The Issue Whether Respondent, Virgil Cardin, d/b/a Virgil Cardin Septic Tank Service (Respondent or Cardin), committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint for Imposition of Administrative Fines and Revocation of Septic Tank Contractor License and Business Authorization, dated December 28, 2012, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering the Standards for Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems (SOSTDS). The installation, repair, and/or alteration of any septic tank system fall within the purview of Petitioner's authority. Public health concerns mandate that all septic tank systems be operated according to governing laws and rules. Respondent is a resident of the State of Florida and is registered by Petitioner to provide septic tank contracting services within the state. Respondent's registration number is SR0890865. Respondent owns and operates Virgil Cardin Septic Tank Service located in Lakeland, Florida, and the company is authorized to provide septic tank contracting services. The company's authorization number is SE093690. Septic tank contracting services are governed by SOSTDS. The Controversy It is undisputed that a permit must be obtained prior to performing repairs to a septic tank system. In Polk County (where all actions complained of occurred), a septic tank service company is required to apply for a permit before work is performed, obtain an inspection by appropriate authorities before beginning work, and complete all work in accordance with designated standards. A septic tank pump-out does not require a permit. Any work that would involve the exposure of the drain fields and/or the refitting of portions of the septic system would require a permit. The controversy in this case stems from Respondent's failure to obtain a permit before beginning repairs to a septic tank system located at 4931 Rolling Meadows Drive, Lakeland, Florida. It is undisputed that Respondent did not, in advance of starting work at the home, obtain a permit. The Arguments The Digans own a home located at 4931 Rolling Meadows Drive, Lakeland, Florida. For several years, the Digans have experienced problems with their septic tank system to the point that waste from the septic system has backed up into their home. Previously, Respondent addressed the Digans' septic tank system problems by pumping the waste from the tank, thereby eliminating pressure on the overwrought system. On or about August 24, 2012, Respondent went to the Digans' home and pumped out the septic tank. A permit for the work done that date was not required. Given the history of the problems with the Digans' system, it became apparent to the owners and Respondent that comprehensive repairs to the system were necessary. As there was no way to predict when another pump-out might be required, it was not surprising that approximately one week later Respondent returned to the Digans' property for additional work. On that date, September 1, 2012, Respondent could not pump out the Digans' tank, because his truck was already full. Instead, Respondent took a backhoe to the Digans' property and began to dig trenches for the drain field. Respondent's employee began to construct a septic drain line header pipe with drain field chamber end plates attached. Respondent exposed the Digans' septic system as if he were going to make repairs to the system. When confronted by two environmental supervisors who observed Respondent's actions, Respondent readily admitted he did not have a permit for the work. At first, Respondent stated that the homeowners could not afford permits. Later, Respondent maintained that the work he performed on September 1, 2012, did not require a permit. Petitioner maintains that Respondent went to the Digans' home on September 1, 2012, to make repairs to the septic tank system without prior inspection or a required permit. The Analysis Prior to September 1, 2012, Respondent knew or should have known that the Digans' septic tank system needed extensive repairs. Respondent had pumped out the tank several times and should have known that the system was not functioning as intended. Prior to September 1, 2012, Respondent knew or should have known that repairs to any septic tank system require an inspection and permit. On September 4, 2012, after being caught the prior Saturday on the Digans' property, Respondent applied for a permit for the repairs to the Digans' septic tank system. On September 5, 2012, a repair permit was issued for the Digans' property. On September 7, 2012, the repairs to the Digans' system were inspected and approved. There was no emergency on September 1, 2012, that necessitated repairs to the Digans' septic tank system on that date. Pumping out the Digans' tank on that date would have addressed any immediate concern. On-site inspections before septic tank systems are repaired are critical to public health because they assure that groundwater contamination is avoided, that the existing tank is sound and will function as intended, and that setbacks to other properties, wells, or systems are adequate. Respondent knew or should have known that performing any work before an inspection negates the safeguards to public health concerns. Respondent knew or should have known that the materials needed to adequately repair the Digans' septic tank system exceeded the chambers he took to the site on September 1, 2012. Digging up the Digans' system on September 1, 2012, created a sanitary nuisance. Respondent's History In the event a violation is found in this case, Respondent's disciplinary history would be relevant in considering what penalty, if any, should be imposed. To that end the following findings are made: Respondent has previously been found in violation of failing to call for a required inspection; and Respondent has previously been found in violation of practicing fraud or deceit, making misleading or untrue misrepresentations, or misconduct that causes no monetary harm to a customer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's authorizations to perform septic tank services be suspended for a period not less than 90 days. Additionally, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be required to pay an administrative fine in an amount not less than $2,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: John H. Armstrong, M.D., F.A.C.S. State Surgeon General Department of Health Bin A00 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Jennifer A. Tschetter, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Althea Gaines, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Tony C. Dodds, Esquire Law Office of Tony C. Dodds 904 South Missouri Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33803-1034 Roland Reis, Esquire Polk County Health Department 1290 Golfview Avenue, Fourth Floor Bartow, Florida 33830-6740
