The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner correctly assessed Respondent with a penalty in the amount of $4,754 based on the overweight permit violations set forth in Load Report Citation Number 141945M.
Findings Of Fact On or about September 22, 1998, Respondent requested an overweight trip permit from Petitioner. Respondent needed the permit to haul a kiln section using a truck tractor and a semi- trailer from the Alabama state line, along I-10 and I-75, to Newberry, Florida. Respondent's permit request included the specific axle spacings and axle weights of its vehicle and load together with other criteria necessary for the permit. On October 7, 1998, Petitioner issued Respondent an overweight trip permit, Permit Number QU025021. The permit was effective October 7, 1998, through October 11, 1998. The permit incorporated the axle spacings and axle weights of Respondent's vehicle and load as additional requirements for the permit. The permit stated that it could be voided if any of its terms or conditions were altered or violated. Without a permit, Respondent's vehicle and load would have been limited to a legal weight of 80,000 pounds. The permit allowed a gross weight of 180,420 pounds. On October 8, 1998, Respondent's loaded vehicle stopped at Petitioner's truck weighing station on I-10 near Sneads, Florida. The truck tractor and semi-trailer with its cargo weighed 175,080 pounds. In other words, Respondent's loaded vehicle weighed 95,080 pounds over the legal limit for a truck tractor and loaded semi-trailer without an overweight permit. The Florida Department of Agriculture inspects Petitioner's scales at roadside truck weighing stations to ensure that they are accurate within .2 percent tolerance. There is no evidence that the scales at issue here were improperly calibrated. Petitioner's Weight and Safety Inspector, John Miles, requested Respondent's driver to present a valid overweight permit. The truck driver presented Inspector Miles with Permit Number QU025021. Inspector Miles then requested the driver to park the vehicle in a straight line. Next, Inspector Miles hooked one end of the measuring tape on a railroad iron and held the other end while measuring the axle spacings. Inspector Miles determined Respondent had been operating its loaded vehicle with the following axle spacings: from 1 to 2 = 15'5" from 2 to 3 = 4'5" from 3 to 4 = 13'3" from 4 to 5 = 4'7" from 5 to 6 = 48'8" from 6 to 7 = 4'7" from 7 to 8 = 4'7" from 8 to 9 = 10'11" from 9 to 10 = 4'6" Permit Number QU025021 authorized Respondent to operate the vehicle and load with the following axle spacings: from 1 to 2 = 16'1" from 2 to 3 = 4'5" from 3 to 4 = 14'8" from 4 to 5 = 4'5" from 5 to 6 = 44'0" from 6 to 7 = 4'5" from 7 to 8 = 4'5" from 8 to 9 = 14'8" from 9 to 10 = 4'5" Inspector Miles issued Respondent Load Citation Report Number 141945M. That citation states that Permit Number QU025021 is void due to incorrect axle spacing on the subject vehicle. The citation assesses Respondent with an administrative fine in the amount of $4,754 or five cents per pound for every pound over 80,000 pounds.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
Findings Of Fact DOT Motor Carrier Compliance Officer Raul Vargas, Jr., stopped a commercial vehicle traveling on Interstate Highway 95 (S.R. 9), for a safety inspection on February 19, 1991. The vehicle was operated by William Henry Golden. Officer Vargas had Mr. Golden drive the truck off the interstate highway so that it could be weighed safely. There was no certified weight station within five miles of where he stopped Mr. Golden's vehicle, so Officer Vargas used portable scales that had last been calibrated January 17, 1991, 32 days preceding this event. The frequency for calibration of these scales is at six-month intervals, so there was great probability that these scales were accurate on February 19, 1991. Officer Vargas weighed the steering, drive, and rear axles of the vehicle, which resulted in a total weight of 85,800 pounds. Either the vehicle registration or the ICC authorization card ("bingo card") was made out to "Brisk Transportation Inc." The I.R.P. registration permitted only a gross vehicle weight of 80,000 pounds. Officer Vargas issued Load Report and Field Receipt No. 44747J to Brisk Transportation Inc., assessing a penalty of $290.00 for 5,800 pounds over the registered gross vehicle weight. Mr. Golden paid the $290 penalty personally and the vehicle was released to him as operator. Upon the testimony of Officer Vargas and Lt. Chuck Snellson, Officer Vargas' supervisor who reviewed the incident, and in consideration of these officers' education, training, and experience, it is found that Officer Vargas followed the proper and standard departmental procedure in weighing the vehicle and levying the $290.00 penalty. Nancy Golden, William Golden's wife, testified that her husband had a contract with Brisk Transportation to transport the product in the vehicle in question on February 19, 1991. She testified further that Mr. Golden was paid based on