Findings Of Fact A commercial vehicle owned by Garrett Enterprises of Tampa, Inc. and operated by Respondent Smith entered the weigh station located on I-4 West in Plant City, Hillsborough County, Florida, on August 8, 1991. During the routine inspection, it was discovered that the vehicle's registration had expired on May 31, 1991. The tag on the vehicle clearly bore the expiration date. The statutory legal weight of 35,000 pounds for an expired registration was subtracted from this vehicle's tax class weight of 76,180 pounds to determine the amount by which the vehicle was overweight. A penalty of 5 cents a pound was assessed upon the difference of 41,180 pounds which amounted to a fine of $2,059.00. Respondent Smith has driven commercial vehicles in Florida for seven years. Prior to the registration at issue in this proceeding, he had never purchased an apportioned tag. Although he was originally aware that the apportioned tag he purchased would expire on May 31, 1991, he did not pay attention to the expiration date noted on the tag because he assumed the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles would mail him a renewal notice prior to its expiration. The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles does not mail renewal notices to owners of vehicles with apportioned tags. Respondent did not become aware of this variation in the Department's notification policy until after his vehicle was inspected and he had paid the penalty. Respondent had the vehicle registration renewed within ten days after the instant fine was levied.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that the penalty of $2,059.00 was correctly assessed and denying Respondent's request for a refund or a reduction. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of October, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 19th day of October, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Sexton, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Jesse Smith 114-L Mitchell Road Land O' Lakes, FL 34639 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact The Parties H. B. Walker, Inc. is in the business of demolition, excavation and land clearing. The company transports heavy equipment to and from job sites and transports debris from job sites and is a commercial motor carrier. The company maintains a terminal for its motor vehicles at 1913 Bruton Boulevard, Orlando, Florida. All commercial motor carriers operating over the public highways in Florida are subject to certain federal regulations governing driver and vehicle safety and record-keeping. Those federal regulations are adopted by reference in the Florida Statutes, which statutes are amended from time to time to address a later version of the federal regulations. The DOT has the authority and responsibility to enforce those safety and record-keeping requirements, which it does, in part, through terminal audits, sometimes called "compliance reviews". The Process On April 18, 1995, after conferring with his supervisor, Officer Terron Lindsey, a seasoned agency motor carrier compliance officer, visited H. B. Walker's terminal and conducted a review of Walker's records. As a result of the review, Officer Lindsey found multiple violations of the record-keeping requirements of 49 CFR, parts 391 and 396. He advised Walker's personnel that he would return in 60 - 90 days and no penalty would be imposed if the violations were corrected. On a follow-up audit on July 12 and 13, 1995, Officer Lindsey found that some, but not all corrections were made. On August 1, 1995, the agency issued to H. B. Walker a Safety Report and Field Receipt stating the violations and citations to the federal rules and assessing penalties in the total amount of $4,000. Officer Lindsey delivered the Safety Report and Field Receipt to Walker's terminal and was told that the penalty would not be paid. Walker did not pay the $4,000, but protested the agency's findings to the Commercial Motor Carrier Board (Board). By 1995 the DOT had some brief experience with conducting terminal audits and assessing penalties for record- keeping violations, but this was the first time that a motor carrier had refused to pay the penalty prior to presenting its protest to the Board. Captain E. A. Brown, Officer Lindsey's supervisor, called the Tallahassee headquarters of DOT's motor carrier compliance office and the DOT's legal office to find out how to proceed. As motor carriers are aware, DOT exercises authority in road-side safety inspections to require immediate payment of any penalty or to impound the vehicle when a compliance officer issues a citation. Based on DOT's existing rules, Chapter 18 of the Motor Carrier Compliance Manual and experience with road-side safety enforcement, Colonel McPherson advised Captain Brown that the agency had authority to impound an H. B. Walker vehicle. After receiving directions from his headquarters, Captain Brown wrote letters to H. B. Walker and orally informed Walker's employee, John Valois, that if the penalty were not paid, a vehicle would be held, consistent with past enforcement actions on non-payment of penalties. On August 28, 1995, at the direction of Captain Brown, Officer Rick Hunter detained one of Walker's vehicles and impounded it at a DOT maintenance yard. In the meantime, after the Board received H. B. Walker's request for a hearing on the violations, the Board's Executive Secretary, Elyse Kennedy, telephoned Walker's counsel and told him that the Board could not hear his case until the penalties were paid, or a bond was posted. Later, after confirming with DOT legal staff, Ms. Kennedy sent a letter advising Walker's counsel that the Board could schedule and hear the case, as