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Robert R. Waszak, a resident of Broward County, Florida, purchased Lot 258-A, a 1.25-acre lot in an unrecorded subdivision, Pinetree Estates Subdivision, in Parkland, Broward County, Florida. He cleared the property of a major portion of the sawgrass, pine trees, willows and other types of vegetation and placed thereon fill consisting of sand, rock, shell and other porous material. He obtained a test boring report from Nutting Engineers of Florida, Inc. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). On December 16, 1980 he filed an application for a septic tank permit on a form provided by the Broward County Health Department together with residential plans and a survey of the property, which application was subsequently denied on January 15, 1981 by the environmental engineering section of the health department. Respondent made an on-site inspection of the Petitioner's lot on December 18, 1980 and at least one other inspection subsequent thereto. A report was filed as part of the notification of denial (Respondent's Exhibit 1). The uncompacted fill placed on the subject property by Petitioner created a mound considerably less than six (6) feet in depth on the obviously low, swampy property. Under the fill and the layer of top soil on the lot there is a layer of cap rock overlying the property. The largely impervious cap rock is visible in areas where the fill does not cover it (Respondent's Exhibit 1). Samples of the fill material and also of the cap rock were examined at the hearing by the Hearing Officer. The fill placed on the property has many rock fragments and rock fines in it which, according to the uncontroverted testimony of the Respondent's witness, are subject to chemical reaction which "cements up" a drainfield area when it comes in contact with septic tank effluent. This "cementing" would take from one to two (2) years after installation on the subject property. There was no evidence presented as to the depth of the water table at the wettest season. Petitioner did not dispute the testimony and evidence presented by the Respondent but was interested in further improvement so that he could use his property as a residential site. He noted that a new subdivision was being built near his property. Respondent pointed out that said subdivision had a central disposal system planned.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the application of Petitioner Robert R. Waszak for a septic tank permit be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Robert R. Waszak 60 NW 56th Court Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Alan W. Ludwig, Esquire Broward County Health Department 2421 SW Sixth Avenue Post Office Box 14608 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent is registered with Petitioner for performing septic tank contracting services. In early 1991, Mr. Dennis Scott purchased a single family residence at 19169 Acorn Road in Ft. Myers. He purchased it as a rental property. About a year later, he began having problems with the septic tank system. He had the tank pumped out, but the problem returned a short time later. Mr. Scott told his maintenance man to contract with someone to fix the septic tank system. The maintenance man contacted Respondent. They agreed that Respondent would repair the system for $925. The record is silent as to specifically what the maintenance man told Respondent or what he told the maintenance man. In any event, Respondent and Mr. Scott did not converse. Respondent enlarged the existing drainfield, although the record does not indicate that he did so because he was asked to do so by the maintenance man or because Respondent thought that this repair would fix the problem. On May 28, 1992, Respondent and a team of employees appeared at the Acorn Road address to repair the septic tank system. Respondent left the site shortly after the men began work. Mr. Scott had nothing to do with the hiring of Respondent or even with paying him. Because Mr. Scott was unavailable, a friend wrote Respondent a check when the job was finished, and Mr. Scott later repaid the friend. On August 25, 1992, the system backed up again. Mr. Scott was not alarmed because of recent heavy rains. When the system backed up again a month later, Mr. Scott called Respondent, but could not get a call returned at first. Eventually, someone at Respondent's business said that he would come out and take a look at the system. In early December, 1992, the system backed up again and no one had come out to look at it from Respondent's business. At the request of Mr. Scott, another contractor visited the site and, on December 14, 1992, dug up the drainfield. The original drainfield had been installed improperly so as to run slightly uphill. This caused the system to operate inefficiently, although hydraulic pressure was evidently strong enough to draw the sewage through the drainfield. The record is unclear whether the extension installed by Respondent also ran uphill or whether Respondent improperly designed the extension. Mr. Scott and the second contractor testified that the extension ran uphill. However, one of Petitioner's inspectors inspected the drainfield addition before it was covered and certified that it was acceptable, which meant that it did not run uphill. The source of conflicting evidence, inasmuch as it comes from an employee of Petitioner, undermines Petitioner's case. The record is equally deficient to hold Respondent liable for poor design of the Acorn Road drainfield. There is no indication of what Mr. Scott wanted or, more importantly, what the maintenance man told Respondent. In any event, the evidence does not establish that Respondent installed an uphill drainfield. In early 1994, a house was listed for sale at 817 Gleason Parkway in Cape Coral. The listing agent informed the agent who had found a prospective buyer that there might be a problem with the septic tank system. The agent called Respondent's business and asked for a preclosing inspection of the septic tank system. The parties postponed the closing until the inspection could be completed and any necessary funds reserved to fix the system. The drainfield for the septic tank system at 817 Gleason Parkway was elevated due to the relatively high water table in the area. Even so, the system was poorly designed because the drainfield was too low and too small, based upon applicable requirements of law at the time of the original construction of the system and its renovation five years ago. Respondent was familiar with the system. He had reconstructed the system in 1990, although he did not redesign the new system, and had maintained the system since. He was aware that the tank had an automatic alarm that sounded when the fluid level became too high. In fact, Respondent conducted a cursory inspection due to his reliance on the automatic alarm in the tank, the imminent availability of centralized sewer service in the area, and possibly his unwillingness to disappoint a real estate agent by jeopardizing a pending sale. Among other omissions was his failure to probe the drainfield to determine its condition. Had Respondent conducted a competent inspection, he would have found that the stones in the drainfield were greasy, indicative of a failing