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
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order pursuant to submission of an Order Closing File by Lawrence P. Stevenson, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings,. The record reflects that the parties have settled their dispute and entered into a Settlement Stipulation. Having reviewed the stipulation and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. On or about May 6, 2011, Respondent paid a civil fine of $500.00 by certified cashier’s check. 2. The Settlement Stipulation of Petitioner and Respondent is adopted and incorporated into this Final Order of the Department in accordance with its terms. Respondent shall comply with all terms and conditions herein. Filed May 24, 2011 2:46 PM Division of Administrative Hearings DONE AND ORDERED this at day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Copies furnished: Carl Broglin Post Office Box 3683 Ocala, Florida 34478 Lawrence P. Stevenson Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dwight Davis, Bureau Chief Division of Motor Vehicles Wayne Jordan, Program Manager License Installer Program Ubld . Lambert, Interim Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motor Vehicles this aeeaay of May, 2011. Nalini Vinayak, Dealer weconse Administrator
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 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 30, 1996, Officer Daniel Starling of the Department's Motor Carrier Compliance office, observed Reinaldo Gutierrez operating a commercial motor vehicle on State Road 80 in Palm Beach County, Florida. The vehicle appeared to Officer Starling to be overweight, and he stopped the vehicle and weighed it on the portable scales issued to him by the Department. These scales are inspected and certified as accurate twice a year by the Florida Department of Agriculture. Officer Starling weighed the vehicle in accordance with the training he had received from the Department. He determined that the vehicle's total weight was 81,500 pounds. Mr. Gutierrez's vehicle was a tractor/trailer combination carrying a load of sand; its length was 40 feet between its first and last axles. The maximum weight allowable by statute for this vehicle is 73,271 pounds. Officer Starling calculated that Mr. Gutierrez's vehicle weighed 8,226 pounds more than the 73,271-pound statutory limit, and he issued Load Report Citation number 119441L, assessing a penalty of $.05 cents per pound of excess weight. The resulting penalty, as calculated by Officer Starling, was $411.45, and Mr. Gutierrez paid this penalty in cash on January 30, 1996. Mr. Gutierrez does not dispute that his vehicle was overweight on January 30, 1996, but he contends that his vehicle was only 3,009 pounds overweight. He bases this contention on the load ticket he received on January 30, 1996, when he left the premises of GKK Corporation, the company for which he was hauling on that day. Although this load ticket showed a total weight of 76,280 pounds, Mr. Gutierrez did not produce evidence that the weight stated on the ticket was reliable. Furthermore, Mr. Gutierrez did not produce evidence that the scales used by Officer Starling were inaccurate or that the procedures he used in weighing the vehicle were improper. The evidence is clear and convincing that, on January 30, 1996, Mr. Gutierrez was operating a commercial vehicle on Florida's public highways whose weight exceeded the statutory weight limit of 73,271 pounds by 8,226 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 Reinaldo Gutierrez violated section 316.545(3), Florida Statutes, in the amount of 8,229 pounds and that Reinaldo Gutierrez is not entitled to a refund of the $411.45 penalty assessed against him. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Murray M. Wadsworth, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Reinaldo Gutierrez 1360 South Main Street Belle Glade, Florida 33430 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
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
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Transportation was the state agency responsible foe enforcing the statutes involving commercial carrier and truck vehicle weight on covered vehicles operated on the streets and highways of this state. It does so through its Office of Motor Carrier Compliance staffed with uniformed certified law enforcement officers who have the authority to conduct random safety and compliance inspections of commercial vehicles being operated in this state. On January 6, 1992, Officer Borras stopped the Respondent's 1981 White truck, which was proceeding northbound on Haverhill Road in West Palm Beach, for a routine weight and safety check. Using a set of portable scales which are calibrated by the Florida Department of Agriculture's Division of Weights and Measures every 6 months, and following the Department's routine procedure of weighing at each axle and combining the two figures, Borras determined the Gross Vehicle Weight/load of the truck was 27,800 pounds. The maximum legal weight of the vehicle in issue, including the 10% tolerance, was 25,999 pounds. Therefore, according to the Department's scales, Respondent's vehicle was overweight by 1,801 pounds. Applying the statutory penalty of 5 per pound of overweight, resulted in Respondent being assessed a total penalty of $90.05 for this alleged violation. Since the Respondent's driver was driving with an expired driver's license, Mr. Rice was called to the scene to remove the vehicle. Mrs. Rice, as Secretary of the corporation, was required to produce the $90.05 in cash even though Department procedures provide for payment of a penalty by company or certified check. The Department's scales are supposed to be calibrated for accuracy every 6 months. The scales used by Officer Borras had last been calibrated on July 16, 1991, almost 6 months previously, and were due for re-calibration in January, 1992. In the experience of Lt. Thomas Carnicella, also of the Department's Office of Motor Carrier Compliance, the portable scales are considered to be possibly off to some degree. For that reason, the 10% tolerance