The Issue Whether the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT or Department) properly issued an Airport Site Approval Order to Air-Med Eye Care in Hillsborough County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact In March 2017, Dr. Henderson submitted to FDOT an application for approval to construct a private airport (heliport) in Hillsborough County, Florida. FDOT has authority under section 330.30, Florida Statutes (2018),1/ to issue airport site approval orders, register private airports, and license public airports. Section 330.27(2) defines an “airport” as “an area of land or water used for, or intended to be used for, landing and takeoff of aircraft, including appurtenant areas, buildings, facilities, or rights-of-way necessary to facilitate such use or intended use. Section 330.27(4) defines a “private airport” as “an airport, publicly or privately owned, which is not open or available for use by the public, but may be made available to others by invitation of the owner or manager.” Public airports must submit to an on-site inspection and provide documentation to the Department for consideration of an airport site approval order. Private airports are required to maintain the same documentation required of public airports, but are not required to submit documents to the Department or submit to an on-site inspection. Instead, applicants seeking a private airport site approval order use an interactive database to respond to a series of questions and the applicant then certifies that they possess the documentation required to support the application. On February 10, 2009, the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners (county commission) granted Dr. Henderson a zoning approval for the development of his property located on Eichenfeld Drive in Brandon, Florida. The zoning approval contained a number of restrictions but generally allowed for the construction of medical/professional offices, a commercial apartment, and a heliport.2/ Specifically as to the heliport, the county commission approved the same with the following limitation, to wit: “the permitted helicopter for the site shall be a Robinson R44 or similar model subject to staff review and approval.” The Robinson R44 is the only model of aircraft that the county commission has zoned for operation at the heliport. On April 17, 2009, Dr. Henderson transferred the property by general warranty deed to KMDG-Eichenfeld, LLC. On January 1, 2017, KMDG-Eichenfeld, LLC, leased the property to Gregory Henderson, MD, FACS, Inc., for a ten-year term. On July 25, 2017, Dr. Henderson received airspace approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for a private use heliport on the property subject to restrictions, including a designated approach and departure path. FDOT’s on-line application process requires an applicant to certify that they complied with all airport site approval conditions and that they will maintain documentation related to the application. Dr. Henderson completed the on-line application process and certified that he had rights to the property, local government authorization, and FAA approval. Dr. Henderson further certified that for the site, he had a facility diagram, a quadrangle map showing the geodetic position, and a location map. In accordance with the certification, Dr. Henderson maintained a list of VFR (visual flight rules) airports within three nautical miles and IFR (instrument flight rules) airports within 10 nautical miles of the proposed site and he, as required, sent a notice of the heliport establishment to each of the listed facilities. Dr. Henderson maintains a list of real property owners within 300 feet of the proposed heliport and sent each a letter notifying them of the proposed use. Dr. Henderson received a single response to the notification, an email listing concerns from Dr. Orrantia, who owns the adjoining property. As required, Dr. Henderson published a public notice in the Tampa Bay Times. Dr. Henderson appropriately certified that there are no solid waste facilities within 10,000 feet of the heliport’s final approach and takeoff area, safe air traffic patterns have been established, and safety and security measures have been implemented. Alice Lammert is FDOT's private airport compliance manager. On or about July 26, 2017, Ms. Lammert, in response to an email from Christopher Hill who works as Dr. Henderson’s representative, provided Mr. Hill with instructions for securing approval from FDOT of the proposed heliport site. The instructions list several steps associated with FDOT’s approval process. Step 6 of the instructions provides, in part, that “[o]nce FDOT is satisfied that all of the conditions of [Florida Administrative Code Rule] 14-60.005(5)(a-m) have been met, an Airport Site Approval Order will be issued.” Step 5 of the instructions provides as follows: Once a complete application has been submitted and all documentation requested has been received, FDOT’s review will begin. Please keep in mind that this review may take several weeks, as we conduct our own airspace analysis; determine if adequate area exists for the type of aircraft that will be operated from the site; and conduct an examination of obstacles, approach/departure paths, ownership rights, and so on. (emphasis added). On October 4, 2017, Ms. Lammert submitted to Mr. Hill a list of questions related to Dr. Henderson’s application. One of the questions asks “What is the make and model of the aircraft that will be operating from the helipad?” Mr. Hill responded “Robinson R66.” Ms. Lammert conducted an analysis of the runway and taxiway design criteria and airport design layout in light of the performance characteristics of the Robinson R66 and determined that the proposed heliport could accommodate this particular model of aircraft. FDOT did not however, perform a similar analysis for the Robinson R44, which is the only aircraft zoned for operation at the site by the county commission. Dr. Henderson testified that the Robinson R66 and R44 aircraft have similar design and performance characteristics. Dr. Henderson’s opinion as to the design and performance characteristics of the respective helicopters is not credited because there was insufficient proof offered to establish that Dr. Henderson possesses the necessary training, experience, or education to render such a technical opinion. David Roberts, FDOT’s aviation operations administrator, explained that FDOT is required to ensure that the applicant has local government authorization to construct a heliport, but the Department does not dictate what aircraft is to be used on the heliport once constructed. According to Mr. Roberts, the type of aircraft to be used at the facility is determined by the airport operator, the FAA, and the local political subdivision. Mr. Roberts also testified that the airport owner must certify during registration every two years that the airport meets the operational requirements of the aircraft that are using the facility. Ms. Lammert reviewed the FAA Notice of Heliport Airspace Determination authorizing the airspace use above the heliport. A separate analysis conducted by an FDOT contractor confirmed that, subject to the conditions and recommendations of the FAA, the private use landing area would not adversely impact the navigable airspace. On or about November 17, 2017, FDOT issued an Airport Site Approval Order for the Air-Med Eye