Findings Of Fact During January, February, and early March, 1982, Respondent entered into several oral contracts for the purchase of tomatoes from Petitioner. Specifically, orders were placed by Respondent on January 28, February 3 and 5, and March 3, 1982, for US. No.3 grade tomatoes to be shipped f.o.b. origin to receivers in Puerto Rico and Alabama. The first three orders were shipped by boat to Puerto Rico and the fourth by truck to Alabama. The shipment of January 28, 1982 (Shipment #1), consisted of 1,296 boxes, and the invoice cost was 9,288.90. Payment was due on or before February 17, 1982, per the handwritten note placed on the invoice by Ms. Ernst before it was mailed out. A similar notice as to payment due date was placed on each of the other invoices before they were mailed out. The shipment of February 3, 1982 (Shipment #2), consisted of 1,368 boxes; the invoice cost was $9,188.10; and "payment was due on or before February 22, 1982. The shipment of February 5, 1982 (Shipment #3), also consisted of 1,368 boxes; was priced at $9,188.10; and payment was due on or before February 24, 1982. The shipment to Alabama of March 3, 1982 (Shipment #4), consisted of 1,178 boxes; the invoice cost was $7,748.70; and payment was due on or before March 23, 1982. Shipment #1 was inspected by a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspector in the receiver's cool room in Puerto Rico on February 5, 1982, eight days after it was shipped. At that time, the inspector noted that the condition of the tomatoes was "approximately 40 percent green and breakers, 45 percent turning pink, 10 percent light red and red. Decay ranges from 2 to 6 percent, average 3 percent, Bacterial soft rot in early stages." The grade was noted: "Fails to grade US. No. 3, account of grade defects." Quality was noted as: "Mature fairly clean to clean, well developed, generally fairly smooth to slightly rough. Grade defects ranges 40 to 56 percent, average 47 percent, mostly scars, catfaces, cuts and rough texture." Shipment #2 was inspected by a USDA inspector in the receiver's cool room on February 16, 1982, 13 days after shipment. At that time, the inspector noted as to condition: "Average approximately 95 percent red. From 2 to 8 percent, average 4 percent decay; Bacterial soft rot and Gray Mold rot in various stages." Quality was listed as: . . . grade defects ranges 12 to 28 percent, average 19 percent, mostly growth [sic] crack, catfaces, cuts and scars. Grade was noted: "Fails to grade US. No. 3 account of grade defects." Shipment #3 was inspected by a USDA inspector in the receiver's cool room on February 17, 1982, 12 days after shipment. On the inspection report, condition was noted: "Average approximately 85 percent red. Decay ranges 5 to 24 percent, average 14 percent. Gray Mold rot and Bacterial soft rot in various stages." Quality was listed as: . . . From 12 to 32 percent, average 18 percent grade defects, mostly scars, catfaces, mechanical damage and rough texture." Grade was listed as: "Fails to grade US. No. 3 account of grade defects." Shipment #4 was inspected by a USDA inspector in the receiver's warehouse in Alabama on March 5, 1982, two days after shipment. Upon inspection, condition was noted as: "Strano's Pride lot: Average approximately 30 percent green, 5 percent breakers, 20 percent turning, 20 percent pink, 15 percent light red, 10 percent red." As to Select Lot: "Average approximately 20 percent green, 20 percent breakers, 15 percent turning, 20 percent pink, 10 percent light red, and 15 percent red." Each lot was average 1 percent decay. Grade was not quoted, nor was quality. Ordinary shipping time by ship from the Port of Miami to Puerto Rico is four to five days. Inspections under the USDA Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act rules must be conducted within 24 hours after delivery. The USDA inspector is generally accepted as the only nonpartisan means of determining grade, condition, and quality of produce. While the condition of a shipment may change during transit, the grade of the produce normally will not. When the delivery inspections on Shipments #1, #2, and #3 were conducted in Puerto Rico and the receivers complained to Respondent about the produce they received, Elliott, who had been in daily telephone contact with his dissatisfied customers and had verified the condition of the shipments in conversations with the inspectors in question, contacted Tom Banks, Sales Manager for Petitioner, who authorized adjustments in payment saying, "Work it out and get back what you can, or words to that effect. Discussion between these two men as to the adjustments included such topics as charges for gassing and freight to the gashouse, along with the fact that the tomatoes failed to grade out at destination as US. No. 3, as ordered. Mr. Banks failed to get the approval of Mr. Strano before authorizing those adjustments, however Respondent had ordered green tomatoes without gassing so that there would be less chance of spoilage during the several days it took in transit for the tomatoes to get from Miami to Puerto Rico. Gassing, a procedure designed to speed up the ripening of tomatoes, would not have been an appropriate process in a situation such as this. With regard to Shipment #4, Respondent wanted vine-ripened tomatoes for quick delivery to a close-by market. He described his order as for 40 to 50 percent color in the shipment. The tomatoes delivered contained color well below the desired level; and as a result, the Respondent's customer, who had to hold them for an extended period before sale to allow them time to ripen, was dissatisfied with the shipment. The tomatoes in Shipments #1, #2, and #3 were graded as US. No. 3 by a USDA inspector at Petitioner's plant outside Miami prior to shipment. The procedure followed is for the inspector to inspect batch lots containing amounts far greater than that in any one of the shipments in question here. The inspector puts his stamp of grade on a master inspection certificate. Thereafter, whenever any tomatoes are drawn from that batch for sale and shipment, the Petitioner's employees are authorized to mark the appropriate grade for that shipment onto the documentation relating to it. There is no additional inspection by the USDA at origin. However, Petitioner could provide a document trail for only two shipments. One, of 1,368 boxes to Puerto Rico on February 3, 1982, was Shipment #2. Certificate No. B 135642, referring to Gas Lot 306, reflecting a grading of US. No. 3 on February 2, 1982, can be traced to that shipment. Certificate No. B 135588, which was offered in support of Shipment #3, on February 5, 1982, affords reasonable connection to that shipment. There is no documentation, other than Petitioner's own shipping memorandum, which relates to the preshipment grading of the tomatoes in Shipment #1. No credible evidence was introduced to establish the grade of produce in this shipment which failed to grade out as US. No. 3 upon delivery. I therefore find that the grade assigned by the inspector at the delivery point is controlling and that the shipment of 1,296 boxes on January 28, 1982, was not US. Grade No. 3. Respondent deducted $3.25 per box on Shipment #1 ($4,212), $1.50 per box on Shipment #2 ($2,050), $2.50 per box on Shipment #3 ($3,420), and $2 per box on Shipment #4 ($2,356), plus $752.40 each on Shipments #2 and #3 for gassing and freight to the gashouse.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter an order finding that Respondent is indebted to Petitioner in the amount of $5,470. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 7th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kenneth M. Clayton, Esquire Michael T. Hand, Esquire 220 North Palmetto Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Homestead Tomato Packing Company, Inc. c/o Mr. Rosario Strano Post Office Box 3064 Florida City, Florida 33034 Peerless Insurance Company 62 Maple Avenue Keene, New Hampshire 0343