the product he was carrying at any given time and that there was no relationship between the weight of the product and the pay for transporting it. Nancy Golden was not present at any time when the product was being loaded, unloaded, transported, or weighed. Consequently, her assertion that Mr. Golden's vehicle actually weighed less than the weight registered by Petitioner's portable scale is not credible or persuasive. The several exhibits admitted in evidence in support of Mrs. Golden's assertion are not, in fact, probative of it. 1/ Mrs. Golden's unrefuted testimony that she and Mr. Golden owned the vehicle in question on February 19, 1991 and have since sold it is accepted as credible. There is no dispute between the parties that Mr. Golden, individually, paid the penalty and no suggestion by either party that the penalty was paid by Brisk Transportation Inc., a corporation. Even though Officer Vargas cited Brisk Transportation Inc. on the Load Report and Field Receipt, Mr. Golden (truck owner and operator) actually paid the fine to DOT. This entire administrative proceeding originated upon Mr. Golden's petition, and he is the appropriate party in interest here to whom a refund would be owed if the penalty were unlawful.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that the penalty of $290.00 was correctly assessed Brisk Transportation Inc./William H. Golden under provisions of Section 316.545 F.S. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of October, 1990, 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 28th day of October, 1990.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether American Engineering and Development Corporation committed the violations alleged in Load Report and Field Receipt Number 49975L and, if so, the amount of the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency which has the authority to enforce the statutory weight limit restrictions for vehicles traveling on the highways in the state and to impose penalties for violations of the restrictions. Sections 316.640, .535, and .545, Florida Statutes. On January 31, 1995, Officer Joseph Borras, of the Department's Motor Carrier Compliance Office, observed Jose R. Sanchez operating a commercial motor vehicle on State Road 862, which is also known as Interstate 595, in Broward County, Florida. The vehicle was a tractor/trailer combination carrying a hydraulic excavator, both of which were owned by American Engineering. The air-regulated axle of the vehicle was in the up-right position, causing Officer Borras to stop the vehicle. At Officer Borras's request, Mr. Sanchez produced the Overweight/Overdimension Permit issued to American Engineering for "construction and industrial equipment and prefab. structural item on trucktractor semitrailer;" the permit included a permissible gross weight of 132,000 pounds. This permit, known as a blanket permit, contained conditions which, if violated, would void the permit in its entirety. Permit condition number 7 required maps to be attached to the permit identifying the approved routes for the vehicle to which the permit applied. Permit condition number 8 provided that the permit was void if the required maps were not attached. 1/ There were no maps attached to the permit produced by Mr. Sanchez for the American Engineering vehicle, a violation of permit condition number 7. American Engineering's Overweight/Overdimension Permit was, therefore, void in its entirety. Officer Borras had reason to believe that the vehicle exceeded the statutory weight limit of 80,000 pounds established in section 316.535(4) and (5), Florida Statutes (1993). He escorted the vehicle to a safe area and weighed the tractor/trailer combination, together with the hydraulic excavator which it carried, using portable scales issued to him by the Department. The scales had been inspected on January 9, 1995, by technicians of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and were found to be accurate. Officer Borras weighed the vehicle in accordance with the training he had received from the Department and determined the vehicle's total weight to be 133,400 pounds. Based on this weight, Officer Borras determined that the vehicle weighed 53,400 pounds more than the 80,000-pound weight limit, 2/ and he issued Load Report and Field Receipt Number 49975, assessing a penalty of $.05 cents per pound of excess weight. The resulting penalty, as calculated by Officer, was $2,670.00. At the time, American Engineering did not object to the weight determined by Officer Borras, and it immediately paid the penalty assessed in order to obtain the vehicle's release from the Department's custody. American Engineering does not dispute that it violated the conditions of its special permit and that the entire permit was void, including the provision allowing the vehicle and its load to weigh up to 132,000 pounds. American Engineering disputes the Department's determination that the vehicle weighed 133,400 pounds. Benjamin Bolet, the equipment manager for American Engineering contends that it was