Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Six L's Farms, Inc. and Six L's Packing Company, Inc., are engaged in the business of growing and marketing tomatoes in South Florida. Tomato Stakes Between December 7, 1977 and January 10, 1978 Petitioner, Six L's Farms purchased 878,000 Honduras Pitch Pine pressure treated tomato stakes from Caribbean American Lumber Sales Company (CALS) of Savannah, Georgia for a purchase price of $71,100. At the time of purchase Petitioner paid sales tax in the amount of $2,844. There is no evidence on which to find that at the time of purchase, Six L's furnished a sales tax exemption certificate to the seller, GALS. Six L's did furnish an executed sales tax exemption certificate for this purchase on March 11, 1980 to Respondent. Subsequent to the purchase and the payment of sales tax GALS filed a request for refund with the Comptroller of the State of Florida and received a refund of sales tax in the amount of $2,844 which was then credited back to Petitioner, Six L's Farms. On October 17, 1979, Petitioner made an assessment for the sales tax and for interest and penalties since December 1977. The purchased tomato stakes were used in Petitioner's farming activities. As tomato plants in the field mature Petitioner's employees drive the stakes which measure 3/4 inch by 1 inch by 48 inches into the ground along a line of plants. Then string is run along the stakes at various heights to hold the growing plants in a vertical position. A staked tomato plant is far more productive than one allowed to grow along the ground. The vertical plant is easier to spray with insecticides. The top of the plant, the canopy, provides shade to the lower part of the plant and thereby prevents sunburn or scalding of the fruit by intense summer sun. In cold weather the vertical plant resists frost damage because frost which settles on the upper portion of the canopy frequently does not reach the lower portion of the plant and cause damage to the fruit. The tomato stakes themselves, without regard to the plants' vertical position, do not provide shade, frost protection or insect protection. Whatever effect the stakes have on these activites is only a secondary result of the stakes' holding the tomato plants in a vertical position. Speedling Plant Houses Between May 31, 1977 and June 20, 1977 Six L's Farms purchased from Speedling, Inc. the following materials at the indicated price: 16 Curtain Controllers $ 7,200.00 8 Loretex Panels with hem, 8' x 230' 1,280.00 464 51 3/8" x 232" #556 Panels 13,442.10 768 Redwood Strips 407.04 192 Cartridges Clear Sealant 316.80 60 Vertical Rubber Strips 51.00 8 Rolls #546 Fiberglass, 3' x 100' 1,160.00 No sales tax was paid on these purchases. The materials were used to construct a "Speedling" plant house. It is a wood frame structure measuring 224 feet long by 34 feet wide by 14 feet high at the apex of the roof trusses. To make the roof, fiberglass panels were laid across the trusses. This construction provides a water proof but translucent covering. The type of fiberglass was carefully selected to allow 65 percent light transmission. If the young tomato seedlings which are grown in the plant house receive too much light, they develop too close to the ground. If they do not receive enough light, they become scrawny from developing spindly foliage in an attempt to reach up to sunlight. The Speedling house is a permanent structure placed out in Six L's tomato fields. While tomato seedlings are growing in the house its perimeter is wrapped with the Loretex plastic. The plastic which is partially buried extends up the frame members of the house to approximately chest height. Because of its position the Loretex prevents crawling insects from entering the house and attacking the plants. While not primarily designed to provide temperature control, the Speedling house by its very nature provides some moderation of natural temperature extremes With the Loretex panels in place some frost damage can be prevented. There is no evidence on which to find that at the time of purchase, Six L's furnished a sales tax exemption certificate to the seller, Speedling. Six L's did furnish an executed sales tax exemption certificate for this purchase on March 11, 1980 to Respondent. Detroit Diesel Engines During Respondent's audit of Petitioner's books a "repair" invoice from Del's Diesel Service was found. It showed the sale of two 6 v 53 Detroit Diesel Engines with P.T.O. and radiators to Six L's Farms on March 17, 1977. The invoice indicates payment by check no. 6505 in the amount of $4,900. Check no. 6505 was drawn by Creigh Hall, a person employed by Six L's Farms to maintain some of its machinery. There is no indication that sales tax was paid on the transaction reflected by the invoice. In addition to being employed by Six L's Farms, Mr. Hall also farmed for himself. When the two engines were delivered they came to a loading lot at Six L's but were disassembled by Mr. Hall and then removed to his own field. Six L's never took possession of the engines. I find from the foregoing circumstances that the two diesel engines, while invoiced to Six L's and paid for on a Six L's checking account, were actually sold to Mr. Hall for his own use. Enviro" Services Invoice On April 18, 1977, Six L's Farms purchased from "Enviro" Services one 3-71 GM Engine with electric starting and P.T.O. clutch and one HRG Lister engine with a 10" x 10" pump for a total of $6,750. Subsequently on May 9, 1977 Six L's Farms purchased one HBS 6 Lister engine with a 1061 El Marlow pump and one HB6 Lister engine with a 10" G&C pump for a total of $8,000. Neither invoice shows that sales tax was paid or collected on either transaction. Petitioner offered hearsay testimony that the sales tax was paid by "Enviro" Services but there was no independent non-hearsay evidence to support it. Conveyors and Palletizer On August 4, 1976 Six L's Packing Company entered into a contract with Citrus Machinery Company (CMC) under which CMC agreed to supply an automatic conveying and palletizing system to Six L's for a total price of $189,564. The equipment supplied has never operated to the satisfaction of Six L's and at the time of the final hearing the matter was in litigation between Petitioner and CMC. The record here does not reflect the results of that litigation. No sales tax was paid on the transaction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order imposing an assessment for sales tax, interest and penalties against Petitioners, Six L's Farms and Six L's Packing Company for the purchase of the following items at the indicated price: Tomato Stakes $ 71,100.00 Speedling House Materials 23,856.94 "Enviro" Services Pumps 14,750.00 CMC Conveyor and Palletizer 189,564.00 DONE and RECOMMENDED this 2ND day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON 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 2nd day of December, 1982.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, Joey Collins Pest Control of America, Inc. (Collins Pest Control) was subject to the regulatory provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, and the pertinent rules adopted by Petitioner, as a business entity licensed by Petitioner to engage in pest control in the State of Florida. At all times pertinent hereto, Eric C. Van De Ven was employed by Collins Pest Control as a pest control operator and was subject to the regulatory provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, and the pertinent rules adopted by Petitioner. On May 15, 1990, Mr. Van De Ven performed a termite inspection at the residence located at 8411 S.W. 84th Terrace, Miami, Florida, at the request of J. Raul Cosio and Maria F. Trabanco, in connection with their intended purchase of that residence. This work was performed in his capacity as an employee of Collins Pest Control. Mr. Van De Ven prepared, signed, and caused to be delivered to Mr. Cosio and Ms. Trabanco, a written inspection report pursuant to Section 482.226, Florida Statutes. This report was prepared on behalf of his employer, Collins Pest Control, on Collins Pest Control's letterhead. This report, states that visible evidence of Formosan termites was observed on the main beam above the pool deck, that live Formosan termites were observed on the main beam above the pool deck, and that there was visible evidence of damage by Formosan termites. The report also estimates that treating the premises by "tent and soil poisoning" would cost $1,525.00. The report did not include observable damage that had been caused by drywood termites. Mr. Van De Ven had observed this damage, but he did not note this damage in his report because the owner of the premises had been aware of the damage, the damaged area had been treated, and the area had been patched. Mr. Van De Ven recommended to Mr. Cosio and Ms. Trabanco that the owners of the premises should contact Truly Nolen, the company that had treated the premises for drywood termites, to determine whether Truly Nolen would pay for any additional treatment that may be necessary. Mr. Van De Ven erroneously identified a drywood termite as being a Formosan termite. There were no Formosan termites on the premises, and there was no condition that would have warranted the treatment recommended by Mr. Van De Ven. All damage that had been observed by Mr. Van De Ven had been caused by drywood termites. Mr. Van De Ven should have been able to distinguish between evidence of Formosan termites and evidence of drywood termites because of the physical differences between the two types of termites and because of the differences between the damage each type does to an infested area. Mr. Van De Ven was negligent in failing to distinguish between the two types of termites and in recommending the unnecessary treatment. There was no evidence that Mr. Van De Ven deliberately misled his customers or that he was trying to sell unnecessary services. There was no evidence that Mr. Cosio or Ms. Trabanco suffered any damages as a result of their dealings with Respondents. There was no evidence that either Respondent had been previously disciplined by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which: finds that Respondents Eric C. Van De Ven and Joey Collins Pest Control of America, Inc. have violated the provisions of Section 482.226(1), Florida Statutes, by performing the subject inspection in a negligent manner; further finds that said Respondents have violated the provisions of Rule 10D-55.1046(6), Florida Administrative Code, by recommending treatment for Formosan termites where there was no evidence of such infestation; and imposes an administrative fine in the amount of $250 against each Respondent. