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 Respondent operated a truck on May 14, 1991, which had a legal weight of 80,000 pounds. The truck was weighed on May 14, 1991, at the White Springs Scales on I-75. At the time it was weighed, the truck weight registered 87,600 pounds. The actual weight of the truck exceeded the legal weight by 7,600 pounds. The operator of the truck requested a second weighing. A second weighing was performed with the same result as the first weighing. Petitioner imposed a penalty of $380 which was paid by Respondent. The amount of the penalty was accurately calculated in accordance with applicable law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order upholding the fine imposed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of January, 1992. DANIEL MANRY 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 23rd day of January, 1992.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the $490 fine assessed by the Respondent against the Petitioner was unwarranted or incorrect.
Findings Of Fact On May 1, 1989, Wando Trucking, Inc. ("Wando") obtained a trip permit from the Florida Department of Transportation ("DOT") authorizing the transportation of an overweight load. Wando proposed to transport one sealed containerized cargo unit. The permit was valid for one trip from Jacksonville, Florida to the Georgia border and expired on May 5, 1989. The permit contained several special requirements, including the typing, on the cargo packer's bill of lading, of the identification number stamped on the container seal. The DOT considers a permit to be void if permit requirements are not met. Packers of containerized cargo affix numbered seals to the containers. The seals are constructed so as to prevent the opening of a container without destruction of the seal. The DOT's requirement that the seal number be typed is to lessen the opportunity for a carrier to alter the cargo or substitute contraband for a sealed and permitted load. On May 1, 1989, the Wando truck stopped at the DOT weigh station on I- 95 in Yulee, Florida. Upon weighing the vehicle, the DOT employee found the truck, at 89,800 pounds, to be over the legal statutory weight of 80,000 pounds. The DOT employee examined the excess weight permit offered by the Wando driver and found that the container seal number was handwritten, across the bill of lading, rather than typed as the permit requirements stated. The DOT employee completed the appropriate documentation and assessed a fine of $490. The fine was calculated at five cents per pound for the 9,800 pound overage. Wando paid the fine. The evidence does not establish that the assessed fine was inappropriate. The assertion by Wando Trucking, Inc., that there was no intent to violate the permit provisions is irrelevant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order dismissing the petition of Wando Trucking, Inc. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 13th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX The Petitioner did not file a Proposed recommended order. The following constitute rulings on Proposed findings of facts Submitted by the Respondent. Respondent The Respondents Proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3 are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben G. Watts, Secretary Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Paul F. Tecklenburg, Esq. Post Office Box 1430 Charleston, South Carolina 29401 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esq. Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 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 owns and operates a tractor-trailer combination that it uses for hauling a large crane. As configured at the time in question, the gross vehicle weight was 127,780 pounds, which is distributed over one steering axle, a four-axle combination at the rear of the trailer, and a three- axle combination between the other axles. The four-axle combination bore 60,280 pounds. The outerbridge of the vehicle, which is the distance from the front axle to the rear axle, was over 70 feet. Respondent, which is a small company located in Tennessee, transports its crane throughout the southeastern portion of the United States. Respondent employs a company known as Comchek to secure the necessary permits for the trips. In this case, Comchek obtained for Respondent a Trip Permit dated April 12, 1989. The permit states that the trip is from the Georgia line to the Alabama line on Interstates 95, 295, and 10. The permit notes that the vehicle is 75 feet long, has eight axles, and weighs 135,000 pounds. One of the special requirements on the permit states: "If overweight, a max (3)000 axles allowed per grouping with a minimum of 10 feet to next adjacent axle, center to center." The "000" represents a graphic depiction of three axles. Respondent's vehicle did not meet the axle-grouping requirement. Less than 10 feet separated the four axles in the rear from each other. Thus, the vehicle, if overweight, violated this condition of the permit. The permit contains only two references to weight. One notes the gross weight. The other is in a special condition and requires that overweight vehicles obtain an 80,000 pound license tag. Although the Trip Permit does not clearly disclose on its face that any weight over 80,000 pounds is overweight, Respondent's representatives were on notice that their long and heavy vehicle exceeded the normal weight restrictions so as to be classified as "overweight." The permit's reference to 135,000 pounds cannot be construed to set the standard over which a vehicle would be overweight. Otherwise, the permittee could use the permit to transport a 300,000 pound load on an eight-axle vehicle as long as the vehicle had no axle groupings of more than three. The failure to obtain the proper permit was the fault of Respondent or its agent, Comchek. Either Respondent did not communicate the axle groupings to Comchek or Comchek did not communicate them to Petitioner. In either event, through no fault of Petitioner, the Trip Permit obtained by Respondent was violated the moment the vehicle crossed the Florida line. Inspecting the vehicle at the Sneads inspection station at 6:53 a.m. on April 14, 1989, Petitioner's representatives discovered the violation. The Load Report and Field Receipt of the same