is added to the authorized vehicle weight. Immediately after the citation was issued and the penalty paid, the vehicle was released to Mr. Rice who drove it, loaded with roofing waste, to the Palm Beach County dump where it was again weighted, both with full load and then empty after dumping, to determine the amount of dumping fee to be assessed. According to the County's in-ground permanent scales, which reportedly had been calibrated 3 days previously, Respondent's loaded vehicle was weighed at 24,280 pounds, or 1,719 pounds under the legal weight of 25, 999 pounds. On a prior occasion, Respondent's vehicle was also cited by the Department for being overweight, as here, and a penalty assessed. At that time, the dump scales and the Department's portable scales read almost the same. For that reason, Respondent did not protest the action and assessment. In this case, however, the discrepancy was considerable and because of that fact and the fact the citation indicated, incorrectly, that the truck was green, the protest was filed. Officer Borras explained the color discrepancy as having been the result of his confusion due to several vehicles being stopped at once, one of which was green. There is no doubt in his mind, however, that the Respondent's vehicle was the one cited for overweight and it is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case setting aside the civil penalty in the amount of $90.05 assessed against A. Rice Roofing, Inc., and directing reimbursement in that amount. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1992, 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 COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1992. Vernon L. Whittier, Jr. Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 John T. Rice A. Rice Roofing, Inc. 2458 Oklahoma Street Tallahassee, Florida 33406 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Should Petitioner impose a fine on Respondent in the amount of $1,902.00 for operating an over-weight motor vehicle on a bridge with weight limitations?
Findings Of Fact On January 6, 1995, a truck owned by Martin Leasing was operating on State Road 520 in Orange and Brevard Counties, Florida. The driver was William Edward Bednar. The truck was approximately 70 feet long, with five axles. On that date, Officer Charles Hunter of the Motor Carrier Compliance Division of the Department of Transportation observed Mr. Bednar cross a low weight limit bridge leaving Orange County and entering Brevard County, Florida. The weight limit for the bridge was 30,000 pounds. Officer Hunter stopped the Martin Leasing vehicle and had it weighed on nearby scales that were certified. The truck weighed 68,040 pounds. For that reason, Petitioner cited Respondent, pursuant to Section 316.545(3), Florida Statutes. As a consequence, a monetary assessment was levied against Respondent in the amount of $1,902.00, which represents a penalty related to the 38,040 pounds overweight times $.05 per pound. Volume 3: Bridge Load Rating, Permitting and Posting Manual, Florida Department of Transportation, states, in pertinent part: Weight limits to be shown on the posting signs at a bridge site, shall represent the gross vehicular weight (GVW) in tons for a maximum of three truck types. However, no more than one or two truck symbols may be needed. A graphic depiction of the general weight limit sign is shown on the Roadway and Traffic Design Standard Index No. 17357. The three truck types are as follows: Single unit trucks. (SU) Combination trucks with a single trailer. (C) Combination trucks with two trailers or a single unit truck with one trailer. (ST5) The single unit truck case will be the lowest operating rating for two axle (SU2), three axle (SU3) and four axle (SU4) trucks. This single unit truck will be represented on the weight limit sign by a two axle single unit truck silhouette. The operating rating GVW may exceed the legal limit GVW of one or more truck types. In this case, these specific truck types would be excluded when establishing the lowest permissible operating rating. For example if the operating rating for the SU2 truck was 16,300 kg (18 tons) then the SU2 truck would not be considered for posting since the legal limit for the SU2 truck is 15,400 kg (15 tons). The combination truck with one trailer will be the lowest permissible operating rating for three axle (C3), four axle (C4) and five axle (C5) trucks. This combination truck will be represented on the weight limit sign by a three axle combination truck silhouette (one trailer). The operating rating GVW may exceed the legal limit GVW of one or more truck types. In this case, these specific truck types would be excluded when establishing the lowest per- missible operating rating. For example if the operating rating for the C3 truck was 26,300 kg (29 tons), then the C3 truck would not be considered for posting since the legal limit for the C3 truck is 25,400 kg (28 tons). The combination truck with two trailers or a straight truck with one trailer will be governed by the operating rating for the single unit truck with one trailer (ST5). This combination truck will be represented on the weight limit sign by a silhouette of a two axle single unit truck pulling a two axle trailer. Based upon the above-referenced manual, a combination truck with one trailer, such as the Martin Leasing truck, would be depicted on the posting signs for weight limits by a silhouette on the sign that shows a three axle combination truck with one trailer, whether the truck operating on the road has three axles, four axles, or five axles. Rule 14-15.010, Florida Administrative Code, adopts the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, published by the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1988 Edition. That manual prescribes the size and character of the weight limit signs posted by Petitioner. Included on the sign are the three silhouettes that are referred to in the Petitioner's Manual for Bridge Load Rating, Permitting and Posting. In particular, the federal sign depicts a silhouette for the combination truck with one trailer, which silhouette has three axles. In