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of February, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 20th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, and 10 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 3-9 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The only post-hearing submittal submitted by Respondents was in the form of a letter addressed to the Hearing Officer filed January 28, 1991. This letter contained no proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 111 Georgia Avenue Third Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Joey Collins Pest Control of America, Inc. 243 N.E. 5th Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33483 Joseph A. Collins, III Owner Joey Collins Pest Control of America, Inc. 243 N.E. 5th Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33483 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Does the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department)'s proposed rule 5E-1.023 constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings are made: On February 2, 1996, the Department published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 22, Number 5, the text of proposed rule to be known as Rule 5ER-1.023, which the Department indicated that it intended to adopt. The proposed rule reads: 5E-1.023 Fertilizer. Procedures for Landowners and Leaseholders to Submit the Notice of Intent to Comply with Nitrogen Best Management Practices (BMPs). Definitions "Interim Measures" means primarily horticultural practices consistent with the fertilizer recommendations published by the University of Florida or the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, or modified by the Department, to reflect public input. "Notice of Intent to Comply with BMPs" means a notice of intent to comply with nitrogen Interim Measures and/or BMPs, or to no longer apply fertilizers or other soil-applied nutritional materials containing nitrogen. Notice of Intent to Comply with Nitrogen BMPs and all document requests made of the department must be submitted to the Environmental Administrator, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Agricultural Environmental Services, 3125 Conner Blvd., Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650. Proof of providing Notice of Intent to the Department must be retained by the submitter. The Notice must contain the following information related to the implementation of the BMPs and Interim Measures: the name of the BMP or Interim Measures to be followed, the date of implementation, the name or other identification of the parcel or land unit upon which the practices will be implemented, the county(s) where said parcels are located, and the signature of the landowner(s) or leaseholder(s). The Department will consider requests to: (a) adopt Best Management Practices and Interim Measures as defined in this rule, other than those incorporated herein, in accordance with Section 576.045(3)(b), Florida Statutes; and, (b) modify adopted Best Management Practice and Interim Measures as defined in this rule based upon submission of adequate data in accordance with Section 576.045(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Approved Nitrogen BMPs Shadehouse Grown Leatherleaf Ferns. The BMP for Shadehouse grown leatherleaf ferns found in the University of Florida, Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Bulletin 300 (published February 1995), Irrigation and Nutrient Management Practices for Commercial Leatherleaf Fern Production in Florida" is hereby adopted. Copies may be obtained from Central Florida Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 2807 Binion Road, Apoka, Florida 32707. The associated record keeping requirements specified in "Record- keeping For The Nitrogen Best Management Practices For Shadehouse Grown Leatherleaf Ferns" dated 12-01-95 is also adopted. Copies are available from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Agricultural Environmental Services, 3125 Conner Blvd., Doyle Conner Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650. (a) Approved Nitrogen Interim Measures. Citrus. [The approved "Nitrogen Interim Measure For Florida Citrus", dated 12-01-95], and the associated recordkeeping requirements dated 12-01-95 [are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference into this rule]. Copies may be obtained from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Agricultural Environ- mental Services, 3125 Conner Blvd. Doyle Conner Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650. The foregoing documents are incorporated by reference into this rule. [Emphasis added] Specific Authority 576.045 FS. Law Implemented 576.045. History - New Section 576.011(2), Florida Statutes, provides: (2) "Best-management practices" means practices or combinations of practices determined by research or field testing in representative sites to be the most effective and practicable methods of fertilization designed to meet nitrate groundwater quality standards, including economic and technological considerations. Because of the lack of research or field testing with citrus to determine the most practicable methods of fertilization of citrus in conjunction with nitrate groundwater quality standards, the Department is proposing the Nitrogen Interim Measure for Florida Citrus rather than Best-management practices for citrus. Interim Measures is not defined by statute. However, the Department has defined Interim Measure in proposed rule 5E-1.023. For 1, 2, and 3 year old citrus groves, the Approved Nitrogen Interim Measure For Florida Citrus (Nitrogen Interim Measure), dated 12-01-95, provides for maximum nitrogen (N) rates per calendar year to be determined by set amounts of N per tree. The range of annual N rates for groves four years old or older is set out in pounds per acre. For oranges the range is 120 - 240 pounds of N per acre per year. For grapefruit the range is 120 - 210 pounds N per acre per year. On February 21, 1996, Petitioners filed a Petition challenging the Department's proposed rule 5E-1.023 on the basis that the proposed rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. More specifically, the Petitioners challenges the Nitrogen Interim Measure dated 12-01-95, and more particularly, that portion of the Nitrogen Interim Measure setting the range of annual N rates for grapefruit and oranges in groves four years old or older which Petitioners contend is arbitrary and capricious. GBS Groves, Inc. is a Florida corporation which owns a grapefruit grove in Polk County, Florida and such corporation is solely owned by James T. Griffiths and Anita N. Griffiths. Withers and Harshman, Inc. is a Florida corporation owning grapefruit groves in Polk County and Highlands County, Florida with its principal place of business located in Sebring, Highlands County, Florida. Petitioners would be substantially affected by the adoption of this proposed rule and thereby have standing to bring this action. The parties have stipulated that: on November 5, 1993, the Department gave notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly of its intent to adopt proposed rule 5E-1.023; and proposed rule 5E-1.023 implements Section 576.045(6), Florida Statutes, by: establishing procedures for landowners and leaseholders to submit notice of intent to comply with nitrogen best management practices (BMPs) and interim measures; (2) adopting a specific BMP for shadehouse grown fern; and (3) adopting an interim measure for citrus. Petitioners concede that their challenge to the proposed rule is based solely on Section 120.52(8)(e), Florida Statutes, in that the proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious. Prior to, and independent of, the Department's work on proposed rule 5E-1.023, the faculty of the University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), had begun work on revising IFAS's citrus fertilization guidelines. This revision eventually became SP 169, Nutrition of Florida Citrus Trees (SP 169), and supersedes the Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 536 series A through D, Recommended Fertilizers and Nutritional Sprays for Citrus (Bulletin 536), which had provided guidelines for Florida citrus fertilization since 1954. SP 169 is the official position of IFAS on the subject of nutritional requirements for citrus in Florida. Sometime around August 1994, Department met with and requested IFAS to provide the Department with a interim measure for citrus fertilization which could be adopted by the Department. The Department reviewed the first draft of the proposed interim measure for citrus fertilization prepared by IFAS and concluded that it would not be acceptable to the citrus industry because it was too detailed. Thereafter, the first draft was revised by IFAS and now appears as: 6. Fertilizer Guidelines, SP 169, pages 21 through 25. While IFAS's interim measure contains many recommendations, the recommendation most relevant to this proceeding is the recommended range of the annual rate of N for groves four years old or older. The recommended rates are expressed in pounds of N per acre per year. For oranges a range of 120 - 200 pounds of N per acre per year is recommended. For grapefruit a range of 120 - 160 pounds of N per acre per year is recommended. For other varieties a range of 120 - 200 pounds per acre per year is recommended. SP 169 also provides the criteria, including, but not limited to, soil load, varieties, leaf and soil analysis, fertilizer placement and application frequency and timing for determining a rate within the recommended range and to exceed the upper level of the range. Using these criteria a range of 120 - 180 pounds of N per acre per year for grapefruit can be supported and range of 120 - 240 pounds of N per acre per year for oranges can be supported. SP 169 also recommends that all available sources of N, including, but not limited to, organic sources and foliar applications, be included in the calculation of the annual N rate. Also recommended is that while the annual N rate may be exceeded in any given calendar year, the average annual rate over three years should not exceed the guidelines. Subsequent to receiving the proposed citrus interim measure from IFAS, the Department held a series of meetings and public workshops wherein growers and representatives from the fertilizer industry and grower organizations were given an opportunity to be heard and to make suggestions. In an effort to make the interim measure more flexible so as to gain industry acceptance, the Department compromised on several of the citrus fertilization guidelines set out in SP 169. The comprises were: (a) not to include any N from foliar application in the calculation of the annual N rate; (b) to include only fifty percent of the total N content of the source from all organic sources in the calculation of the annual rate of N; and (c) increase the recommended range of the annual rate of N for grapefruit and oranges to 120 - 210 pounds per acre and 120 - 240 pounds per acre, respectively, without considering the criteria set out in SP 169 for determining a rate within the recommended range or to exceed the upper limits of the range. In deciding not to include any N from foliar application in the calculation of the annual rate of N, the Department considered: (a) the fact that N from foliar application would be quickly absorbed through the leaf and reduce the likelihood of any N leaching into the ground water; (b) that the cost of foliar application of N would prevent the indiscriminate use of foliar application of N; and (c) that foliar application would give the grower wishing to obtain maximum yield a source of N not included in the calculation of the annual rate. However, the Department did not consider the additional cost of the N to the grower who heretofore had used sources of N other than foliar application for obtaining maximum yield. In making the decision to include only 50 percent of the content of the source of N from all organic sources the Department took into consideration the public policy of encouraging the use of municipal sludge and other similar products, and the fact that on an average only fifty percent of the content of the source of N would be an available source of N. Although IFAS disagreed with the Department on not counting all the N in organic sources, IFAS did agree that since it was not known how much of the N in organic sources was immediately available, the figure of 50 percent of the content of the source was as good a figure as any. Increasing the range of the annual rate of N per acre from 120 - 160 pounds to 120 - 180 pounds for grapefruit and from 120 - 200 pounds to 120 - 240 pounds for oranges came about as a result of a meeting on April 20, 1995, at Florida Citrus Mutual. Apparently, the justification for the increase was due to the recommendations contained in the Criteria for selecting a rate within the recommended rate set out in SP 169, Fertilizer Guidelines which provides: Crop load. Nitrogen requirements vary as crop load changes. Replacement of N lost by crop removal is the largest requirement for N. Groves producing low to average crops do no require high fertilizer rates. Higher rates may be considered