Findings Of Fact The Respondent, J. C. Penny Company, Inc., operates an automobile service center at its store in the Sunshine Mall in Clearwater, Florida. The service center has a gas station which sells gasoline products to the general public. On or about February 4, 1981, a petroleum inspector of the Petitioner, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, took a gasoline sample for analysis of unleaded gasoline from the Respondent's gasoline station at the Sunshine Mall. This sample was tested in the Tallahassee laboratory and was found to contain lead contents in the amount of 0.60 gram per gallon in the no- lead gasoline sample. The standard for unleaded gasoline offered for sale in Florida is 0.05 gram of lead per gallon. On the basis of this information, a stop sale notice on the tank that dispensed the gasoline was issued on February 5, 1981 (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) The station manager was informed that he had several alternatives, including confiscation of the product, with the Respondent posting a bond in the amount of $1,000 for the release of the product to be sold as regular gasoline. Having elected this alternative, a "release notice or agreement" was entered into on February 5, 1981 (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Petitioner received a bond in the amount of $1,000 from Respondent and this amount was deposited into the Gasoline Trust Fund.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be required to forfeit $500 of the $1,000 bond posted and the unforfeited $500 be returned to Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Room 513 June, 1981. Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald E. Ford J. C. Penny Company, Inc. 27 Sunshine Mall Clearwater, Florida 33516
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is licensed as a dealer of special fuel pursuant to Florida Statutes 206 and has been assigned license Number 1627. The pertinent sections of Florida Statutes which are applicable to this case are ss206.86(1), (6), (8), 206.87, 206.89, 206.93, 206.94 and Ch. 212. The pertinent rules of the Department of Revenue applicable to special fuels sales involved herein is 12A-2.03. The deposition of Albert Colozoff and all answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for admissions are admissible as evidence and are to be made a part of the record in this cause. The Petitioner sold special fuels to Zamora Truck and Car Services, Roberts Equipment Company and Florida Petroleum, Inc. Petitioner was assessed by the Respondent for tax on 1,979,201 gallons of special fuel sold by it and paid tax and interest as set forth in the letter attached hereto as Exhibit A. That no penalty paid on any of the tax paid pursuant to that letter. That Petitioner did not remit taxes that were due during the month the sales of special fuel were reported on any of the sale to Zamora, Roberts or Florida Petroleum or the remaining 1,417,263 gallons sold. Zamora and Roberts represented to Belcher that they were purchasing all special fuel from Belcher for exempt agricultural use. Due to past dealings and delivery of the special fuel to a farm, Belcher believed and relied upon the facts represented to it by Zamora and Roberts. However, Belcher did not obtain written documentation of this agricultural use from Zamora or Roberts and did not furnish the Department with any such written documentation. Belcher did not obtain resale certificates or exemption certificates or dealer license numbers from Zamora, Roberts or Florida Petroleum. Nor did the report forms filed by Belcher contain resale certificates, exemption certificates or dealer license numbers from Zamora, Roberts or Florida Petroleum. An employee of the Department advised Belcher that Zamora and Roberts were under investigation for fraudulent failure to report taxes. Belcher paid sales tax on sales of special fuel in the amount of $18,589.53 on the sale of 538,030 gallons of special fuel. Zamora is not a licensed dealer of special fuels. Florida Petroleum is not a licensed dealer of special fuel. Roberts is not a licensed dealer of special fuel. Belcher did not fraudulently file incorrect monthly special fuels reports. The Department of Revenue audited Belcher and computed tax, penalty and interest due as set forth in the documents attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Department of Revenue advised Belcher of its duties regarding reporting requirements in the letters from L. N. Thomas attached as Exhibit C.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's assessment be upheld with respect to Petitioner's tax deficiency, penalty and interest as set forth in the assessments with adjustments to be made for payments paid by Petitioner under the "sales tax" theory. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Mail: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James R. McCachren, Jr., Esquire Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom & Kitchen Post Office Box 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William D. Townsend, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Department properly issued a warning letter for selling gasoline that failed to meet state standards regarding end point temperature contrary to Section 525.037, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency authorized to regulate the petroleum products (fuel) offered for sale in Florida for illuminating, heating, cooking, or power purposes. It does so by randomly sampling fuels offered for sale by vendors throughout the state to determine if the fuel meets standards set by the state pursuant to law. Petitioner