impossible for the vehicle and its load to weigh 133,400 pounds. Based on the manufacturer's specifications of the operating weight of the hydraulic excavator and the known weight of the tractor/trailer combination, Mr. Bolet estimates that the vehicle, together with its load, should have weighed 116,560 pounds. Mr. Bolet supported American Engineering's position by introducing a Load Report and Field Receipt dated June 23, 1995, which he claimed involved the same or identical equipment and which showed a weight of 118,000 pounds. There are numerous variables which would affect the gross weight of a tractor/trailer combination and hydraulic excavator, including the type and number of tie-downs used to attach the excavator to the trailer, the amount and type of hardware attached to the excavator, the amount of gasoline in the tractor and in the excavator, and the amount of dirt on the equipment. There is no evidence that the condition of the hydraulic excavator was the same as that of the equipment used to determine the manufacturer's specifications. There is, likewise, no evidence that the condition of the tractor/trailer combination and hydraulic excavator weighed June 23 was the same as that of the equipment which is the subject of this proceeding. And, finally, there is no evidence that the scales used by Officer Borras were inaccurate or that the procedures he used in weighing the vehicle were improper. The evidence is clear and convincing that American Engineering violated the conditions of its Overweight/Overdimension Permit, that the permit was, therefore, void, and that the tractor/trailer combination and the hydraulic excavator it carried had a combined gross weight of 133,400 pounds, exceeding the statutory maximum weight of 80,000 pounds by 53,400 pounds.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order finding that American Engineering and Development Corporation violated section 316.545(3), Florida Statutes (1993), in the amount of 53,400 pounds and that American Engineering is not entitled to a refund of the $2,670.00 penalty assessed against it. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of July 1996. PATRICIA HART MALONO Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July 1996
Findings Of Fact In a letter dated April 13, 1990, the Department informed the Petitioner, Cherokee Rental And Construction Co., Inc., that it was denying the Petitioner's request for refund of the $95.00 fuel tax and civil penalty assessment it had previously paid to the Department. In a letter received by the Department on February 13, 1990, the Petitioner requested an administrative hearing to contest the Department's decision. The address included on the Petitioner's letter was the address used by the Department to notify the Petitioner of its decision to deny its request for a refund. A Notice of Assignment and Order was issued on June 1, 1990, giving the parties an opportunity to provide the undersigned with suggested dates and a suggested place for the formal hearing. The information was to be provided within ten days of the date of the Notice. This Notice was sent by United States mail to the Petitioner at the address listed in its letter requesting a formal hearing. Neither party responded to the Notice. On July 12, 1990, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting the formal hearing for 11:00 a.m., September 11, 1990. The location of the hearing was listed in the Notice. The Notice of Hearing was sent by United States mail to the Petitioner at the address listed in his letter requesting a formal hearing. The Petitioner did not appear at the place set for the formal hearing at the date and time specified on the Notice of Hearing. The Department was present at the hearing. The Petitioner did not request a continuance of the formal hearing or notify the undersigned that he would not be able to appear at the formal hearing. After waiting fifteen minutes for the Petitioner to appear, the hearing was commenced. At the commencement of the formal hearing the Department was informed that it could proceed with the formal hearing or, since Petitioner had the burden of proof in this case, move for dismissal of the case. The Department elected to make an ore tenus motion for dismissal. The Department was informed that a Recommended Order would be issued recommending dismissal of this case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's request for hearing in this case for failure to appear at the final hearing. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Read Cherokee Rental & Construction Co., Inc. Post Office Box 850606 Mobile, Alabama 36685 Vernon L. Whittier, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Hayes & Hayes Trucking triple axle dump truck being driven by Norman Williams on June 20, 1990, on U.S. 92 between 56th Street and Orient Road in Tampa, Florida, was being operated with its air axle up, resulting in its being over the maximum weight for its tandem rear axles, as well as for its steering axle, under Section 316.535, Florida Statutes (1989).
