsborough County requested another workshop which was held approximately two weeks prior to the hearing in this case. A permanent rule has not been adopted, but the pre-adoption process continued as of the hearing in this case. As of the time of hearing, the last medfly detected in Hillsborough County was mid-July. Medflies were discovered after this in other counties covered by the emergency rules. Eradication is generally not considered complete until traps have been empty for two life cycles after the last treatment. Depending on the length of the life cycle, eradication could be complete from 60 to 100 days after the last fly find.
Findings Of Fact 1. On August 25, 1982, petitioner received an application for pest control business license and identification cards, Petitioner's Exhibit 1, signed by Perry Commander, requesting licensure for Donald and Bales Exterminating Company, Inc., at 615 East Chestnut Avenue in Crestview, Florida. Ronnie James McLean was listed among those on whose behalf identification cards were sought. Petitioner granted this application on September 22, 1982, issuing License No. 343. Since approximately 1974, there have been applications for licenses at this location. Based on an application not in evidence signed by Byron Bales sometime before August 17, 1983, petitioner issued an emergency certificate. On August 17, 1983, petitioner received application form signed by Byron Bales, which petitioner returned to Mr. Bales for more information, and received a second time on August 29, 1983. Petitioner's Exhibit 2. The form gave Donald and Bales Exterminating Co., Inc., as the applicant's firm name and 615 East Chestnut Avenue in Crestview as the firm's address. Ronnie James McLean was listed among those on whose behalf identification cards were sought. Perry Commander's name was crossed out, as was his designation as "Certificate Holder." Nobody else was designated certificate holder, and nobody was listed as a certified operator. This application, which was made on a multipurpose form, has not been acted on. Boxes were printed next to various categories including "Initial (New) License," "Change-of-Business Ownership License" and "Renewal License." No box was checked, however. On February 4, 1976, Aggie B. Nelson of Chipley, Florida contracted with Donald and Bales Exterminating Co., Inc., (Donald & Bales) for treatment of the foundation of her two-bedroom frame house for termites and agreed to pay $30 a year thereafter for annual inspections and preventive sprayings. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. The contract gave a Crestview address for Donald & Bales. On March 24, 1982, respondent arrived at the Nelson home in a truck emblazoned with the Donald & Bales logo and sprayed underneath Ms. Nelson's house. He emerged with five or six bugs in his hand that he told Ms. Nelson were beetles. He said the house needed to be sprayed for beetles and offered to do it while he was there fob $230. Ms. Nelson allowed as how that would sure put her in a bind, but agreed to have him spray. Mr. McLean and Ms. Nelson each signed a Donald & Bales form contract on which Mr. McLean checked the box beside the word "Prevention" but not the box beside the word "Infested." The contract showed a Crestview address for Donald & Bales. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. Ms. Nelson wrote a check for $230 to Ronnie J. McLean personally. Later she began to inquire and eventually arranged for William E. Page, an entomologist in petitioner's employ, to inspect her house. At the hearing, Mr. Page was qualified as an expert in pest control and testified without contradiction that there was no sign of there having been a beetle infestation at Ms. Nelson's home at any time. Mardra Stewart was at home in her three-bedroom log house down below Orange Hill from Chipley when Ronnie J. McLean stopped by on April 19, 1982. "He sent some of the men he had with him under the house, and they c[a]me out with a handful of the sills," wood that appeared to have been eaten into by termites. Respondent told Ms. Stewart she should have her house sprayed because insects "had eat it up under there." (T. 89) She agreed to the spraying and paid respondent $225 for spraying. Mr. McLean and Ms. Stewart each signed a Donald & Bales form contract on which Mr. McLean checked the box beside the word "Prevention" but not the box beside the word "Infested." The contract showed a Crestview address for Donald & Bales. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8. The next day Ms. Stewart called the sheriff and eventually she telephoned petitioner's Jacksonville offices. Mr. Page inspected her house and found no evidence of an active or recent infestation of insects of any kind, although he did discover evidence of old powder-post beetle damage. In his opinion, the Stewart house probably needed treatment. On September 15, 1982, Mrs. J. C. Phillips telephoned her daughter, Margaret Powell, and asked her to come to the Phillips house on Bayshore Drive in Niceville "to write the check for the exterminator." (T. 94) By the time Ms. Powell arrived, the spraying had been done. Ms. Powell asked respondent and his companion(s) to show her some beetles. When they were unable to do so, she declined to pay, even after respondent referred her to Byron Bales who was at work next door. Mr. McLean and Ms. Phillips each signed a Donald & Bales form contract on which Mr. McLean checked the box beside the word "Prevention," but not the box beside the word "Infested." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9. The contract indicated prophylactic treatment of the foundation for powder-post beetles for $150, and called for annual inspections and resprayings for $45 per year. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9. On September 22, 1982, when Mr. Page inspected the Phillips house, he found no sign of any infestation, new or old, by beetles (or termites). When tenting is not resorted to, the treatment for beetles is applying Lindane with a power sprayer in such a concentration that the odor lasts about a month. This odor was not present when Mr. Page inspected, one week after respondent's visit. Although Mr. Bales did not discharge Mr. McLean when he first learned that money had been diverted, "not on the first one. . ." (T. 167), he had fired Ronnie James McLean by the time of the hearing, because "he stole money from me." (T. 165) He accomplished this theft by selling contracts and cashing checks. (T. 167) Except for Petitioner's Exhibit 7, all the Donald & Bales form contracts state, "Please make check to representative." Having customers write checks in favor of the individual exterminator is "company policy." The Hearing Officer has had the benefit of petitioner's proposed recommended order and memorandum of law in preparation of the foregoing Findings of Fact. Proposed findings have been adopted, in substance, for the most part. To the extent they have been rejected, they have been deemed unsupported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, cumulative or subordinate.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint filed against respondent as moot. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 15th day of December, 1983.