operates a marina in central Florida where it offers gasoline for sale to its customers. Respondent's inspectors conducted a random sampling of Petitioner's gasoline. Subsequent testing revealed that the end point temperature of the gasoline was not in conformity with the standards for premium gasoline, the only grade sold by Petitioner. On this basis Respondent issued Petitioner a warning letter. It is undisputed that the gasoline sample failed to meet standards. The end point temperature of gasoline is not apparent from its color, smell, or appearance and can only be determined by testing in a laboratory equipped for that purpose. Petitioner has approximately 1,000 gallons of storage for gasoline and reorders when they have approximately 500 gallons on hand. The wholesaler will not hold Petitioner harmless for product that it sells. In order to assure the quality of the gasoline it sells, Petitioner would have to test each delivery. The cost to test a sample is approximately $100. This would add approximately 20 cents to the cost of each gallon sold on a 500-gallon order, and Petitioner asserts that it now loses 10 to 15 cents per gallon on the fuel it sells as a convenience to boaters at its marina. Respondent does free quality testing of gasoline for vendors as a service based upon the availability of its facilities and time. It takes at least 24 hours to test the fuel. These are unofficial, miscellaneous samples, and the results are reported to the person who provided the sample without follow up. The end point temperature of gasoline is typically altered by the addition of another type of petroleum product to the fuel being sold. This can occur at any point during the chain of delivery from the manufacturer to the ultimate vendor. While the standards of the depots have improved, contamination can and does occur there. Similarly, petroleum transporters have improved their standards, but contamination does occur by inadvertently mixing products when filling tank trucks. Lastly, contamination also occurs at the vendors where there are cases of unscrupulous vendors mixing waste oil with product to get rid of the waste oil. There is no evidence of the cause of the contamination in this case. The Department talked with the wholesaler of the gasoline that provided the gasoline to Petitioner, but that wholesaler was reticent to provide documentation for the fuel and to discuss the matter with representatives of the Department. The operation of engines with fuels that have the wrong end point can result in serious damage to a vehicular or marine engine. If Respondent finds Petitioner selling substandard fuel again, Petitioner will be liable to a fine up to $5,000. After three years, warning letters are expunged if there are no other violations, and Petitioner would receive a warning letter for another violation after three years.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department should enter its final order confirming the issuance of its warning letter. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 12th day of November, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: David W. Young, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street Mayo Building, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Joseph T. Lewis Mount Dora Marina Company, Inc. 148 Charles Avenue Mount Dora, Florida 32757 Eric R. Hamilton, Chief Bureau of Petroleum Inspection Division of Standards Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 3125 Conner Boulevard, Building 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650
Findings Of Fact On March 22, 1977 during a routine inspection of various service stations in Vero Beach, a sample of No. 2 diesel fuel was taken from the pump at English Brothers Truck Stop. Upon analysis at the mobile laboratory the sample was found to be below the minimum flash point for No. 2 diesel fuel and the inspector returned to the station the same day and issued a stop sale notice. (Exhibit 3). Three additional samples were taken, and when analyzed they too were found to be below minimum flash point for this type fuel. Upon receipt of the stop sale notice the station manager notified Respondent. After the fuel had been analyzed at the state laboratory Respondent was notified that since the retail value of the contaminated fuel exceeded $1,000 it could pay $1,000 in lieu of having the fuel confiscated. Respondent owns the fuel at English Brothers Truck Stop until such time as the fuel is removed through the pump for sale. Upon receipt of the notice of the contaminated fuel, which was in one 4,000 gallon tank, Respondent immediately sent three employees to remove the contaminated fuel and clean the tank. Thereafter Respondent attempted to locate the source of the contamination but without success. Since the flash point was lower than allowed for diesel fuel the most likely source of contamination was gasoline which is a higher priced fuel than diesel. Standards used by the Petitioner in determining the required characteristics of fuels are those prescribed by the ASTM. Respondent distributes some 750,000 gallons of diesel fuel per month and this is the first report of contamination of its fuel in the eight and one half years Respondent has been in business.