Findings Of Fact On June 20, 1990, Norman Williams was operating a dump truck owned by Hayes & Hayes Trucking on 56th Street in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. The truck was equipped with a steering axle, tandem rear axles and a middle "mini-axle" that can be lowered to carry heavy loads. When required to carry heavy loads, the "mini-axle" can be raised only during turning but must be lowered upon completion of the turn. When Williams got to U.S. 92, he raised the "mini-axle" and made a right turn onto U.S. 92, headed east. He did not lower the "mini-axle" after the turn. While headed west on U.S. 92, about a hundred yards east of 56th Street, Rebecca Stalnaker, a DOT Motor Carrier Compliance Officer, observed the dump truck Williams was driving traveling east on U.S. 92 with its air axle up. She made a U-turn to check the load. After making her U-turn, Stalnaker followed the truck, which was traveling in the left lane of the eastbound traffic on U.S. 92, for approximately a mile. Three or four times, Stalnaker changed to the right lane to verify that the truck's air axle still was up. After following for about a mile, Stalnaker put on her blue light to get the driver of the truck to pull over and stop. For the first time, Williams saw Stalnaker in his side view mirror and, as he began to pull into the right lane, put his truck's air axle down. Williams pulled the truck off the right side of the road. When Stalnaker confronted Williams and accused him of driving with the air axle up, Williams replied that he thought it was permissible to drive with the air axle up in town when driving in traffic in streets having traffic signalization. Stalnaker required Williams to put the air axle back up and drive his truck to a weigh station. The scale showed that the front, steering axle of the truck was supporting 19,980 pounds and the rear, tandem axles of the truck were supporting 47,400 pounds. After weighing the truck, Stalnaker issued a citation and $181.50 fine to Hayes & Hayes Trucking. The company paid the fine and required Williams to reimburse the company. The company never challenged the fine, and there is no evidence in the record that the company authorized Williams to challenge it on the company's behalf. Williams requested that the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board drop the fine. The Review Board and the Department acquiesced in Williams' standing, but the Review Board declined to drop the fine.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a final order upholding the $181.50 fine it assessed against Hayes & Hayes Trucking in this case. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 2nd day of October, 1991.
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 only factual issue in this case is whether the Superior Paving triple axle dump truck being driven by Norman Jones on February 13, 1990, on U.S. 41 in the vicinity of the Gardinier plant near Gibsonton, south of Tampa, Florida, was being operated with its air axle up, resulting in its being over the maximum weight for its remaining tandem rear axle under Section 316.535, Florida Statutes (1989). However, this straightforward factual case also raises several legal and procedural questions, including: (1) whether the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction; (2) which agency is authorized to take final agency action in the case; (3) who are the actual parties in interest; (4) whether the parties have standing; and (5) which party bears the burden of proof.