Care and noted therein the following: The Department is satisfied that your airport, if completed in accordance with your site proposal, will meet all of the following required conditions: (1) that the site has adequate area allocated for the airport, as proposed; (2) that the proposed airport will conform to the Department's licensing or registration requirements; (3) that the proposed airport will comply with the applicable local government land development regulations and zoning requirements; (4) that all affected airports, local governments, and property owners have been notified and any comments submitted by them have been given adequate consideration; (5) that safe, air- traffic patterns can be established for the proposed airport with all existing airports and approved airport sites in its vicinity. The Airport Site Approval Order is granted subject to your compliance with the following conditions that are deemed necessary by the department to protect the public health, safety, or welfare: All operations are conducted in DAYNFR weather conditions; The landing area is limited to private-use; All helicopter ingress/egress route operations are conducted on 210° (ingress) magnetic clockwise to 030° (egress) magnetic headings, additional approach/departure route operations are conducted on 080° (ingress) to 260° (egress) magnetic headings, using the touchdown pad (TLOF) as the center of the compass rose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order denying the site approval application of Gregory Henderson and withdrawing the Airport Site Approval Order issued to Dr. Henderson on November 17, 2017, Site Approval Number SW2017-FLA-0172-HP. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September,2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 5th day of September,2018.
Findings Of Fact The applicant for site approval is Downtown Heliport Corporation, Inc., a corporation with headquarters in Orlando, Florida, engaged in operating heliport facilities throughout Florida and other states. Its related company is Bulldog Airlines, which owns and operates helicopters for hire. Robert Uttal is President of both companies. On January 4, 1990, Downtown Heliport Corporation filed its application for site approval by the Department of Transportation (DOT), proposing to establish a .23 acre (10,000 square feet) helicopter pad within the jurisdictional territory of the Canaveral Port Authority. The Port Authority had already approved a land use permit and lease for the applicant on July 19, 1989 and November 14, 1989. The Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) also gave its approval. In a letter dated January 10, 1991, addressed to McDonald Smith, Director of Operations, Downtown Heliport Corporation, the FAA granted approval of the subject heliport under the following conditions: All operations are conducted in VFR weather conditions. The landing area is limited to private use. All approach/departure route helicopter operations are conducted in an area from 090 degrees clockwise to 160 degrees and from 250 degrees clockwise to 330 degrees using the touchdown pad as the center of a compass rose. The takeoff/landing area is appropriately marked. A nonobstructing wind indicator is maintained adjacent to the takeoff/landing area. The approval letter provides, in pertinent part: This determination does not mean FAA approval or disapproval of the physical development involved in the proposal nor is it based on any environmental or land-use compatibility issue. It is a determination with respect to the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft and with respect to the safety of persons and property on the ground. In making this determination, the FAA has considered matters such as the effect the proposal would have on existing or planned traffic patterns of neighboring airports or heliports, the effects it would have on the existing airspace structure and projects or programs of the FAA, the effects it would have on the safety of persons and property on the ground, and the effects that existing or proposed man-made objects (on file with the FAA) and known natural objects within the affected area would have on the heliport proposal. The FAA cannot prevent the construction of structures near a heliport. The heliport environs can only be protected through such means as local zoning ordinances or acquisitions of property rights. (DOT Exhibit #4) On January 30, 1990, Bronson Monteith, DOT District Aviation Specialist, inspected the proposed site and found it feasible for the proposed use and consistent with the requirements of DOT Rule Chapter 14-60, F.A.C. More specifically, he reviewed the facility diagram provided by the applicant and determined that the size of the pad, the location of the pad and the air corridor were appropriate. He considered that the Port Canaveral and FAA approval established compliance with ground and air safety standards. He determined from his inspection that existing structures would not interfere with an 8:1 glide slope to and from the pad. Once cleared from the pad the helicopters will use an existing ships' channel as the flight path. Mr. Monteith considered the distance of the streets from the heliport and the objects around it, including trees, the parking area and any major buildings that would be occupied. There are no schools close to the site. A Notice of Intent to issue a site approval for the proposed heliport was issued by the Department and advertised in an area newspaper; notices were sent, as provided in Rule 14-60, F.A.C. John Monteith conducted a public meeting, received comments and submitted a report to the DOT Aviation Bureau in Tallahassee recommending site approval. The heliport application, documentation and comments from the public meeting were reviewed by the Department's Licensing Coordinator and the Aviation Office Manager, and they determined that the application met all requirements under Chapter 330, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-60, F.A.C. for site approval. Site approval order no. 91-17 imposes the following conditions: All operations are to be conducted in VFR weather conditions. Operations are limited to private use. There are to be no flights over the City of Cape Canaveral. That the provisions in FAA Airspace Approval letter dated January 10, 1991, be complied with. Traffic patterns and operational procedures are subject to review by this Department prior to licensing or relicensing. (DOT Exhibit #9) Bulldog Airlines and Downtown Heliport Corporation intend to comply with, and enforce the conditions imposed by DOT. The flight path will be at 800 feet elevation along the corridor until the final approach for landing or takeoff, and that final approach will only be over the port itself. It will not include any flights over the Trident nuclear submarine or over storage tanks. The heliport will be private, primarily for the use of Bulldog Airlines, who flies for NASA, for the Port Authority, for various governmental agencies, including environmental monitoring agencies, and for other private hire. The heliport is open only to commercial pilots, will be used during daylight hours and only under conditions which allow for visual, noninstrument flying. Bulldog Airlines commenced operation in 1985 and has never experienced an incident, accident, or any notice of violation from the FAA, DOT or local law enforcement agencies. Because