Findings Of Fact On June 3, 1982, William Cate, an inspector for Petitioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, obtained a sample of the product identified as 500 Ethohol from a pump at the United 500 station owned by Respondent in Brooksville, Florida. The sample was shipped to Petitioner's laboratory in Tallahassee where it was analyzed under the supervision of John Whitton, Chief Bureau of Petroleum Inspection, using standard methods, and found to be in violation of Petitioner's Rule 5F-2.01(c)2 in that the 50 percent evaporated temperature of the product was 1580F which did not comply with the rule's requirement that such temperature not be less than 1700F. On June 11, 1982, a stop sale notice was issued against Respondent directing it to immediately stop the sale of the product listed below pending further instructions from Petitioner. Inspector Cate sealed the pump in question, and Respondent elected to post a $1,000 cash bond in order that he could return the product for upgrading in lieu of confiscation and sale. The stop sale notice was directed to 2475 gallons of the product which had a value of over $1,000. "Ethohol" is a blend of regular leaded gasoline which contains a percentage of alcohol, and sometimes is known as "gasohol." (Testimony of Cate, Whitton, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1) On June 14, 1982, Curtis E. Hardee, an inspector for Petitioner, took samples of 500 Ethohol from a pump located at Respondent's United 500 station at 6815 Sheldon Road, Tampa, Florida. The samples were sealed and shipped to Petitioner's laboratory in Tallahassee where they were analyzed under the supervision of John Whitton, Chief Bureau of Petroleum Inspection, and found to be in violation of Rule 5F-2.01(-1)(c)2, Florida Administrative Code, in that the 50 percent evaporated temperature of the product was l520F, and therefore violated the rule's requirement that such temperature not be less than l700F. A stop sale notice was issued against sale of the product on June 17, 1982, and Respondent elected to post a cash bond in lieu of confiscation or sale of 3,449 gallons of the product. The amount of the bond was $625 which represented 481 gallons of the product that had been sold since the last time a load of gas had been delivered to the station. Under the provisions of the release notice, Respondent agreed to pump the remaining product out of its storage tank and return it to their bulk plant for upgrading. (Testimony of Hardee, Whitton, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2) Although Respondent's representative did not dispute the foregoing facts, he maintained that forfeiture of the entire amount of the cash bonds would be excessive. (Testimony of McRae)
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be issued assessing Respondent the sum of $625 to be effected by forfeiture of the bond posted in the same amount pursuant to stop sale notice issued on June 17, 1982 at Tampa, Florida, and that the $1,000 bond posted by Respondent to gain release of the gasoline product which was the subject of the stop sale notice of June 11, 1902 at Brooksville, Florida also be forfeited. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 T.D. McRae, President United Petroleum, Inc. 680 South May Avenue Brooksville, Florida 33512 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner should be assessed special fuel taxes together with interest thereon and a penalty relating to an audit period of from August 1, 1977 through July 31, 1980. In order to resolve that ultimate question, it must be decided whether proper notice of the transfer of the business of Mattick Oil Company to the Petitioner, pursuant to Section 206.18, Florida Statutes was given the department, such that the transferee, the Petitioner, would not be liable for the taxes, interest and penalty incurred by the transferor Mattick Oil Company. Regardless of the question of the timeliness of the notice to the Department of the transfer of the business, it must be decided whether Reid B. Hughes is indeed a "transferee" as contemplated by Section 206.18, Florida Statutes, and is therefore liable for the tax, interest and penalty, if timely notice of the transfer was not given the department.