Findings Of Fact On February 13, 1990, while traveling south on U.S. 41 in the vicinity of the Gardinier plant near Gibsonton, south of Tampa, Florida, Patty Fagan, a DOT Motor Carrier Compliance Officer, observed a Superior Paving, Inc., dump truck traveling north on U.S. 41 with a full load of rock. She decided to check the load and, as she began to slow, she saw a second Superior Paving dump truck, also heading north with a full load of rock. She testified that the second truck was riding with its air axle up, leaving only two tandem rear axles, along with the steering axle, to bear the weight of the load. Fagan continued a short distance to the south on U.S. 41 until she was able to turn around and pursue the trucks to the north. She passed the second truck between one and two miles from where she turned around and testified that the second truck still was traveling with its air axle up. Fagan pulled up behind the first truck where it had stopped in the left turn lane at the entrance of the Gardinier plant. She got out to check the first truck. Meanwhile, the second truck, driven by Norman B. Jones, pulled up behind Fagan's vehicle. According to Fagan, Jones' truck still had the air axle up. According to Jones, the air axle was down at all times that he was within sight of Fagan until he pulled into the left turn lane behind Fagan's car and, while she was talking to the driver of the first truck, raised the air axle in preparation for the left turn. It would be difficult for anyone, much less an experienced compliance officer like Fagan, to mistakenly think she saw Jones' truck riding with the air axle up. It is obvious and easy to see whether the air axle is up or down. Likewise, it was easy for Jones to determine whether the air axle was up or down. There is a switch and an air pressure gauge immediately to the right of the driver seat which registers 40 pounds of pressure when the air axle is down and zero when it is up. The factual issue resolves to a question of the relative credibility of Fagan and Jones. Fagan wrote in her report of the incident that Jones first admitted that he had been driving with his air axle up because it was malfunctioning. The report states that Jones told her the problem was noticed when he picked up his first load in Brooksville and that he planned to have the problem fixed after his third load. She wrote that she told him he should have had it fixed before he left the yard with the first load. In fact, Jones only carried two loads that day, as usual, and never planned to carry three loads. He picked up both loads in Center Hill, Florida, about 60 miles northeast of Brooksville, and drove to Gardinier via I-75, also to the east of Brooksville, never going anywhere near Brooksville. Jones denied having made the statements the report attributes to him and stated that he had no reason to mention Brooksville or an alleged third load in the course of his conversation with Fagan. Fagan also wrote in her report that Jones changed his story later in the conversation and claimed that the air axle worked but was slow. Fagan said her response was that the air axle should have been down by the time she passed him for the second time, after she had turned around to head north on U.S. 41. Jones also denied that he ever said the air axle was slow. He testified that the air pressure system was worked on just two weeks before the incident and that it was in perfect operating condition. Neither party adduced any documentary evidence or testimony of third persons to establish whether air pressure system repairs were done on the truck or, if so, when they were done or what the problem was. Jones testified that his last load out Brooksville was "about six months ago." It is not clear whether he meant six months before the incident or six months before the hearing, which would have put it about the time of the incident, and also about the time work was done on the air pressure system. The evidence suggests the possibility that an air pressure problem arose while Jones was carrying a load out of Brooksville and that he had mentioned this to Fagan. In response to questioning by counsel for the DOT, Jones first stated that it is common to have problems with the air axle and that he has had trouble with the air axle on the same truck he was driving on February 13, 1990. In his next breath, he stated that he has had no trouble with the air axle on the truck but said he did have the governor on the air pressure system replaced "about a year and a half ago." (Again, his testimony was not clear whether he meant a year and a half before the incident or before the hearing.) He also again admitted that about two weeks before the incident, the air pressure lines and valves were replaced, and the air axle line was reattached to the new valve. According to Fagan, after checking the first truck, she went back to Jones' truck, asked Jones for his load ticket and, while he was looking for it in the cab, did a routine check by feeling the tires on the air axle and on the