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the state of Florida charged, in pertinent part, with regulating purveyors of gasoline sold at retail in the state of Florida, to ascertain if gasoline meets appropriate quality standards including the standards, embodied in the Department's rules for lead additive content. The Respondent is a corporation doing business in the state of Florida which engages in the retail sale of gasoline, including sale of such product at the Suwanee Swifty Store #265 at 1971 West Silver Springs Boulevard in Ocala, Florida. An agent of the Petitioner agency performed a routine inspection on a pump connected to a storage tank operated by the Respondent on September 12, 1990. The pump add storage tank contained gasoline offered for sale and some of which had been previously sold to the general motoring public. The gasoline contained in the storage tank was a mixture of unleaded gasoline and lead- containing regular gasoline (leaded regular). The pump which pumped the gas from that tank was labeled "regular", meaning that it was labeled for a gasoline containing lead. There is no dispute that the Respondent was selling gasoline which did not meet the standard for leaded regular gasoline because it contained an insufficient amount of lead. This situation arose because the Respondent had placed an order of unleaded regular gasoline from its supplier into the tank in order to begin converting that tank and pump from the sale of regular leaded gasoline to unleaded gasoline. As part of the switching process, unleaded gasoline was being added to the regular gasoline remaining in the pump or tank in order to convert the contents of the tank over to gasoline which could be legally sold as unleaded gasoline. Until the conversion process for the tank contents was complete the Respondent intended to and did sell the gasoline as leaded regular, because selling the gasoline at below the actual lead content of leaded regular during the conversing process would not harm customers and the price was set at below the current market price for leaded regular. If, on the other hand, the Respondent had sold the product in the tank and through that pump as unleaded gasoline, by re-labeling the pump before the actual contents of the tank served by it had been converted completely to unleaded gasoline, the labeling might have been strictly legal because the contents of the tank were below the legal standard for leaded regular authorized in Rule 5F-2.001(1)(j), Florida Administrative Code, but the selling of such gasoline which still contains some lead might harm the vehicles of the motoring public using it for vehicles designed to use only unleaded gasoline. In any event, because the Department's investigation revealed that the Respondent was selling gasoline through the pump labeled for regular leaded gasoline which did not meet the lead content standard for regular leaded gasoline, the Department seized the gasoline and immediately allowed the Respondent to post a bond in the amount of $1.26.9 per gallon times the number of gallons sold, for a total bond of $696.68. The Department seeks to assess an identical amount against the Respondent in this proceeding. Upon on the posting of the bond, the product was released back to the possession of the Respondent the next day and allowed to be sold after the pump was relabeled to indicate "unleaded plus". In fact, the allowing of the Respondent to resume sales of the product under the label "unleaded plus" may not be strictly legal either, because, in fact, the product when the resale of the product began still contained some lead content when resale began. In any event, however, the product being sold at the time the inspection was made was not of a quality equivalent to the appropriate standard in the above rule for "leaded regular" and therefore under the authority cited below the Department has the authority to make the assessment it seeks to impose against the bond posted by the Respondent. The assessment would be reasonable under circumstances prevailing under other similar cases in which the Department has imposed a similar amount of assessment. However, in the instant case, the Respondent established with unrefuted testimony that it was making an honest attempt to convert the gasoline in its tank and the pump to unleaded and that during the transition from the same tank of leaded regular to unleaded gasoline from that tank and pump it is normal and accepted in the industry for the product to contain some lead, albeit not enough to be truly in conformance with the above standard. Likewise it would have been inaccurate to label the pump at that point in the conversion process as "unleaded" because some residuum of lead remained in the product in the tank. The point is that the manner in which the Respondent sold the gasoline, by continuing to label it as regular, instead of unleaded, was less harmfully misleading to the public because the use of such gasoline in cars requiring leaded regular would not be harmful to the mechanical components of those vehicles. Because the pump at the time of the sales in question was labeled regular (meaning leaded regular) cars requiring unleaded gasoline would not have been filled at that pump with such drivers being aware of the necessity to only fill their car at pumps labeled "unleaded", etc. Thus the harm which can be posed to mechanical components of cars requiring unleaded gas by the fueling of the car with leaded gasoline was least likely to occur by the conversion method followed by the Respondent involving keeping the old regular leaded label until the gasoline in the tank was entirely converted over to a content and quality which equated to the legal standard for unleaded gasoline. Because of this, although it is undisputed that Respondent was selling gasoline from the pump in question which did not meet the legal standard for leaded regular, the Department should exercise its discretion in favor of returning the amount of the bond posted to the Respondent.