the impoundment of a vehicle was equivalent to payment of the penalties or the bond. H. B. Walker's case was scheduled with consultation with Walker's attorney. On the appointed date, when no representative from H. B. Walker appeared, the Board considered written material submitted by Walker's attorney and testimony from Officer Lindsey. The Board notified H. B. Walker of its denial of relief in a letter dated September 15, 199[5]. The letter states in pertinent part: Dear Sir: Pursuant to Section 316.545, Florida Statutes, the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board at its meeting of July 13, 199[5], carefully reviewed all of the information placed before it and determined that a refund was not appropriate in this case for the following reason. After hearing testimony of Officer Lindsey and Captain E. A. Brown, the Board felt that H. B. Walker, Inc. was not in compliance with CFR 391.51; CFR 391.43; CFR 391.103 and CFR 396.3. Pursuant to Rule 14A-1.012, Florida Administrative Code, you are entitled to request a rehearing in this matter by filing such a request with the Executive Secretary within ten (10) days of the receipt of this letter. Pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, you have the right to either a formal or an informal hearing. A formal hearing will be granted where disputed issues of material fact exist; in other words, where you disagree with the specific facts contained in this letter upon which the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board bases its intent to deny your request for refund. All requests for either type of hearing must be in writing. * * * You are hereby notified that the conclusion contained in this letter shall become final with 21 days of receipt of this letter, unless, you file a written request for an informal or formal Administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, with the Clerk of Agency Proceedings within 21 days. * * * Walker's timely request for a formal hearing tolled the Board's conclusion. The 1995 Rules In 1995, at the time of the H. B. Walker terminal audit and ensuing Board meeting, rules 14A-1.004 and 14A-1.007, Florida Administrative Code, provided, in pertinent part: 14A-1.004 Meetings . . . Only penalties which have been paid or for which a Section 316.545 bond has been posted, will be considered by the Review Board. 14A-1.007 Timely Written Request for Meeting Any person who is aggrieved by the imposition of a civil penalty imposed upon the provisions of section 316.545 or 316.3025, Florida Statutes, after payment of the penalty, or posting a section 316.545, Florida Statutes, bond may request consideration by the Review Board by notifying the Review Board office in writing within 60 days of the date of the penalty notice (Load and Field Receipt Date) that the penalty is being protested and a Review Board consideration is requested . . . . At the relevant period, rules 14-87.011(1) and 14-87.002 provided, in pertinent part: 14-87.011 Definitions * * * "Citation" means: A Load Report and Field Receipt issued to the owner or driver of a commercial motor vehicle for violation of weight and vehicle registration laws: or A Safety Report and Field Receipt issued to the owner or driver of a commercial motor vehicle for violation of safety laws and regulations and permit violations; or The penalty portion of an I. R. P. Trip Permit & Temporary Fuel Use Permit issued to the owner or driver of a commercial motor vehicle in violation of the fuel use tax requirements contained in Chapter 207, Florida Statutes. 14-87.002 Penalties and Fees Due Penalties and fees imposed upon the operations of commercial motor vehicles are due and payable upon the issuance of a citation or a permit. . . The 1996 Amendments On June 7, 1996, DOT published notices of rule-making, proposing to amend various provisions of rule chapters 14-87, 14-108 and 14A-1. On July 16, 1996, the agency filed the amendments to Chapter 14A-1 for adoption, and those amendments became effective August 5, 1996. The amendments to Chapters 14-87 and 14-108, Florida Administrative Code, became effective in September 1996. The cumulative effect of these amendments is to distinguish between the penalty process for road violations and the process for violations found during a terminal audit/compliance review. The amendments provide that a commercial motor carrier who has been assessed penalties for violations found during a terminal audit may obtain a Review Board hearing prior to payment or posting a bond. The amendments also distinguish between a "notice of non- compliance" issued after a terminal audit to advise the carrier of violations and the penalties that will be assessed if the violations are not corrected, and a "notice of violation" which identifies the violations and assesses penalties. DOT's amendments to chapter 14-87, Florida Administrative Code, are, in relevant part, as follows: (Underlined material has been added, material struck through has been deleted.) 