front tandem axle on the driver side. She testified that the tire on the air axle was cooler. Jones denies that Fagan ever touched or even got close to the tandem axle. Jones testified that he standing on the step to the cab when Fagan walked up and asked to see the his load ticket and that he just reached in, grabbed it off the dashboard and handed it to her. He testified that he then stepped to the ground and stood between Fagan and the rear axles and that she never walked past him. Later in testimony, Fagan testified that she might have asked Jones for the vehicle registration so that she could check the registered gross weight of the vehicle, and that Jones was looking for it in the cab while she was touching the vehicle tires. But Jones countered that Fagan did not ask for the vehicle registration until later, when they were at the weigh station to which Fagan had Jones drive. Jones testified that the air axle was down all the way from Center Hill except for just two times on each load when he raised it for purposes of negotiating tight turns, as permitted by the DOT's nonrule policy designed to reduce road and truck wear and tear: once when he turned onto U.S. 41; and a second time after he entered the left turn lane at the entrance of the Gardinier plant and stopped behind Fagan's car, while Fagan was talking to the driver of the first truck. However, Jones' description of his route from Center Hill to Gardinier included several other turns that would seem to have been just as tight as the two he says were the only times he raised his air axle. As Jones pointed out, if the rest of his testimony is true, even if the air axle was up the entire time from when he turned onto U.S 41 until he was stopped at the entrance to the Gardinier plant, the air axle tires still would have been hot to the touch. Conversely, if Fagan's testimony that the air axle tire was cool to the touch is true, then the air axle probably was up for most, if not all, of the trip from Center Hill. No statement was taken, or testimony elicited, from the driver of the other company truck to shed light on this factual dispute. Despite the difficulties presented by the evidence in this case, it is found that the DOT has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Jones was operating the company truck he was driving on February 13, 1990, with the air axle up at least for a mile or two along U.S. 41. After their conversation in the left turn lane at the Gardinier plant entrance, Fagan required Jones to drive to a weigh station. (It angered Jones that this weigh station was five miles out of Jones' way. Jones did not understand why the truck could not have been weighed at the Gardinier plant.) The scale showed that 52,540 pounds of weight was being supported by the rear tandem axles of the truck. After weighing the truck, Fagan issued a citation and $387 fine to Superior Paving, Inc. The company paid the fine and deducted it from Jones' salary. The company never challenged the fine, and there is no evidence in the record that the company authorized Jones to challenge it on the company's behalf. Jones reqested that the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board drop or the fine reduce, which it declined to do.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board enter a final order upholding the $387 fine it assessed against Superior Paving, Inc., in this case. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 24th day of September, 1990.
The Issue Should Respondent be required to pay Petitioner Twenty-Five Hundred dollars ($2,500.00), as a civil penalty for causing or permitting an out-of-service driver to operate a commercial motor vehicle (vehicle)?
Findings Of Fact Bryant Gay is a Motor Vehicle Compliance Officer who works for Petitioner. He was on duty on March 6, 1998. On that date, consistent with his employment, he stopped a commercial motor vehicle owned by Respondent and operated by Danny Holton. The stop was made in Gadsden County, Florida, on U.S. 90. The time of the stop was approximately 5:00 p.m. The basis for this stop was the suspicion that there was a violation of the weight axle law, premised upon Officer Gay's observation of the truck tires and springs. Once the stop was made the truck was weighed and was found to be of legal weight. But a check of Mr. Holton's driver's license revealed that the license did not carry the proper endorsements to operate a tank vehicle (such as Respondent's) of a capacity of more than one thousand gallons. As a consequence, Mr. Holton was cited for operating the vehicle without the proper driver's license and was fined one- hundred dollars ($100.00), pursuant to citation. Officer Gay also advised Mr. Holton that Mr. Holton was being placed out-of-service. After placing Mr. Holton out-of-service, Dan Strauss, the son of Fred Strauss, who is the owner and president of Respondent, was contacted. At that time Dan Strauss was serving as the acting representative of the Respondent in Fred Strauss' absence. Dan Strauss came to the