Findings Of Fact Mattick Oil Company, Inc. is a wholesaler and retailer of fuel oil, motor oil, gasoline and other petroleum products and auto accessories. On May 8, 1980, Mattick Oil Company, Inc. entered into a contract called an "Agreement for Sales and Purchase of Business" with Hughes Oil Company, also a Florida corporation. By this agreement, Reid B. Hughes, doing business as Hughes Oil Company was to purchase certain assets of Mattick Oil Company. It was stipulated by the parties that for the period of August 1, 1977 through July 31, 1980, Mattick Oil Company, Inc. failed to pay certain special fuel taxes in the amount of $5,411.04 of actual tax, $4,428.70 of interest through August 12, 1985 with interest accruing from that day forward at a rate of $1.78 per day. It was also stipulated that the relevant penalty, if applicable, would be $541.10. The purchase price pursuant to the agreement, was $225,900, with the buyer to pay the seller's actual delivered cost of inventory. The agreement provided that Hughes would purchase assets consisting of real estate and a bulk storage facility on South Seagrave Street in South Daytona, Florida; certain real estate and a service station located in New Smyrna Beach, as well as miscellaneous pumps, tanks, and other equipment, consumer and customer accounts and customer lists. The agreement to purchase also included certain contractual distributorship rights with Gulf Oil Company and Phillips Petroleum Company, prepaid expenses, vehicles and leasehold improvements, any covenants against competition which the seller held as transferrable rights, all jobberships, supply sale and purchase agreements owned by the seller, as well as city and county licenses, furniture, fixtures, signs, hoses, meters, registers and other personal property. The agreement also provided that the buyer, Hughes, would assume the seller's commitment for the 1980 yellow page advertising already purchased and the seller agreed not to engage in any business activity which involves the wholesale distribution of petroleum products and other auto accessories in Volusia County for a period of five years from the date of closing of the sale. This transfer of assets took effect on June 1 or June 2, 1980. Thereafter, on June 9, 1980, a notice was sent from Gene L. Mattick of Mattick Oil Company to the Department notifying it that he had sold his business to Hughes, giving the address and informing the Department that Hughes would be doing business as "Mattick Oil". Mr. Mattick indicated in the notice that this was his "final return". He also requested that a sales tax certificate be cancelled. In fact, Mr. Mattick had not sold his entire business to Mr. Hughes and Hughes Oil Company. Mattick Oil Company, Inc. continued to do business in other parts of Florida, especially the Tampa Bay area. It only sold to Hughes its distributorship contracts with Phillips Petroleum Company and Gulf Oil Company and the other assets described above. Hughes did not buy Mattick's distributorship contracts with Eastern Oil Company, Ashland Oil Company, or Colonial Oil Company. Hughes only purchased the Volusia County assets from Mattick Oil Company, Inc., in which location Mattick had been Hughes' competitor. In fact, Mr. Hughes was primarily interested in purchasing the service station in New Smyrna Beach in Volusia County. Mattick Oil Company, Inc. continued to engage in the petroleum business in its own right and, with the transfer of the Volusia County assets at issue, it did not cease to do business in Florida. It is true that the Department received a surety bond (Bond NO. 112789) bearing the name "Reid B. Hughes, d/b/a Mattick Oil of Daytona Beach, Florida, as principal, d/b/a Mattick Oil". Mr. Hughes testified that he had not executed the signature shown on that bond, purporting to be his signature. That possibly was done by a former controller of the company, who was terminated. In any event, it was offered to show that Reid B. Hughes was using the Mattick Oil Company name or variation thereof and was operating and using the assets purchased from Mattick Oil Company, Inc. and had essentially supplanted that entity entirely. The mere fact of the filing of the surety bond, aside, from the question of who actually executed the bond, does not establish, even with the use of the Mattick name, that Mattick Oil Company, Inc. had ceased doing business in Florida, and had transferred its entire assets and business operations to Hughes. In fact, Mattick Oil Company, Inc. continued thereafter to do business in Florida and did not transfer all its assets to Hughes, as found above. The same consideration is true concerning the document entitled "Gasoline Distributor-Confidential Questionnaire and Required Sales Information" which was provided to the Department on July 8, 1980 with a notarized signature of Reid B. Hughes depicted thereon. This document indicated that the business would operate as Mattick Oil Company, but the operations under the Mattick name were for the Volusia County area only and this, again, does not establish that Mattick Oil Company had ceased engaging in the petroleum business in Florida and transferred all assets and operations to Reid B. Hughes, the Petitioner. A new special fuel license, license No. 9454 was issued on June 18, 1980 to Reid B. Hughes, d/b/a Mattick Oil, with an alternate principal place of business listed thereon as South Daytona Florida, County of Volusia. The record does not establish that any special fuels license held by Mattick Oil Company, Inc. was correspondingly cancelled, however. Only the specific sales tax certificate number 74252470445 was returned for