for very productive groves. Rates for oranges up to 240 lb per acre may be considered for groves producing over 700 boxes per acre. However, rates above 200 lb per acre should be used only if there is a demonstrated need based on leaf analysis, and if optimal fertilizer placement, timing, and irrigation scheduling are employed. For grapefruit producing over 800 boxes per acre, 180 lb N may be considered. The increase in the range of the annual rate per acre of N from 120 - 180 pounds to 120 - 210 pounds for grapefruit came about as result of Dr. Koo's concern over a potassium deficiency. Most fertilizers are formulated on a 1 to 1 ratio of N and potassium, and the application of only 180 pounds of potassium could result in a potassium deficiency. The Department did not consider if citrus trees could absorb N and potassium in a ratio other than a 1 to 1 which would have allowed the proper application of potassium without increasing the annual N rate. The following language appears in SP 169, Fertilizer Guidelines, 6.2 Bearing Trees: Rates of 0.4 lb N per box for oranges land lb N per box for grapefruit were recommended previously. With good manage- ment, oranges frequently exceed 600 boxes per acre and grapefruit production is commonly above 800 boxes per acre. Use of lb N per box in groves producing over 500 boxes per acre results in application of over 200 lb N per acre. The advantage of rates above 200 lb has not been demonstrated. Economic benefits are quest- ionable, and the potential for groundwater contamination increases. A significant yield response to rates above 200 lb N per acre appears unlikely, and other management practices should be first evaluated if grove performance at 200 lb N per acre is not satisfactory. Experts, both growers and researchers, testifying for Petitioners and previous IFAS Research Bulletins on citrus fertilization, disagree with the statements: (a) that the advantage of annual rates of N above 200 pounds per acre has not been demonstrated; (b) that economic benefits of annual rates of N above 200 pounds per acre are questionable; and (c) that a significant yield response to annual rates of N above 200 pounds per acre appears unlikely. This language also appears to be in conflict the language quoted above dealing with the criteria, "Crop load". Petitioners' experts and previous IFAS Research Bulletins disagree with the conclusion that there is a basis for a higher annual rate of N per acre for oranges over grapefruit. On November 14, 1995, the Department presented the citrus Interim Measure which recommended a range of 120 - 210 pounds N per acre annual rate for grapefruit and a range of 120 - 240 pounds N per acre annual rate for oranges to the Fertilizer Technical Council. After hearing testimony on the merits of the citrus Interim Measure, the Fertilizer Technical Council voted to recommend changing the citrus Interim Measure to provide that oranges and grapefruit be treated the same with a range of annual N rate per acre of 120 - 240 pounds for both. The Commissioner of Agriculture did not accept the recommendation from the Fertilizer Technical Council. In addition to the Fertilizer Technical Council, a large segment of the citrus industry, including, but not limited to, growers and grower organizations, expressed their approval of using the same range of annual rates of 120 - 240 pounds of N per acre for both oranges and grapefruit. However, the Department had already compromised by increasing the maximum annual rate of nitrogen per acre for grapefruit by 30 pounds above the maximum annual rate suggested by IFAS in SP 169, while leaving the maximum annual rate of nitrogen per acre for oranges at 240 pounds, the maximum rate suggested by IFAS in SP 169.
The Issue Whether Respondents, Ag-Mart Produce, Inc. (Ag-Mart), and its employees' Justin Oelman (in DOAH Case No. 06-0729) and Warrick Birdwell (in DOAH Case No. 06-0730), committed some, any, or all of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints detailed herein and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at the final hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with administration of the Florida Pesticide Law, Chapter 487, Part I, Florida Statutes. Among the duties of the Bureau of Compliance Monitoring within the Division of Agricultural Environmental Services are the designation and regulation of restricted-use pesticides, the testing and licensure of certified pesticide applicators, and the enforcement of federal worker protection standards regarding the exposure of farm workers to pesticides. §§ 487.011, 487.042, 487.044, and 487.051, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-2.039. The Administrative Complaints allege two types of violation of the Florida Pesticide Law. First, they allege that Ag-Mart harvested tomatoes prior to the end of the pre-harvest interval, the period of time that must pass after a pesticide is applied to a tomato plant before that plant's fruit may be safely harvested. The pre-harvest interval is specified on the labels of restricted-use pesticides. Second, they allege that Ag-Mart allowed workers to enter sprayed fields prior to the end of the restricted entry interval, the period of time that must pass after a pesticide is applied before it is safe for a worker to enter or remain in the treated area. The restricted entry interval is also specified on the labels of restricted-use pesticides. In 2004, Ag-Mart operated farms in several locations in Florida and North Carolina. Ag-Mart operated packing houses in Plant City, Florida, and in New Jersey. Ag-Mart grows, packages, and distributes grape tomatoes under the "Santa Sweets" label, and a round-type tomato marketed as "Ugly Ripe." During all times relevant to this proceeding, Ag-Mart's principal administrative offices were located in Plant City, Florida, and Ag-Mart's operations were managed by its president, Donald Long. At the final hearing, several Ag-Mart employees, including Mr. Long, testified as to Ag-Mart's practices in establishing planting and pesticide spraying schedules, carrying out those schedules in the field, and ensuring that legal restrictions on pesticide use are observed. This testimony is credited as to Ag-Mart's general pattern and practice, but does not disprove the Department's evidence as to particular instances of pre-harvest interval or restricted entry interval violations. Among other duties, Mr. Long was responsible for scheduling Ag-Mart's cultivation of tomato plants at the company's farms, so that product is available year-round. Mr. Long prepared a 2004 planting schedule that spaced the planting of new crops a week to ten days apart to ensure a continuous flow of tomatoes once the plants matured. For the 2004 season, the South Florida farm began planting in September 2003, with harvesting commencing in December 2003 and continuing through May 2004. The North Florida farm started its spring season plantings in March and April 2004, with harvest beginning in early June 2004 and lasting until August 2004. Each "planting" at Ag-Mart consists of a specific amount of acreage that is cultivated for a specific period of time to produce an expected yield of tomatoes. Mr. Long determines the size of each planting based on past yields and projected needs. A single planting of grape tomatoes is harvested multiple times. Depending on conditions, a planting of grape tomatoes at the South Florida farm can be harvested between ten and 15 times in the fall, with fewer harvesting opportunities in the spring. A planting of grape tomatoes at the North Florida farm may be harvested between eight and ten times. Each planting takes up portions of acreage called "fields," which are divided by land features and irrigation systems. Fields are of varying sizes, depending on the nature of the terrain and the irrigation system. The fields are numbered, and a planting is usually done in a certain number of roughly contiguous fields. A field is further divided into separately numbered "blocks," each block consisting of six rows of tomato plants, three rows on each side of a "drive area" through which tractors and harvest trucks can maneuver to reach the plants. The blocks are numbered in sequence from the beginning to the end of the field. At the South Florida farm in 2004, Ag-Mart cultivated ten separate plantings of between 79 and 376 gross acres. Each planting contained as few as three and as many as ten separate fields. At the North Florida farm in 2004, Ag-Mart cultivated five separate plantings of between 92 and 158 gross acres. Each planting contained either two or three separate fields.2 The cycle of farming activities at the Ag-Mart farms included ground preparation, planting, staking, tying, harvesting, and post-harvest clean-up. Farm laborers were recruited and transported to the fields by crew leaders, who must be registered as farm labor contractors with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation pursuant to Chapter 450, Part III, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61L-1.004. The crew leaders supervised the field laborers and prepared their weekly time cards. The crew leaders were directed by Ag-Mart's labor supervisors as to where the laborers were to work and which tasks were to be performed at any given time. Crew leaders providing services to Ag-Mart in 2004 included: Sergio Salinas, d/b/a Salinas & Son, Inc.; Pascual Sierra; and Juan Anzualda, d/b/a Juan Anzualda Harvesting, Inc. Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda were crew leaders at the South Florida farm in the spring 2004 season. Mr. Sierra was a crew leader at the North Florida farm in 2004. At the South Florida farm, Mr. Salinas and three or four supervisors called "field walkers" oversaw the daily work of the 150 to 200 farm laborers who worked in Mr. Salinas' crew. Mr. Salinas owned and operated buses that transported the workers to and within the farm. Mr. Salinas also operated trucks to haul the harvested tomatoes from the fields to the shipping dock on the South Florida farm. A truck was also needed to move portable toilets to the fields for the use of the laborers. Because of the amount of equipment necessary to conduct a harvest, and the intense hand labor required to pick a row of tomatoes, Mr. Salinas always kept his crew together in one location while harvesting. During the period of January through May 2004, Mr. Salinas' crew typically harvested in one or two fields per day, and never more than four fields in one day. Mr. Anzualda and his 15 field walkers supervised a crew of 150 laborers at the South Florida farm during March and April 2004. Mr. Anzualda always kept his crew together when performing harvesting activities, due to the amount of equipment and the time necessary to set up near the work areas. Mr. Anzualda estimated that it took between 45 and 90 minutes to set up his equipment and line up his workers along the rows before harvesting could commence in a given field. Mr. Anzualda's crew typically harvested in one or two fields per day at the South Florida farm during the peak harvest period of March and April 2004, and never in more than four fields in one day. Ag-Mart paid the farm laborers the piece rate of $2.50 per tub of grape tomatoes. A "tub" weighs about 21 pounds. Different piece rates applied to different forms of work. For tying activities, the laborers under Mr. Salinas were paid $0.75 per 100 linear feet of work, while those under Mr. Anzualda were paid $0.50 per 100 linear feet. The laborers were paid the minimum wage of $5.15 per hour for some work, such as weeding and the harvest of Ugly Ripe tomatoes. In any event, the laborers were guaranteed the minimum wage, and were paid $5.15 per hour if that amount was greater than their pay would have been under piece work rates. Planting activities are performed by hand. Tomato plants are started in greenhouses, and then transplanted to the field when they are six weeks old and about six inches