Recommendation That a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services granting the request of the Respondent for refund of the bond posted and that the Department elect to rescind its assessment-in the amount of $696.68. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Bruce Sheets, Manager Lewis Oil Company, Inc. Post Office Box 1282 Gainesville, FL 32602 Clinton H. Coulter, Jr., Esq. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford, Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 26th day of April, 1991. Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 515 Mayo Bldg. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact On January 14, 1981, Normandy Texaco received a load of product consisting of 4,900 gallons of regular, 1,500 gallons of hi-test unleaded, and 2,350 gallons of regular unleaded gasolines. Samples were taken on January 16, and by report issued on January 23 the hi-test unleaded tested at 88.4 octane. This is 2.6 octane less than the registered octane level of 91.0. A stop-sale Notice was issued on January 23. After posting a bond in the amount of $1,000.00, the hi-test gasoline was released to Normandy Texaco, and pumped into the regular unleaded tank on January 27. Mr. Obi made a claim with Texaco, Inc., whose tanker delivered the gasoline, for mis-delivery by cross pumping the product into his tanks. This claim was settled by payment of $36.16 to Obi by Texaco. These facts are not disputed by the parties.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition of William J. Obi for return of the $1,000.00 bond posted in lieu of confiscation of substandard unleaded gasoline, be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 2nd day of April, 1981. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. William John Obi 1766 Jones Road Jacksonville, Florida 32220 Robert A. Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 513, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether or not Petitioner is entitled to a refund of the bond it posted in lieu of confiscation of allegedly mislabelled gasoline products.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, AGI Service Corporation, owns and operates a Citgo service station located at 1599 West Flagler Street in Miami, Florida. The service station sells regular unleaded, unleaded plus and unleaded premium gasoline to the public. On February 18, 1991, James Carpinelli, the Respondent's inspector, visited the station to conduct an inspection and obtain samples of the gasoline Petitioner was offering for sale to the consuming public from its tanks and related gasoline pumps. Mr. Carpinelli took samples of all three types of gasoline offered for sale by Petitioner. The samples were forwarded to the Respondent's laboratory and were tested to determine whether they met Departmental standards for each type of gasoline. The Petitioner's "premium unleaded" pump indicated the octane or Anti Knock Index of the gasoline was 93. The "regular unleaded" pump indicated that the octane level was 87. The laboratory analysis of the samples revealed that the octane level of the gasoline taken from the "premium unleaded" pump was 87.4. The octane level of the gasoline taken from the "regular unleaded" pump was 93.0. Upon discovering the discrepancy in the octane levels, the Respondent seized the gasoline and immediately allowed the Petitioner to post a bond in the amount of $1,000. Upon the posting of the bond, the product was released back to the possession of the Petitioner and was allowed to be sold after the pumps were relabelled. Petitioner acquired ownership of the service station four days prior to the time of the inspection. At the time they opened the station, the new owners labelled the pumps based upon the information provided to them by the prior owners. The new owners had limited experience in the petroleum business and followed the guidance of the prior owners regarding labelling the pumps. It is clear that the pumps were inadvertently mislabelled based upon the information provided by the prior owners. The new owners sold "premium unleaded" at the price of "regular unleaded" and visa versa. Because more "premium unleaded" was sold at the price for regular, Petitioner lost money as a result of the mislabelling. The Department seeks to assess the full amount of the bond against the Petitioner in this proceeding. Respondent calculated the number of gallons of mislabelled gasoline that was sold based upon a delivery date of February 13, 1991. Those calculations indicate that 2,498 gallons were sold at a price of $1.259 per gallon. However, Respondent's calculations appear to begin at a time prior to Petitioner's ownership of the station. No evidence was presented as to how many gallons were sold while Petitioner owned the station. In addition, it is not clear when the mislabeling was done. Thus, no clear evidence was presented as to how many mislabeled gallons were sold by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order granting the request of the Respondent for a refund of the bond posted and that the Department rescind its assessment in this case. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 4th day of October, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: LOUIS PASCALI AND DONATO PASCALI QUALIFIED REPRESENTATIVES AGI SERVICE CORPORATION 1599 WEST FLAGLER STREET MIAMI, FL 33147 JAMES R. KELLY, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES ROOM 514, MAYO BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800 HONORABLE BOB CRAWFORD COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES THE CAPITOL, PL-10 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0810 RICHARD TRITSCHLER, GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES 515 MAYO BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800 BRENDA HYATT, CHIEF BUREAU OF LICENSING & BOND DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES 508 MAYO BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact On July 14, 1982, Jimmy Haywood Nixon, an employee of petitioner, took samples of gasoline offered for sale at respondent's Beacon Store No. 7 in Milton, Florida, including a sample of regular gasoline mixed with alcohol, known as "regularhol." Pat Flanagan, a chemist employed by petitioner, performed various tests on the sample of regularhol, including ASTM method 86, and determined that the 50 percent evaporated distillation temperature of the mix as a whole was 150 F. His testimony to this effect was uncontroverted. When he learned the test results, Mr. Nixon locked the regularhol pump at respondent's store in Milton, only unlocking the pump to release the mixture when a thousand dollar bond was posted on July 16, 1982. Respondent began mixing regular gasoline with ethanol and selling it as regularhol in 1978 at the same price as regular gasoline. Until recently, Mocar made less on regularhol sales than on sales of regular gasoline. It originally offered regularhol as its way of helping to reduce the national consumption of petroleum. The Phillips' terminal in Pensacola was respondent's source of the regular gasoline it mixed to make regularhol. This gasoline reached Pensacola by barge, and petitioner's employees sampled and tested each barge's cargo. The 50 percent evaporated distillation temperature of the regular gas Mocar bought from Phillips varied over a range of more than 30 degrees Fahrenheit upwards from 180 F. Mixing ethanol with the gasoline lowered its distillation temperature, but until the batch sampled on July 14, 1982, Mocar's regularhol had passed the testing petitioner has regularly conducted.