cancellation with the notice mentioned above, filed by Gene A. Mattick as president of Mattick Oil Company, Inc. on June 9, 1980. In summary, none of the above-mentioned facts establish that Mattick Oil Company, Inc. ceased doing business elsewhere in the state of Florida. In fact, the Petitioner established that Mattick Oil Company, Inc. is still doing business in the state, specifically the Tampa Bay area. The Petitioner never negotiated the purchase or purchased any of the business rights or assets owned and operated by Mattick in the Tampa Bay area. In any event, an audit was conducted by the Department for the period August 1, 1977 through July 31, 1980. A "Notice of Decision" was ultimately issued by the Department on September 30, 1985 and a petition for reconsideration of that decision, which had assessed the above-mentioned tax and interest, was filed on October 30, 1985. Finally, pursuant to a "Notice of Reconsideration" dated May 19, 1988, the Department sought to assess Reid B. Hughes, d/b/a Mattick Oil Company for the above-discussed unpaid taxes and interest due originally from Mattick Oil Company, Inc., and representing a period of time and audit period occurring before the transfer to Reid B. Hughes of the above-mentioned assets. The tax period involved thus ended July 31, 1980. It was at this point that the Petitioner then sought a formal proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that the Petitioner, Reid B. Hughes, is not liable to pay the tax, accrued interest and related penalty, referenced above and that his petition to be relieved of this assessment be GRANTED. Case No. 88-3562 DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 5th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1-5. Accepted. Rejected as not materially dispositive and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter. Rejected as constituting a recitation of the statute instead of a finding of fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 12-14. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1-3. Accepted. 4-7. Accepted. 8. Accepted. 9-10. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter. 11. Accepted, but not itself dispositive of material issues. 12. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but not dispositive. Accepted, but not dispositive. Accepted, although not at issue. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven T. Vasilaros, Esq. Post Office Drawer 2140 Daytona Beach, FL 32015 Ralph R. Jaeger, Esq. Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - Tax Section Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 William D. Moore, General Counsel Department of Revenue 203 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Katie D. Tucker, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Car1ton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact During a routine inspection on March 30, 1983, a sample diesel fuel taken from Respondent's place of business in Clearwater, Florida, was tested and was found to have a flash point of 660F. Normal flash point for diesel fuel is 1000F. A Stop Sale Notice was issued March 30, 1983, and sales from this tank were stopped. On March 31, 1983, Respondent posted a $1,000 bond in lieu of having the fuel confiscated. Before the Stop Sale Notice, 1,282 gallons of contaminated diesel fuel had been sold from this tank at a price of $1.099 per gallon.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the prehearing statement, the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner is a Florida corporation in good standing, authorized to do business in this state. The Petitioner owns and controls the site which is the subject matter of these proceedings. Such site is located in Brevard County, Florida. The Department has identified the subject site as DER facility no. 05- 8500985 (the facility). At all times material to this case, the facility consisted of: three underground storage tanks (UST), one 3000 gallon UST used for storing diesel fuel, one 1000 gallon UST used for storing diesel fuel, and one 1000 gallon UST used for storing gasoline; five monitoring wells; and pipes and pumps related to the foregoing system. The facility constituted a storage tank system as defined in Section 376.301, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-761.200(38), Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner holds, and is named insured for, third party pollution liability insurance applicable to the facility. Such insurance was issued pursuant to Section 376.3072, Florida Statutes. The policy for the foregoing insurance, policy no. FPL7622040, was in force from March 22, 1991 through March 22, 1992. The Department issued a notice of eligibility for restoration insurance to Petitioner for the above-described facility. Based upon the foregoing, the Petitioner is a participating owner or operator as defined in Chapter 17-769, Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to