scene of the stop and paid the $100.00 civil penalty for Mr. Holton's violation of the driver's license requirement that had been cited. Dan Strauss also brought a second driver to drive the subject vehicle back to Respondent's business premises. The second driver was allowed to return the subject vehicle based upon Officer Gay's belief that the second driver had the necessary license endorsements to operate the vehicle. Nothing in the conversation held between Officer Gay and Dan Strauss, at the point in time when the $100.00 civil penalty was paid, and the truck placed in the custody of the second driver, could reasonably be interpreted by Dan Strauss to allow Mr. Holton to continue to operate the subject vehicle before obtaining appropriate license endorsements. Nor did the conversation create a reason to believe that such an operation by Mr. Holton, if discovered by Petitioner's officer, would again be met with a further citation not to exceed $100.00. Nonetheless, Dan Strauss made the business judgment, that a customer, who was in immediate need of assistance to deal with a failed septic system, should not be ignored, even in the circumstance where Mr. Holton would be called upon to drive the subject vehicle to provide the service. Thus, Dan Strauss, having been told by Officer Gay that Mr. Holton was out-of-service to operate the subject vehicle, dispatched Mr. Holton to provide the service to the customer. At around 6:30 p.m., on March 6, 1998, Officer Gay saw Mr. Holton pulling the subject vehicle onto U.S. 27, in Gadsden County, Florida, and stopped the vehicle again. On this occasion, Officer Gay imposed a further citation in the amount of a civil penalty of twenty-five hundred dollars ($2,500.00), against Respondent, for permitting Mr. Holton to operate the subject vehicle when Mr. Holton had been declared out-of-service. When contacted about the additional citation, Dan Strauss told Officer Gay that he understood that Mr. Holton had been placed out-of-service as a driver of the subject vehicle; however, Dan Strauss told Officer Gay, that he, Dan Strauss, had assumed that if Mr. Holton was caught operating the vehicle it would only lead to another $100.00 civil penalty. No facts presented at hearing mitigate the twenty-five hundred dollar ($2,500.00) civil penalty for allowing an out-of- service driver to operate Respondent's vehicle.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which imposes a twenty-five hundred dollar ($2,500.00) civil penalty against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kelly A. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Fred Strauss Talquin Septic Tank Post Office Box 559 Midway, Florida 32343 Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact On or about September 11, 1989, a commercial, dump truck owned by Petitioner, Alamazan Brothers Trucking, Inc., was travelling on State Road 807. Mr. Michael Roberts, Safety and Hazardous Materials Officer for Respondent, Department of Transportation, noticed that the truck did not have the required identification on the door and stopped the truck for further investigation. After the truck stopped, Mr. Roberts noted that the truck possessed an expired temporary license tag, and the driver did not have a valid registration for the truck. Mr. Roberts, then, weighed the truck with his portable scale and calculated a gross weight of 65,900 pounds. Mr. Roberts gave the driver the opportunity to contact the owner of the truck about the registration and, in accordance with policy of the Department, allowed the owner over one hour to produce a valid registration. A representative of the owner appeared and showed Mr. Roberts a duplicate registration certificate purchased the same day as the incident which indicated that the authorized gross weight for the truck was 24,680 pounds. Mr. Roberts made the determination that the registration was not valid at the time of the stop and imposed a fine for overweight of $1,545. The fine was calculated for the amount of the gross weight in excess of 35,000 pounds times five cents per pound. Existent law establishes that, for the purposes of calculation of a penalty such as the one at issue, the authorized gross weight for an unregistered vehicle is 35,000 pounds. An additional $50 was imposed as the fine for not having the required identification on the door of the truck. The total penalty of $1,595 was paid under protest. However, Petitioner did, in fact, have a valid registration on the day of the stbp. Through administrative delay, the registration certificate had not been mailed to Petitioner. On or around September 7, 1989, Petitioner purchased the truck and a temporary tag was issued to Petitioner by the dealer from which he purchased the truck. At that time, an application for registration was made to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. The application was for a registration authorizing a gross weight of 64,000 pounds. Petitioner had not received the permanent tag or registration by the date the stop occurred. After