system. Much of the time sewage water stagnated beside the drainfield mound. If pooled water were not present at the time of his inspection, the tall dollarweed growing on the mound should have alerted him to the prevailing damp conditions. Additionally, Respondent should have noticed lawnmower tracks through the typically soaked areas around the drainfield, as well as the thick grass that was uncut due to the soaked ground under it. Although water may not have been erupting from the drainfield mound at the time of Respondent's inspection, a reasonably close examination of the area would have revealed a small hole where sewage had erupted in the recent past from the mound. Instead, Respondent certified on April 4, 1994, that the "septic tank was in good working order." Respondent had been contacted to inspect the septic tank system, including the drainfield. Respondent was aware of the scope of his assignment, and his certification implied that the entire system was in good working order. Within two weeks after Respondent's certification, the system failed completely. Petitioner ordered the new owner to incur substantial expenses to repair the onsite system until he could tie into centralized sewer services.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order imposing against Respondent a $500 administrative fine and suspending his license for 90 days. ENTERED on March 30, 1995, 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 on March 30, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-2: adopted or adopted in substance. 3: rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. 4-5: adopted or adopted in substance. 6-15: rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. 16: adopted or adopted in substance. 17-19: adopted or adopted in substance. 20: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-2: adopted or adopted in substance. 3-4: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, recitation of evidence, and subordinate. 5: rejected as irrelevant. 6: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, recitation of evidence, and subordinate. 7-9: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 10: rejected as irrelevant. The rule speaks of harm to any "person," not to a customer or other person in privity with the contractor. 11: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 12: adopted or adopted in substance, but Petitioner's indirect responsibility does not excuse Respondent's grossly incompetent inspection of the system. 13-14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15: rejected as unnecessary. 16-17: rejected as subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Mastin Scott, Senior Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services P.O. Box 60085 Ft. Myers, FL 33906 Thomas B. Hart Humphrey & Knott, P.A. P.O. Box 2449 Ft. Myers, FL 33902-2449 Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Robert L. Powell Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a registered septic tank contractor, registration number SR0041456. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was authorized to provide septic tank contracting services through the corporation "Anytime Septic Enterprise, Inc.," authorization number SA0091662. The Respondent has advertised his services to the public as a septic tank contractor and has engaged in the business of providing septic tank services since at least September 2010. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was permitted to provide septage disposal services via permit number 36-QA-28986 issued by the Lee County Health Department. On or about September 13, 2010, the Respondent was hired to pump a septic system located at 2710 Northwest 5th Street, Cape Coral, Lee County, Florida, by another septic tank contractor. The employing contractor had been hired to service and repair the septic system, but did not have the ability to pump the tanks. On September 13, 2010, the Respondent pumped out the septic tank. The Respondent did not pump out the "dosing tank," a part of the septic system connected to the septic tank. After pumping out the septic tank, the Respondent completed a "DH Form 4015," signed and dated on September 13, 2010. The form collected information on the evaluation and repair of the septic system, including identification of system components and tank capacities. The contractor servicing the system is required to complete the form and identify the services provided. The Respondent identified the components of the referenced septic system and the capacities of both the septic and dosing tanks. The Respondent signed and dated the certification statement. As completed by the Respondent, the certification statement stated as follows: I certify that the listed tanks were pumped on 9/13/10 by Anytime Septic, have the volumes specified as determined by legend are free of observable defects or leaks, and have a [solids deflection device/outlet filter device] installed. Although the Respondent certified that he pumped the dosing tank on September 13, 2010, he did not pump the dosing tank on that date. The Respondent certified the dosing tank to be free of observable defects or leaks; however, the failure to pump the dosing tank prevented proper observation of the dosing tank, and it is highly unlikely that an accurate evaluation of the condition of the dosing tank was possible under the circumstances. Under the applicable rule, a pumper may perform an incomplete pumpout under certain circumstances, but the rule requires that the pumper must provide written documentation to the system owner identifying the reason for the incomplete pumpout, the gallonage pumped from the system, and the material left in the tank. The Respondent failed to provide such documentation to the system owner. An inspection by an employee of the Petitioner on September 16, 2010, revealed that the dosing tank had not been pumped and that the tank lids had not been sealed after the service. The Respondent was notified on September 20, 2010, that the dosing tank should have been pumped at the same time as the septic tank. On that same date, the Respondent returned to the site, pumped the dosing tank, and then completed, signed and dated a second "DH Form 4015" certifying that the dosing tank had been pumped. The Respondent recorded additional information on the form to indicate that the remaining work would be performed by the septic tank contractor who had employed the Respondent. At the hearing, the Respondent asserted that upon the initial inspection of the property, the Respondent observed that the septic tank conditions were non-standard, that he communicated such information to the contractor who had hired him, and that the Respondent's services, including certification of the tanks, were provided in accordance with the requests of the contractor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order imposing a $1,500 fine against the Respondent for falsely certifying the work performed on September 13, 2010, and the condition of the dosing tank; for failing to fully pump the system without providing appropriate documentation; and for failing to properly seal the tank lids. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Duque, Esquire Southwest Alliance of County Health Departments 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 206 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Stephen M. Maher, Esquire Stephen M. Maher, Attorney at Law, P.A. 2077 First Street, Suite 206 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1701 E. Renee Alsobrook, Acting General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Secretary, State Surgeon General Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue addressed in this proceeding is whether Respondents should be disciplined for violating provisions of Chapters 381, 386 and 489, Florida Statutes, governing septic tank installation and licensure.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Susan Burkett, is registered with the Department as a septic tank contractor. She is registered to provide such contracting services under the name U.S.A. Septic Tank Company. Respondent, Ron Burkett, is married to Susan Burkett. She employs her husband in her septic tank business. In the past, Ron Burkett, has done business as Working Man Septic Tank. Neither Ron Burkett nor Working Man Septic Tank have ever been registered septic tank contractors. Mr. Burkett was previously disciplined for the unregistered practice of septic tank contracting. However, there was no non-hearsay evidence presented in this case which demonstrated that Mr. Burkett continues to perform unregistered septic tank work. Likewise there was no substantive evidence which demonstrated that Susan Burkett aided her husband in practicing as an unregistered septic tank contractor. Around March 29, 1995, U.S.A. Septic Tank was hired by Architectural Trends, Inc. to install an on-site 1500 gallon septic tank system for $1500.00. Respondent, Ron Burkett, dug the hole for the septic tank. The septic tank was delivered to the site and was actually placed in the ground by another company. The placement of the tank was difficult because of the layout of the structures on the lot and the soft sandy soil of the lot. Neither Respondent was present when the septic tank was placed in the hole. The company who placed the tank in the ground placed the tank backwards. Additionally, at some point in the process from the tanks supplier to its placement in the hole dug by Mr. Burkett the tank was cracked. For reasons not established by the evidence, the contractor contracted with the company who installed the tank to re-install a new tank and complete additional sewage work necessitated by the tanks elevation. The contractor paid $5081.00 for the second company's work. However, the evidence did not show that either Respondent walked off the job. Likewise, the evidence did not show that either Respondent was negligent in the installation of the tank or caused their employer any monetary harm. This lack of evidence was caused by the fact that the Respondents' employer for the job who had personal knowledge of the facts, could not be found and, therefore, did not testify at the hearing. Given the facts of this case, the Administrative Complaint against Respondents should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED, that the Department dismiss the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANNE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Ringo, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 160 Governmental Center Pensacola, FL 32501 Susan Burkett U.S.A. Septic Tank Company Working Man Post Office Box 3648 Pensacola, FL 32516 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building 7, Suite 204-X 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Richard Doran, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building 7, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Larry C. Garner, should be fined $500 for misstating the size of a septic tank and drain field.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Larry C. Garner, is the licensed septic tank contractor who owns and operates A. Carver Septic Tank. (The Citation for Violation erroneously referred to the company as “E. Carver Septic Tank,” but the error was corrected without objection at final hearing. There was no evidence to support Respondent’s suggestion that the Department may have taken disciplinary action against him because it erroneously thought Respondent was another licensee.) On December 6, 2001, an employee of Respondent pumped out a septic tank and measured a drain field located at 847 Matthews Road, Maxville, Florida. The resident there wanted to enlarge her residence and needed Respondent's services in order to obtain Department approval of the existing septic tank system for the enlarged residence. After services were provided, Respondent's office gave the resident a receipt stating that Respondent's company had pumped out a 900 gallon septic tank and that the drain field measured 360 square feet. (Respondent's office actually dealt with the resident's adult daughter.) Respondent's office staff also prepared Form 4015 (a Department form entitled “Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Existing System and System Repair Evaluation”) and gave it to the resident for use in getting approval of the system for the enlarged residence. The form stated that the septic tank was 900 gallons and that the drain field was 360 square feet. When the resident applied for approval of her septic tank system for her enlarged residence, the Department inspected the system and found that the septic tank actually was 750 gallons and the drain field actually was only approximately 110 square feet. The Department issued the Citation for Violation based on the magnitude of the discrepancy. Respondent denied that he personally had any contemporaneous knowledge of the services provided by his employee or the receipt of Form 4015 prepared by his office, and there was no evidence that he did. Respondent personally investigated after issuance of the Citation for Violation. At final hearing, Respondent questioned whether the Form 4015 actually stated that the septic tank was 900 gallons. From the handwriting on the form itself, it appears possible that the number could read 700, not 900. But based on the written receipt, which either was prepared contemporaneously with the Form 4015 or was the basis for preparation of the Form 4015 by Respondent's office staff, the greater weight of the evidence was that the Form 4015 stated and was intended to state 900 gallons as the size of the septic tank. As further support for this finding, Respondent himself testified to a conversation he had with his employee during which the employee explained that he sized the septic tank at 700 gallons based on its apparent depth and Respondent admonished him that the employee knew better--i.e., knew it was necessary to measure height, width, and depth to accurately measure the size of a septic tank. Respondent also attempted to explain how his employee may have