Recommendation Respondent has not been shown to be more blameworthy than any of the fuel owners involved in the cases cited above, each of whom regained part of the bond that had been posted. It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner retain four hundred dollars ($400.00) and return six hundred dollars ($600.00) to the respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 513 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Milton Wilson, Esquire 201 East Government Street Pensacola, Florida 32598 The Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Big "S" Oil Company, operates a gasoline station at 4002 North Pace Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida. The station sells gasoline products to the general public. On or about December 9, 1981, a petroleum inspector of Petitioner, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, took a gasoline sample for analysis of regular gasoline from the Respondent's storage tanks during the course of a routine inspection. This sample was tested in Petitioner's mobile laboratory and was found to have an elevated End Point of 494 degrees Fahrenheit 1/ Department regulations provide that the End Point for leaded gasoline offered for sale in Florida shall not exceed 446 degrees Fahrenheit. A second test conducted in a private laboratory confirmed the initial testing results. On the basis of this information, a stop sale notice on the tank that dispensed the gasoline was issued on December 9, 1981. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Petitioner determined that prior to the issuance of the notice, approximately 1,900 gallons of contaminated gasoline had been sold to the public. A bond of $1,000 was paid by Respondent to Petitioner in lieu of confiscation of the remaining leaded or regular gasoline in the storage tanks (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). The hearing was requested to contest the forfeiture of the bond.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be required to forfeit the $1,000 bond posted with Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact On February 27, 1980, Respondent converted one of its service station fuel tanks from gasoline to diesel. The tank was cleaned by Garrison Petroleum Equipment Company at Pinellas Park. Respondent paid $67.08 for this service. That same day, Respondent received 5,176 gallons of No. 2 diesel fuel from Jack Russell Oil Company, Inc., of Clearwater, a Union 76 dealer. On March 18, 1980, a standards inspector employed by Petitioner took samples from the Respondent's gasoline and diesel pumps. These samples were delivered to Petitioner's portable laboratory in Clearwater where they were analyzed. The gasoline was found to be satisfactory, but the diesel sample showed fuel contamination. The tests were conducted in accordance with the methods and standards established by Rule 5F-2.01(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, the "flash point" of the diesel sample was 88 degrees F, but must be 125 degrees F or above to meet the established standard. Petitioner's inspector then returned to the Pronto Car Wash station where he issued a stop-sale order to Respondent. Subsequently, the inspector accepted Respondent's cash bond in lieu of fuel confiscation. This procedure, agreed to by both parties, allowed Respondent to pay $865.36 to the State of Florida and retain the contaminated fuel. Respondent originally paid $5,286.25 for 5,176 gallons of diesel fuel. He had sold 736 gallons of this amount at the time of the stop-sale order on March 18, 1980. Total sales of this diesel fuel amounted to $865.36, which was the amount of bond demanded by Petitioner. Respondent paid $200 to Patriot Oil, Inc., to remove the contaminated fuel, but received a $3,225 credit for this fuel. Respondent does not deny that the fuel was contaminated, but seeks to establish that he acted in good faith. Respondent had the tank cleaned prior to the diesel changeover and dealt with established tank cleaning and fuel wholesaling companies. In addition, he kept the tank locked at all times after delivery of the fuel. Respondent does not contest forfeiture of his bond, but seeks refunds of state and federal taxes paid on the unsold fuel. However, Respondent was correctly informed that refund of tax payments will require him to communicate with agencies which are not parties to this proceeding.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter its order declaring forfeiture of Respondent's $865.36 bond posted in lieu of confiscation of contaminated diesel fuel. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of August, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephenson Anderson Pronto Car Wash 220 34th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Robert A. Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Whitton, Chief Gasoline and Oil Section Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-8584