Section 376.3073, Florida Statutes, Brevard County operates a local program that has been approved by the Department. Such local program is managed by the Brevard County Office of Natural Resources Management (County). In July, 1990, a discharge of diesel fuel occurred at the Petitioner's facility. Petitioner's employees estimated that approximately twenty gallons of diesel fuel filled the pump box overflowed from the pump box across the seawall into the adjacent waters. Upon discovering the discharge, Petitioner shut down diesel fuel dispensing until repairs could be made to the apparent cause of the leak. Additionally, the diesel fuel remaining in the pump box and on top of the tank area was removed. Contaminated soil in the pump box was also removed. The apparent cause of the discharge described above was attributed to cracked pipe fittings which were repaired by Glover Oil Co. within a few days of the discharge. No detailed inspection was made to the system to determine if additional sources of discharge existed. Petitioner did not complete a discharge reporting form (DRF) for the above-described incident until April 18, 1991. The April DRF was completed after Petitioner was directed to do so by Ms. DiStasio, an inspector employed by the County. From August, 1990 until May, 1991, at least one monitoring well at the Petitioner's facility showed free product accumulating in the well pipe. The exact amounts of the free product found are unknown, but reports estimated the level at 100 centimeters. From August, 1990 until September, 1991, the Petitioner did not undertake any measure to explore the origin of the free product found in the monitoring well. Further, the Petitioner did not report the monitoring well testing results as a suspected or confirmed discharge. In April, 1991, an inspection of the Petitioner's facility was performed by Ms. DiStasio. That inspection resulted in a letter to the Petitioner that outlined several violations at the facility. Among those violations listed was the Petitioner's failure to report a suspected or confirmed discharge. At the time of the April, 1991 inspection, Petitioner had reported neither the July, 1990 discharge (a known discharge) nor the monitoring well test results (at the minimum a suspected discharge). In connection with the July, 1990 discharge, following the repairs made by Glover Oil, Petitioner did not have the system pressure tested. Only the area visible from the pump box was checked for leakage. In July, 1991, when Ms. DiStasio performed a re-inspection of the facility, she found Petitioner had not (in the interim period, April through July, 1991) taken any steps to test the system or to remove the fuels from the suspect tanks. Since the free product continued to appear in the monitoring well, a pressure test of the system would have definitively answered the discharge question. Alternatively, the removal of the fuels would have prevented further seepage until the system could be pressure tested. On August 6, 1991, the Petitioner issued a letter that advised the County that it had stopped dispensing fuel at the facility. The tanks were not drained, however, until on or about September 11, 1991. Further, the August, 1991, letter acknowledged that the Petitioner "had proposals for initial remedial cleanup related to diesel contamination in the tank field area." Obviously, the Petitioner must have contemplated a need for such cleanup. On September 11, 1991, at the Petitioner's request, Petroleum Equipment Contractors, Inc. attempted to pressure test the 3000 gallon diesel tank. The purpose of the pressure test was to determine if the diesel system had a leak. The company could not even run the test on the tank because of the defective system. A similar test on the Petitioner's gasoline tank passed without incident. Once the Petitioner learned the results of the test, it initiated Initial Remedial Action (IRA) as described on the IRA report filed by Universal Engineering Sciences. The IRA consisted of the removal of the excessively contaminated soil, approximately 74 cubic yards, and the removal of the USTs. The foregoing work was completed on or about September 15, 1991. On October 4, 1991, the Petitioner filed a discharge reporting form dated October 2, 1991, that identified September 11, 1991, as the date of discovery for the discharge. This discharge discovery was allegedly made incidental to the diesel tank pressure testing failure. No reference was made to the months of monitoring well reports showing a free product. On October 8, 1991, Ms. DiStasio prepared a Florida Petroleum Liability Insurance and Restoration Program Compliance Checklist that reported the Petitioner was not in compliance with applicable statutes and rules. When Petitioner applied for restoration coverage under the statute on January 31, 1992, such request was denied by the Department on March 6, 1992. The basis for the denial was as follows: Failure to notify the Department of a positive response to sampling within three working days of testing, pursuant to the rule in effect at the time of the initial response (17-61.050(1), Florida Administrative Code). An inspection by Brevard County on April 17, 1991, revealed that free product had been detected in one monitoring well since July 1990. The discharge reporting form was not submitted until October 2, 1991.