of its safety record it is able to maintain $100 million liability insurance. McDonald Smith, Director of Operations for Bulldog Airlines, is a pilot with approximately 10,000 hours of flight time. He also inspected the site and is aware of existing structures. In his opinion the flight corridor is wide enough to fly a helicopter, even if it is necessary to avoid unforeseen obstacles. Norma Townsend is a resident of the City of Cape Canaveral, approximately one-half mile south of the proposed site. She has attended the series of public meetings which preceded the DOT's proposed decision. She has amassed an impressive array of letters, maps, tapes and other documents related to the proposed site. She describes herself as a citizen and is neither a pilot nor trained in safety. Ms. Townsend is concerned about the existence of the nuclear submarine base, fuel storage tanks and other hazardous materials in the proximity of the proposed site. She feels that no amount of care by the pilots will insure that a helicopter in an emergency might not collide with an existing structure, with disastrous results. She has heard that used parts are sold for new, causing a helicopter to drop from the sky. She believes that ultra-light airplanes, low flying airplanes and weather balloons will provide extraordinary flying hazards in the Port Canaveral area. She suspects that no meaningful study was done by any agency prior to approving the site. Ms. Townsend presented no witnesses to substantiate these concerns and relies on her own common sense. In many instances this would be sufficient, but here the agency and applicant presented knowledgeable, competent expertise in support of a finding that the site is appropriate. Anything is possible, but instances of helicopters dropping out of the sky are virtually unheard of. Pilots are conscious of ultra-light planes and other possible obstacles to flying. Even large birds are a hazard. Heliports are routinely sited near or on top of buildings, in downtown areas or other places where traffic and population are congested. Helicopters are highly maneuverable, and for that reason are relied on in providing transportation and observation in circumstances where planes or ground vehicles are prohibited, for example after a hurricane or after a fire or other calamity. The substantial weight of evidence establishes that the proposed heliport at Port Canaveral can and will be safely operated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the agency enter its final order finding that site approval order no. 91-17 is valid and appropriate. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 18th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 18th day of December, 1991. Copies furnished: Robert R. Uttal Downtown Heliport Corporation, Inc. P.O. Box 621148 Orlando, FL 32862-1148 Joy C. Salamone, Mayor City of Cape Canaveral P.O. Box 326 Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 Karen S. Andreas, Commissioner Brevard County Board of County Commissioners 900 E. Merritt Island Cswy. Merritt Island, FL 32952 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Dept. of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Norma E. Townsend P.O. Box 883 Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-0883 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Dept. of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Dept. of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding respondent was licensed by the petitioner as a pilot. He began sailing as a seaman in 1945, received a pilot's license in Texas in 1954, was a captain of tugs from 1954 to 1969 and has been a member of the Tampa Bay Pilots Association from 1969 to the present time. Respondent has made close to sixty (60) trips per month in and out of Tampa Bay since 1969. On August 6, 1981, at approximately 1500 hours, Captain Baggett was aboard the M/V IFNI, a medium-sized oceangoing vessel, and was proceeding outbound in Tampa Bay. The tug DIXIE PROGRESS and Barge B-103 were proceeding inbound. The DIXIE PROGRESS, which is 115 feet long and 35 feet wide, was pushing Barge B-103, which is 430 feet long and 80 feet wide. The Barge was carrying 147,000 barrels of gasoline at the time. As the IFNI was in "G" Cut, Captain Baggett noticed the tug and barge proceeding inbound in "D" Cut, approximately three to five miles from him. He radioed the DIXIE PROGRESS in order to make arrangements for the meeting and passage of the two vessels. Respondent inquired if there was a pilot aboard the tug. In arranging meeting situations, it is customary for one pilot to communicate directly with the pilot on the other vessel. Donald Hyde, the first mate aboard the DIXIE PROGRESS responded to Captain Baggett's call and informed him that there was no pilot aboard the tug. Respondent informed Hyde that he would meet them in Cut "E" on one whistle. Walter H. Williams, the Captain aboard the DIXIE PROGRESS, was standing near the radio when respondent called from the IFNI. At the time, Captain Williams felt that respondent would try to break up the tug and barge on passing because the tug did not have a pilot on board. For that reason, he relieved his mate and took control of the tug. The DIXIE PROGRESS was the last vessel in Tampa Bay to start using pilots, and did not start taking pilots until September of 1981. Respondent Baggett's son wads employed by Dixie Carriers, Inc., the owner of the DIXIE PROGRESS. At the time of the radio communication with Captain Baggett, the DIXIE PROGRESS was travelling at a speed of about 5.5 knots. Its speed was reduced to ensure that the meeting would occur in Cut "E". As the IFNI passed through "F" Cut, two dredged were working in the vicinity. Captain Baggett decreased the speed of the IFNI as he approached each dredge, and stopped the engine after passing each dredge. After passing the second dredge in "F" Cut and while making the turn into "E" Cut, Captain Baggett ordered the engines full ahead. Captain Williams and first mate Hyde noticed a puff of black smoke emit from the IFNI after it passed the last dredge in "F" Cut and turned into "E" Cut. At this point, as the IFNI began to gain speed, the two vessels were approximately eight-tenths to one mile apart. Some seven to eight minutes later, the IFNI and the tug and barge passed each other in "E" Cut at a distance of approximately 75 feet. The channel in "E" Cut is about 400 feet wide. After the IFNI passed the tug and barge, waves of approximately five or six feet in height caused the barge to dive under the water and, as it came back up, a push wire two inches in diameter broke. After passing the DIXIE PROGRESS, respondent looked astern and noticed the tug and barge at odd angles to each other. He radioed the tug and inquired as to what had happened. When informed by Captain Williams that a push wire had broken, respondent replied that he was sorry and that he had not realized that the IFNI had caused such a large wake. At no time during the incident in question did DIXIE PROGRESS Captain Williams feel that his vessel was in danger or that there was going to be a loss of property or life. He considered this to be a minor incident. It is not unusual for another vessel to pass the DIXIE PROGRESS and its barge at a speed of full ahead. The DIXIE PROGRESS and Barge B-103 frequently "push out" of the Mississippi River in six foot seas using the same "in the