date, which cites a violation of Section 316.545, Florida Statutes, states that the gross weight of 127,780 pounds exceeds the legal weight of 80,000 pounds by 47,780 pounds. The resulting penalty is $2389. The receipt acknowledges payment under protest. At 9:53 a.m. on the same date, Petitioner issued to Respondent a second Trip Permit that suspended the requirement of 10 feet between axle groupings. Petitioner released the vehicle at 11:05 a.m., and the vehicle completed the remainder of its trip in Florida without incident. The expedience with which Petitioner issued the second Trip Permit was largely because Respondent had already crossed the bridges that were most vulnerable to excessive loads. However, due to the length of the outerbridge and the number and distribution of axles, Petitioner's expert determined that Petitioner would have, after computer analysis, issued a permit for the vehicle as originally configured, if the proper information had been supplied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating the above-cited statutes and imposing a fine of $2389 or such lesser amount as the Board may deem appropriate. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 13th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-4523 Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1-6: adopted or adopted in substance. 7 and 12: rejected as recitation of testimony, argument, and not finding of fact. 8-11: rejected as subordinate. 13-16: adopted or adopted in substance. 17: rejected as against the greater weight of the testimony of DOT's expert witness, Larry H. Davis. There is no evidence that the outerbridge was only 51 feet. There is conflicting evidence as to the length of the outerbridge, which is at least 64 feet. The diagram that Respondent gave to Petitioner in applying for the permit states that the vehicle length is 75 feet. Subtracting the distance of five feet and three inches between the centerline of the rearmost axle and the rear extreme of the vehicle, the outerbridge is almost 70 feet. However, adding up the confusing distances given on the diagram, which among other shortcomings is clearly not drawn to scale, the total outerbridge is 54 feet. The distance between the centerline of the three-axle grouping and the four-axle grouping was 30 feet. The distance between the first and fourth axle in the rear is about 13 feet. The distance between the steering axle and the rearmost of the three-axle group is about 21 feet. COPIES FURNISHED: David M. Maloney Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1602 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carl R. Nidiffer, President Precipitator Services Group, Inc. P.O. Box 339 Elizabethton, TN 37644 Ben Watt Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Elyse S. Trawick, Executive Secretary Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE REVIEW BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Petitioner, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 89-4523 PRECIPITATOR SERVICES GROUP, INC., Respondent. /
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 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
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by Daniel M. Kilbride , an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Petitioner's Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction based on a Settlement Stipulation entered into between the parties, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly it is FOUND and ORDERED as follows: That Respondent shall pay an administrative fine in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) per count for a total of four thousand two hundred fifty dollars ($4,250.00). The fine shall be paid in four monthly payments. The first payment of $1,250.00 to be paid on or before April 16, 2010. The second payment of $1,000.00 to be paid on or before May 16, 2010. The third payment of $1,000.00 to be paid on or before June 16, 2010. The fourth Filed March 18, 2010 4:17 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. and final payment of $1,000.00 to be paid on or before July 16, 2010. All payments are to be made by returning a copy of the order with payment to: Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Office of the Hearing Officer Division of Motor Vehicles 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Room A308, MS-61 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0600 If Respondent pays each installment of the amount specified in paragraph one above within the specified time the Department will impose no further penalties or sanctions against Respondent. However, if Respondent fails to pay any installment as specified in paragraph one, on the day following the due date of the installment, Respondent's motor vehicle dealer license will be automatically suspended and Respondent will cease to do business as a motor vehicle dealer. If, after suspension Respondent pays the past due installment before the due date of the next installment, its motor vehicle dealer license will immediately be reinstated without further penalties or sanctions. However, if Respondent fails to pay the past due installment by the due date of the next installment, the Department will revoke Respondent's motor vehicle dealer license. If the Department suspends or revokes Respondent's motor vehicle dealer license for non-payment as specified in paragraphs two and three said suspension or revocation shall be without recourse to the Respondent and Respondent hereby expressly waives any right to appeal or otherwise contest the suspension and revocation./ / DONE AND ORDERED this / gday of March 2010, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B439, MS-60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0600 Filed in the official records of the Division of Motor Vehicles this ay of March 2010. NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rule 9.110, Rules of Appellate Procedure. CAF:jdc Copies furnished: Gary Konopka Regional Administrator Dealer License Section Riad I. Kantar, President World Shell, Inc. 7161 Augusto Boulevard Seminole, Florida 33777 FALR Post Office Box 385 Gainesville, Florida 32602
The Issue Whether Petitioner properly imposed an administrative fine against the Respondent for allowing one of its vehicles to be operated in violation of a posted load limit.