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Donald Jones caused peppers he had grown "on high ground" to be delivered to respondent's packing house in Center Hill, Florida, on May 16, May 27 (in the rain) and June 4, 1991. As was customary, respondent undertook to grade, size, pack and load the vegetables, to arrange transportation to market, to get the best price possible, and to account for the proceeds, all for an unspecified "reasonable fee." The parties had no written agreement. Petitioner, who had dealt with respondent in eight preceding seasons, does not take issue with any of the "packing charges" respondent imposed for its services (on average $3.56 per box on May 27, 1991 and $2.36 per box on June 4, 1991), or raise any question regarding the physical handling of the peppers. He makes no claim of any kind regarding the peppers he delivered on May 16, 1991. It affirmatively appears from his verified complaint that respondent gave a timely accounting, and the evidence left no doubt as to the accuracy of the accounting, with one trivial exception. On May 27, 1991, petitioner delivered to respondent enough large green peppers to fill 903 boxes, enough medium green peppers to fill 1195 boxes, enough small (also called select) green peppers to fill 461 boxes, and enough red peppers to fill 278 boxes. Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 12 and 16. Respondent authorized Gator Produce, Inc. to sell petitioner's produce for a commission of seven percent, which is within the industry norm. Mr. Odom had known Bob Rutledge, the principal in Gator Produce, Inc. with whom he dealt, for some 25 years. At Mr. Rutledge's direction, Mr. Odom shipped the peppers to their various destinations "free on board, inspection after arrival," in keeping with industry practice. Respondent loaded 150 boxes of large green peppers and 50 boxes of small green peppers on a truck bound for Columbia, South Carolina, on May 27, 1991. Senn Brothers received the produce that night and eventually paid $16.50 a box for the large and $7.20 a box for the small peppers. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. By a second refrigerated truck, respondent shipped another 150 boxes of large green peppers on the night of May 27, 1991, to Mushroom Growers in Chicago, Illinois, and a like number of boxes each of red, small green and medium green peppers to the same buyer. Respondent's Exhibit No. 4. When the peppers reached Chicago, Bob Rutledge of Gator Produce reported to Mr. Odom, "We've got a problem [with decay]." Instructed by Mr. Odom to "work it out," Mr. Rutledge sold the peppers at prices below those that fresh peppers without decay brought. Respondent received $6.27 a box for large peppers, $7.11 a box for medium peppers, $7.39 a box for small peppers, and $7.57 a box for red peppers. Respondent's Exhibit No. 18. On May 28, 1991, at about two o'clock in the morning, respondent shipped 128 boxes of red peppers, 153 boxes of large peppers and 229 boxes of small peppers to Ag Fresh in Oklahoma City. Respondent received $7.44 a box for the large peppers, $3.72 a box for the small peppers and $4.19 a box for the red peppers. The $9.30 a box for 125 boxes of medium peppers respondent shipped an hour earlier and the $9.06 a box for the 919 boxes of medium peppers respondent shipped to Memphis later the same day represent market price for peppers free from decay. The $6.51 a box to respondent for 450 boxes of large peppers respondent shipped to New York on May 28, 1991, like the price on the large peppers respondent shipped for petitioner to Chicago and Oklahoma City included an adjustment for decay. Although the New York buyer was billed for 32 boxes of red peppers, it actually received 32 boxes of small or select peppers, for which respondent was eventually paid $4.18 a box. On June 4, 1991, petitioner delivered to respondent enough large green peppers to fill 205 boxes, enough medium peppers to fill 330 boxes, enough small or select peppers to fill 220 boxes and enough red peppers to fill 120 boxes. On June 6, 1991, respondent shipped all of the large green peppers and all of the red peppers along with 200 boxes of medium peppers he had received from petitioner on June 4, 1991, to Philadelphia. On account of sales in Philadelphia, respondent realized $6.05 a box for large peppers, $4.65 a box for medium peppers, and $3.72 a box for red peppers. The same day respondent shipped all the small green peppers and 120 boxes of medium green peppers to Lexington Produce in Baltimore, Maryland, the only buyer of petitioner's peppers with whom it had not dealt extensively before. When Lexington Produce reported that petitioner's peppers had decay, respondent or its agent ordered and paid for a "federal inspection" which confirmed the report. After authorizing its agent to work it out, respondent received $2.79 per box for the small peppers and $5.58 per box for the medium peppers. In the 1991 pepper season, "everybody's" peppers had decay. Peppers rot from the inside out. Whether rot begins around the stem, as usually happens, or shows up suddenly as sidewall rot, it often escapes detection in its early stages. Even an experienced eye may see no sign of rot one day, while the morrow makes decay unmistakable. Several buyers reported that petitioner's peppers had decayed by the time they reached them. In consultation with Mr. Rutledge, Mr. Odom decided against incurring the expense of government inspections, when spoliage reports came from dealers on whom they had come to rely over many years. As far as the evidence shows, petitioner received fair market value, taking the peppers' condition into account, for each shipment, less commission and packing charges. Respondent fully accounted to petitioner for every penny that came into its hands, and disbursed some moneys to petitioner before it had itself received the sale proceeds. When asked, respondent made all of its invoices and other records available to petitioner. There is, however, one box of medium peppers petitioner delivered on May 27, 1991, which has not been accounted for. On average, those boxes of medium peppers yielded respondent $8.84 from which a $3.56 packing charge should be deducted to determine the value of the missing box to petitioner: $5.28.