14-87.0011 Definitions * * * "Penalty" means a monetary amount prescribed by statute or Department rule as a civil penalty to be assessed administratively for a violation of a commercial motor vehicle law pursuant to the issuance of a citation or a notice of violation. * * * "Notice of Violation" means a notice of violation as defined by Rule 14-108.002(5). * * * 14-87.002 Penalties and Fees Due; Detaining and Impounding Motor Vehicles When Citation or Permit Issued Penalties and fees imposed upon the operations of commercial motor vehicles are due and payable upon the issuance of a citation or a permit. Penalties due under chapter 14-108 are due in accordance rule 14-108.004. All penalties and fees not guaranteed by a Surety Bond must be paid to the officer or inspector issuing the citation or permit or detaining the vehicle for nonpayment of penalties prescribed under rule 14-108.005 prior to further operation of the affected commercial motor vehicle on the roads of this State. Payment may be in cash, by cashier's check or by money order. In the event that payment is not made when payment is due, the motor vehicle will be impounded in accordance with sections 316.3025 or 316.545, Florida Statutes. When a Surety Bond has been properly filed and accepted by the Department, the vehicle will be released upon presenting written evidence of the surety bond to the officer or inspector detaining the vehicle the citation or permit will be issued to the owner or driver of the vehicle, and payment must be remitted to the officer or inspector who issued the citation or permit within ten working days of the release of the vehicle date of issuance. Company checks may be accepted when a proper Surety Bond is on file. In the event that payment is not made within ten working days of release of the vehicle, the Department will take action to recover the penalty amount from the surety bond. Motor vehicles impounded in accordance with this rule will be released upon payment of the penalty or the posting of a bond pursuant to Section 316.545, Florida Statutes, or upon a determination by the Commercial Motor Carrier Review Board to cancel or revoke the penalty or upon the issuance of a Department order setting aside the penalty as the result of a proceeding held pursuant to section 120.57, Florida Statutes. Motor vehicles released as a result of the posting of a bond under section 316.545, Florida Statutes, remain subject to the lien imposed by that statute. The Department's amendments to chapter 14-108, Florida Administrative Code, are, in relevant part, as follows: 14-108.002 Definitions * * * "Notice of Noncompliance" means a notice issued to a motor carrier that advises the motor carrier of violations found during a terminal audit/compliance review and identifies the penalties that will be assessed if the violations are not corrected within 60 days of receipt of the notice. "Notice of Violation" means a written notice which identifies violations of safety laws and regulations found during the conduct of a terminal audit/compliance review and assesses penalties pursuant to these rules. Such a notice will be issued after violations are found and penalties are to be assessed under this Chapter. (5) "Penalty" means a monetary amount prescribed by statute as a civil penalty to be assessed administratively for violation(s) of safety laws and regulations found during the conduct of a terminal audit/compliance review. (6) "Terminal Audit" or "Compliance Review" means an onsite investigation at a motor carrier's terminal or office of property carrier or passenger carrier records such a driver's hours of service, maintenance and inspection, driver qualification, commercial drivers license requirements, financial responsibility, accidents and other safety and business records to determine compliance with the safety laws and regulation. The investiga- tion will compliance review may result in the initiation of an enforcement action to include the assessment of the applicable penalty(ies) prescribed by statute and this rule chapter. 14-108.003 Applicability; Compliance Required * * * Any person or motor carrier who operates or causes or permits nonpublic- sector buses to be operated on any road, street, or highway open to travel by the public in the transportation of passengers shall be in compliance with the applicable safety laws and regulations contained in section 316.70, Florida Statutes, and Title 49 C.F.R. Parts 382, 385 and 390 through 397 301, 393, 394 and 396. Any person or motor carrier found to be in violation of these rules during the conduct of a terminal audit or compliance review shall be subject to the penalties herein described. The penalties prescribed by rule 14-108.105 will be waived and a notice of violation will not be issued if, as a result of the first terminal audit or compliance review conducted of a Motor Carrier, the Motor Carrier corrects the described violations within 60 days after receipt of a written notice of noncompliance. Penalties for the following violations will not be waived under the above provision, even if they are found during the first terminal audit or compliance review and are corrected immediately. Failure to comply with controlled substance testing requirements Exceeding driver hours of service. Violations involving hazardous materials. Lack of valid commercial driver's licenses, including revoked, suspended or cancelled licenses. 14-108.004 Administration: Enforcement. All penalties imposed and collected in accordance with these rules shall be paid to the treasurer, who shall credit the total amount collected to the State Trans- portation Trust Fund in accordance with section 316.3025(5)(b), Florida Statutes. Penalties assessed as a result of a terminal audit are due and shall be paid no later than ten working days after receipt of the notice of violation, unless a timely appli- cation is made to the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board under rule 14A-1.007, in which case the penalty (or the remaining part thereof) is due and shall be paid no later than ten working days after receipt of a written decision by the Review Board sustaining the penalty in whole or in part. Whenever any person or motor carrier violates the provisions of these rules and becomes indebted to the State because of such violation(s) and refuses to pay the appropriate penalty, the penalty becomes a lien upon the property including the motor vehicles