high. Staking is performed manually and by machine, as stakes are placed between the tomato plants to support the plants as they mature. Tying is performed manually, from about the second week after planting until the eighth or ninth week. "Tying" involves tying the tomato plants with string to the stakes to allow them to grow up the stakes as they mature. The tomato plants are six to seven feet tall at maturity. After the tomatoes were planted in 2004, Ag-Mart's farms began the application of pesticides according to a company-wide spray program devised by Mr. Long prior to the season. The spray program outlined the type and volume of pesticide products to be applied to the maturing tomato plants from the first week of planting through the end of the harvest. Once tying and harvesting activities began, Ag-Mart's spray program called for the application of pesticides "behind the tying" or "behind the harvest," meaning that spraying was done immediately after tying or harvesting was completed in a field. The spraying was done behind the workers because picking and tying opens up the plants, which enables the pesticide to better penetrate the plant. The timing of the spraying also allows fungicide to cover wounds from broken leaves caused by picking, thus preventing infection. Harvesting is performed manually by the farm laborers, who pick the ripe fruit from the tomato plants and place it into containers. The crew leader lines up the laborers with one person on each side of a row of tomatoes, meaning that a crew of 150 laborers can pick 75 rows of tomatoes at a time. The farm workers pick all of the visible fruit that is ripe or close to ripe on the blocks that are being harvested. Once the picking is complete on a block, it takes seven to ten days for enough new fruit to ripen on that block to warrant additional harvesting. Justin Oelman was Ag-Mart's crop protection manager at the South Florida farm in 2004. Mr. Oelman worked for Ag-Mart for eight years as a farm manager and crop protection manager before leaving in 2005 and had three years prior experience as a crop protection manager for another tomato grower. As crop protection manager in 2004, Mr. Oelman was the licensed pesticide applicator responsible for ordering chemicals and directing the application of pesticides. His job included writing up the "tomato spray ticket" for each pesticide application. The spray ticket is a document that, on its face, indicates the date and time of a pesticide application and its location according to planting, field, and block numbers. The spray ticket also states the name of the tractor driver who physically applies the pesticide, the type and amount of the pesticide applied, and the number of acres treated. Licensed pesticide applicators are required by Department rule to record the information included on the spray ticket. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032. In applying pesticides to the South Florida farm's grape tomato crop in 2004, Mr. Oelman followed the spraying program designed by Mr. Long before the season. Because the pesticides were applied behind the farm workers' field activity, Mr. Oelman maintained close communications with Josh Cantu, the Ag-Mart labor supervisor in charge of tying activities on the South Florida farm, and with Eduardo Bravo, the labor supervisor in charge of grape tomato harvesting. Mr. Bravo in turn directed crew leaders such as Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda on where to take their crews to conduct harvesting work. These communications kept Mr. Oelman apprised of where the crews were working and how much progress the tying or harvesting activities were expected to make by the end of the day. Mr. Oelman was then able to plan the next day's pesticide applications so that his tractor drivers would be ready to enter the field and apply the pesticides soon after the tying or harvesting activities were completed. Mr. Oelman typically wrote the spray tickets on the day before the actual pesticide application, based on the information gathered from Mr. Bravo and Mr. Cantu. Thus, the starting times shown on the tickets are times that were projected by Mr. Oelman on the previous afternoon, not necessarily the time that spraying actually commenced. Spraying could be delayed for a number of reasons. At times, the work in the fields would not progress as quickly as Mr. Cantu or Mr. Bravo had anticipated, due to the heaviness of the harvest. Pesticides are not applied to wet plants; therefore, rain could delay a planned spray application. Mr. Oelman's practice was to write a new spray ticket if a day's planned application was completely cancelled. However, if the planned spray application was merely delayed for a time, Mr. Oelman did not create a new spray ticket or update the original ticket to reflect the actual starting time. Mr. Oelman failed to explain why he did not always create a new ticket when the information on the existing ticket ceased to be accurate. Mr. Oelman directly supervised the Ag-Mart employees who drove the tractors and operated the spray rigs from which pesticides were applied to the tomato plants. Mr. Oelman trained the tractor drivers not to spray where people were working, but to wait until the tying or harvesting activities in designated fields had been completed. Once the fields had been sprayed, Mr. Oelman would orally notify Mr. Bravo and Mr. Cantu of the location of the pesticide applications. Mr. Oelman would also post copies of the spray tickets at the farm's central posting board, on which was posted relevant information regarding the pesticides being used at the farm, the restricted entry intervals and pre-harvest intervals for the pesticides, and other safety information.3 When restricted-use pesticides4 were to be applied, Mr. Oelman posted the entrances to the field with warning signs before the application began. The signs, which stated "Danger/Pesticides/Keep Out" in English and Spanish, were left in place until twelve hours after the expiration of the restricted entry interval for the applied pesticide. Mr. Oelman attested that he always made these postings when restricted-use pesticides such as Monitor and Danitol were applied at the South Florida farm. Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda testified that they never harvested tomatoes from fields posted with pesticide warning signs. Mr. Anzualda checked for warning signs every day to ensure that his crew was not being sent into fields where pesticides had recently been applied. The restricted entry interval (REI) and the pre- harvest interval (PHI) are set forth on the manufacturer's label of each restricted-use pesticide, in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Parts 156 (labeling requirements for pesticides and devices) and 170 (worker protection standard). The REI, a worker safety standard, is the time period after application of a restricted- use pesticide that must elapse before workers are allowed to enter the treated area. The PHI, a food safety standard, is the time period that must elapse after a spray application before harvesting can begin. The REI and PHI vary according to individual pesticides. In 2004, Warrick Birdwell was the farm manager at Ag- Mart's North Florida farm in Jennings. Prior to 2004, Mr. Birdwell had worked ten years for other tomato growers in Virginia and Florida. As farm manager, Mr. Birdwell was responsible for all operations from ground preparation through post-harvest clean-up at the North Florida farm. Mr. Birdwell was also a licensed restricted-use pesticide applicator and was responsible for the application of pesticides at the North Florida farm. In 2004, Mr. Birdwell was assisted in carrying out the spray program by Dale Waters, who supervised the tractor drivers and equipment.5 During 2004, grape tomatoes were harvested at the North Florida farm on a rotation of at least seven days per block, meaning that it would take at least seven days after a harvest, in a given field, to grow enough vine ripe fruit to warrant another harvest. Mr. Birdwell prepared the spray tickets for the planned application of pesticides. He created his spray tickets a day or two before the actual date that the application was scheduled to take place. At times, delays occurred due to weather, equipment failures, or slower than anticipated progress in the harvest. Mr. Birdwell's practice was to create a new ticket and destroy the old one if the delay prevented a scheduled application from occurring on the scheduled date. However, if the spraying was commenced on the scheduled date, but had to be completed on the next day, Mr. Birdwell kept the original spray ticket without amendment. Mr. Birdwell failed to give a reason why a new ticket was not created each time the information, included in the original ticket, ceased to be accurate. Mr. Birdwell communicated throughout the day with Charles Lambert, the North Florida farm's labor supervisor, to monitor the progress of the harvesting activities and ensure that workers did not enter fields where REIs or PHIs were in effect. Mr. Birdwell also directed that warning postings be placed at the entrances to fields where restricted-use pesticides had been applied. Farm labor crews were allowed to move on the farm property only at the specific direction of Mr. Lambert, whose constant communication with Mr. Birdwell helped ensure that labor crews stayed out of treated fields until it was safe to enter them. Harvested product received at Ag-Mart's packing houses is tracked by foreman receiving reports, which identify the product and its quantity, the name of the crew leader responsible for harvesting the product, the farm from which the product was shipped, and the planting number from which the product was harvested. The receiving reports are used to calculate the commission payments due to the Ag-Mart crew leaders, who are paid based on the amount of fruit their crews harvest, and to analyze the yields of specific plantings. The "date received" column on the receiving reports showed the date the product was shipped from the farm to the packinghouse. In March 2005, the Palm Beach Post published an article stating that three women, who harvested tomatoes for Ag- Mart in 2004, bore children who suffered from birth defects. The article questioned whether the birth defects were connected to the pesticides used by Ag-Mart on its tomatoes. The women had worked at both the South Florida and North Florida farms, and at an Ag-Mart farm in North Carolina. In response to the article, the Collier County Health Department began an inquiry to determine the cause of the birth defects and asked for the Department's help in performing a pesticide use inspection at the South Florida farm, where the three women, identified as Francisca Herrera, Sostenes Salazar, and Maria de la Mesa (also called Maria de la Mesa Cruz), worked from February through July 2004. The Department's investigation commenced with a work request sent from Tallahassee to Environmental Specialist Neil Richmond in Immokalee on March 7, 2005.6 Mr. Richmond regularly conducts inspections at golf courses, farms, chemical dealers, and fertilizer plants throughout Collier County. The work request directed Mr. Richmond to obtain pesticide use records for Ag-Mart covering the period of February through July 2004 and employee records showing the names of the three employees and the dates they worked in 2004. The work request further directed Mr. Richmond to conduct a pesticide use inspection at the South Florida farm to document the pesticide products used in the field. Finally, the work request directed Mr. Richmond to conduct a full worker protection standard inspection to document the posting of fields, central posting information, and REIs at the South Florida farm. Mr. Richmond initially visited Ag-Mart's South Florida farm on March 28, 2005, accompanied by two persons from the Collier County Health Department. During the course of the