Recommendation It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That DACS order respondent Jeff Odom, Inc. to pay petitioner five dollars and twenty-eight cents ($5.28) within fifteen (15) days of the final order. That, in the event Jeff M. Odom, Inc. fails to pay petitioner five dollars and twenty-eight cents ($5.28) within (15) days of the final order, DACS order Lawyers Surety Corporation to pay five dollars and twenty-eight cents ($5.28) or such lesser sum as satisfies the requirements of Section 604.21(8), Florida Statutes (1991), for disbursal to petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of May, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 10th day of May, 1993. APPENDIX Petitioner filed no proposed findings of fact. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 and 2 are properly proposed conclusions of law. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 3-8, 10, 11, 13-19 and 21-27 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 9, the destinations included Oklahoma City, Memphis and New York, but not Philadelphia and Baltimore. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 12, respondent apparently absorbs inspection fees. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 20 is adopted, except that the payments to petitioner were $5.28 short. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 John Coniglio, Esquire Post Office Box 1119 Wildwood, Florida 34785 W. Scott Wynn, Esquire Post Office Box 447 Groveland, Florida 34736
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.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulations entered into the record, the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The parties: The Petitioners, Buck Flowers and Ray Thornton, are commercial fishermen doing business within the State of Florida. If enacted, the proposed rules would substantially affect their business interests. The Petitioner, Organized Fishermen of Florida, Inc., is an association of commercial fishermen, fish processors, fish dealers, fish brokers, seafood restaurants, and fish retailers doing business in the State of Florida. If enacted, the proposed rules would substantially affect its interests and the interests of its membership. The Petitioner, Tim Adams, is a commercial fisherman doing business in Florida. If enacted, the proposed rules would substantially affect his interests. The Petitioner, Bird Island Fishery, is a harvester and wholesaler of fish within the State of Florida and its interests would be substantially affected by the enactment of the proposed rules. The Petitioner, Kim Gerz, is a commercial fisherman whose interests would be substantially affected by the proposed rules. The Petitioner, Goodrich Seafood, is a company that unloads and ships fresh fish in the State of Florida. Its interests would be substantially affected by the proposed rules. The Petitioner, Lee County Fisherman's Cooperative, Inc., is a company that unloads and ships fresh fish. Its interests would be substantially affected by the proposed rules. The Petitioner, Sigma International Co., is an exporter of mullet roe. If enacted, the proposed rules would substantially affect its business. The Respondent, Marine Fisheries Commission, is an entity created by statute to serve within the Department of Natural Resources and empowered with rulemaking authority as set forth in Section 370.027, Florida Statutes. The Intervenor, Florida League of Anglers, Inc., is a corporation whose purpose is to protect and enhance Florida's fisheries and their habitats. The Intervenor, Florida Conservation Association, is an affiliate of the Coastal Conservation Association, whose main interests are to protect and enhance Florida's fisheries and marine environments for recreational fishing in Florida. The Intervenor, Florida Audubon Society, is a corporation whose main purpose is to protect Florida's natural outdoor environment and wildlife. The Intervenor, Florida Wildlife Federation, is a corporation whose main purpose is to protect Florida's natural outdoor environment and wildlife. Background of the proposed rules: The Department of Natural Resources began a study of issues related to the black mullet fishery within this state in 1987. The study was to cover a five year period beginning in 1987-88. It was anticipated that the study would serve as the genesis for regulations to be imposed on black mullet fishing within the State of Florida. In 1989, the Commission adopted rules related to black mullet fishing. Those rules specified periods during which black mullet could not be fished, set gear restrictions, closed designated areas to fishing, amended qualifications to catch commercial quantities of mullet, and set recreational limits. The rules specified that during 15 weekends of the year, black mullet fishing would be closed for 30 hour periods. Another restriction, to become effective July 1, 1992, established a minimum net mesh size of three inches. In 1990, the Commission adopted additional rules related to black mullet fishing: new areas were closed to fishing, minimum net mesh size during roe season was increased to four inches, commercial fishermen were prohibited from using spotter aircraft to locate schools, and weekend closures were extended from 30 to 54 hours with the additional stipulation that the fish had to be at the dock by closing time. Further, two additional weekends were closed to fishing. In June, 1991, the Commission met to consider new, more stringent rules related to the black mullet fishery. As a result of the discussions at that meeting, proposed new rules and amendments to rules were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 17, No. 32, August 9, 1991. The proposed rules: Rule Chapter 46-39, as set forth in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 17, No. 32, August 9, 1991, provided, in pertinent part: MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION RULE CHAPTER TITLE: RULE CHAPTER NO.: Mullet 46-39 RULE TITLES: RULE NOS.: Recreational Harvest Seasons 46-39.0035 Commercial Harvest, Statewide Regulations 46-39.005 Northwest Florida Commercial Harvest Restrictions 46-39.0055 Southwest Florida Commercial Harvest Restrictions 46-39.0075 East Florida Commercial Harvest estrictions 46-39.0095 PURPOSE AND EFFECT: The purpose of these proposed new rules and rule amendments is to implement additional, more stringent controls on commercial mullet harvest to begin rebuilding mullet populations over the long term to achieve a 35 percent spawning stock biomass ratio (SSBR) for the species statewide. The Commission established the SSBR goal after receiving the results of a five-year study of Florida mullet conducted by the Department of Natural Resources scientists. The state is divided into three areas (Northwest, Southwest, and East Florida) and differential rules are imposed in each area, with the Southwest area being more stringently regulated to coincide with scientific evidence showing a significantly lower SSBR in the area. Week-long closures, year-round in the Southwest and during roe season elsewhere, are considered to be more effective methods to reduce fishing mortality than roe season weekend closures, which are being eliminated. The closures will also apply to recreational harvesters, thus eliminating enforcement problems that occur during periods when recreational mullet harvest is allowed and commercial fishing is prohibited. Limiting gill and trammel nets to a maximum of 600 yards will result in a significant reduction in length of nets being fished in some areas, and may also result in a harvest reduction. Commercial daily vessel limits of 500 pounds during non-roe season are intended to reduce harvest during those periods when mullet are least highly valued. SUMMARY: New Rule 46-39.0035 establishes recreational week-long closures to coincide with commercial closures in the three areas established by new Rules 46-39.0055,46-39.0075, and 46-39.0095. The week-long closures will be during roe season in Northwest and East Florida, and year-round in Southwest Florida. A new paragraph is added to subsection (2) of Rule 46-39.005 to limit gill and trammel nets used to harvest mullet to 600 yards maximum statewide. New Rule 46-39.0055 establishes a commercial mullet closure during the 22nd through the 28th days of the months of September, October, November, and December in the Panhandle and Wakulla-Hernando Regions of the state. Also in this area, a commercial daily vessel possession and landing limit for mullet of 500 pounds is imposed during the months of January through August of each year. New Rule 46-39.0075 establishes a commercial mullet closure during the 22nd through 28th days of the each month of the year in the Pasco-Lee, Collier-Monroe Gulf, and Lake Okeechobee Regions of the state. Also in this area, a commercial daily vessel possession and landing limit for mullet of 500 pounds is imposed during the months of February through September of each year. New Rule 46-39.0095 establishes a commercial mullet closure during the 22nd through the 28th days of the months of October, November, December, and January in the East Coast and St. Johns Regions of the state. Also in this area, a commercial daily vessel possession and landing limit for mullet of 500 pounds is imposed during the months of February through September of each year. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY: Section 370.027(2), Florida Statutes. LAW IMPLEMENTED: Sections 370.025, 370.027, Florida Statutes. SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATE OF ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE RULES: The proposed amendments will directly affect those persons who harvest mullet for commerce. The proposal will indirectly affect wholesale dealers, retail dealers and consumers. The benefit of the measures is to ensure the sustained yield of the renewable mullet resource for human consumption and the food web. The cost of the proposal will be reduced levels of harvest and intermittent supplies of black mullet. The cost will vary regionally with the greatest reductions in the southwest Florida area. The proposed amendments will create a competitive advantage due to the differential regional regulations. The rule will not affect the open market for employment. The rule will affect small businesses. The rule will not increase paperwork or reporting requirements. Agency implementation costs for promulgation, hearings and filing will be approximately $6,500.00; enforcement costs total $38.00/hr. THE MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC RULEMAKING HEARING ON THE PROPOSED RULES AT THE TIME, DATE AND PLACE SHOWN BELOW: TIME AND PLACE: 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., September 5, 1991; and 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., September 6, 1991 PLACE: Holiday Inn Tampa International Airport, 4500 West Cypress Street, Tampa Florida All written material received by the Commission within 21 days of the date of publication of this notice shall be made part of the official record. Subsequent to the publication of the notice described above, the Petitioners timely filed challenges to the proposed rules. Pursuant to the notice described above, the Commission met on September 5-6, 1991, for the purpose of conducting a public rulemaking hearing for the proposed new rules and proposed amendments to rules. At the meeting of September 5, 1991, members of the public were permitted to comment on the proposed rules and amendments. On September 6, 1991, the Commission allowed its staff to make a presentation regarding the options available to the Commission and deliberated the proposals before it. As a result of those deliberations, the Commission made substantial changes to the proposed rules. At that time the Commission acknowledged the challenges filed by the Petitioners herein and resolved to submit the changed proposed rules to the Governor and Cabinet for approval upon the favorable resolution of the administrative challenges. The substantially changed proposed rules were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 17, No. 39, September 27, 1991, and provided, in substance, for the following restrictions: 46-39.0035 Recreational Harvest Seasons--prohibits harvesting during the period of the first day and continuing through the seventh day of each month during the months of September through December of each year for the state waters from the Florida-Alabama border to the Hernando-Pasco County line; prohibits mullet harvesting during the period of the first day and continuing through the fourteenth day of each month during the months of January and September through December of each year for the state waters from the Hernando- Pasco County line to the Dade-Monroe County line, excluding state waters of the Atlantic Ocean in Monroe County and including all waters of Lake Okeechobee; and prohibits harvesting beginning on the first day of the month through the seventh day of each month during the months of January and October through December of each year in all state waters from the Florida-Georgia border to the Collier- Monroe County line, excluding state waters of the Gulf of Mexico in Monroe County and including all waters of the St. Johns River. 46-39.0055 Northwest Florida Commercial Harvest Restrictions-- prohibits harvesting mullet for commercial purposes in the Panhandle and Wakulla-Hernando Regions, as those areas are elsewhere defined, during the period beginning on the first day and continuing through the seventh day of each month during the months of September through December of each year. 46-39.0075 Southwest Florida Commercial Harvest Restrictions-- prohibits harvesting mullet for commercial purposes in the Pasco-Lee, Collier- Monroe Gulf, and Lake Okeechobee Regions, as those areas are elsewhere defined, during the period of the first day and continuing through the fourteenth day of each month during the months of January and September through December of each year. 46-39.0095 East Florida Commercial Harvest Restrictions--prohibits harvesting mullet for commercial purposes in the East Coast and St. Johns Regions, as those areas are elsewhere defined, beginning on the first day of the month through the seventh day of each month during the months of January and October through December of each year. The Commission abandoned the 500 pound trip limit previously proposed for each region but retained the limit for gill and trammel nets to 600 yards maximum, statewide. The Commission asserts that the changes to the proposed rules were generated by virtue of the written comments, public testimony, and Commission discussion contained in the record of the public hearing held on September 5-6, 1991. Scientific data: In determining an appropriate guide for managing the black mullet fishery, the Commission staff elected to utilize a system based upon a computer model commonly known as "DSPOPS." The DSPOPS model was designed by Dr. Ault, working with Dr. Mahmoudi, for use in mullet stock assessment. While Dr. Ault developed the model with the intention that Dr. Mahmoudi would use it in mullet stock assessment, Dr. Ault did not prescribe the variables to be inserted into the model or comment to Dr. Mahmoudi as to the advisability of his choices. In fact, the reliability of the model is dependent on utilizing reasonable scientific inputs where variables must be inserted. The spawning stock biomass ratio (SSBR) measures the total mature biomass or weight of the fish stock in an exploited fishery in relation to what it would be if it were unfished. The Commission determined, and the Petitioners have not challenged, that the desirable SSBR for mullet would be 35 percent. By using data from 1988 and 1989, and inserting variables into the DSPOPS model the Commission staff attempted to compute the baseline SSBR for mullet in Florida. The SSBR was calculated by region and was intended to depict the conditions of the mullet stock by each region. The use of SSBR as a tool to evaluate a fishery and propose management of it has been accepted in the past by the Commission and other entities charged with management responsibility. The target of 35 percent SSBR for mullet is a reasonable management goal. In electing which variable to plug into the DSPOPS model, Commission staff chose the conservative estimate or value for the parameter to be inserted. "Conservative" herein is used to mean that choice which would depict the "worst case scenario" and, would, therefore, in theory, err on the side of the preservation of the fish. Such selections, as will be addressed below, were not based upon the best scientific data available and constituted an improper use of the model. In utilizing the DSPOPS model, reasonable and appropriate scientific methodology dictate the use of reasonable values for the variables to be inserted into the model. When values from either extreme of the spectrum are used, the reliability of the output is diminished. That is, the less the probability of the occurrence in the real world would be. In this case, the Commission staff found in its initial stock assessment that the SSBR for mullet in the southwest region was 15.1 and 22.4 in the northwest region. That assessment required inputs in the DSPOPS model for the following parameters: recruitment function; natural mortality; fishing mortality; and sexual maturity. In choosing which