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying Petitioner's claim for restoration coverage under the Florida Petroleum Liability Insurance and Restoration Program. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 31st day of December, 1992. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 92-2121 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraphs 1, 2, 8, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are accepted. Except as found above, paragraph 3 is rejected as not supported by the record cited. It is accepted that Brevard County acted as the local agent in this case. Paragraph 4 is rejected as not supported by the record. With regard to paragraph 5, substituting "A" for "The" and "confirmed" for "discovered" the paragraph can be accepted; otherwise rejected as contrary to the record. Similarly, with the substitution of the word "confirmation" for "discovery" in Paragraph 6, the paragraph can be accepted; otherwise rejected as contrary to the record. No suitable explanation was offered by the Petitioner for why, if a discharge were not reasonably suspected, it retained the company to immediately remove the USTs upon the failed pressure testing. Clearly, the Club had a notion the tanks were a discharge problem. Paragraph 7 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. While there was some confusion as to the exact volume of free product in the monitoring well, there was clear evidence that such was reported for many months prior to the confirmation in September, 1991. Further, the main confusion regarding the product found in the well was not as to its existence, but as to the individual's knowledge of the metric measurement of it. One hundred centimeters of product in a two or three inch pipe would not be a minute amount. Except as addressed in the foregoing findings, paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Petitioner did not undertake all repairs necessary to abate a discharge problem. Paragraph 10 is rejected as not supported by the weight of credible evidence or irrelevant. Clearly, as early as August, 1990, Petitioner knew or should have known of a discharge problem based upon the monitoring well report; that all of the discharge did not necessarily flow from the fittings that had been repaired is irrelevant. Further, Petitioner did no testing to verify that the replaced fittings had solved the discharge problem (especially in light of the well reports). Paragraph 11 is rejected as an inaccurate restatement of the exhibit. Paragraph 13 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Incidentally, the hearing in this case was in the year 1992. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 through 11 are accepted. Paragraph 12 is rejected as a misstatement of the exhibit cited. Paragraphs 13 through 27 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Brigette A. Ffolkes Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Scott E. Wilt MAGUIRE, VOORHIS & WELLS, P.A. 2 South Orange Plaza P.O. Box 633 Orlando, Florida 32802 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Early on the morning of September 3, 1982, Mr. Robert W. Taylor, a driver for Fleetwing Petroleum Company, loaded his truck at the Marathon Oil Company Refinery terminal in Tampa, Florida, for the Triangle Refineries, Inc., with 2,001 gallons of super-unleaded gasoline, 2,000 gallons of unleaded regular gasoline, and 3,501 gallons of regular leaded gasoline. The super-unleaded was loaded into Compartment 1 of four compartments on the trailer, which holds a maximum of 2,500 gallons. On the previous day, this trailer had been used by another driver, Floyd Mills; and before loading the trailer at the terminal, he, Taylor, personally flushed out the tanks to insure no contamination. After completing the loading procedure, Mr. Taylor drove directly to the Hardee's station at 24203 Highway 60 E, Lake Wales, Florida, where it was loaded into the station's tanks. The delivery consisted of 3,501 gallons of regular gas, 2,000 gallons of unleaded gas, and 2,001 gallons of super-unleaded gas, as reflected on the delivery log for that date. This was somewhat unusual, since it was the first time Mr. Taylor had ever taken super-unleaded to that station. The receipt for delivery, executed by Walter Winslett, Jr., on September 3, 1982, shows that the quantities and qualities described above were received. During a routine inspection of the Hardee station on September 29, 1982, Mr. Willis Aldridge, an inspector with the Florida Department of Agriculture, took