of such person or motor carrier and may be foreclosed by the State in a civil action in any court of this state as prescribed by section 316.3025(4), Florida Statutes. Motor vehicles of the person or motor carrier will be detained and impounded for nonpayment in accordance with Rule 14-87.002. The adopted amendments to Chapter 14A-1, Florida Administrative Code, are, in relevant part, as follows: 14A-1.004 Meetings The Review Board shall sit as an admin- istrative body in equity to consider testimony or written documents in mitigation, extenuation, modification, cancellation, revocation, or maintenance of any penalty or penalties imposed pursuant to 316.540, 316.545, or 316.3025, Florida Statutes. Only penalties which have been paid or for which a section 316.545 bond has been posted, will be considered by the Review Board. However, this provision shall not prevent the owner of a motor vehicle that has been impounded for nonpayment from receiving a Review Board hearing. Further, as provided in Rule 14-108.004, a motor carrier may obtain a Review Board hearing on penalties assessed as a result of a terminal audit prior to payment or posting of a bond. Review Board meetings may be scheduled as often as determined necessary, based on a sufficient number of penalties being avail- able for review to justify the expense of hold a meeting. The Review Board shall meet not less than six times per year. Location of meetings shall be determined by the Review Board. Upon timely written request, cases involving Florida based persons will be scheduled at the next meeting held in their geographic area. However, cases involving requests for Review Board conside- ration of unpaid penalties imposed for violations found during a terminal audit will be scheduled for the next meeting regardless of location. Upon timely written request, cases involving non-Florida based persons will be scheduled at the next meeting of the Review Board. Persons may request the scheduling of their case at a specific city at which the Review Board meets. Such requests must be in writing to the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board, Haydon Burns Building, 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450. * * * 14A-1.007 Timely Written Request for Meeting Any person who is aggrieved by the imposition of a civil penalty imposed upon the pro- visions of Section 316.545 or 316.3025, Florida Statutes upon compliance with Rule 14A-1.004, after payment of the penalty, or posting a Section 316.545, Florida Statutes, bond may request consideration by the Review Board by notifying the Review Board office in writing within 60 days of the date of the Penalty Notice (Load and Field Receipt Date) that the penalty is being protested and a Review Board consideration is requested. The request shall set forth in detail the basis of the protest and all matters to be considered so that the Review Board can be prepared to discuss the issue at the meeting if the protestor does not appear. The request must be received within 60 days. A written request for Review Board consideration of a penalty imposed for violations found during a terminal audit must be submitted and received within ten working days after receipt of the notice of violation in order to be considered timely and such written request must be submitted via hand-delivery or certified mail. 14A-1.008 Appearances Those persons, firms or corporations who have been assessed a penalty for violations of Section 316.540, 316.545, or 316.3025, Florida Statutes, and have complied with the requirements of Rules 14A-1.004 and 14A-1.007 either have paid the penalty or posted a Section 316.545, Florida Statutes, bond shall appear in person, through an authorized representative or by legal counsel. Each person shall be given ample time to explain the reasons for seeking relief. The Review Board, at its discretion, may inquire into any testimony presented at the meeting or written statements presented. Testimony also may be received from the agency that imposed the penalty. Although Mr. Walker testified that he never received notice of rule- making to amend Chapter 14A-1, Florida Administrative Code, he did not present evidence that he requested notice. Nor did he argue that the amendments were otherwise invalid. Chapter 18, Motor Carrier Compliance Operations Manual As stated in its first paragraph, Chapter 18, "Collection of Civil Penalties", within the Motor Carrier Compliance Operations Manual, the purpose of Chapter 18 is, to establish a uniform procedure for the collection of overweight penalties and other commercial vehicle penalties assessed pursuant to Florida Statutes and, Department Rules. (DOT Exhibit Number13) Like the rules of DOT in 1995, the Chapter 18 procedures provided for immediate collection of a penalty, or posting a bond or impoundment of a vehicle at the time enforcement action is taken. Although agency personnel invoked Chapter 18 as part of their basis for seeking immediate payment by H. B. Walker, the provisions of the Chapter nowhere specifically mention penalties assessed as the result of terminal audits. On April 15, 1996, the agency issued Enforcement Bulletin 18-001, to be inserted in Chapter 18 describing procedures for imposition and collection of civil penalties associated with terminal audits. Those procedures are the same as the procedures described in the rule amendments addressed in paragraphs 18 through 20, above.
The Issue Whether or not the overweight fine and fee for an International Registration Plan (IRP) Trip Permit in the total amount of $1,700.00 assessed Brandywine Auto Sales, Inc. by the Department of Transportation was correct under the provisions of Sections 316.545 and 320.0715 F.S.