input for recruitment function, the Commission staff used a Getz recruitment function. The recruitment function is intended to show the relationship among a designation of the fish population and the amount of new fish born into that population each year. Utilizing the Getz function, instead of the other available recruitment function options, consistently produces the lowest estimate of spawning stock biomass. Had the Commission staff utilized the Beverton and Holt density dependent option, the spawning stock biomass in the northwest region would have increased by 11.73 and in the southwest region by 5.29. With regard to the natural mortality parameter, the Commission staff chose a natural mortality of 0.3. The data available suggests that in Florida the mullet fishery has a natural mortality rate of 0.5. By using the lower value, the DSPOPS model calculated the SSBR at an arbitrarily lower level. Had the Commission staff used 0.43 for the natural mortality input the SSBR would have increased in the northwest region by 3.07 and by 4.79 in the southwest region. Similarly, the Commission staff used extreme variables when inputting the handling mortality. Thus, the computed spawning stock biomass was lower than a midrange option would have produced. Finally, with regard to sexual maturity, mullet achieve sexual maturity at age 4. That age is supported by competent scientific data and is established by the evidence presented in this case. Regardless, Commission staff used a sexual maturity matrix in the DSPOPS model that assumed some fish were still sexually immature at 6 and 7 years. If corrected, the SSBR results would have been increased by 10 percent. By relying on the DSPOPS modeling results for the SSBR assessment, as computed by the Commission staff, the Commission failed to consider the best available biological information regarding the mullet stock. When corrected parameters are input into the DSPOPS model, the SSBR assessment for mullet is dramatically increased. The amount of the increase depends on which parameter is changed. If midpoint values are selected and all inputs are changed, the model produces a SSBR for the northwest region of 52.74 and for the southwest region of 36.19. Economic data: Economic impact and small business impact statements were prepared for the proposed rules first published in August, 1991. Statements were not prepared for the amended proposed rules which were approved by the Commission at the September, 1991, meeting. Mullet have a shelf life of four days if handled properly. The bulk of the market demand is for fresh mullet with demand for frozen or smoked mullet being significantly smaller. Closures of longer than four days would require mullet customers to seek other markets for fresh mullet. Restaurants and other entities seeking a constant source of fresh mullet would look to other markets such as Louisiana to fill orders. If lost, such customers are hard to recapture as in the instance of the spanish mackerel market. It is anticipated that businesses relying on the fresh mullet market will lay off employees if extended closures go into effect. The economic impact statement did not estimate the number of people who would be unemployed or underemployed as a result of the closures. The monetary amounts of the lost market created by the reductions expected in the harvest of mullet was not included in the economic impact statement. The short-term and long-term values of lost market could be computed for those directly and indirectly impacted by the proposed rules. It is expected that the financial losses to commercial fishermen, fish wholesalers, and distributors will be considerable. Additionally, loss of mullet roe sales will result in loss of market since no fish stocks are available to substitute for the mullet roe. Options which would minimize the adverse economic impacts the proposed rules would cause for small businesses have not been presented or considered by the Commission. Closures of shorter duration but of more frequency would lessen the economic damage to small businesses. For example, four day closures would not result in the interruption of the availability of fresh mullet. As opposed to what is proposed, regulations which would increase the net mesh size to allow younger fish to remain uncaught would also lessen the economic damage to small businesses. An increase in the year of first capture would increase SSBR. As opposed to what is proposed, regulations setting trip limits for harvesting mullet would lessen the economic damage to small businesses. Setting net restrictions as proposed allows harvesting and lessens the economic damage to small businesses.
The Issue Whether the Respondent is indebted to the Petitioner as stated in the complaint filed by the Petitioner and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Rosario and Vito Strano d/b/a Strano Farms, is a producer of Florida-grown agricultural products as set forth in Chapter 604, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Kelly Marinaro d/b/a Sunny Fresh Citrus Export & Sales Company, is a dealer of agricultural products doing business at 2101 15th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida. On April 2, 1999, Respondent purchased garden variety tomatoes from Petitioner. The driver accepting the tomatoes on Respondent’s behalf acknowledged that the tomatoes were received in good condition by signing a truck manifest. The truck manifest provided, in pertinent part, "Any complaint must be made to [sic] Stano Farm in writing, during unloading, and accompanied by U.S.D.A. inspection." Subsequently, Respondent’s agent telephoned Petitioner to advise that there was a problem with the condition of the tomatoes. Respondent did not immediately forward an inspection report and did not promptly make an accounting for the tomatoes that were subsequently liquidated. Eventually, Respondent forwarded a copy of an inspection certificate for an inspection done on April 5, 1999. That certificate, while largely illegible, reportedly found the subject tomatoes to be in poor condition. Petitioner requested payment for the tomatoes as originally agreed by the parties. Its invoice for the 1040 tomatoes claimed $6,084.00 as the amount due. The invoice provided that checks should be payable to Homestead Tomato Packing Co., Inc., but that "any complaint must be made to Strano Farms in writing immediately during unloading, and accompanied by U.S.D.A. inspection." On or about June 29, 1999, by check made payable to Homestead Tomato Packing Co., Inc., Respondent forwarded the sum of $208.00 in payment for the subject tomatoes. On the backside of the payment check Respondent had stamped the following: "Acceptance of this check constitutes payment in full for invoice #12819." Subsequently, Homestead Tomato Packing Co., Inc., negotiated the check. Petitioner did not provide a written dispute regarding the subject tomatoes prior to the tender of the partial payment. In July of 1999 Petitioner filed a Complaint in the amount of $5,876.00 with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Bureau of License and Bond, Division of Marketing. The Complaint acknowledged receipt of the $208.00 partial payment but maintained no account of the sales or inspection report was included with the payment to justify the low return on the subject tomatoes. At the hearing in this cause Respondent provided an accounting for the tomatoes that claimed the subject tomatoes were sold for $2,984.00. The accounting acknowledged that $336.00 would have been due to Petitioner. Such amount was not the tendered payment and was not provided to Petitioner at the time of partial payment. To date the parties have been unable to resolve the disputed value of the tomatoes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Bureau of License and Bond, Division of Marketing, enter a final order requiring Respondent to remit $5,876.00 to Petitioner as provided by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 13th day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: United Pacific Insurance Company Three Parkway Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102-1376 Brenda D. Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 508 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Kelly Marinaro Sunny Fresh Citrus Export & Sales Company 2101 15th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Jack Moon Strano Farms Post Office Box 343064 Florida City, Florida 33034 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue What amount, if any, is owed by Reiter Citrus, Inc., to Mark Olivenbaum, d/b/a AMR Groves, Inc., for oranges purchased pursuant to contract entered by the parties on November 5, 2014.