made a forgivable error in measuring the drain field. According to the Form 4015, the employee measured the drain field as a rectangular bed, 12 feet by 30 feet. Actually, the drain field consists of two trenches (one 26 feet long and the other 29 feet long), which the Department's inspector measured as being two feet wide. Respondent testified that the drain field began at a distribution box and was approximately ten feet wide within a few feet of the distribution box. Respondent testified that it would be easy to incorrectly assume that the approximate ten-foot width continued as a bed for the entire length of the drain field, as his employee apparently did. However, the greater weight of the evidence was that the employee's error was not reasonable; to the contrary, to determine the configuration and size of a drain field, it is necessary to probe the ground at more than just one distance close to the distribution box. When Respondent himself went to the site to investigate the allegations against him, he probed both near the distribution box and further away southeast of the distribution box. He testified that he found solid rock ten feet in width near the distribution box; to the southeast, his probing revealed a trench which Respondent measured at between three and a half and four feet in width. Based on those measurements, Respondent assumed two trenches approximately 30 feet long and four feet in width each, for a total of approximately 240 square feet. It is difficult to reconcile Respondent’s testimony as to the width of the southeast trench with the testimony of the Department's inspector. The Department's inspector probed approximately ten feet and 20 feet from the septic tank and found two-foot wide trenches in four different places. The Department's inspector also testified without contradiction in response to Respondent's questions on cross-examination that backhoes used at the time this drain field was installed in 1973 generally had two-foot wide excavation buckets. Based on the greater care taken by the Department's inspector in measuring the drain field, and the kind of backhoe in general use in 1973, it is found that the Department's inspector's measurements were more accurate. Even if Respondent's measurements were accurate, and the Department inspector's were inaccurate, the measurements recorded on the receipt and on Form 4015 still would have been seriously overstated. While not seriously disputing the inaccuracy of the Form 4015 submitted in this case, Respondent stated "anyone can make a mistake" and that the Department should have asked Respondent to re-check the measurements instead of issuing a citation, especially in view of Respondent's disciplinary record in 29 years in the business in Clay County. (Respondent testified that his only "issues in Tallahassee" were one incident--not fully explained--involving a cow on someone's property and another when he had someone take a re- certification examination for him at a time when his mother was ill. The Department did not controvert this testimony. As already mentioned, there was no evidence to support Respondent's initial suggestion that the Department may have taken disciplinary action against him because it erroneously thought he was another licensee.) But the Department's witness testified that issuance of the citation was appropriate and consistent with agency policy because of the magnitude of the discrepancies on the Form 4015. Respondent testified that the employee involved in this case was his stepson, who has worked for Respondent for 14 years, since he was 11 years old, seven to eight years as a full-time employee. Respondent also testified that he recently fired his stepson, but the reasons for firing him were not directly related to his conduct in this case. Respondent also testified that he felt compelled to insist on a hearing although he knew the Form 4015 was inaccurate because he perceived the Department to be acting in this case as if it had "absolute power" over him. He apparently viewed his request for a hearing as a necessary challenge to government's assertion of "absolute power" over him.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order finding Respondent guilty as charged and imposing a fine in the amount of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ______________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. John O. Agwunobi, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 John D. Lacko, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Larry C. Garner 13950 Normandy Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32221
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is qualified for licensure as a septic tank system contractor.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner applied for Septic Tank Contractor Registration on or about June 1, 1993. Mr. Gerald Briggs, Environmental Health Specialist III for the Department, notified the Petitioner that his application was not complete on or about July 7, 1993, and returned the Petitioner's application to the Petitioner. In November 1993, the Petitioner refiled his application with the Department. By letter dated December 9, 1993, the Department notified the Petitioner of its decision to deny his application for septic tank contractor's registration because the Petitioner lacked the required three years of active experience as a worker who has learned the trade as an apprentice under a registered septic tank contractor. William A. Kerce, a registered septic tank contractor in Florida, testified at the hearing. He stated that he had employed the Petitioner prior to the Petitioner's graduation from high school in 1985, and continued to employ him up until he sold the business to Donald Rose. The Petitioner's duties for installation of new septic tanks and for repairs of existing systems were to dig up an area, prepare it to install a septic tank in the ground, prepare the drainfield, and recover the tank and drainfield with soil. In addition, Mr. Kerce used the Petitioner to assist him in pumping septic tanks. Mr. Kerce stated that he did not consider the Petitioner an employee, but considered him an independent contractor. Mr. Kerce would have had to pay social security and provide worker's compensation benefits if he had considered the Petitioner an employee. Mr. Kerce provided all the materials and equipment used on the job. Mr. Kerce used the Petitioner's services five or six days a week for well over three years. Petitioner did not work for Mr. Kerce when Mr. Kerce did not have work to do, about two weeks per year. Mr. Kerce paid the Petitioner by the job, $200-$300 for installing a system, and $15-20 for helping him pump a system. The Petitioner worked for Mr. Kerce, except when he was working for another septic tank contractor doing the same type of work. If the Petitioner was working for another man, Mr. Kerce waited and scheduled his work until the Petitioner was available. While Mr. Kerce was not present on the job constantly, Mr. Kerce did supervise and approve all work