Findings Of Fact On March 17, 1990 Officer David Spencer of the Department of Transportation's Weights Enforcement Division stopped a 1986 GMC "lowboy" trailer at the weight station on SR 9 (I-95) in Yulee, Nassau County, Florida. The vehicle had been proceeding north in the northbound lanes approximately one mile before entering Georgia. When stopped, the GMC trailer was loaded with a Warner & Swasey grade- all, which is heavy machinery, an earth mover. When stopped, the vehicle displayed a Maryland "dealer" tag on the window, accompanied by a State of Maryland registration certificate for Brandywine Auto Sales, Inc., as a dealer. When weighed, the vehicle/load weighed in at 68,400 pounds. The Respondent was allowed 35,000 pounds as a legal weight pursuant to Section 316.545(2)(b) F.S., but the agency assessed five cents per pound of excess weight (68,400 - 35,000 = 33,400 pounds), totalling $1,670.00. The fine, plus a $30.00 statutory fee for an IRP Trip Permit and Temporary Fuel Use Permit was paid to the Department of Transportation (DOT) via Western Union, and the vehicle was issued an IRP Trip Permit and Temporary Fuel Use Permit so that it could complete its trip. The fine/citation was protested by the Respondent, Brandywine Companies, which purports to be a parent company of Brandywine Auto Sales, Inc. Brandywine Auto Sales, Inc. is the holder of the Maryland dealer tag. The protest was twice denied by the DOT Commercial Vehicle Review Board before the dispute was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Jack Pelham is Bureau Chief of the Division of Motor Vehicles of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. In his official capacity, Mr. Pelham is responsible, in part, for oversight of motor vehicle registration in the state of Florida. According to Mr. Pelham's testimony, his agency considers a dealer tag to be sufficient to permit the hauling of automobiles and trucks, but insufficient to authorize hauling heavy equipment such as a grade-all, as was the case here. Based on his agency's interpretation of the reciprocity provisions of Chapter 320 F.S., Mr. Pelham also testified that the Division of Motor Vehicles would still consider Respondent's Maryland dealer tag used for hauling the grade-all in this case to be sufficient compliance with Florida law so as to avoid a fine if there were any competent substantial evidence that Maryland, the state which issued the dealer tag, used its dealer tags to permit the hauling of heavy machinery within its own borders. There was no affirmative demonstration that Maryland's dealer tags permit such heavy duty hauling, and all hearsay evidence admissible for consideration pursuant to Section 120.58(1) F.S. suggests contrariwise.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commercial Vehicle Review Board of the Department of Transportation enter a final order ratifying the correctness of the imposition of the $1,700.00 fine/fee assessed Brandywine Auto Sales, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of August, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: 5 is rejected as unintelligible. 1-4 and 6-7 are accepted as modified. Respondent's PFOF: None filed COPIES FURNISHED: Rush M. Cox, Jr., Controller Brandywine Companies Routes 301 and 381, Box 68 Brandywine, MD 20613 Charles G. Gardner, Attorney Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Case No. 91-3505 APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 91-3505
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order pursuant to an order closing the file of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The record reflects that the parties have settled their dispute and entered into a Settlement Stipulation, which Settlement Stipulation is hereby adopted by reference. Having reviewed the stipulation and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. Respondent has admitted the allegations of the administrative complaint in this matter. 2. Respondent has agreed to pay and has paid a civil fine of $2,000.00 by certified cashier’s check, receipt of which is acknowledged by the Department. 3. Each party will bear its own costs and attorney fees. 4. In order to prevent similar violations occurring in the future, Respondent shall abide by the following in operating its dealership: Respondent shall refrain from advertisements utilizing descriptions for vehicle condition such as mint condition, flawless, perfect and any other statements that may be deceptive and unfair if it is likely to mislead a consumer who is acting reasonably under the circumstances. Failure to abide by these procedures will constitute grounds for suspending or revoking Respondent’s license or imposing 4... fine. DONE AND ORDERED this YA day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ) L A. FORD, Dire Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division 9% Motor Vehicles this £27 day of July, 2009. Copies furnished: Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Senior Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Rm. A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Craig Hallman Executive Auto Leasing of South Florida, Inc. 2912 South Ocean Bivd. Highland Beach, Florida 33431 Errol H. Powell _Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Diane Buck Regional Administrator, DMV Region IX William Camper Hearing Officer Division of Motor Vehicles Billy Rankin Chief, Bureau of Field Operations Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator Florida Administrative Law Reports Post Office Box 385 Gainesville, Florida 32602
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction by James H. Peterson, III, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to the Parties’ Settlement Stipulation and Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED. Filed May 29, 2013 9:29 AM Division of Administrative Hearings DONE AND ORDERED this ag day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Buréau of Issuance Oversight Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services this at. day of May, 2013. Vows te Dealer Kicense Administra" ~ NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS ).. 4-. > Nalini Vinzyak, Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. JB/jdc Copies furnished: Micahel Khanjahanbakhsh, President Car Store of Altamonte, Inc. 425 Devon Place Heathrow, Florida 32746 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety 2900 Apalachee Parkway, MS61 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William F. Quattlebaum Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS? Fr (™ fer Bf 0° MAY 20 2013 Daot. of Higitsay Sa: Orcs DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, Petitioner, Case No.: 13-1185 v. CAR STORE OF ALTAMONTE, INC., Respondent. / SETTLEMENT STIPULATION AND MOTION TO RELINQUISH JURISDICTION Petitioner, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, and Respondent, Car Store of Altamonte, Inc., stipulate and agree to a settlement of this matter and move for relinquishment of jurisdiction for the purpose of entering a Final Order of the Department incorporating this Settlement Stipulation in the above-styled matter, as follows: 1. Respondent agrees to pay an administrative fine of five hundred dollars ($500). 2. If Respondent pays the amount specified in paragraph one above within the specified time, the Department will impose no further penalties or sanctions against Respondent. However, if Respondent fails to pay the amount specified in paragraph one above on or before the date provided in the Final Order, on the day following the payment date specified, Respondent’s motor vehicle dealer license will be automatically suspended and Respondent will cease to do business as a motor vehicle dealer. 