Findings Of Fact A "dealer in agricultural products" is defined as a person, partnership, corporation, or other business entity, "engaged within this state in the business of purchasing, receiving, or soliciting agricultural products from the producer . . . for resale or processing for sale." § 604.15(2), Fla. Stat. (2014).1/ Respondent is licensed as a dealer in agricultural products. Petitioner is a "producer" for purposes of sections 604.15 through 604.34, Florida Statutes. See § 604.15(9), Fla. Stat. (defining "producer" as "any producer of agricultural products produced in the state"). On November 5, 2014, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a written contract for the purchase of oranges from Petitioner’s grove. The written contract provides that the Sunburst variety fruit would be purchased for $16.00 “per on tree box.” The written contract is silent as to the purchase price of the tangelos and the Orlando variety oranges. As for the price of these items, the parties verbally agreed to a price of $4.00 per box. The verbal and written contracts are collectively referred to as the “contract.” Petitioner is an experienced producer of agricultural products. According to Petitioner, the fruit at issue was essentially ready for picking when the parties entered into their contract on November 5, 2014. Petitioner’s testimony as to the maturity of his fruit is supported by information from the Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida/IFAS Extension (HS168), which states that Sunburst tangerines will, in most years, “reach maturity by mid-November and will remain acceptable through late December.” Respondent, prior to entering into the contract with Petitioner, inspected the oranges in Petitioner’s grove. Respondent approved the oranges for purchase. Within days of signing the contract, Petitioner spoke with Respondent about a schedule for the picking of the oranges. Respondent was non-committal as to an exact time-frame for picking the oranges but did inform Petitioner that he would send someone to Petitioner’s grove to pick the oranges “within a few days.” After a few days had passed, and the oranges remained unpicked, Petitioner again contacted Respondent and like before, Respondent told Petitioner that someone would be out to pick the oranges “within a few days.” This pattern between Petitioner and Respondent continued for several weeks and at no time did Respondent arrange to have the oranges picked from Petitioner’s grove. The testimony from the final hearing establishes that Respondent intended to purchase Petitioner’s fruit and then re- sell the fruit to other buyers. However, Respondent was unable to find a buyer for the fruit that he was contractually obligated to purchase from Petitioner because, according to Respondent, “the fruit was too small to pack due to citrus greening.” Respondent claims that his contract with Petitioner provides that Respondent was obligated to purchase Petitioner’s oranges only if Respondent found a buyer for the oranges. Contrary to Respondent’s testimony, a review of the contract reveals no such contingency. Respondent claims that he is relieved of his obligation to perform under the contract because the oranges were compromised due to citrus greening. Specifically, Respondent cites to the “HAZARDS” provision of the contract which provides, in part, that “in the event said fruit shall become damaged by cold, hail, fire, windstorm or other hazard, [Respondent] shall have the right to terminate th[e] contract.” Respondent claims that citrus greening is a condition that falls within the “other hazard” provision of the contract. Respondent’s reliance on this contractual provision is misplaced because, as previously noted, Respondent was well aware of the condition of the oranges when he entered into the contract with Petitioner for the purchase of the same. The credible evidence establishes that there was not a material change in the condition of the oranges from the time of the execution of the contract to the time when the oranges should have been picked by Respondent. Because Respondent did not pick any oranges from Petitioner’s grove, Petitioner, in calculating his losses resulting from Respondent’s non-performance, reasonably determined that Respondent, had he met his contractual obligations, would have picked 700 boxes of Sunburst tangerines and 100 boxes (combined) of the Orlando and tangelo fruit. Petitioner, in quantifying his likely crop yield for the oranges covered by the contract with Respondent, utilized results from previous crop yields as well as a general assessment of the state of his grove in November and December 2014.
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 finding that Reiter Citrus, Inc., is indebted to Mark Olivenbaum, d/b/a AMR Groves, Inc., in the amount of $11,650 (includes filing fee). DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 2015, 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 9th day of June, 2015.
The Issue Whether Respondent is indebted to Petitioners in the amount of $7,152, as alleged in Petitioner's complaint. The hearing in this matter was originally set for January 22, 1979. Respondent orally requested a continuance on January 19, 1979, which was granted. At the rescheduled hearing on February 26, 1979, neither Respondent nor any representative in his behalf appeared at the hearing. A Supplemental Notice of Hearing had been issued by the Hearing Officer on February 2, 1979. In view of Respondent's absence, the matter was tried as an uncontested proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are producers of agricultural products in Florida. Respondent Don R. Smith, d/b/a Wabash Valley Sales, Vincennes, Indianna, is a licensed dealer in agricultural products pursuant to Chapter 604, Florida Statutes. Respondent was bonded pursuant to Chapter 604 as such a Florida dealer in the amount of $20,000 during the period June 4, 1977 to June 3, 1978. Surety on the bond was Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland. The bond is conditioned to secure the faithful accounting for and payment to producers of the proceeds of all agricultural products handled or sold by the bonded dealer. (Testimony of Addison, Petitioners' Exhibit 4) During the spring of 1978, Petitioners made arrangements with M. A. Bridgeman, representative of Respondent, to grade, pack, sell, and ship tomatoes produced by Petitioners at varying prices per box. It was agreed between the parties that Respondent would be paid $1.60 per box for the above services and that the balance of the selling price would be remitted to Petitioners. There was no written contract between the parties, as is customary in the trade, nor any specified period for accounting for the proceeds of the sales. (Testimony of Addison, Bridgeman, Complaint) During the period April 10 to May 5, 1978, petitioners provided a total of 2,460 boxes of various size tomatoes to be sold for the total price of $12,588.80, in accordance with the terms of their agreement. Six of the lots were sold in April, 1978, and two were sold on May 3 and May 5, 1978, to various in-state and out-of-state purchasers by Respondent. In some instances, Bridgeman received payment from purchasers which he immediately placed in Respondent's bank account. Some payments were made directly to Respondent's place of business in Indiana. The entire sum of $12,588.80 was collected in this manner by Respondent or his agent. (Testimony of Addison, Bridgeman, Petitioners' Exhibits 2-3) Under the terms of the agreement, Respondent's fee for handling the tomatoes amounted to $3,936, leaving a balance due and owing Petitioners of $8,652.80. Although Petitioners demanded an accounting from Respondent on several occasions, Respondent did nothing in this respect until August 22, 1978, at which time he remitted a check to Petitioners in the amount of $1,500. A notation on the check indicated that it was in partial payment for tomatoes. (Testimony of Addison, Bridgeman, Petitioners' Exhibit 6) Not having received the balance of $7,152.80 from Respondent, Petitioners filed a complaint with the Florida Commissioner of Agriculture on August 30, 1978, pursuant to Chapter 604, Florida Statutes, and notice of such complaint was provided Respondent by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services on September 26, 1978. Respondent filed an answer to the complaint on October 10, 1978, wherein he admitted indebtedness in the amount of $5,652, but claimed that the total amount involved in the transactions was only $7,152, and further requested a hearing in the matter. (Testimony of Addison, Petitioner's Exhibits 5-6)