notch" configuration as was used during the incident in question. It is not unusual for the push wires which connect a tug and barge together to snap. The Captain and first mate aboard the DIXIE PROGRESS estimated that the IFNI was travelling at a speed of approximately 15 knots as it passed the tug and barge. Captain Baggett believed that he was travelling at a speed of about 7.5 knots as he passed the DIXIE PROGRESS. To travel a distance of approximately eight-tenths of a mile in seven or eight minutes would result in an average speed of about six to seven knots. It could take the vessel IFNI anywhere from six to twelve minutes to reach full speed from a stopped engine, depending upon the currents and other factors. The speed which a reasonable and prudent pilot should maintain when approaching and passing a tug and barge is dependent upon the circumstances, including the weather conditions and currents, the swell or wake the vessel is pulling, the size and configuration of the channel, the amount of water outside the channel and the configuration and weight of the vessels. While a passage within 200 feet with the IFNI travelling at a speed of 15 knots would not be something that a reasonable and prudent pilot would do, it cannot be determined without knowledge of the surrounding circumstances whether a passage at 8 knots would constitute incompetence, negligence or misconduct. By a "Final Order" signed by the Chairman of the Board of Pilot Commissioners and filed on July 28, 1981, it was ordered that a proposed Stipulation in Case No. 0007227 was approved, adopted and incorporated by reference and that Thomas A. Baggett "is reprimanded and is placed on probation for a period of one (1) year. . . ." The Stipulation reveals that that case was the subject of a proposed complaint in a case factually unrelated to the present case and that part of the consideration for the Stipulation was that the proposed administrative complaint in that case be held in abeyance. Among the terms of the Stipulation were that "The Respondent shall be placed on probation for a period of one year from the date of the final order of the Board accepting this sti- pulation. The order of Probation will be deemed to have been violated, subject to proving the allegations, if the Respondent is found by the Probable Cause Panel of the Board to have engaged in any conduct which constitutes negligence, incompetence or mis- conduct as presently embodied within section 310.101, Florida Statutes. In such case both a new proposed Administrative Complaint may be filed and the instant proposed Admini- strative Complaint may be instituted. In this respect, the Respondent specifically waives any procedural objections to insti- tuting the instant proposed Administrative Complaint." In October of 1981, by a vote of 2-2, the Board of Pilot Commissioners refused to modify the Final Order of July 28, 1981, so as to delete the word "probation" from its terms.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against the respondent on January 18, 1982, be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 5th day August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Steven Yerrid Holland and Knight Post Office Box 1288 Tampa, Florida 33601 W. B. Ewers, Esquire Special Trial Counsel 2170 SE 17th Street Suite 204 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Jane Raker, Executive Director Board of Pilot Commissioners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, David E. Rabren was licensed as a Tampa Bay state pilot and was president of the Tricounty Pilot's Association (TRICO). At the time the movement of the OCEAN LORD occurred, there was only one state licensed pilot who was a member of TRICO. That was David E. Rabren. Other members held only federally issued pilot's licenses. Prior to the movement of the VOMAR, a second state licensed pilot joined TRICO. At present, there are four licensed state pilots and one deputy pilot associated with TRICO. The vessel OCEAN LORD arrived in Tampa Bay February 18, 1986, and was piloted by Captain Rabren to its berth at C. F. Industries (CFI). After taking on cargo, the OCEAN LORD was moved the same date to Gadsden Anchorage. During this move, Captain Murphy, a federally licensed, but not state licensed, pilot was on board. Captain Murphy is associated with TRICO. On February 21, 1986, the OCEAN LORD was moved from Gadsden Anchorage to the CSX Transportation dock at Rockport. Again, Captain Murphy was the pilot. On September 21, 1986, the vessel VOMAR was moved from Rockport to a dock at Big Bend with Captain Murphy as the pilot. Anita Rabren determined that the movement could be accomplished with a federally licensed pilot on board. On October 5, 1986, the vessel ASPEN, an American flag vessel, arrived at Tampa Bay, and the ship's agent requested TRICO provide a pilot. Due to a misunderstanding of the agent's statement that the ASPEN was coming from the west coast, Anita Rabren assumed this was from the west coast of the United States. Actually, the ASPEN's last port of call was in Korea. Had the vessel come from a west coast of the United States port, the voyage would have been a coastwise trip, and a federally licensed pilot would be required. A federally licensed pilot was assigned to pilot the ASPEN. The last port of call of the ASPEN was ascertained after the pilotages up Tampa Bay commenced, and the fact that an improperly licensed pilot was used was reported forthwith. TRICO paid a double pilot fee to the Tampa Bay Pilot's Association. Tampa Port Authority has jurisdiction over all of Hillsborough County and establishes rules and regulations for that area. They do not regulate pilotage of vessels. Many of the terminals in Hillsborough County are owned by the Port Authority, but some are privately owned such as Big Bend and Rockport, both of which are in the port of Tampa. The Port Authority controls the allocation of berths at all terminals owned by the Port Authority, but does not control the berths at privately owned terminals. The CFI terminal is owned by the Port Authority who establishes wharfage rates and docking rates at this terminal. The berths at Rockport and Big Bend are privately owned, and tariff rates are not set by the Port Authority. CSX Transportation owns a dock at Rockport where phosphate is loaded onto vessels. No wharfage or dockage charge is levied, but such charges are included in charges for the commodity loaded. Ships can clear customs at any of the terminals above noted. The Big Bend facility is under the jurisdiction of Gulf Coast Transit Company. Vessels bring coal to Big Bend for use by Tampa Electric Company. The AGRICO terminal at Big Bend is used for loading phosphate rock. All of these privately owned terminals are licensed by the Tampa Port Authority to whom they pay a fee and submit reports of their activities. The Tampa Port Authority charges a fee to vessels who load or unload cargo at the Gadsden Anchorage which is also in the port of Tampa. Section 310.002(4), Florida Statutes, defines "port" to mean, any place in the state in which vessels enter and depart. For Tampa Bay, this section lists Tampa, Port Tampa, Port Manatee, St. Petersburg and Clearwater as ports. Of those listed ports, Tampa and Port Tampa are in Hillsborough County and come under the jurisdiction of the Tampa Port Authority. No evidence was submitted showing the areas encompassed by the Port of Tampa and Port