3. If after suspension Respondent pays the amount specified in paragraph one above within 30 days following the date of suspension, its motor vehicle dealer license will : 3 a : : : a a aH ro 7 S ‘ : : : i “ & = . . : : x 7 . . . a “ immediately be reinstated without further penalties or sanctions. However, if Respondent fails to pay the amount due by the 30" day following the date of suspension, on the 31 day following the date of suspension Respondent’s motor vehicle dealer license shall be revoked by the Department without further notice. 4. If the Department suspends or revokes Respondent’s motor vehicle dealer license for non-payment as specified in paragraphs two and three above, said suspension or revocation shall be without recourse to the Respondent and Respondent hereby expressly waives any right to appeal or otherwise contest the suspension and revocation. 5. It is expressly understood that this Settlement Stipulation has no force and effect until the Department enters a Final Order adopting same. 6. Respondent and the Department fully understand that this Settlement Stipulation, and the subsequent Final Order incorporating same, will not in any way preclude additional proceedings by the Department against Respondent for acts or omissions not specifically detailed in the Administrative Complaint filed in this matter. 7. Respondent and the Department expressly waive all further procedural steps and Respondent expressly waives all rights to seek judicial review of or otherwise challenge or contest the validity of this Settlement Stipulation and the Final Order of the Department. 8. Respondent waives the right to seek any attorney’s fees or costs from the Department in connection with this administrative proceeding. WHEREFORE, the parties move the Administrative Law Judge for the entry of an order returning jurisdiction of this matter to the Department. NYS o Signed this 22 214. of, 2013 Signed this 16 day of Nan , 2013. Vudu BAELLLEAE Mehaal FT. levine Michael Khanjahanbakhsh, President AssistantGeneral Counsel Car Store of Altamonte, Inc. Department of Highway Safety 1380 East Altamonte Drive and Motor Vehicles Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida, 32399 Attorney for Petitioner w ue. STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, DIVISION OF MOTORIST SERVICES, ) ) ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 13-1185 ) CAR STORE OF ALTAMONTE, INC., ) ) Respondent. ) ) ORDER CLOSING FILE AND RELINQUISHING JURISDICTION This cause having come before the undersigned on the Settlement Stipulation and Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction, and the undersigned being fully advised, it is, therefore, ORDERED that: 1. The final hearing scheduled for June 7, 2013, is canceled. 2. The file of the Division of Administrative Hearings is closed. Jurisdiction is relinquished to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Witton Fo Quatteban WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Jennifer Clark, Agency Clerk Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-430 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Mail Stop 61 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dennis S. Valente, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 dennisvalente@flhsmv.gov Michael Khanjahanbakhsh Car Store of Altamonte, Inc. 425 Devon Place Heathrow, Florida 32746
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Department of Transportation, was responsible for the licensing and regulation of the operation of commercial motor vehicles on all streets and roads in this state. The Respondent, Florida Mining & Materials operates and, at the time of the alleged violation, operated commercial vehicles over the roads of this state. By letter dated June 11, 1990, George L. Crawford, P.E., Acting Director of Lee County's Department of Transportation and Engineering, notified the Petitioner's Office of Motor Carrier Compliance that it appeared trucks were exceeding the posted weight limits of the Ortiz Road Culvert, located 0.3 miles south of SR - 80 in Lee County. As a result of this letter, the Department began to monitor the cited culvert and on July 19, 1990, Officer Ellis K. Burroughs observed Respondent's cement dump truck cross the culvert in front of and to the side of which, in plain view, was a sign indicating that trucks weighing over 5,000 pounds should detour and go down Luckett Road without crossing the culvert. According to Mr. Burroughs, Respondent's vehicle did not detour as directed and went north on Ortiz Avenue, over the culvert. Mr. Burroughs gave chase and finally stopped the driver of Respondent's truck some 6 or 7 blocks north of the culvert. When asked why he had failed to use the detour and had crossed the culvert, the driver of the truck said his office had told him to do so and he had done so before. This comment is introduced not to show aggravation but to dispel any inference of lack of knowledge of the limitation. The sign in question had been erected on December 4, 1980. Some months after this incident, the sign was changed and the current permissible weight is 20 tons. No reason was given for the change nor was any information presented as to whether any modifications were done to the culvert before or since the change. The culvert in issue was described as of light construction - a culvert pass-through underneath the roadway. Mr. Burroughs weighed the offending truck at the scene and determined it had a gross weight of 45,700 pounds. The legal weight on that bridge at the time was only 5,000 pounds and, therefore, the Respondent's truck was overweight by 40,700 pounds. At a penalty of 5 cents per pound of violation, the penalty was assessed at $2,035.00 which was paid by the Respondent on August 3, 1990. Respondent's representative, Mr. Watson, was not present at the time and had no personal knowledge of the incident. He claims, however, that his company was operating under the impression that even at the time, the weight limit over that culvert was 20 tons. He does not concede that at the time of the incident the load limit was only 5,000 pounds. The weight of the evidence, however, is that it was. He claims this road is the only way they have of getting to certain jobs and if cut off from crossing, they are cut off from their business. Mr. Watson admittedly is not familiar with the area and overlooks the fact that there are alternative routes to the other side of that culvert, albeit somewhat longer. He discounts the somewhat longer, (2 1/2 miles additional), route claiming, "That's a lot of milage when what you're hauling is redi-mix concrete." Mr. Watson introduced several pictures of other large trucks going over that same culvert in an effort to show that other vehicles may also have been in violation. Some of those pictures were taken subsequent to the limit change and reflect that the limit is 20 tons. Further, Mr. Burroughs and Mr. Thompson indicate that subsequent to the letter from the County requesting increased surveillance, at least 45 to 50 citations were issued at that culvert. Some carriers were cited several times. Respondent was cited only once. After paying the penalty assessed, Respondent appealed it to the Department's Commercial Vehicle Review Board which reviewed it at its November 8, 1990 meeting and determined that a refund was not appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's request for a refund of the $2,035.00 fine paid for the violation of the weight limits on the culvert in question here be denied. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 8th day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Robert Bishop, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 695 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ray Watson Operations Manager Florida Mining & Materials Post Office Box 2367 Tallahassee, Florida 33902 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether a recreational vehicle with a gross vehicle weight in excess of 10,000 pounds meets the definition of "commercial motor vehicle" under relevant Florida law when driven by an employee of a licensed recreational vehicle dealer, rather than by the ultimate consumer.