Recommendation That the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services issue a final order requiring the Respondent herein to make payment in the amount of $7,152.80 to Petitioners herein within fifteen days of Respondent's receipt of the said final order. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. Marcus, Esquire 317 North Krome Avenue Homestead, Florida 33030 Don R. Smith d/b/a Wabash Valley Sales Post Office Box 266 Vincennes, Indiana 47591 Earl Peterson Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to all or part of $12,732.61 he claims as a result of eight loads of watermelons brokered by Respondent Sunny Fresh Citrus Export & Sales Company between June 17, 1996 and June 21, 1996?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a grower of watermelons and qualifies as a "producer" under Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes. Respondent Kelly Marinaro d/b/a Sunny Fresh Citrus Export & Sales Company is a broker-shipper of watermelons and qualifies as a "dealer" under Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida is surety for Respondent Sunny Fresh. Petitioner's father had long done business with Kelly Marinaro's father, Frank Marinaro, before each father's retirement. Upon what basis the fathers traded is not clear on the record. Petitioner approached Kelly Marinaro d/b/a Sunny Fresh on three occasions with written proposals, two of which involved some front money being put up by Kelly Marinaro to help Petitioner grow and sell watermelons. One proposal suggested a standard broker's fee to be taken off loads. In each instance, Kelly Marinaro rejected the proposals, explaining that he was not a grower or a buyer but only "brokered" melons other people grew. On or about June 15, 1996, Petitioner telephoned and requested that Kelly Marinaro d/b/a Sunny Fresh assist him in the sale of watermelons he had already grown on a 40 acre field near Wildwood, Florida. Earlier in the 1996 watermelon season, Carr Hussey had taken two loads of melons from Petitioner's field. Hussey had advanced Petitioner $3,000 for harvesting of the melons. Although Petitioner claimed that Mr. Hussey bought his melons in the field, he also conceded that the melons he sold Mr. Hussey did not net that amount when sold to the ultimate purchaser, and therefore, neither Mr. Hussey nor Petitioner made any profit on those two loads. Mr. Hussey did not require reimbursement of the $3,000 he had advanced and proposed that Petitioner and he "work it out" the following season. However, Mr. Hussey took no more loads of Petitioner's melons and "went off to Georgia." This left Petitioner in need of some immediate help in selling his remaining melons. In the June 15, 1996 phone call, Kelly Marinaro d/b/a Sunny Fresh agreed to "broker" Petitioner's remaining watermelons to ultimate buyers in the north and northeast United States whom Marinaro lined up by telephone before shipping the melons. That is, he agreed to use his best efforts to sell the watermelons on Petitioner's behalf to ultimate consumers, charging Petitioner one cent per pound or $1.00 per hundred weight sales charge. The parties' arrangement depended upon the sale of the watermelons and the price actually paid at the ultimate destination, rather than the price the watermelons ideally could be sold for on the day they left Petitioner's field. The parties' agreement by telephone was not reduced to writing, but Findings of Fact 8 and 9 are made contrary to Petitioner's assertion that "they (Sunny Fresh) inspected; they bought the melons as is" for the following reasons. Kelly Marinaro had previously rejected any different risk for his company than selling the melons at the ultimate destination. He produced a written notation he had made contemporaneously with his telephone negotiation with Petitioner. Despite Petitioner's vague testimony to the contrary, it appears that Petitioner had had arrangements with other brokers in the past whereby he knew no profit would be made if the melons did not arrive in good condition, and he should have been aware that the actual sale price received at the point of delivery was the standard of doing business. Petitioner did not dispute that the sales charge was to be deducted by Kelly Marinaro from the ultimate price obtained. This is consistent with a dealer selling on behalf of a grower at the ultimate destination. Petitioner relied on prices given in the standard "Watermelon Reports" as F.O.B. (F.O.B. usually signifies delivery at a certain price at the seller's expense to some location.) I also find that the parties agreed to the price of the melons being based upon the amount they netted at the melons' ultimate destination for the reasons set out in Findings of Fact 13 and 16-21. Frank Marinaro, the father of Kelly Marinaro, is retired and regularly resides outside the State of Florida. He is unable to drive himself due to age and infirmity. He has a hired driver named James Hensley. The senior Mr. Marinaro is not a principal or employee of Sunny Fresh, but he likes to visit his son and his old cronies in Florida's watermelon belt during the growing season, for old times' sake. He was visiting his son in June, 1996. Kelly Marinaro arranged for Frank Marinaro to be driven by Mr. Hensley to Wildwood. Kelly Marinaro then transferred $6,300 of Sunny Fresh's money to a Wildwood bank where it was withdrawn in cash by Frank Marinaro. Frank Marinaro, driven by Mr. Hensley, then delivered the cash in three incremental payments authorized by Kelly Marinaro to Petitioner to pre-pay Petitioner's harvesting costs. The senior Mr. Marinaro also helped with the incidental duties of meeting trucks at the Wildwood weighing station or local truck stops and directing them to Petitioner's farm. He was not paid by Sunny Fresh or by Petitioner for these services. Petitioner testified that Frank Marinaro was present in his field for the loading of several truckloads of melons on different days, that he cut open some melons in the field and pronounced them "good" after sampling them, and that Frank Marinaro asked Petitioner to pay Mr. Hensley $50.00 for helping around the field and with physically loading some melons while they were there. This testimony is not evidence of Frank Marinaro's "apparent agency" to engage in the more complicated and technical process of "grading" watermelons on behalf of Sunny Fresh. These activities of Frank Marinaro did not alter Petitioner's agreement with Kelly Marinaro on behalf of Sunny Fresh so that Frank Marinaro's and James Hensley's actions constituted a direct sale to Sunny Fresh of all the melons loaded at Petitioner's farm (the point of embarkation) because both Petitioner and Kelly Marinaro clearly testified that the $6,300 cash harvesting costs constituted advances against receipts of the sale of watermelons when sold by Sunny Fresh at the ultimate destination. Further, the request that Petitioner pay Mr. Hensley for helping load the watermelons is in the nature of Petitioner paying a casual laborer for harvesting rather than it is evidence that any Sunny Fresh authority resided in Mr. Hensley. Between June 17, 1996 and June 21, 1996, Petitioner loaded eight truckloads of watermelons onto trucks for sale to various customers in the north and northeast United States. Of the eight truckloads loaded, the breakdown of actual