Tampa. The Port of Tampa's Terminal and Facilities Map (Exhibit 5) showing the port facilities at Tampa, Florida, does not show the facilities at Port Tampa; it shows only those facilities on the east side of the Tampa peninsula, and does not reach as far south as Big Bend. Presumably, if there are only two ports in Hillsborough County that portion of Hillsborough County west of the Tampa peninsula would comprise Port Tampa, and that portion of Hillsborough County east and south of the Tampa peninsula would comprise the Port of Tampa. If so, all of the movements here complained of occurred in the Port of Tampa. Exhibit 5 supports this conclusion. Finally, no credible evidence was presented that Respondent assigned a federally licensed, but not a state licensed, pilot to the OCEAN LORD, VOMAR and ASPEN as alleged, except Exhibit 3 which states the assignment of a federally licensed pilot to the Aspen was due to an error on the part of Captain Rabren. The direct testimony presented in this regard is that Anita Rabren assigned federally licensed pilots to those ships. Further, this determination that use of a federally licensed pilot for those movements of foreign flag vessels within the Port of Tampa was proper was made by Anita Rabren after receiving legal advice regarding the in-port movements of foreign flag vessels that can be piloted by a federally licensed pilot.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly issued Site Approval Order No. 3-99-01 for Ochlockonee Bay Seaplane Base pursuant to Chapter 330, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-60, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact On July 8, 1997, Walt Dickson, the applicant, filed an Airport Site Approval and License Application with Respondent for a seaplane base located two (2) miles south of Panacea, Florida, in Ochlockonee Bay, Wakulla County, Florida, at Latitude N29 degrees, 59'35" N, Longitude W 84 degrees, 23'73" W. The application gives the following legal description of the proposed facility: Lot lying between Williams Brothers Lumber Co. lot and Troy Fain lot on river in SW 1/4 of Section 1. A map of the proposed seaplane base was attached to the application. The map shows a sea lane 1/ toward the middle of Ochlockonee Bay. The sea lane has an east/west heading. It is three (3) miles long with a primary width of one (1) mile and a usable width of one-half (1/2) mile. The application does not indicate the exact position of the sea lane. The application's map indicates that a bridge for U.S. Highway 98 is located east of the proposed sea lane and shoreline facilities. The bridge crosses the bay, connecting the bay's northern and southern shores. The bridge has an approximate height of 42 feet above sea level. East of the bridge, the mouth of the Ochlockonee Bay opens into the Apalachee Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. The application's map indicates that the shoreline facilities of the proposed seaplane base are located on the northern shore of the Ochlockonee Bay, west of the bridge and east of Bayside Marina. A plot of the proposed shoreline facility shows a dock or pier, of undetermined length and width extending into the bay. Ms. Ann Tiller, Respondent's aviation licensing specialist for district three, performed the initial review of the subject application. She considered Chapter 330, Florida Statutes, Chapter 14-60, Florida Administrative Code, and FAA Advisory Circular No. 150/5395 in conducting her review of the application. First, Ms. Tiller reviewed the application to ensure that it was complete. She determined that the application contained, among other things, the following information: FAA air space determination, zoning approval from the appropriate governmental agency, copy of the deed, lease or easement, legal description that indicates section, township, range and geographical coordinates, general location maps showing nearby roads, towns and landmarks, U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle maps . . . [o]r equivalent with facility plotted. Ms. Tiller testified that the application "in itself probably would not show that [the site] is adequate." She stated that "[w]hen [the applicant] sends me the application, he is telling me that he thinks it is adequate." The application did not address the following factors outlined in FAA Advisory Circular No. 150/5395: performance characteristics of the proposed seaplane, water currents or wave action, shifting channels, ship or boating activity on the water, prevailing winds, wind data during daylight hours, adequacy of the water depth for a seaplane, or information about the taxi channel dimensions for the take-out and launch ramp. On May 8, 1998, Ms. Tiller conducted a site inspection to determine the adequacy of the site. She did not go out into the bay on a boat. During the inspection, Ms. Tiller advised the applicant's representative that the required approach ratio for the takeoff and landing area was 20 to 1 and that the applicant would need to install a windsock before receiving a license. She made a general observation of the proposed site, finding no obvious reason to deny site approval. After making the inspection, Ms. Tiller completed an Airport Site Inspection report. The report states that the site "is feasible for the proposed use and can meet the requirements set forth in Airport Licensing and Zoning Rule Chapter 14-60." Ms. Tiller did not consider the factors listed in the FAA Advisory Circular in making this determination. According to Ms. Tiller, the standards in the FAA Advisory Circular apply after the applicant receives site approval. She considers them as guidelines during the licensing phase of the application review, showing "what possibly could be done." By letter dated May 22, 1998, the FAA informed the applicant as follows: . . . it has been determined that the subject seaplane base will not adversely affect the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft provided the following requirements are complied with: All operations are conducted in VFR weather conditions. The landing area is limited to private use. You execute and maintain an operational letter of agreement with the Wakulla County Airport that would insure operation at this proposed seaplane base will not disrupt or conflict with operations at the existing public use airport. We recommend you reference FAR [Federal Aviation Regulations] 91.69, Right of Way Rules; Water Operations and comply with FAA Advisory Circular, AC 150/5395-1, Seaplane Bases. On April 19, 1999, the Wakulla County Board of County Commissioners executed an Operational Letter of Agreement between the Ochlockonee Bay Seaplane Base and the Wakulla County Airport. Prior to the hearing, Bobby Grice, Respondent's Public Transportation Manager, made a site inspection. He did not go out into the bay on a boat. Mr. Grice determined that the proposed takeoff and landing area met the required approach ratio of 20 to 1. He also concluded that the proposed sea lane, which is west of the bridge with a heading of 927, did not require a pilot to takeoff and land in close proximity to the bridge. Mr. Grice reached this conclusion without knowing the precise location of the takeoff and landing area. Mr. Grice's observation of the site did not reveal anything that "[p]rohibited [him] from saying that . . . somewhere in the bay that's 3 miles long and a mile wide, that somewhere in there we cannot find an area that is at least 1800 feet long, that's at least deep enough for a plane, and without obstruction." Mr. Grice testified as follows when questioned regarding the possible placement of crab traps in the area that serves as the proposed takeoff and landing area: I would not know if someone had gone in there and put [a crab trap] out, no more than I would know if one was out there with a motorboat running over it. But with the low tide, not the lowest, that's when we would go out and look with the applicant. And at that time if we saw some areas [where crab traps could not be seen] at low tide, then we would certainly assume that . . . at higher tide that [the crab traps] would not be in the way. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that crab traps, twelve (12) to eighteen (18) inches in height, are exposed in the proposed seaplane runway during tides which are low but not the lowest. When the tide is higher, the crab traps are submerged, leaving no indication as to how deep they are in the water. In addition to crab traps, other debris such as picnic tables and pieces of destroyed docks are submerged or floating at unknown locations in the bay. Mr. Grice saw channel markers in the bay. He did not know whether there were any markers in the area of the proposed sea lane. He assumed that the proposed sea lane area was large enough for the applicant to find at least some place where channel markers would not interfere with the required minimum length and approaches. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that channel markers are located directly in the proposed flight path of the seaplane. However, there is no persuasive evidence that these channel markers create a hazard in the approach and departure path of the proposed sea lane. The evidence also shows that the largest concentration of channel markers is located near the seaplane base's taxi and launch areas along the north shore of the bay. The seaplane will have to taxi across the channel and over the mudflats, areas of the bay with soft bottoms, to reach the proposed sea lane. Mr. Grice did not consider the depth of the water in the proposed launch area, taxi area, and sea lane. Therefore, he did not know whether the water depth was adequate for a seaplane. He did not know what type of seaplane(s) would use the seaplane base. According to Mr. Grice, Respondent can place restrictions on the site before licensing to prohibit the use of the seaplane base when the water is at a depth that Respondent determines is unsafe. The depth of the water at mean lower low water levels ranges between one (1) and four (4) feet in the proposed sea lane area. The four (4) foot soundings are located at the eastern tip of the proposed sea lane area, closet to the bridge. The depth of the water at mean lower low water levels ranges between one-half (1/2) foot and three (3) feet along the bay's northern shore in the vicinity of the seaplane base's launch area. Respondent asserts that its primary concern is safety. Therefore, Respondent makes a judgement call about boats and people swimming in the landing area. There is no evidence that Respondent considered the effect of boat traffic before approving the site at issue here. The channel of the bay is within 100 feet of the place where the proposed seaplane will be taken in and out of the water. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that many grouper boats and sport fishing boats use the channel on weekday mornings. On the weekends, boat and jet ski traffic in the channel increases substantially. The weekend boat traffic in the channel is fairly constant. The prevailing wind on the bay is out of the southeast or southwest during most of the day. The prevailing wind runs perpendicular to the proposed sea lane area. A crosswind takeoff and landing is dangerous, especially over a certain speed. The proposed seaplane base is located 80 feet from a dock referred to as the Williams dock. A channel marker is only a few feet from the end of the dock. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that taking a seaplane in and out of the water at the proposed seaplane base launch area is dangerous due to the following conditions: (a) swift channel current of six to ten knots that runs horizontal to the bay's northern shore and perpendicular to the dock; (b) heavy boat traffic in the channel; (c) the concentration of channel markers near the launch area; (d) prevailing winds which run almost perpendicular to the proposed launch area; and (e) the close proximity of the Williams dock. Respondent considers site approval as permission to build the proposed airport. According to Mr. Grice, "[i]t gives the applicant[s] some kind of assurance that they don't go out and spend a lot of money and then DOT comes back and goes through this hearing process after they have spent a lot." Respondent uses the FAA Advisory Circular as a guideline primarily during the licensing phase of application review. Respondent acknowledges that the language in each provision of the circular determines whether a provision is advisory or mandatory. Respondent admits that provisions of the circular containing the words "should" or "shall" relate to mandatory safety issues. Approximately two weeks before the hearing, the FAA requested clarification concerning the coordinates of the seaplane base because its proposed latitude and longitude as provided by the applicant may be incorrect. If the FAA does not issue an approval after receiving clarification, Respondent will deny the application due to the lack of an FAA air space determination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
The Issue Petitioners' alleged liability for sales tax, interest and penalties under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and the stipulation of facts entered herein, the following facts are found. Petitioners are Florida corporations having their principal place of business at Palm Beach International Airport, West Palm 8each, Florida. Petitioners conduct a fixed base aircraft operation by which they provide services to both aircraft owners and aircraft users. Petitioners are licensed, qualified and certified by the Federal Aviation Administration, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the State of Florida, and Palm Beach County to conduct its operation. Petitioners employ qualified mechanics, technicians, flight instructors, pilots, and consulting and sales personnel for conducting these services, which are described in detail below. Petitioners lease and occupy facilities appropriate for the storage, use, and repair of aircraft. Petitioners have written contractual agreements with aircraft owners in which Petitioners obtain the use of the aircraft. Petitioners pay the owners an agreed amount per hour for the use of the aircraft, which amount varies with the aircraft age and type. (Examples of said agreements are attached to Joint Exhibit number 1.) These agreements use the term "lease" to describe the Petitioners' rights to use the aircraft. The agreements provide that Petitioners will have exclusive supervision, control, and custody of the aircraft during the term of the agreement. The agreements permit the owner of the aircraft to use the aircraft for personal needs, however, so long as such use does not conflict with Petitioners' scheduled use thereof. Petitioners use the aircraft to conduct approved