Findings Of Fact On January 22, 2001, the Department of Transportation (Department) issued a driver vehicle inspection report (No. FL6050069 - Citation Violation) to Karl A. Nessamar. At the time the report was issued Mr. Nessamar was driving a private motor coach owned by Leisure Tyme RV, Inc. (Leisure Tyme), on a state road. A private motor coach is a vehicle which does not exceed the length, width and height limitations of Section 316.515(9), Florida Statutes, and is built on a self-propelled, bus-type chassis having no fewer than three load-bearing axles and being primarily designed to provide temporary living quarters for recreational, camping or travel use. See Section 320.01(b)(5), Florida Statutes. Leisure Tyme is a recreational vehicle dealer as defined in Section 320.822(i), Florida Statutes. The recreational vehicle Mr. Nessamar was operating did not have a U.S. Department of Transportation number on display. When Mr. Nessamar was issued the inspection report he did not possess a Class B driver's license; had no driver's record of duty status (log book); and had no medical certificate in his possession. Further, Mr. Nessamar was operating the vehicle in the course of his employment for Leisure Tyme at the time the inspection report was issued. The gross vehicle weight rating of the subject recreational vehicle was 33,700 pounds. When the inspection report was issued, Mr. Nessamar was an employee of Leisure Tyme and was driving the vehicle from Tampa, Florida to Mary Esther, Florida. It was being returned to Mary Esther after having been displayed at the Florida RV "Super Show." This recreational vehicle was not carrying any cargo, passengers or hazardous materials at the time it was driven by Mr. Nessamar and when the citation or inspection report was issued. Because of the issuance of the vehicle inspection report the vehicle and Leisure Tyme were placed "out-of-service," which means that none of the vehicles in its ownership or operation can be driven until those vehicles and drivers meet all of the requirements of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 390 through 395 and Chapter 322, Florida Statutes. The Department contends that whenever a recreational vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVW) exceeds 10,000, pounds and is driven by anyone other than the ultimate consumer or owner of that vehicle, it becomes a "commercial motor vehicle." It defines a commercial motor vehicle as any self- propelled or towed vehicle used on the public highways in commerce to transport passengers or cargo if such vehicle has a GVW of 10,000 pounds or more; is designed to transport more than 15 passengers including the driver; or is used in the transportation of materials found to be hazardous for the purposes of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as amended (49 USC subsections 1801 et. seq.). See Section 316.003(66), Florida Statutes (2000). There is no question, however, that the vehicle at issue meets the definition of a "private motor coach" because it has three load-bearing axles, a self-propelled bus type chassis, is primarily designed to provide temporary living quarters for recreational camping and travel use and does not exceed the length, width and height limitations provided in Section 316.515(9), Florida Statutes. If indeed the vehicle in question is deemed to be a commercial vehicle, the driver, vehicle and owner become subject to many restrictions and regulations that do not apply to non- commercial motor vehicles. This is because the Legislature has adopted many of the federal regulations pertaining to commercial motor vehicles in Section 316.302(1)(b), Florida Statutes, specifically, 49 C.F.R. Parts 382, 385 and 390 through 397, with the exception of 49 C.F.R. Section 390.5. Thus, the pivotal question to determine concerning whether the cited violation is correct, is whether the vehicle in question is a commercial motor vehicle and, as related thereto, whether it is a recreational vehicle.