samples of all the gas at the station, including the regular, the unleaded, and the Super-unleaded. These samples, taken in the normal manner, were sealed inside a case with a lead wire seal, identified, and sent off to the lab at Tallahassee. Several days later, on October 5, 1982, Mr. Aldridge received a phone call from the Department of Agriculture laboratory in Tallahassee advising him that the super-unleaded product taken from the Hardee station exceeded the lead tolerance and that he should immediately stop its sale. Thereafter, the following day, he went back to the Hardee station, where talking with the manager, Mr. Winslett, he told him what the problem was, issued a stop sale notice for that grade gas, and sealed the pump dispensing it. Mr. Winslett stated this one load of super-unleaded was the only one he had ever received. The Stop Sale Notice identifies, inter alia, the product, the brand name, the pump number, and the amount still in the tank. This last figure is determined by sticking a gauging stick into the tank. Since this was the first time the station had carried super-unleaded, 2,001 gallons had been delivered, and 998 gallons remained, that meant that slightly over 1,000 gallons had been sold of that product. At this point, Mr. Aldridge advised the station operator he could either give up what was in the ground or pay a penalty on the amount sold to a maximum of $1,000. Since this grade gasoline was selling at that time for $1.32 a gallon, the value of the gasoline still in the ground was greater than the penalty. When the Stop Sale Notice was issued on October 6, 1982, Fleetwing officials requested a few days to consider their options, and on October 14, 1982, advised Mr. Aldridge that they elected to post bond in the penalty amount ($1,000) and would meet him at the station the next morning. When he arrived, Mr. Aldridge met with Mr. C. W. May, Jr., a representative of Fleetwing Petroleum, who posted the required bond, and the remaining 998 gallons of super- unleaded were released. The product in question was tested at the Florida Department of Agriculture Lab Complex in Tallahassee under the supervision of Mr. Ben W. Bowen, of the Lab Testing Section. The tests seen on the super-unleaded sample, utilizing the American Society of Testing and Materials standards adopted by the State of Florida, revealed this particular sample contained 0.15 gram of lead per gallon. Two tests were utilized. An initial field test was used to scrutinize the samples as they came in. If any sample failed this test, a second test utilizing the X-ray florescence method is used. Since the maximum allowed is 0.05 gram per gallon, this sample had three times the lead limit and was therefore subject to confiscation. The effects of using excessively leaded gasoline in cars designed to burn unleaded gas are: (1) the calalytic converter will be ruined, and (2) damage to the engine with continued use. Replacement of a catalytic converter could run to several hundred dollars. The contaminated gasoline was the property of, and offered for sale by, the Respondent, Fleetwing Corporation. The pumps used for dispensing were identified as to type of gasoline and bore the Fleetwing logo.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be required to forfeit $500 of the $1,000 bond posted and the unforfeited $500 be returned to the Respondent. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard C. May, Esquire 4110 South Florida Avenue Suite B Lakeland, Florida 33803 The Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not Respondent was selling "polluted" gasoline in violation of the standards set forth in Chapter 525.06, Florida Statutes (1980), and Rule Chapter 5F-2, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, is an agency of State government which has the obligation to inspect petroleum products in keeping with the provisions of Chapter 525, Florida Statutes (1980). 2/ The Respondent is a corporation which sells products in the State of Florida at an outlet located at 1050 U.S. 98 North in Brooksville, Florida. On November 11, 1981, a sample of three (3) petroleum products, i.e., regular gasoline, unleaded and diesel fuel was taken from Respondent's location which is known as Chuck's Car Wash. A laboratory analysis by Petitioner revealed that the unleaded gasoline showed a lead content above .110 grams per gallon. This reading is above the .05 gram per gallon maximum allowable lead content as set forth in Rule Subsection 5F-2.01(1)5(j), Florida Administrative Code. An analysis of the regular gasoline revealed an End Point of 494 degrees F. This reading is above the 446 degrees F maximum allowable End Point as set forth in Rule Subsection 5F-2.01(1)(c)4, Florida Administrative Code. Finally, an examination of the diesel product revealed a Flash Point below 60 degrees F. This reading is below the 120 degrees F allowable Flash Point as set forth in Rule Subsection 