addition, Petitioner publishes a booklet through its Motor Carrier Compliance Office. That booklet is entitled: Florida Department of Transportation Trucking Manual. It is a handbook or guide for operating trucks in Florida. It refers to the low-limit roads and bridges in Florida and to the portrayal of those bridges on low-limit signs that have been described in the prior manuals. The trucking manual states: Low Limit Roads and Bridges Due to age, condition, or design, some roads and bridges in Florida cannot carry the load limits allowed in this manual. Signs detailing these lower limits have been posted on such roads and bridges. . . . The maximum allowable weight is listed, in tons, beside the silhouette for each of the 3 classes of vehicles. The SINGLE-UNIT TRUCK silhouette includes all straight trucks, cranes and other single- unit special mobile equipment regardless of the number of axles. The TRUCK TRACTOR SEMI-TRAILER silhouette includes all truck tractor combinations regard- less of the number of axles. The SINGLE-UNIT TRUCK WITH ONE TRAILER in- cludes all MAXI-CUBE and TANDEM TRAILER combin- ations regardless of the number of axles. Please watch carefully for all load limit signs and obey them. The trucking manual gives an example of a weight limit sign with the truck silhouettes, to include the combination truck with one trailer, described in the trucking manual as a truck tractor semi-trailer. Under that description the Martin Leasing truck would be a tractor semi-trailer. Again, the trucking manual refers to the silhouette for a combination truck with one trailer to regulate any truck tractor combination in that configuration, regardless of the number of axles. Notwithstanding Petitioner's intention to depict a combination truck and single trailer with three axles on its signs, to inform truckers operating that configuration, whatever numbers of axles are found on the operating truck, Respondent takes the view that the failure to depict a five-axle truck and single trailer combination means that Respondent need not comply with the posted weight limits. That is an unreasonable interpretation. Respondent, through its driver, erroneously takes the view that the weight limits for the bridge in question depicted by signs with silhouettes showing single-unit trucks limited to 22,000 pounds; combination trucks with a single trailer limited to 30,000 pounds; and combination trucks with two trailers or a straight truck with one trailer limited to 36,000 pounds would not place Respondent on notice that its 68,040-pound truck, which was a combination with one trailer, should not have crossed the bridge, whatever the number of axles. Adequate warning was provided to Mr. Bednar concerning the approach to the low weight limit bridge. A weight limit sign, including the aforementioned information, was located nine miles prior to the bridge. The nine-mile sign was located immediately before the junction of State Road 520 and State Road 528. Mr. Bednar could have exited on State Road 528. A weight limit sign indicating "weight limit restriction ahead" was located closer to the bridge. A weight limit sign depicting the information and describing the opportunity for last road exit from State Road 520, before entering the bridge, was provided. The last exit sign referred to the junction between State Road 520 and County Road 532. Mr. Bednar could have existed County Road 532. Another weight limit sign was found within two miles of the bridge. The bridge itself was posted with the weight limits that have been described.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which imposes a $1,902.00 assessment against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 95-3897 The following discussion is given concerning Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Paragraphs 1-11 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 12 and 13 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. COPIES FURNISHED: Murray M. Wadsworth, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Tommy Martin Post Office Box 624 Yulee, FL 32097 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Parker Construction d/b/a Robert's Components, was operating a commercial vehicle, traveling north on Interstate Highway 75, on March 27, 1991. The truck stopped at the Department's weight scales located in the area of White Springs, Florida. The Department's Inspector checked the vehicle registration handed to him by the driver. The tag registration was for a valid Georgia tag in the PF category. The PF category allows for a maximum gross vehicle weight of 30,000 pounds. The total weight of Respondent's truck on March 27, 1991, was 72,180 pounds. The total weight exceeded its registered weight by 42,180 pounds. Respondent was assessed a statutory penalty of five cents a pound for all weight over the commercial vehicle's registered gross vehicle weight of 30,000 pounds. At five cents a pound, the penalty assessed was $2,109.00. Robert Parker, president and owner of Parker Construction verified that the truck was registered in the PF category. Respondent was in the process of obtaining an IRP tag which would have allowed him to operate the truck at the weight it was carrying. Mr. Parker had no intent to purposely operate an overloaded truck and this was the first violation he had ever incurred since buying the truck. When Mr. Parker contacted a weight inspector with DOT, he was advised that if he wrote a letter to the Review Board advising them of the above facts, the fine would probably be reduced. Mr. Parker was also told that the decision rested with the Review Board. Mr. Parker followed the officer's advise. However, his fine was not reduced.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that the penalty of $2,109.00 was correctly assessed against Respondent, pursuant to Section 316.545, Florida Statutes, and that Respondent's request for a refund be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 March, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Robert Parker Robert's Components P. O. Box 2523 La Grange, Georgia 30241 Ben G. Watts, Secretary ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