flight instruction for the public, to engage in charter transportation of passengers and property, and to rent to qualified pilots. Petitioners charge the third parties for instruction, charter, or rental and report the proceeds as "income" on their federal tax returns. Petitioners' payments to the aircraft owners are reflected as an "operating or overhead expense" for federal tax purposes. When using the aircraft, Petitioners employ and pay qualified flight instructors, pilots, crews and mechanics to fly and service the aircraft. The aircraft owners have no contractual agreement with these persons. Petitioners are responsible for providing all required inspection, maintenance, and repair services to the aircraft, subject to reimbursement by the owners. The aircraft owners pay the costs of fuel and lubricants used during Petitioners' use of the aircraft. Petitioners provide property damage insurance on the aircraft and liability insurance for the pilots, crew, and third parties who charter or use the aircraft. Petitioners are responsible, at the expiration of the agreement, to return the aircraft to the owner in substantially the same condition as at the commencement of the agreement, except for normal wear and depreciation. Petitioners advertise themselves to the public as a charter flying service and flying instruction service and actively solicit customers for these services. Petitioners are also in the business of selling aircraft and are authorized dealers for Cessna and Piper aircraft companies. Some of Petitioners' purchasers enter into agreements like those attached hereto, granting Petitioners exclusive use and control of the aircraft. Petitioners' purchasers properly pay sale tax under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, when they purchase aircraft. They do not, insofar as Petitioners are aware, furnish Petitioners with resale certificates which certify that the purchase is solely for resale, in the manner designated by Rule 12A-1.38, Florida Administrative Code. Some of the purchasers have furnished exemption certificates, however, so those purchases were not taxed. Petitioners contend that they are an integrated business for the selling, storing, maintenance, and servicing of aircraft for aircraft purchasers and the provision of chartering and instruction services for third parties. Petitioners contend that their experience and expertise in providing all these services to owners and the general public is economically feasible only through an integrated operation of this nature, or through a substantially greater capital investment. Petitioners assert that the agreements by which they obtain exclusive use of the aircraft are agreements to provide expert management services to the owners, and are not subject to sales tax under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Respondent contends that the agreements by which Petitioners obtain exclusive use of the aircraft are separate and distinct from the rest of Petitioners' business, for sales tax purposes. Respondent also contends that the remainder of Petitioners' business is immaterial to the incidence of the tax. Respondent asserts that the agreements described herein are agreements to lease tangible personal property which are taxable as "sales" under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Petitioners also assert that certain of the agreements are not taxable because the aircraft owner paid sales tax on the initial purchase of the aircraft, as described in Paragraph 13 above. The Respondent contends that the prior payment of tax at the time of purchase is immaterial, since the purchase was not for resale. The issues thus presented herein are: whether the agreements are taxable transactions, as disputed in Paragraphs 14 and 15; and whether certain of the agreements are specifically nontaxable by virtue of the owner's payment of tax at the time of purchase, as disputed in Paragraph 16. The Respondent originally assessed Petitioners for tax, penalty, and interest in the amount of $19,149.08. It then appeared that in certain of Petitioners' transactions, the aircraft owners were already remitting sales tax. Respondent thereupon revised its assessment. The Respondent now alleges that the following amounts were due on March 15, 1978: Tax $11,144.68 Penalty 557.22 Interest 1,652.86 Total $13,354.76 The penalty and interest figures are subject to revision with the passage of time. The Respondent will update those figures upon issuance of a final order. Petitioners have paid no part of the foregoing assessment. Petitioners have not placed the computation of the amount due in issue, however, in the event they are held to be liable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties, and Interest under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, dated March 15, 1978, be asserted against Petitioners pursuant to applicable law, with interest computed to reflect the passage of additional time. ENTERED this 20th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Gentry, III, Esquire David K. Miller, Esquire Moyle, Gentry, Jones, Flanigan Assistant Attorney General & Groner, P.A. Department of Legal Affairs Post Office Box 3888 The Capitol, LL04 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Port Largo Airport, Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida has been operated as a public airport under DOT license (p-1) and a zoning variance (R-2) since 1973. A recent rezoning of the R-2U (residential two-family) area of the airport to private airport (P-10) has not been finalized. The most recent lease of the property was executed July, 1977 for a period of five years (P-4) The Port Largo Airport has one asphalt runway oriented nearly north/south that is more than 65 feet wide and 2,100 feet long (P-1 and 3). Between the west side of the runway edge and an airplane parking area there is 30 feet of unpaved area; on the east side at least 20 feet of unpaved area exists between the runway and the ocean. The full length of the paved and unpaved area appears to he on a long, narrow breakwater or strip of land 150 feet wide and 2,400 feet long with the Atlantic Ocean on the east and a wide canal on the west (P-9) The south end of the runway is approached over the water, while the north end has a clump of mangroves 15 feet high a distance of 360 feet from Runway 19's displaced threshold. The height and location of the mangroves from the displaced threshold is such that there is an elevation angle of 2 degrees 17 feet 19 inches and an offset angle of 5 degrees 42 feet 28 inches (P-1).
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the renewal license application of Port Largo Aero and Marine, Inc. for the Port Largo Airport be granted and License No. 3778 continued in effect to its termination date of January 31, 1981. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HAROLD E. SMITHERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph B. Allen, III, Esquire 604 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 Joe L. Sharit, Jr., Esquire 255 Magnolia Avenue Post Office Box 2295 Winter Haven, Florida 33880