costs and expenses worked out as follows: ACCOUNTING OF R. BASS LOADS Sunny Fresh #93775 Sold to: Frankie Boy Produce Frankie Boys #96095 New York, NY Weight shipped: 41,250 Unloaded weight: 40,400 Initial price at shipment to grower for good watermelon: 5 - ½ cents/lb Net return $1,212.00 Sales charge: (404.00) Watermelon promotion board tax: (8.08) Return to R. Bass due to bad melons: 2 cents/lb $ 799.92 Sunny Fresh #93791 Sold to: Fruitco Corp. Fruitco #1880 Bronx, NY Weight shipped: 40.800 Unloaded weight: 39,180 Initial price at shipment to grower for good watermelon: 5 - ½ cents/lb Net return $ 974.71 Sales charge: (391.81) Watermelon promotion board tax: (7.84) Return to R. Bass due to bad melons: 2.49 cents/lb $ 575.06 Sunny Fresh #81312 Crosset Co. #67012 Sold to: Crosset Co. Cincinnati, OH Weight shipped: 45,860 Unloaded weight: Initial price at shipment to 41,762 grower for good watermelon: 5 cents/lb Gross return $4,134.42 Shipping charges (freight): (1,712.63) Net return: 2,421.79 Sales charge: (438.48) Watermelon promotion board tax: Return to R. Bass due to bad melons: 4.75 cents/lb (8.35) $1,974.96 Sunny Fresh #93804 Sold to: Tom Lange Co. Lange #3344 St. Louis, MO Weight shipped: 44,550 Unloaded weight: Initial price at shipment to grower for good watermelon: 39,760 5 cents/lb Gross return $2,584.40 Shipping charges (freight): (1,455.96) Net return: 1,128.44 Sales charge: (445.50) Watermelon promotion board tax: Return to R. Bass due to bad melons: 1.72 cents/lb (7.95) $ 674.99 Sunny Fresh #93802 M.A. Fruit #N/G Sold to: M.A. Fruit Trading Corp New York, NY Weight shipped: 40,130 Unloaded weight: 36,720 Initial price at shipment to grower for good watermelon: 5 cents/lb Gross return $3,797.40 Shipping charges (freight): (1,758.55) Net return: 2,038.85 Sales charge: (401.30) Watermelon promotion board tax: (7.34) Return to R. Bass due to bad melons: 4.46 cents/lb $1,630.21 Sunny Fresh #93817 Sold to: C. H. Robinson Company C.H. Robinson #379035 Cleveland, OH Weight shipped: 43,300 Unloaded weight: Initial price at shipment to 42,147 grower for good watermelon: 5 cents/lb Gross return $4,440.21 Shipping charges (freight): (1,930.27) Net return: 2,509.94 Sales charge: (411.02) Watermelon promotion board tax: Return to R. Bass due to bad melons: 5 cents/lb (8.43) $2,090.49 Sunny Fresh #93819 Sold to: Isenberg #N/G Joseph Isenberg, Inc. Buffalo, NY Weight shipped: Unloaded weight: Initial price at shipment to grower for good watermelon: 45,100 5 cents/lb Gross return $ 500.00 Shipping charges (freight): (1,877.98) Net return: (1,377.98) Sales charge: Return to R. Bass due to bad melons: 4.06 cents/lb (451.00) $(1,828.98) Sunny Fresh #81334 Sold to: Palazzola . Palazzola #N/G Memphis, TN Weight shipped: 47,700 Unloaded weight: Initial price at shipment to grower for good watermelon: 5 cents/lb Gross return $ 0.00 Shipping charges (freight): (1,553.30) Net return: (1,553.30) Inspection: (65.00) Bins: (30.00) Sales charge: Return to R. Bass due to bad melons: 4.46 cents/lb (477.00) $(2,125.90) Kelly Marinaro testified credibly that the resultant low prices paid by the ultimate purchasers was the result of the poor quality of Petitioner's melons upon their arrival at their ultimate destination. Exhibits admitted in evidence without objection verified the poor condition of five of the loads. In those instances in which there were United States Department of Agriculture Inspection Reports, I accept those reports as clearly dispositive of the issue of the melons' poor condition upon arrival. Petitioner's more vague testimony that he doubted any load could ever pass such an inspection as "A-1," does not refute them. Kelly Marinaro testified credibly and without contradiction that each time he was informed by a potential buyer that a load of melons was in poor condition upon arrival at their destination, he faxed, mailed, or telephoned Petitioner with the "trouble report" information as soon as feasible and tried to involve him in the decision as to what should be done. This is consistent with a sale at the ultimate destination. Kelly Marinaro further testified credibly and without contradiction that for two loads he recommended to Petitioner that they not obtain a federal inspection because it was not cost efficient. He made this recommendation for one of these two loads because it reached its destination on a Friday and the fruit would have to stand and deteriorate further in quality and price over the weekend if they waited on an inspection. Petitioner agreed to waive at least one inspection. Petitioner and Kelly Marinaro did not agree as to the number of times they spoke on the phone about "trouble reports", but Petitioner acknowledged at least four such phone conversations. Petitioner and Kelly Marinaro did agree that in each phone call, Petitioner told Kelly Marinaro to "do the best you can," and stated he did not want to pay any freight. This type of conversation is not indicative of a relationship in which the melons have been purchased outright at the site of embarkation, Petitioner's field. I have considered the testimony of Petitioner and of Kelly Marinaro, respectively, on the issue of whether or not Petitioner was required to pay the freight on the watermelons from their first oral contract by telephone call on June 15, 1996. Without attributing any ill-motive to either party- witness, I find they did not initially have a meeting of the minds as to how the cost of freight was to be handled, and that Petitioner assumed at some point he would not have to pay freight. However, it is clear from the evidence as a whole that Kelly Marinaro did everything possible to avoid freight charges to Petitioner and would not have meticulously informed and received oral waivers of inspections from Petitioner if there had been any clear agreement either that Sunny Fresh was purchasing the watermelons "as is" in Petitioner's field or that Sunny Fresh Produce was paying all the freight. Indeed, Petitioner was not charged for freight when Kelly Marinaro d/b/a Sunny Fresh provided the trucks. It is also clear from the evidence as a whole that Petitioner was informed on or about the date that each load arrived at its ultimate destination that he was going to be charged for at least some freight charges out of the ultimate price received for the melons. Bill Ward has acted as a broker of watermelons for many years. I accept his testimony that there can be varying grades of watermelon within one field or one harvest. The several "Watermelon Reports" admitted without objection show that the demand for Florida watermelons was light or fairly light in June 1996, that the price was down or to be established, and that all quotations were for stock of generally good quality and condition. There had been a lot of rain in Florida during the 1996 watermelon season and rain unfavorably affects the quality of melons. Melons from further north where there had been less rain were able to be shipped to northern and northeastern buyers in less time than were Florida melons. Northern and northeastern buyers did not have to select from inferior melons that year. Petitioner's testimony and supporting documentation that he sold to other purchasers two truckloads of good quality, top price melons from the same field between June 17 and June 21, 1996 does not overcome all the evidence that the majority of melons he sold through Sunny Fresh were of the poor quality reported by the ultimate buyers and federal inspectors or that the melons sold to Sunny Fresh deteriorated due to slow transport.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's complaint.RECOMMENDED this 26th day of March, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald Bass 32510 Sumter Line Road Leesburg, FL 34748 Arthur C. Fulmer, Esquire Post Office Box 2958 Lakeland, FL 33806 Mr. Robert Waldman American Bankers Insurance Company Claims Management Services 11222 Quail Roost Drive Miami, FL 33157-6596 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800