5F-2.01(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The results of these analyses were made known to Respondent and he was afforded the option of either immediately halting the sale of the products or to post a cash bond in the amount of $1,000.00 for 5,900 gallons sold of the above- referred products in lieu of confiscation of the remaining 1,681 gallons of the products. (See Release Notice or Agreement dated November 12, 1981.) Respondent posted a bond in the amount of $1,000.00. In the Release Notice, Respondent was advised that all three (3) products were to be removed from its tanks and new products dropped. Respondent was also afforded the opportunity to remove the no-lead which could he sold as leaded regular with the remaining two (2) products to be used in Respondent's private equipment. Petitioner's inspector who works out of portable laboratory No. 3, Jamie Gillespie, removed the samples from Respondent's tanks and conducted the analyses of the products. Inspector Gillespie made Respondent aware of his findings and his decision to post a Stop Sale Notice of the subject products. Inspector Gillespie obtained the cash bond from Respondent. Use of the above-referred products may cause catalytic converters to become contaminated; restrict exhaust systems and release excessive pollutants in the atmosphere. Use of these products also may clog fuel filters and carburetors. The low Flash Point from the diesel product may cause an engine to "run away" and in some instances may blow the head assembly from a diesel engine. Additionally, use of diesel with such a low Flash Point may contaminate dry injector nozzles and shorten the life of a diesel engine. (Testimony of Gillespie and Morris, inspectors and chemists employed by Petitioner, who conducted analyses of the subject products.) As stated, Respondent did not appear at the hearing to contest or otherwise rebut the charges alleged by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and the entire record compiled herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding the Respondent in violation of Rule Subsections 5F-2.01(1)5(j), 5F-2.01(1)(c)4, and 5F-2.01(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code, and thereby, Respondent should be subjected to the penalties set forth in Section 525.06, Florida Statutes (1980), and the $1,000.00 bond posted be estreated. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 16th day of April, 1982.
The Issue Whether the assessment of $767.27 as a bond was proper.
Findings Of Fact On May 21, 1986, the samples of fuel were taken at Hicks' Gulf Station, U.S. 19 South and Hicks' Gulf Station, U.S. 19 North in Perry, Florida. Using ASTM D86, it was determined that the samples of Good Gulf regular leaded gasoline taken at the Hicks' Service Stations contained contaminants that caused their evaporative end points to exceed 437/0F, the acceptable maximum set by Florida Statute and Rule 5F-2.01, Florida Administrative Code. These results were confirmed at the main laboratory in Tallahassee on June 5, 1986. Stop sales notices were issued on May 21, 1986. On May 23, 1986, a bond of $767.27 was posted by Morris Petroleum, Inc., in lieu of the Department confiscating 1,754 gallons of the contaminated fuel. Delivery and sales records allowed the Department to determine that 791 gallons of contaminated fuel had been sold to the public at the two stations at 97 per gallon since the last delivery from the wholesaler. Nancy Fischer, chemist for the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, testified regarding the Department policy. The Department tests motor fuels at terminals and wholesalers. However, the Department does not levy fines against wholesalers and terminals. In cases where fuels being held by terminals and wholesalers are found to be contaminated, the Department issues a stop sale order. When establishing the amount of bond to be paid by a retailer for contaminated fuel, the Department uniformly bases the bond on the retail value of the substandard product sold to retail customers at the retail price. The Respondent, Morris Petroleum, Inc., is a wholesale distributor of motor fuels. Morris Petroleum sold the motor fuels in question in this case for 81.5 per gallon to Hicks' Service Stations in Perry, Florida. It is common practice for wholesalers to pay the bonds levied against retailers in order to maintain the business of the retailers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department be affirmed and the bond of $767.27 be retained. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of December 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: William C. Harris, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 514, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John M. Morris, Jr. Morris Petroleum, Inc. Post Office Box 495 Monticello, Florida 32344 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 513 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