Findings Of Fact The Garemore airport is located in Marion County and is known as the Greystone Airport. The Garemores were issued a private airport license for the period September 24, 1980, through September 30, 1981, and have made timely application for annual renewal of this license. Neighboring property owners and residents who objected to grant of the initial license also object to renewal. Generally, their objections concern excessive noise and unsafe aircraft operations. Several Petitioners raise and breed thoroughbred horses on property adjacent to the airport. They fear for their personal safety and the well-being of these horses and other livestock. These Petitioners also contend that aircraft noise and low flying upset their animals and interfere with mating. However, Respondent introduced opposing evidence, and Petitioners' contention was not established as factual. Through unrebutted testimony, Petitioners established that crop dusters routinely originate operations from Greystone Airport, and that crop dusting chemicals are stored on the site. About six months ago, a crop duster taking off from Greystone Airport dumped his chemical load on a Petitioner's property and subsequently crashed on this property. Petitioners also argue that the airport glide slope does not meet accepted criteria and that runway surfacing is inadequate. Respondent DOT has recently inspected the facility and through the testimony of its airport inspector, demonstrated that the glide slope has been measured and meets the 20 to 1 requirement set forth in Section 14-60.07, Florida Administrative Code. The runway is not surfaced and Petitioners contend it is not hard enough for aircraft operations during the rainy season. As evidence of this, they cite an incident where a visiting airplane ground looped on landing and appeared to lose a wheel. This incident did not establish a runway deficiency, however, nor did Petitioners offer evidence that the runway surface fails to meet any statutory or rule standard. Petitioners related numerous examples of low flying, night flying and acrobatic maneuvering at and near the Greystone Airport. They contend that these activities along with the concentration of World War II and antique aircraft, and the crop dusting operations, have made this a commercial facility.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the private airport license issued to James and Geraldine Garemore be renewed subject to a restriction against crop dusting operations. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 30th day of November, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mrs. Clark Hardwick 900 Northeast 100th Street Ocala, Florida 32677 Charles and Terry Kerr 8149 West Anthony Road, Northeast Ocala, Florida 32670 Mr. John P. Edson 8610 West Anthony Road, Northeast Ocala, Florida 32671 Sherry and Vince Shofner Post Office Box 467 Anthony, Florida 32617 Frank and Carol Constantini 8545 West Anthony Road, Northeast Ocala, Florida 32670 Mr. James B. Banta, Sr. 9349 West Anthony Road, Northeast Ocala, Florida 32670 Ms. Deborah Allen 8263 West Anthony Road, Northeast Ocala, Florida 32671 Mr. Worthy E. Farr, Jr. 8215 West Anthony Road, Northeast Ocala, Florida 32671 Mr. Michael J. Stavola Post Office Box 187 Anthony, Florida 32617 Frances Spain Post Office Box 128 Anthony, Florida 32617 Ms. Beatrice Shepherd Post Office Box 215 Anthony, Florida 32617 J. W. Houston 900 Northeast 100th Street Ocala, Florida 32670 John F. Welch, Esquire Post Office Box 833 Ocala, Florida 32678 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Suite 562 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G14-22.012 is an invalid exercise of legislatively delegated authority in violation of section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2014).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner BBP is an association of harbor pilots that performs the pilotage services at PortMiami. BBP consists of pilots licensed by the State of Florida in accordance with chapter 310, Florida Statutes. Petitioner PEPA is an association of harbor pilots that performs the pilotage services at Port Everglades. PEPA consists of pilots licensed by the State of Florida in accordance with chapter 310. FHPA is a statewide organization representing the interests of Florida’s approximately 100 state-licensed harbor pilots, the membership of which is comprised of the eleven local pilot associations that serve each of Florida’s 14 deep-water ports. BBP and PEPA are members of FHPA. Chapter 310 governs pilots, piloting, and pilotage in the waters, harbors, and ports of Florida. Section 310.141, Florida Statutes, requires that, except in certain narrow circumstances, all vessels shall have a licensed state pilot or deputy pilot on board to direct the movements of the vessel when entering or leaving ports of the state or when underway on the navigable waters of the state’s bays, rivers, harbors, and ports. Section 310.011 creates the 10-member Board of Pilot Commissioners (“BOPC” or “Board”); each member is appointed by the Governor “to perform such duties and possess and exercise such powers relative to the protection of the waters, harbors, and ports of this state as are prescribed and conferred on it in this chapter.” In addition to other responsibilities, the Board determines the number of pilots in each port (section 310.061) and disciplines licensed pilots when appropriate (section 310.101). Although the BOPC has numerous statutory responsibilities, setting the rates of pilotage in each port is not one of them. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G14-22.012 (“challenged rule” or “rule”) is entitled “Determination of Disputed Issues of Material Fact; Formal or Informal Hearings.” 5. Rule 61G14-22.012 cites section 310.151(1)(c) as specific authority. The challenged rule lists as “Law Implemented” sections 310.151 and 120.57. The former Pilotage Rate Review Board originally adopted the rule in 1995. When the Legislature amended chapter 310 in 2010, the former Pilotage Rate Review Board’s name was changed to the Pilotage Rate Review Committee (“PRRC” or “Committee”). The Committee consists of seven members, all of whom are also members of the BOPC. The PRRC is responsible for setting rates of pilotage in each port. On November 5, 2014, the BOPC/PRRC published a notice in the Florida Administrative Register announcing a telephone conference call meeting for consideration of “Rate Review Committee Rules.” PRRC members voted at that meeting to repeal rule 61G14-22.012, but determined they did not have enough information to know if a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs was required. On December 11, 2014, the BOPC/PRRC published a second notice in the Florida Administrative Register announcing a telephone conference call meeting for consideration of “Rate Review Committee Rules.” At that meeting, the PRRC voted to reconsider its original vote to repeal rule 61G14-22.012, but because the issue of potential reconsideration had not been properly noticed, no official vote on reconsideration was taken. On January 7, 2015, the BOPC/PRRC published a notice in the Florida Administrative Register announcing a meeting on January 22, 2015, and January 23, 2015. Among the subjects noticed for consideration was “Reconsideration of Repeal of Rule 61G14-22.012, F.A.C.” This matter was considered by the PRRC on January 23, 2015. By a 5-2 vote, the Committee voted against repealing rule 61G14-22.012. FCCA is a trade association representing cruise lines that are subject to pilotage fees pursuant to chapter 310, Florida Statutes. FCCA has filed petitions to reduce the rates of pilotage in both PortMiami and in Port Everglades.