done by the Petitioner. He was required by law to do so. Mr. Kerce sold his business to Donald Rose in 1992. To Mr. Kerce's knowledge, Mr. Rose continued to use the Petitioner. Mr. Rose could not get qualified as a contractor with the Department. As a result, Mr. Kerce had to step back in and run the business. The Petitioner assisted Mr. Rose in installing unpermitted systems. When confronted, the Petitioner assisted in the investigation of Mr. Rose, under threat of prosecution. As a result, the court withheld adjudication in the Petitioner's case and placed him on probation which he has not completed. The Petitioner was employed by Rotor Rooter in Jacksonville, Florida, for six months, installing and repairing septic systems. The Petitioner has been employed by AA Septic since April 15, 1994. The Petitioner took steps in June, 1993, to start a septic tank business as C&J, including listing in the Yellow Pages. However, his application was not approved. He did install a system for Eleanor Rake at about that time without a permit; however, he later returned Ms. Rake's money when confronted by the authorities. The Petitioner was on probation when he did the work for Ms. Rake.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department deny the Petitioner certification until he completes his probation for violations of laws directly related to installation of septic systems; and further, that upon the completion of that probation and reapplication, the Department register the Petitioner, who has established that he met the work experience requirements. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 27th day of June, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 94-0954 The following findings were adopted or rejected for the reason stated: Respondent's Findings Recommended Order Paragraph 1 Paragraph 1 Paragraph 2 Paragraph 2 Paragraph 3 Paragraph 3, 4 Paragraph 4 Subsumed in paragraph 4 and Preliminary Statement. Paragraph 5 Subsumed in paragraphs 5 and 6 which are based upon best evidence. Paragraph 6 Subsumed in paragraphs 8 - 11, which are based on best evidence. Paragraph 7 Subsumed in Preliminary Statement. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward Jackson, Esquire 515 W. Adams Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 Teresa Donnelly, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Building H Gainesville, FL 32601 Robert L. Powell, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Kimberly J. Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, James A. Tipton ("Tipton"), has been a registered professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 0018147, which expires on January 31, 1987. Tipton employed the services of Robert Corno as a field man for taking samples to establish soil profiles, site characteristics and existing water tables for septic tank applications prepared and filed by Tipton. Corno had actual authority from Tipton to conduct tests, site examinations and evaluations and to submit his findings to Tipton. Sometime before April 8, 1985, Tipton was retained to perform professional engineering services in connection with the preparation and filing of an application for a septic tank on lot 168, block 3, Charlotte Ranchettes Subdivision in Charlotte County ("lot 168"), owned by Joseph Duseo. Tipton sent Corno to lot 168 on April 13, 1985, to examine and evaluate the site, take soil samples and make other observations that would have to be reported to Tipton in connection with Tipton's work. Corno completed his work and reported to Tipton. Corno did not bring Tipton the actual soil samples. On April 8, 1985, Duseo's general contractor told Corno about a well on lot 168. When Corno visited the site, he observed the well. The well is an artesian well, about 3 feet high and six inches in diameter. The well is an irrigation-type well and is non-potable. The well was within fifty feet of the drain field of the septic system Tipton proposed for lot 168. The well also is approximately 5 to 10 feet from the north property line. Corno knew at the time of his visit to the site that the well was not plugged. However, Corno understood that Duseo was in the process of arranging with the Southwest Florida Water Management District to have the well plugged. Corno did not tell Tipton about the well before Tipton prepared and filed the application for the proposed septic tank. Therefore, Tipton did not know there was a well on lot 168 when he was preparing the application for the septic tank permit. Tipton did not ask Corno any questions calculated to reveal whether there was a well on lot 168. Corno held the belief that non-potable wells, especially those that were to be plugged, did not have to be shown on septic tank permit applications. There was evidence about a survey of lot 168 certified by a land surveyor employed by a firm of professional engineers which did not show any well on lot 168. However, Tipton did not have access to the survey before he prepared the septic tank permit application on lot 168. (The survey bears two dates, April 17 and April 18, and was not signed until April 25, 1985.) On or about April 15, 1985, Tipton signed and certified the septic tank permit application for lot 168. The application was filed at the Charlotte County Public Health Unit (Health Department) on April 16, 1985. The application indicates "none" in the space provided to indicate the "location of wells within 75 feet of property lines." The well on lot 168 is an important consideration which should have been depicted on the application. Septic tank drain fields could pollute a well. Even if Tipton had known that the well was supposed to be plugged, it was not plugged until July 1985. Failure to show the well was a serious omission. Tipton was negligent for relying on Corno without having an understanding whether Corno would report to him the existence of non-potable wells within 50 feet of the drain field of a septic system or within 75 feet of a property line if the well was likely to be plugged. If he had used due care, Tipton would have either made explicit inquiry of Corno sufficient to reveal the existence of the well or ascertained from Corno in advance that he would report to Tipton the existence of any well within 50 feet of the drain field of a proposed septic system or within 75 feet of property lines. Having failed to exercise due care, Tipton did not realize that Corno would not be reporting to him the existence of a non-potable well which was supposed to be plugged in the future. A few days after he filed the application, Tipton learned about the well on lot 168. But at about the same time, Duseo and his contractor began discussing construction alternatives that would change the septic system and require a new septic tank application. Therefore, Tipton did not immediately amend the April 15 application to show the well. In mid-May, Tipton filed a new application for the different septic system. The new application, not in issue in this case, showed the well. The application also contained a soil profile which probably