inspection, Ag-Mart's farm manager, Doug Perkins, produced spray tickets for both the South Florida and North Florida farms for the period February through July 2004. Mr. Perkins also produced a spreadsheet identifying the dates worked and the farm locations for each of the three women named in the newspaper article. This spreadsheet was prepared at the direction of Ag- Mart's human resources manager, Angelia Cassell, and was derived from the three workers' timesheets for 2004. On March 30, 2005, Mr. Richmond filed a written report with the documents he received from Ag-Mart. The Department's Bureau of Compliance Monitoring then assigned the matter to Case Reviewer Jessica Fernandez in Tallahassee. Ms. Fernandez was given the task of reviewing all the information gathered by the Department's inspectors to determine whether Ag-Mart had violated the Florida Pesticide Law or any of the Department's implementing rules. On April 12, 2005, Ms. Fernandez sent a request for additional information to Mr. Richmond, which stated in relevant part: According to the work log included in this file, Ms. Fransisca [sic] Herrera, Ms. Maria de la Mesa Cruz and Ms. Sostenes Salazar worked at the Ag-Mart farm located in Immokalee between January 2004 and October 2004. Please obtain as much information as possible regarding the specific Planting, Field and Block numbers in which these workers worked during the period of February 2004 through June 2004. Mr. Richmond went to the South Florida farm on March 13, 2005, and communicated this request for additional information to Mr. Oelman, who responded that it would take several days to gather the requested information. Mr. Richmond returned to the farm on April 15, 2005. On that date, Mr. Oelman explained to Mr. Richmond the sequencing of harvesting and spray activities at the South Florida farm. Mr. Oelman told Mr. Richmond that Ag-Mart's harvest records indicate, only, which planting the laborers were working in on a given day and that a planting includes more than one field. Mr. Oelman also told Mr. Richmond that Ag-Mart's spray records are kept according to field and block numbers and that his practice was to spray behind the picking. On April 22, 2005, Ms. Cassell faxed to Mr. Richmond a spreadsheet entitled "Field Locations for SFL 2/04 thru 6/04." All involved understood that "SFL" referred to the South Florida farm.7 With the assistance of subordinates in her office, Ms. Cassell produced this document to show, in her words, "the total of what field locations the [three] women might have worked in." Ms. Cassell started with time cards, which indicated the dates and hours the three women worked. Then she obtained foreman receiving reports, which she understood to tell her which plantings were harvested on which dates. Finally, she obtained, from the farm, a handwritten document showing which fields were included in each planting. From this information, Ms. Cassell was able to fashion a spreadsheet indicating the range of fields each woman could have worked in from February through June 2004. Mr. Richmond testified that he read the spreadsheet's title and understood the document to show where the women actually worked each day. The document appeared self- explanatory. No one from Ag-Mart told Mr. Richmond that the spreadsheet showed only where the women could have worked, or "possible" locations. Mr. Richmond passed the spreadsheet on to Ms. Fernandez, with a report stating that it showed "the field locations for Ms. Herrera, Ms. Salazar, and Ms. de la Mesa where they worked on respective dates." Ms. Fernandez also operated on the assumption that the spreadsheet showed what its title indicated, the actual field locations of the three women on any given day from February through June 2004. Ms. Cassell testified that she put the title on the spreadsheet without much thought, simply as an identifier for the file on her computer's hard drive. Ms. Cassell understood that she was creating a spreadsheet of all the fields the women could possibly have worked in on a given day. She could be no more precise, because Ag-Mart did not keep records that would show the specific fields where an individual worked on a given day. The president of Ag-Mart, Mr. Long, confirmed that Ag- Mart does not keep records on which fields a worker is in on a given day. At the time the Department made its request, Mr. Long told Ms. Cassell that there was no way Ag-Mart could provide such precise worker location data. The closest they could come would be to correlate harvest or receiving data, which showed what plantings a crew had harvested from, with the workers' time cards. Ag-Mart knew whose crew each woman had worked in; so the spreadsheet listed all the fields in the planting worked by the crew, as a way of showing which fields the women might have worked in. On May 4, 2005, Ms. Fernandez sent Compliance Monitoring Bureau Chief Dale Dubberly a request for additional information, which Mr. Dubberly forwarded to Mr. Richmond the next day. Ms. Fernandez first requested the time work started and ended for each worker in each field on every date listed in the spreadsheet provided on April 22, 2005. Ms. Fernandez next asked for the field location for each worker from July 2004 to November 2004. She asked for the block numbers corresponding to each of the fields in North Florida, South Florida, and North Carolina during the 2004 season and a map showing the distribution of blocks, fields and plantings for those farms during the 2004 season. She asked for spray records for South Florida for October and November 2004. Finally, Ms. Fernandez requested a more legible copy of the spreadsheet, which she stated "shows each worker's field location." Upon receiving this request through Mr. Richmond, Ms. Cassell, her staff, and Ag-Mart farm compliance manager, Amanda Collins created a new spreadsheet, which Ms. Cassell titled "Field Locations for 3 Employees for 2004." This spreadsheet was identical in format to the earlier document, but was expanded to include the dates the three women worked for all of 2004. For each worker, the spreadsheet provided a cell for each day worked, and within that cell a list of field numbers. Again, the Department took these field numbers to represent fields in which the women actually worked, when Ag-Mart actually intended them to represent fields in which the women possibly worked. Some of the cells listed as many as 23 field numbers for one day. The method of developing this spreadsheet was similar to that employed for the first one. The weekly time cards of the three women were used to provide the days they worked. Ag-Mart's weekly time cards show the name of the employee, the rounded hours worked each week, the number of piece units worked, the hours worked for minimum wage, and the initials of the crew leader for whom the employee worked that week. For their South Florida farm work in 2004, Ms. Herrera and Ms. Salazar worked exclusively for crew leader Sergio Salinas. Ms. de la Mesa worked at South Florida for crew leader Juan Anzualda and at North Florida for crew leader Pascual Sierra.8 To identify the fields where the three women might have worked on a given day, Ms. Cassell and her staff again used foreman receiving reports and planting schedules. The receiving reports were understood to provide the dates of shipping for harvested product, and these were correlated to the dates on which the three women worked. Again, Ms. Cassell listed every field within a planting as a possible work location, because Ag-Mart kept no data that identified the fields in which the women actually worked on a given date. On May 6, 2005, Mr. Richmond met with Ms. Cassell and Ms. Collins at Ag-Mart's Plant City administrative offices. The meeting lasted no more than 15 minutes and consisted of Ag-Mart employees turning over various documents to Mr. Richmond, along with some explanatory conversation. Ms. Cassell specifically recalled explaining to Mr. Richmond that the field location spreadsheet indicated the "total possible fields that the three employees could have worked in." Mr. Richmond denied that Ms. Cassell gave him any such explanation. Ms. Collins recalled that Mr. Richmond and Ms. Cassell had some discussion about the spreadsheet, but could recall no particulars.9 Mr. Richmond forwarded the documents received at the May 6, 2005, meeting to Ms. Fernandez in Tallahassee. His written summary, also dated May 6, 2005, represents Mr. Richmond's contemporaneous understanding of the meaning of the documents he was given at the Plant City meeting. The summary stated, in relevant part: Ms. Collins provided the times which the three ladies worked at the various locations which came from the three ladies time cards (See Exhibits V-1 through V-3, copies of time worked information). Ms. Collins stated that this has the start and finished [sic] times, but does not have which fields they worked at a particular time as they may pick in several fields throughout the day. Ms. Collins provided another copy of the field locations for each of the three ladies (See Exhibits W-1 and W-2, copies of field locations of workers). Ms. Collins also provided maps with field locations depicting blocks and plantings (See Exhibits X-1 through X-13, maps depicting field locations with blocks and plantings). The field no. is the main number in each block, the first two numbers are the numbers of the planting, while the remaining number in the set is the block number. . . . At the hearing, Mr. Richmond testified that he "absolutely" would have communicated to Ms. Fernandez any conversation he had with, either, Ms. Cassell or Ms. Collins indicating that the field location spreadsheet was anything other than a document showing where the women worked on a given day. This testimony is credible and, coupled with Mr. Richmond's contemporaneous written statement, leads to the finding that Mr. Richmond's testimony regarding the May 6, 2005, meeting in Plant City should be credited. On May 12, 2005, Ms. Cassell sent Mr. Dubberly an e- mail with an attachment correcting some aspects of the spreadsheet. Ms. Cassell's e-mail message stated: I have attached the the [sic] revision to the original sheet given on the 3 woman's [sic] field locations. I included which field location for NC. There was one revision I made for Francisca on week ending 4/24/05 [Ms. Cassell clearly means 2004]. She was in NC that week and on the last two days of that week I had SFL field numbers and it should of [sic] been NC [sic] please discard old report and replace with revised one. The Department cites this e-mail as further indication that Ag-Mart represented the spreadsheet as indicating actual field locations for the three women, or at least that Ag-Mart said nothing to clarify that the spreadsheet showed something other than the fields where the women actually worked. Ms. Fernandez, the case reviewer whose analysis led to the filing of the Administrative Complaints against Ag-Mart, believed that the field location spreadsheets prepared by Ms. Cassell and her staff reflected the actual work locations for Ms. Herrera, Ms. Salazar, and Ms. de la Mesa. As a case reviewer, Ms. Fernandez receives files compiled by the field staff and reviews the files to determine whether a violation of the Florida Pesticide Law has occurred. The procedure of the Bureau of Compliance Monitoring appears designed to ensure that the case reviewers have no contact with the subjects of their investigation and, instead, rely on field inspectors to act as conduits in obtaining information from companies such as Ag-Mart. As a result, Ms. Fernandez had no direct contact with anyone from Ag-Mart and, thus, had no direct opportunity to be disabused of her assumptions regarding the field location spreadsheet. Ms. Fernandez conceded that she had never been on a tomato farm at the time she conducted her review of the Ag-Mart case. She did not take into consideration the acreage of the fields or the size of the work