Findings Of Fact On May 2, 1992, at approximately 7:00 a.m., Petitioner, by its inspection and compliance officer, Rebecca Stalnaker, stopped the Respondent's driver, Jeffrey Leo Speak (Speak) who was operating one of Respondent's vehicles on Lumsden Road in the City of Brandon, Hillsborough County, Florida. Lumsden Road in Brandon, where Respondent's vehicle was stopped, is a low load limit roadway and signs designating the roadway as such, were properly posted. The low load limit posting is relatively new in the area. Petitioner began issuing traffic citations to the vehicular traffic on Lumsden Road for violating the posted load limits during 1992. Petitioner's weight and safety officers began enforcing the posted limits after receiving numerous complaints from residents in the neighboring area around Lumsden Road about non-compliance with the posted weight limits. Petitioner issued a series of warnings to vehicular traffic during early 1992 for vehicles which were traversing the road weighing more than the posted load limits. Those motorists were warned that after April 30, 1992, administrative fines would be imposed against vehicles which exceeded the posted load limits. Speak was unaware that Lumsden Road was a low load limit roadway and he advised Petitioners agent, Rebecca Stalnaker, of his lack of knowledge. This was so, despite the fact that agent Stalnaker followed him past one of the posted load limit signs. There are alternate routes for vehicular traffic to travel in the area of Lumsden Road including a main thoroughfare one mile to the North, i.e., State Road 60. The posted and legal weight limit for Lumsden Road is 5 tons (10,000 pounds). Respondent's vehicle had a gross weight of 50,250 pounds or 40,250 pounds over the posted limit. As a result, agent Stalnaker imposed an administrative fine of .05 per pound for each pound that Respondent's vehicle exceeded the posted limit or $2,012.50. Agent Stalnaker weighed Respondent's vehicle alongside the roadway using authorized portable scales. She followed Petitioner's usual and approved procedures for weighing vehicles. During times material, the Board has considered and ruled on eleven cases similar to the instant case. Of the eleven cases, seven drivers/owners were afforded relief in the form of waiving all fines except the minimum of $500.00 for driving vehicles with loads that exceeded the posted limits. After April 30, 1992, the Board adopted a policy indicating that no relief would be given to vehicular traffic traversing the area of Lumsden Road as the "window of opportunity" had passed for vehicular traffic to be informed of the low load limit designation on Lumsden Road. The Board has discretion to waive, modify or cancel the imposition of administrative fines levied against vehicles for exceeding the posted load limits.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,006.25. 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 13th day of January, 1993.
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order pursuant to an order closing the file of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The record reflects that the parties have settled their dispute and entered into a Settlement Stipulation, which Settlement Stipulation is hereby adopted by reference. Having reviewed the stipulation and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. Respondent has admitted the allegations of the administrative complaint in this matter. 2. Respondent has agreed to pay and has paid a civil fine of $2,000.00 by certified cashier’s check, receipt of which is acknowledged by the Department. 3. Each party will bear its own costs and attorney fees. 4. In order to prevent similar violations occurring in the future, Respondent shall abide by the following in operating its dealership: Respondent shall refrain from advertisements utilizing descriptions for vehicle condition such as mint condition, flawless, perfect and any other statements that may be deceptive and unfair if it is likely to mislead a consumer who is acting reasonably under the circumstances. Failure to abide by these procedures will constitute grounds for suspending or revoking Respondent’s license or imposing 4... fine. DONE AND ORDERED this YA day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ) L A. FORD, Dire Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division 9% Motor Vehicles this £27 day of July, 2009. Copies furnished: Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Senior Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Rm. A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Craig Hallman Executive Auto Leasing of South Florida, Inc. 2912 South Ocean Bivd. Highland Beach, Florida 33431 Errol H. Powell _Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Diane Buck Regional Administrator, DMV Region IX William Camper Hearing Officer Division of Motor Vehicles Billy Rankin Chief, Bureau of Field Operations Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator Florida Administrative Law Reports Post Office Box 385 Gainesville, Florida 32602