is not accurate. However, Tipton's soil profile simply reflects the information reported to him by Corno. While Tipton's soil profile does not correspond with soil profiles from other test holes dug in the area of the proposed drain field by the Health Department and an expert witness, the information Corno reported to Tipton was well within the realm of possibilities for soil in the area of lot 168. Corno generally seemed to be a qualified and experienced field man who used proper tools to do his job. There was nothing suspicious about Corno's information, and there was no reason for Tipton to suspect that it was false or fraudulent. While it is the better practice for a professional engineer to require his field man to deliver the actual soil sample to support a soil profile report, this is not required of professional engineers if there is no reason to suspect that a field man's soil profile report is false or fraudulent. On the application, Tipton estimated the high water table on lot 168 at 2.2 feet below existing grade. While other expert witnesses estimated a higher high water table, the evidence did not prove that Tipton was negligent in his estimate. Some of the conflicting estimates were Health Department estimates which, the evidence indicates, tend to be high to be on the safe side. Others were estimates on permit applications which may have been influenced by the Health Department's desires and which may not reflect the engineers' actual estimates. Of all the estimates, only Tipton's was supported by testimony how the estimate was derived. (Tipton used what he called Darcy's Law.) Finally, Petitioner's own expert witness testified that Tipton's high water table estimate could not be called negligent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order holding Respondent, James A. Tipton, guilty of negligence in the practice of engineering under Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint (but dismissing Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint) and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00). RECOMMENDED this 19th day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Sarah Logan Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Wings Slocum Benton, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 John Charles Heekin, Esq. C-1 Ocean Plaza 21202 Ocean Blvd. Port Charlotte, FL 33952 APPENDIX The following are specific rulings on all the parties' proposed Findings of Fact as required by Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985). Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 through 3, 9, 10, 13 through 16, 19, 21 and 22 are accepted as substantially factually accurate and are incorporated in the Findings Of Fact in the same or similar format to the extent necessary. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 4 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that the last sentence is unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 5 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that the third sentence is unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact 17, 18 and 27 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that they are unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 26 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that whether Alligator Creek is a "significant" drainage feature would depend on the definition of "significant" which was not established by the evidence. In addition, Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 26 is unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact 6 through 8 are rejected as conclusions of law and because the last sentence of Proposed Finding Of Fact 6 is cumulative. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 11 is rejected because the first sentence is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact and the second sentence is, subordinate to Findings Of Fact. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact 12, 20, 23 and 24 are rejected as subordinate to Findings Of Fact. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 25 is rejected because the first sentence is subordinate to Findings Of Fact and the second sentence is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings Of Fact 1 through 3, 5 and 12 are accepted as substantially factually accurate and are incorporated in the Findings Of Fact in the same or similar format to the extent necessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 4 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that the second sentence is unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 8 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 9 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is in part unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 11 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact that there is "no way" for an engineer to avoid relying on a field man's error such as Corno's error in omitting to report the existence of the well. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 14 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is irrelevant. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 6 is rejected because it is subordinate to Findings Of Fact and is unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 7 is rejected because it is simply a recitation of conflicting evidence, some of which is accepted but some of which is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact. Specifically, it was found that Corno did not tell Tipton about the well and that Tipton did not have the survey in his possession at the time the application was filed. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 10 is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact. Specifically, the evidence supported a finding of negligence on the part of Tipton for failure to utilize due care and to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles whether or not practicing in Charlotte County. In addition, Mr. Murray's expert testimony must be disregarded because it was given upon a hypothetical assumption that an engineer had possession of a sealed survey showing no improvements on the property as the time of the application, a fact not proved by the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 13 is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact. Specifically, personnel in the Health Department, part of the "general public," were misled. (The general public also reasonably could have been led to a fallacious conclusion, but there was no "misconduct" on Tipton's part. See Conclusions of Law.) ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS Petitioner, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 85-2684 DPR CASE NO.0058289 JAMES A. TIPTON, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f), Florida Administrative Code, are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority on the ground that these three rules enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented, in violation of section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for septic tank contractor registration in July 1996. On September 6, 1996, the Respondent issued its intent to deny his application on the grounds that he failed to meet the required qualifications listed in Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 10D-6.072(3)(d) provides that an applicant is not qualified to take the registration exam to become a licensed septic tank contractor if a previous registration issued by the Respondent has been revoked within the last 5 years. Rule 10D-6.072(3)(e) provides that an applicant is not qualified to take the registration exam to become a licensed septic tank contractor if he has a disciplinary case pending with the Respondent involving septic tank contracting. Rule 10D-6.072(3)(f) provides that an applicant is not qualified to take the registration exam to become a licensed septic tank contractor if he has been convicted of a crime in any jurisdiction which is directly related to the practice of contracting. Petitioner filed a request for a hearing, in which he alleged Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f) constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in that these rules enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented, in violation of section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f) formally took effect on January 3, 1995. There is no material failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, in the promulgation of these rules. 9. Sections 154.06, 381.0011, 381.006, 381.0065, 489.553, and 489.557, Florida Statutes, grant the Respondent specific authority to adopt rules implementing the statutes. Petitioner does not dispute the Respondent’s rulemaking authority. Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f) implement sections 154.01, 381.001, 381.0011, 381.0012, 381.0025, 381.006, 381.0061, 381.0065, 381.00655, 381.0066, 381.0067, Part I of Chapter 386, and Part III of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Part III of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), is the chapter governing septic tank contractor registration. Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, are the rules pertaining to Standards for Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems, which include septic tank systems. A person who becomes a registered septic tank contractor has the authority to install, maintain, repair, and perform site evaluations for repairs of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems. There are an estimated 1.4 million septic systems in use in Florida. The onsite sewage treatment program impacts public health in that it prevents and corrects sanitary nuisances; prevents pollution to groundwater, which is the primary drinking water source in the state; prevents pollution to surface water; and eliminates risks to public health from exposure to improperly treated human waste. Untreated or improperly treated human waste contains many significant disease-causing organisms injurious to human health. A “sanitary nuisance” is the “commission of any act, . . . or the keeping, maintaining, propagation, existence, or permission of anything, . . . by which the health or life of an individual, or the health or lives of individuals, may be threatened or impaired, or by which or through which, directly or indirectly, disease may be caused.” Section 386.01, Florida Statutes (1995). “Improperly built or maintained septic tanks” and “untreated or improperly treated human waste” constitute “prima facie evidence of maintaining a nuisance injurious to health.” Section 386.041(1), Florida Statutes (1995). The training, regulation, and registration of septic tank contractors, who install and repair such systems, is directly related to public health. An improperly installed or repaired system may result in untreated human waste or raw sewage either surfacing on the ground, backing up in the owner’s house/business, contaminating groundwater, and contaminating nearby surface water. The Respondent regularly receives complaints from citizens detailing installation problems, including complaints regarding improper workmanship, the premature failure of their septic tank system resulting in sewage on the ground around their house, and the contractor’s failure to honor his/her warranty. The impetus behind regulating contractors came primarily from the industry itself (i.e., the Florida Septic Tank Association). The qualification outlined in Rule 10D-6.072(3)(d), which provides that an applicant is not qualified to become a registered septic tank contractor if the Respondent has revoked his prior septic tank registration within the last 5 years, protects the public from sanitary nuisances caused by the improper installation and repair of septic tank systems. This qualification is, moreover, an indicator of an applicant’s “good moral character.” The qualification outlined in Rule 10D-6.072(3)(e), which provides that an applicant is not qualified to become a registered septic tank contractor if the applicant has a disciplinary case pending with the Respondent involving septic tank contracting, fits into what the septic tank contracting program under chapter 489 and Chapter 10D-6 is designed to accomplish. This qualification protects the public by denying licenses to those persons who have demonstrated they are not complying with the rules or statutes. The qualification outlined in Rule 10D-6.072(3)(f), which provides that an applicant is not qualified to become a registered septic tank contractor if he has been convicted of a crime in any jurisdiction which is directly related to the practice of contracting, fits into what the septic tank contracting program under Chapter 489 and Chapter 10D-6 is designed to accomplish. This qualification protects the public by denying licenses to those persons who are not law abiding and do not follow the standards. “Good moral character” is not defined in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Each of the three qualifications established by Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f) make specific or interpret an individual’s good moral character. The Department’s statutory authority for Rule 10D- 6.072(3)(d), Rule 10D-6.072(3)(e), and Rule 10D-6.072(3)(f) comes from: (a) section 489.553(2), which requires the Department to “provide qualifications for applicants;” (b) section 489.553(4)(a), which says the applicant “must be of good moral character’” (c) section 489.558(2), which says the Department may deny registration if it determines the applicant “has violated any provision of this part [Part III of Chapter 489];” and (d) section 489.556, which authorizes the Department to suspend and revoke licenses. The Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC) has neither filed an objection nor voted on an objection to the three rules at issue in this case. Although a staff member of JAPC, in response to Petitioner’s complaint, recently made a preliminary inquiry into the validity of these rules, the committee did not adopt the staff member’s recommendation.