crews and their manner of operation. She made no attempt to visualize the effort it would take for one worker to harvest in ten or 20 fields in one day. She assumed that each woman worked in at least part of each field listed on the spreadsheet for each day listed. Ms. Fernandez believed that the spreadsheet was clear on its face and saw no need to make further inquiries as to the plausibility of the assumption that it reflected actual, not possible, field locations. As found above, Ag-Mart made no statement to any Department employee to qualify that the spreadsheet meant only possible field locations. Nonetheless, common sense should have caused someone in the Department to question whether this spreadsheet really conveyed the information that its title appeared to promise. On some days, the spreadsheet places a single field worker in 23 fields. Ag-Mart's crew leaders credibly testified that their crews never worked in more than four fields in one day and more often worked in only one or two. Even granting Ms. Fernandez' ignorance, Mr. Dubberly or some other superior in the Department should have had enough knowledge of farm operations to question the plausibility of Ms. Fernandez' assumptions. While Ag-Mart is at fault for not explaining itself clearly, the Department is also at fault for insisting that the spreadsheet be taken at face value, no matter how implausible the result.10 At the hearing, Ms. Fernandez explained how she used the documents provided by Ag-Mart to draft the Administrative Complaints. As an example, Counts I and II of the North Florida Complaint provide: Count I On June 6, 2004, Mr. Cesar Juarez and Mr. Alexis Barrios treated approximately 157.6 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 7-8, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The Monitor 4 Spray supplemental label states: "REMARKS . . . Do not apply more than a total of 10 pints per acre per crop season, nor within 7 days of harvest." Worker field location records show that tomatoes were harvested from fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre- harvest interval stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Count II The Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label states: "TOMATO . . . Do not apply the DANITOL + MONITOR 4 Spray tank mix within 7 days of harvest." As noted in the previous paragraph, fields 7-8 were treated with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray on June 6, 2004. Tomatoes were harvested from these same fields on June 7, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label. Ms. Fernandez obtained the information regarding the date, time, and manner of pesticide application from the spray tickets described above. She obtained the Monitor and Danitol PHI information from the product label. She obtained the harvest information from the spreadsheet, which indicated that Ms. de la Mesa worked in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Counts I and II alleging violations of the PHIs for Monitor and Danitol had an accompanying Count XIX, alleging a violation of the REI for Monitor arising from the same set of facts: Count XIX The Monitor 4 Spray and the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray labels contain the following language: "AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS. Use this product only in accordance with its labeling and with the Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR part 170. This Standard contains requirements for the protection of agricultural workers on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, and handlers of agricultural pesticides. It contains requirements for training, decontamination, notification, and emergency assistance. It also contains specific instructions and exceptions pertaining to the statements on this label about personal protective equipment (PPE) and restricted entry interval. The requirements in this box only apply to users of this product that are covered by the Worker Protection Standard." On June 6, 2004, Mr. Cesar Juarez and Mr. Alexis Barrios treated approximately 157.6 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 7-8, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The application started at 11:30 am and ended at 5:30 pm on June 6, 2004. The Monitor 4 Spray label states: "Do not enter or allow worker entry into treated areas during the restricted entry interval (REI) of 48 hours." Work records show that Ms. de la Mesa, directed by licensed applicators Mr. Charles Lambert (PV38793)11 and Mr. Warrick Birdwell (PV36679), worked in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004, and that her working hours for June 7, 2004, were 8:00 am to 6:30 pm. Therefore, Ms. de la Mesa and other workers were instructed, directed, permitted or not prevented by the agricultural employer, Ag-Mart Produce, Inc. from entering treated fields before the expiration of the REI stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Throughout the hearing, Ag-Mart contended (and the Department did not dispute) that no statute or rule requires Ag-Mart to keep a daily log of the fields where its employees work. The Department also conceded that Ag-Mart was cooperative throughout its investigation.12 Ag-Mart contends that all counts should be dismissed because of the Department's reliance on the field location spreadsheet, which shows only the possible field locations of the workers. This contention goes to far. For example, the counts set forth above are well taken, because the spray tickets indicate that fields 7 and 8 were sprayed on June 6, 2004, and the field location spreadsheet indicates that Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Ag-Mart further attacked the spreadsheet by suggesting the unreliability of the dates on the foreman receiving reports. As found above, the receiving reports generally showed the date the product was shipped from the farm to the packinghouse, as well as the crew leader who provided the tomatoes and the planting from which the tomatoes were harvested. At the hearing, Ag-Mart contended that the date the product was shipped was not always the same date it was harvested. Further, Ag-Mart demonstrated that one of the receiving reports relevant to this proceeding showed the date the product was received at the packing house, rather than the date the product was shipped from the farm, due to a clerical error. Ag-Mart argued that this example showed that the receiving reports were not a reliable source for determining the precise dates of harvest in a given field on the North Florida farm. Ag-Mart's evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the unreliability of the receiving reports, where Ag-Mart itself relied on the reports to provide the Department with the spreadsheet showing possible field locations of the three workers. Ag-Mart had ample opportunity to make a thorough demonstration of the reports' alleged unreliability and failed to do so. Ag-Mart also attempted to cast doubt on the accuracy of the spray tickets through the testimony of Mr. Oelman and Mr. Birdwell, both of whom stated that the spray tickets are written well in advance of the pesticide applications and are not invariably rewritten or corrected when the spraying schedule is pushed back due to rain or slow harvest. However, the pesticide applicator is required by law to maintain accurate records relating to the application of all restricted-use pesticides, including the date, start time and end time of the treatment, and the location of the treatment site. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032(1). The Department is entitled to inspect these records. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032(6). Ag-Mart may not attack records that its own employee/applicators were legally required to keep in an accurate fashion. The Department is entitled to rely on the spray tickets as accurate indicators of when and where pesticide applications occurred. Thus, the undersigned has accepted the accuracy of the spray records and the receiving reports, but not of the field location spreadsheet. However, there are some dates on which the fields shown on the spreadsheet perfectly match the fields shown on the spray tickets, as in Counts I, II, and XIX of the North Florida Complaint set forth above. It is found that the Department has proven these counts by clear and convincing evidence. In addition to Counts I, II, and XIX of the North Florida Complaint, the Department has proven the following counts of the North Florida Complaint by clear and convincing evidence: Counts XI, XII, and XXII (spraying in fields 7 and 8 on June 17, 2004; Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 19, 2004); and Count XIII (spraying Agrimek 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide, with PHI of seven days, in fields 7 and 8 on June 3, 2005; Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004). The Department has proven none of the counts in the South Florida Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Some explanation must be made for the finding that Counts XXXI and XXXII were not proven by clear and convincing evidence. Those counts allege as follows: Count XXXI On April 17, 2004, Mr. Lorenzo Reyes, Mr. Demetrio Acevedo and Mr. Francisco Vega treated approximately 212.5 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 11, 6 and 4, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The Monitor 4 Spray supplemental label states: "REMARKS . . . Do not apply more than a total of 10 pints per acre per crop season, nor within 7 days of harvest." Worker field location records show that tomatoes were harvested from fields 11, 6 and 4 on April 21, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Count XXXII The Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label states: "TOMATO . . . Do not apply the DANITOL + MONITOR 4 Spray tank mix within 7 days of harvest." As noted in the previous paragraph, fields 11, 6 and 4 were treated with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray on April 17, 2004. Tomatoes were harvested from these same fields on April 21, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label. These counts base their allegation that tomatoes were harvested from fields 11, 6, and 4 on April 21, 2004, on the field location spreadsheet, which indicates that Ms. Salazar possibly worked in fields 4, 6, 9, 10, and/or 11 on April 21, 2004. Thus, the spreadsheet does not definitely prove that Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes in the three sprayed fields within the PHI. At the final hearing, the Department introduced a spray ticket showing that Monitor and Danitol were also applied to fields 9 and 10 on April 15, 2004. This additional spray ticket completed the Department's demonstration that every field in which Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes on April 21, 2004, had been sprayed with Monitor and Danitol within the seven-day PHI. However, the Department did not amend the South Florida Complaint to allege the fact of the second spray ticket, and, so, must be held to the allegations actually made in the complaint. Ag-Mart may not be found guilty of facts or violations not specifically alleged in the South Florida Complaint. See Cottrill v. Department of Insurance, 685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (facts not alleged in the Administrative Complaint). See also B.D.M. Financial Corporation v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 698 So. 2d 1359, 1362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (violations not alleged in the Administrative Complaint). In similar fashion, Counts XLI and XLII of the South Florida Complaint allege that fields 21, 22, 18, and 19 were sprayed with Monitor and Danitol on May 15, 2004, and allege PHI violations in fields 21, 22, 18, and 19 on May 20, 2004, based on the field location spreadsheet's indication that Ms. Salazar possibly worked in one or more of fields 18 through 