Petitioner was alerted at the stop, Petitioner obtained a duplicate registration within the time allotted to him by Respondent. This duplicate, the one shown to Mr. Roberts on the day of the stop, indicated an authorized gross weight of 24,680 pounds, an obvious typographical error. The gross weight did not match the gross weight applied for, instead, it duplicated the amount of the empty weight into the gross weight category. On September 13, 1989, Petitioner returned the form to the issuer and requested a corrected duplicate registration. The second duplicate also was in error. This time the form indicated the correct gross weight of 64,000 pounds, but, also, repeated that gross weight amount in the empty weight category. At the hearing, Petitioner also presented the application for registration which indicated it had applied for and was taxed for a gross weight of 64,000 pounds. It was only due to administrative delay that the correct registration was not presented at the time of the stop. However, no competent evidence was received which indicated that the truck did possess the required identification on the door, and Mr. Robert's testimony about the lack of such identification is deemed credible. Although the correct gross weight for which Petitioner is licensed is 64,000, his load at the time of the stop was 65,900 or 1,900 in excess of his 64,000 pound authorized amount. At five cents a pound his penalty for overweight should be $95.00 and not $1,545.00. The $95.00 plus the $50.00 for the failure to display the required identification yields a corrected fee of $145.00 and a refund due to Petitioner of $1,400.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation issue a Final Order correcting the fine imposed on Petitioner, establishing the appropriate fine at $145.00 and refunding $1,400 to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of June, 1990. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 June, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-2088 The following represents the rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The rulings are by paragraph within the proposed findings of fact and indicate the paragraph in the findings of fact portion of the attached recommended order which addresses the proposed finding of fact, if deemed appropriate. RESPONDENT Adopted in relevant part in paragraphs 1,2 and 3. Adopted in relevant part in paragraphs 4,5 and 9. Adopted in relevant part in paragraphs 6,7,8 and 10. COPIES FURNISHED: Dewey H. Varner, Esquire Varner, Cole & Seaman 2601 Tenth Avenue, North, Suite 410 Lake Worth, Florida 33461 Vernon T. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Attn: Eleanor F. Turner Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Robert Scanlan Interim General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Did the Department of Transportation (Department) improperly deny a refund to Petitioner of a penalty assessed pursuant to Chapter 316, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of enforcing the provisions of Chapter 316, Florida Statutes. On June 7, 1999, the Department's Inspector Clemente Igracio stopped Petitioner's truck for an inspection. After inspecting Petitioner's truck, Inspector Igracio issued a Safety Report Citation numbered 0862152 wherein Petitioner was cited for the alleged violations of Sections 316.515(1) and (3) and 316.550, Florida Statutes. The total fine imposed was $1,600.00 which included a fine of $1,250.00 for the alleged violation of Section 316.515(3), Florida Statutes. However, since the maximum fine imposed for a Section 316.515(3), Florida Statutes, violation is $1,000.00, the total fine imposed was $1,350.00, which Petitioner paid. Subsequently, due to mitigating circumstances, the Department refunded Petitioner the $100.00 that it had paid for the alleged violation of Section 316.550, Florida Statutes. Petitioner does not protest the Section 316.515(1), Florida Statutes violation nor does it protest the Section 316.550, Florida Statutes violation. Petitioner stipulated that the combined length of the truck and trailer was 65 feet, 9 inches. Petitioner also stipulated that the length of the trailer was 42 feet, 10 inches. Inspector Igracio categorized the truck as a "straight- truck" because it had two axles and load-carrying capacity on the power unit. The vehicle in question is a two-axle vehicle with the cargo unit and motive power unit located on the same frame so as to form a single, rigid unit. The subject vehicle and trailer combination was 65 feet, 9 inches in overall length. The subject trailer was 42 feet, 10 inches in length. Petitioner did not have a permit to be over the legal length.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order denying the refund sought by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter Byra West Coast Towing 124 South Berkley Road Auburndale, Florida 32823 Kelly A. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 James C. Myers, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