The Issue The issue is whether respondent should have a penalty in the amount of $933.00 assessed for allegedly violating Section 316.545, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, Suddath Van Lines, Inc. (Suddath), operates a trucking firm engaged in the business of transporting household goods. The firm's address is 5266 Highway Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida. When operating a commercial motor vehicle (truck) on the roads and highways of this state, Suddath is subject to the vehicle registration requirements prescribed in Chapters 316 and 320, Florida Statutes. Those chapters are administered and enforced by petitioner, Department of Transportation (DOT). Florida, but not New Jersey, is a member of the International Registration Plan (IRP) which governs the vehicle registration requirements of motor vehicles in member states. Under that plan, a motor vehicle operator in any participating state can register his vehicle in that state and engage in for-hire transporation in other participating states without further registration. For vehicles registered in non-participating (or non-apportioned) states, such as New Jersey, they must first obtain an IRP temporary operational permit before engaging in intrastate transportation in participating states, including Florida. Florida and New Jersey are members of an agreement known as the Multistate Reciprocal Agreement Governing the Operation of Interstate Vehicles. This is an older multistate agreement governing only those motor vehicles engaged in interstate operations and is to be distinguished from the IRP described in finding of fact 2. Paragraph A. of Article I of the interstate agreement describes its purpose as follows: Purpose of the Agreement. It is the purpose of this agreement to grant reciprocity subject to exceptions noted herein, to contracting jurisdictions, as provided in this agreement, by the exemption from registration and payment of all fees and taxes in each other contracting jurisdiction when such vehicles are used in any type of interstate vehicle operation in any such other contracting jurisdiction. (Emphasis added) Paragraph E. of Article IV of the same agreement goes on to provide in relevant part as follows: E. Motor vehicles properly licensed by any one of the reciprocating jurisdictions, including trucks, tractors, trailers, and semi-trailers, operated in the transportation of property for-hire may be operated in the several jurisdictions without limitation as to the number of trips and without the payment of any motor vehicle fees whatsoever to the reciprocating jurisdictions when operated strictly interstate . . . (Emphasis added) Under the terms of the foregoing agreement, a motor carrier registered in the State of New Jersey can lawfully transport a shipment from another state to Florida without registering the vehicle. If, however, the vehicle engages in intrastate operations in Florida, it would then be subject to Florida registration requirements, and the agreement would offer no protection from the payment of fees and taxes. On February 16, 1993, one of respondent's trucks was traveling in the southbound lane of State Road 5 in Monroe County, Florida. Around 9:30 a.m., a DOT weight and safety officer subjected the truck to a routine inspection at the weight scales in Plantation Keys, Florida. The vehicle, which was driven by Thomas Davanzo, carried a New Jersey tag and was registered in that state. In addition to other documents, the vehicle carried a "service agreement" indicating the truck was transporting a shipment of household goods from a Miami warehouse to Key West. The total gross weight of the truck was found to be 53,660 pounds, consisting of 10,680 pounds on the steering axle, 22,480 pounds on the drive tandem and 20,500 pounds on the rear tandem. During the inspection on February 16, 1993, the officer noted that the vehicle was unregistered and had no valid trip permit. He also assumed, albeit incorrectly, that the truck was operating in intrastate commerce based on the information reflected in the service agreement. When a truck is operating without a valid IRP, the vehicle is authorized to carry a total gross load, including the weight of the vehicle, of only 35,000 pounds. For any pound in excess of that weight, DOT is authorized to impose a fine of five cents for each excessive pound. Therefore, respondent was fined $933.00, or five cents time 18,660 pounds. After respondent's appeal to the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board was denied, this proceeding ensued. Respondent does not deny that its vehicle was unregistered or contend that the gross load was less than that specified on the citation. Rather, it contends the shipment was interstate in character and, pursuant to the multistate agreement, it was not subject to state vehicle registration requirements. In this respect, the evidence shows that the household goods being transported by respondent belonged to a member of the U. S. Navy who was being transferred from Brunswick, Maine to the Naval Air Station in Key West. The controlling document on the shipment was a U. S. Government bill of lading (GBL) and not the service agreement shown to the DOT officer. The goods had been initially transported from Maine to Miami, but because there was no storage space available in Key West until the government was able to accept shipment, they were placed in "storage in transit" (SIT) in a Miami warehouse. This was permissible under the GBL, which provided that "SIT not to exceed 90 days is authorized," and did not alter the character of the shipment. It is also noted that there is no language in the multistate agreement, either explicit or implicit, indicating that the vehicle loses its exemption from fees and taxes merely because the goods are temporarily placed in SIT before delivery to the final destination. After being placed in storage, a portion of the goods were later carried by one of respondent's trucks to Boca Raton, where they were transloaded (interlined) onto another truck operated by Davanzo, who was to carry them to Key West. Although the goods had previously come to rest temporarily at the Miami warehouse, they continued to retain their interstate character pursuant to the GBL until they were delivered to their final destination in Key West. This conformed with the intent of Suddath throughout the shipping process. Since the goods in question retained their interstate character, and no intrastate carriage occurred, the multistate agreement was controlling, and Suddath should not have been issued a citation.
Recommendation Pursuant to notice, the above matter was heard by telephone before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Donald R. Alexander, on November 4, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida.