25 on that date. Thus, the spreadsheet does not definitely prove that Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes in the four sprayed fields within the PHI. At the final hearing, the Department introduced a spray ticket showing that Monitor and Danitol were, also, applied to fields 20, 23, 24, and 25 on May 14, 2004. This additional spray ticket completed the Department's demonstration that every field in which Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes on May 20, 2004, had been sprayed with Monitor and Danitol within the seven-day PHI. Again, however, the Department failed to amend the South Florida Complaint to reflect its subsequently developed evidence. Subsection 487.175(1)(e), Florida Statutes, provides that the Department may enter an order imposing an administrative fine not to exceed $10,000 for each violation. The statute further provides as follows: When imposing any fine under this paragraph, the department shall consider the degree and extent of harm caused by the violation, the cost of rectifying the damage, the amount of money the violator benefited from by noncompliance, whether the violation was committed willfully, and the compliance record of the violator. Mr. Dubberly testified that the Department does not have a rule for determining the amount of fines, but uses a matrix, attaching a rating of 0 to 5 for each of the criteria named in the quoted portion of the statute, with 5 representing the most egregious violation. The extent of harm caused by the violation is divided into two classifications: (A) the degree and extent of harm related to human and environmental hazards and (B) the degree and extent of harm related to the toxicity of the pesticide(s). The remaining criteria considered in the matrix are: (C) the estimated cost of rectifying the damage, (D) the estimated amount of money the violator benefited by noncompliance, whether the violation was committed willfully, and (F) the compliance record of the violator. Each factor is given its numerical value. The values for factors (B) through (F) are added, then the total is multiplied by the value for factor (A). The resulting number is then multiplied by $100.00 to determine the amount of the fine. The PHI violations were primarily food safety violations, the concern being that there might be an unacceptable pesticide residue on the tomatoes if they were harvested within the PHI. The REI violations were based on concerns for worker safety from pesticide exposure. In determining the fines for PHI violations, the Department assigned a numerical value of 2 for factor (A). In determining the fines for REI violations, the Department assigned a numerical value of 3 for factor (A), based on a reasonable probability of human or animal death or injury, or a reasonable probability of serious environmental harm. For purposes of this proceeding, all the pesticides used by Ag-Mart were restricted-use pesticides. In considering the value to be assigned to factor (B), the Department relied on the pesticide labels, which contain signal words for the category of potential hazard to human or animal life posed by that pesticide. Monitor contained the signal word "Danger," which represents the highest level of potential hazard. A value of 5 was assigned for factor (B) in the alleged violations involving the use of Monitor. Danitol and Agrimek contained the signal word "Warning," which indicated a lesser potential hazard. A value of 3 was assigned for factor (B) in the alleged violations involving Danitol or Agrimek. Because the estimated cost of rectifying the damage and the estimated amount of money the violator benefited by noncompliance was unknown, the Department assigned a value of 0 to factors (C) and (D). As to factor (E), dealing with the willfulness of the violation, the Department assigns a value of 0 if there is no evidence of willfulness, a value of 1 if there is apparent evidence of willfulness, and a value of 5 if it determines the violation was intentional. Because of the large number of alleged PHI and REI violations, the Department assigned a value of 1 for factor (E), finding apparent evidence of willful intent for each alleged violation. As to factor (F), dealing with the violator's compliance history, the Department considers the three years immediately preceding the current violation. The Department assigns a value of 0 if there are no prior violations, a value of 1 for a prior dissimilar violation, a value of 2 for multiple prior dissimilar violations, a value of 3 for a prior similar violation, and a value of 4 for multiple prior similar violations. Because Ag-Mart had one prior dissimilar violation within the preceding three years, the Department assigned a value of 1 for factor (F) for each alleged violation. Because the sole basis for finding apparent evidence of willful intent was the number of alleged violations, the Department calculated its recommended fines in two ways: by assigning a value of 0 based on no evidence of willful intent and by assigning a value of 1 based on apparent evidence of willful intent. In DOAH Case No. 06-0730, the North Florida Complaint, the Department recommended a fine of either $1,200 (no evidence of willful intent) or $1,400 (apparent evidence of willful intent) for each of the PHI violations alleged in Counts I, III, V, VII, IX, and XI, which involved the use of Monitor. The Department recommended a fine of either $800 (no evidence) or $1,000 (apparent evidence) for Counts II, IV, VI, VIII, X, and XII, involving the use of Danitol, and for Counts XIV, XV, and XVI, involving the use of Agrimek. For each of the REI violations alleged in Counts XIX through XXII, the Department recommended a fine of either $1,800 (no evidence) or $2,100 (apparent evidence). The Department established by clear and convincing evidence seven of the 20 counts of the North Florida Complaint that remained at issue at the time of the hearing, and none of the 58 counts of the South Florida Complaint that remained at issue at the time of the hearing. The undersigned accepts the Department's calculation of the recommended fines for these violations and recommends that the Department apply the lower calculation for each of the violations. Thus, the recommended fines are as follows: Count I, PHI violation involving the use of Monitor, $1,200; Count II, PHI violation involving the use of Danitol, $800; Count XI, PHI violation involving the use of Monitor, $1,200; Count XII, PHI violation involving the use of Danitol, $800; Count XIII, PHI violation involving the use of Agrimek, $800; Count XIX, REI violation, $1,800; and Count XXII, REI violation, $1,800. Thus, the total recommended fine for the seven proven violations is $8,400. In conclusion, it is observed that these cases demonstrate a gap in the enforcement mechanism of the Florida Pesticide Law, at least as it is currently understood and practiced by the Department. The law requires licensed applicators to comply with the PHI and REI restrictions on the labels of the restricted-use pesticides they apply to these crops. The law requires the applicators to keep accurate records of when and where they apply pesticides and of the kind and quantity of pesticides applied in each instance. Yet all parties to this proceeding agreed that the law does not require either the applicators or the growers to keep accurate records of when and where farm workers enter the fields and conduct the harvest. This failure to complete the record- keeping circle makes it extremely difficult for the Department to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a PHI or REI violation has taken place. The PHI and REI restrictions appear virtually unenforceable through company records, except when some fluke of record keeping allows the Department to establish that a given worker could only have been in a recently sprayed field on a given day. It does little good to know when the pesticides were applied to a field if there is no way of knowing when workers first entered the field or harvested tomatoes after the spraying. Ag-Mart credibly demonstrated that its general practices are designed to minimize worker exposure and guarantee safe harvest, but the company keeps no records to demonstrate to its customers that it observes these practices in particular instances and is under no legal obligation to keep such records. This state of regulatory affairs should be as disturbing to Ag-Mart as to the Department, because purchasers of tomatoes in Florida's grocery stores do not require clear and convincing evidence in order to switch brands.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order that provides as follows: That Ag-Mart committed the violations alleged in Counts I, II, XI, XII, and XIII of the North Florida Complaint, for which violations Ag-Mart should be assessed an administrative fine totaling $8,400; That Ag-Mart pay to the Department $3,000 to resolve Counts L through LIV of the South Florida Complaint and Counts XVII and XVIII of the North Florida Complaint; and That all other counts of the North Florida Complaint and the South Florida Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 16th day of March, 2007.
The Issue This concerns the issue of whether wooden stakes utilized in the growing of tomatoes in the State of Florida are exempt from the Florida State sales tax under Florida Statute 212.08(5)(a). At the formal hearing, the Petitioner called as witnesses James Felix Price and George Marlowe, Jr. The Respondent called no witnesses. The Petitioner offered and had admitted three exhibits and the Respondent offered and had admitted into evidence two exhibits. Counsel for the Petitioner and counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact are consistent with the findings herein they were adopted by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are inconsistent with the findings and conclusions in this Order, they were considered by the Hearing Officer and rejected as being not supported by the evidence or unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Pitch Pine Lumber Company, sells tomato stakes to tomato growers in Florida. As a result of these sales, the Petitioner was assessed and ordered by the Department of Revenue to pay sales tax due on the sales of tomato stakes. It was stipulated by and between Petitioner and Respondent that the amount in controversy is $11,723.26 and that if the exemption under Florida Statute 212.08(5)(a) does not apply then the Petitioner shall owe that amount plus interest and penalties if applicable from October 3, 1980. Tomato stakes are used in almost every area of Florida today which produces tomatoes. Approximately two- thirds of the 44,000 acres used to grow tomatoes in Florida utilize tomato stakes. The only area which does not utilize these stakes is the Dade County area and this is due to the coral rock soil conditions. The stakes which are used are wooden stakes. These stakes are driven into the ground and used to hold the tomato plants upright or vertical. This prevents the fruit of the tomato plants from resting directly on the soil. Tomato stakes and cotton cloth are both natural plant materials and contain cellulose. One of the benefits of using tomato stakes is that by holding the plant upright, the plant will form a natural canopy which then shades the fruit and prevents sun scalding and sunburning of the fruit. This shade is provided by the leaf canopy of the plant and the stakes themselves provide no shade. Another benefit of utilizing tomato stakes is increased insect control and decreased fruit loss. This is the result of the fruit of the plant being held up off the ground by the plant which is being held upright by the tomato stakes. Tomato stakes were used for this purpose in Florida as early as 1947 and 1948. By 1960, tomato stakes were being used extensively in Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Revenue enter a final order requiring the Petitioner to pay $11,723.26, plus interest and penalties, if applicable from October 3, 1980. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of September 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 23rd day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Roderick K. Shaw, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 2111 Tampa, Florida 33601 Linda Lettera, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, LLO4 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Levy, Esquire General Counsel Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Randy Miller Executive Director Department of Revenue 102 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Food Code by failing to control pests; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of restaurants. §§ 590.01, et seq., Fla. Stat.; and Fla. Admin. Code 61C-4. The Restaurant is a licensed public food service establishment located at 5756 Dahlia Drive, Orlando, Florida, and holds state food service license number 58-12588. Mr. Goris is a sanitation and safety specialist for the Department, and has worked for the Department for the past eight years. Mr. Goris' experience includes working for the U.S. Army as a food safety inspector for eight years. Further, Mr. Goris received the Department's standardized training on the laws and rules governing public food service establishments. Finally, he is a certified food manager and obtains monthly in-house training from the Department concerning his job duties. On November 15, 2012, Mr. Goris performed a routine inspection of the Restaurant starting at 8:49 a.m. At the time of the inspection, the Restaurant was fully operational and open for business. Mr. Goris observed live roaches at the Restaurant throughout the food preparation area, including over the three- compartment sink, and in the cracks and crevices of the wood table. He also observed dead roaches in the food preparation room inside the hand sink, behind equipment, and on the table where utensils for the oven were stored. Critical violations are those violations that, if uncorrected, are most likely to contribute to contamination, illness, or environmental health hazards. Insects and other pests are capable of transmitting diseases to humans by contaminating the food or food contact surfaces, and this roach infestation was identified by Mr. Goris as a "critical" violation. Edwin Ortiz, the Restaurant's manager, was present with Mr. Goris as he conducted the inspection. At the conclusion of the inspection, Mr. Goris recorded the observed violations in an inspection report which he printed out, and Mr. Ortiz signed the inspection report. In addition to the roach infestation, the Restaurant was cited for additional violations which are detailed in Mr. Goris' inspection report. The Department introduced into evidence a certified copy of the Department's records concerning a past administrative sanction involving the Restaurant. Specifically, the Department's evidence showed that on October 11, 2011, the Restaurant was charged with violating rule 6-501.111 of the Food Code for its failure to control pests, and that the Restaurant failed to challenge the allegations. Consequently, the Department's records show that on January 3, 2012, the Department fined Respondent $400.00 for the violation. Based on the Restaurant's prior disciplinary history and the health danger involved, the Department closed the Restaurant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order finding that Respondent violated rule 6-501.111, Food Code by failing to control its roach infestation, and that the Restaurant be fined $1,000.00 based on its prior disciplinary history. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 2013.
The Issue Whether, under the provisions of sections 604.15 - 604.34, Florida Statutes, Lester Towell Distributors, Inc., is entitled to recover $2,098 for agricultural products ordered by and delivered to VBJ Packing, Inc
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. Lester Towell is a dealer in Florida-grown agricultural products. VBJ is a dealer in Florida-grown agricultural products. On May 22, 1995, VBJ placed an order with Lester Towell to purchase a quantity of extra-large green bell peppers. Lester Towell delivered 200 boxes of such peppers to VBJ on May 23, 1995. To fill this order, Lester Towell purchased 63 boxes of peppers from producer Ott Farms, Inc., in Estero, Florida, and 137 boxes from producer Thomas Produce, in Boca Raton, Florida. Lester Towell did not act as agent for these producers; it purchased the products outright. On May 22, 1995, VBJ placed an order with Lester Towell to purchase a quantity of yellow corn. Lester Towell delivered 100 boxes of such corn to VBJ on May 24, 1995. To fill this order, Lester Towell purchased 100 boxes of corn from producer Wilkinson-Cooper, in Belle Glade, Florida. Lester Towell did not act as agent for this producer; it purchased the products outright. On May 24, 1995, VBJ placed an order with Lester Towell to purchase a quantity of jalapeno peppers, white corn, and red radishes. Lester Towell delivered two boxes of jalapeno peppers, 26 boxes of white corn, and 20 boxes of red radishes to VBJ on May 25, 1995. To fill this order, Lester Towell purchased 2 boxes of jalapeno peppers from producer Ott Farms, Inc., in Estero, Florida, and 26 boxes of white corn and 20 boxes of red radishes from producer American Growers in Belle Glade, Florida. Lester Towell did not act as agent for these producers; it purchased the products outright. Lester Towell filed its complaint with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ("Department") pursuant to the provisions of section 604.21(1), Florida Statutes, because VBJ did not pay for the products identified above. There is, however, no evidence to establish that Lester Towell was a producer or the agent or representative of a producer with respect to the products for which it seeks payment. It is, therefore, not a "person" entitled to file a complaint with the Department against VBJ and its surety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order dismissing the complaint of Lester Towell Distributors, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 3nd day of July 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 3rd day of July 1996
Findings Of Fact Junior Martin, Petitioner, is a farmer d/b/a/ Junior Martin Farms in the State of Florida. Bastista Madonia is a farmer doing business in Florida and West Virginia and a licensed broker in Florida and packer of agricultural products d/b/a/ East Coast Brokers and Packers. Madonia holds Florida license no. 3906 supported by bond no. 743F4618 written by Travelers Indemnity Company as surety. In the summer of 1984 James DiMare, Bastista Madonia, and Junior Martin entered into a Farming Agreement (Exhibit 1) to establish a joint venture to grow cherry tomatoes in the fall 1984 farming season and, if successful, to continue this agreement into the spring season. Pursuant to this agreement approximately fifty (50) acres of tomatoes would be grown by Martin. DiMare and Madonia agreed to supply all plants and $500 cash per acre for which they would own 25 percent of the crop and the profits derived therefrom. East Coast Brokers (Madonia) was to supply picking bins and advance all picking money. Two dollars ($2) per package was to be charged for packing and thirty cents ($.30) per package for selling. Costs for growing the tomatoes was approximately $2,250 per acre. With their advance of $500 per acre and providing plants DiMare and Madonia financed approximately 25 percent of the growing cost of which they were to receive 25 percent of the profits. They were also to advance funds to harvest the tomatoes and deliver them to the packing house. In addition, Madonia paid for two (2) deliveries of tomato stakes to Martin's farm. The tomato crop planted in the fall of 1984 froze and was a total loss. DiMare then pulled out of the agreement. The agreement provided that if both parties are satisfied and things are going well by October 15, all parties will continue this venture by planting a spring crop. Madonia offered to contribute DiMare's share as well as his own for a spring Crop and Martin agreed to plant the spring crop. The spring crop was harvested from late March 1985 through late May 1985 (exhibit 4) at a profit. It is from this venture only that Martin bases his claim. In auditing the records, the Department of Agriculture investigator did not consider the transactions involving the fall crop because that had occurred more than nine (9) months before Martin's complaint. Section 604.21(1) Florida Statutes limits the time frame in which a complaint may be brought. Following the harvesting of the spring crop, Martin and Madonia went to Virginia to look into the feasibility of planting a summer crop in Virginia. They obtained suitable land to lease and, under a modification of their agreement, Madonia would put up most of the money required for the land, fertilizer, etc., and would be entitled to 50 percent of the profits. This venture was unsuccessful and resulted in a large loss, none of which has been paid by Martin. This endeavor was not included in the Department of Agriculture's audit because it occurred outside Florida and beyond the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of Agriculture. The parties discussed a fall 1985 crop after the debacle in Virginia and the Respondent advanced $10,000 to Petitioner for this crop (exhibit 16). This crop was never planted and the Petitioner has rendered no accounting for this advance. The endeavors by Madonia and Martin to grow fall and spring crops in Florida and a summer crop in Virginia were ongoing farming operations carried out pursuant to the Farming Agreement (Exhibit 1). As such, the endeavor was a joint farming venture with Martin providing the land (in Florida) and the farming expertise while Madonia provided plants and funds equal to one-fourth of the expenses and the marketing experience to sell the crops. Accordingly this endeavor was exempt from the provisions of Section 604.15-604.34 Florida Statutes, by Section 604.16(1) (Florida Statutes). The audit conducted by the Department of Agriculture (exhibit 6) showed Petitioner was owed $18,401.91 by Madonia as a buyer for the 1985 spring crop only. This figure does not include any advances over and above the $500 per acre advanced to Martin by Madonia for the fall crop 1984, or the advances for the Virginia operation in excess of the amount agreed to be provided by Madonia. Nor does this figure reflect the 25 percent of the profits due Madonia pursuant to the Farming Agreement. The amount Petitioner claims is owed to him by the Respondent for the spring crop is $60,632.86 (exhibit 7). This balance was prepared by Mrs. Martin from her records. Numerous checks endorsed by Petitioner which he received from Madonia were not included in those figures. Although cashed by Petitioner, they did not get into Mrs. Martin's bookkeeping records. Mrs. Martin acknowledged that she was not sure that she properly credited all of the checks she did receive from Madonia to the spring crop account. Accordingly, this figure is totally unreliable. Disregarding the fall 1984 crop and the Virginia episode, and accepting the Department of Agriculture's audit figures of $18,401.91 as the profits on the spring crops, 25 percent should go to Respondent pursuant to the Farming Agreement. This would leave $13,801.43 owed to Petitioner. From this should be deducted, at least, the $10,000 advance given to the Petitioner for the fall crop of 1985 which was never planted. The parties are engaged in civil litigation to resolve the disputes engendered by the farming activities above discussed. In those proceedings, all of the activities in which they participated pursuant to the Farming Agreement can be considered by the tribunal and resolved. Accordingly, that is the proper forum to resolve the disputes here in issue.
