The Issue Whether Respondent properly fined Petitioner the sum of $115.00 for the reasons set forth in Commercial Motor Vehicle Citation No. 1026031, issued July 28, 2003, as modified by the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board on November 6, 2003.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department was the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutes involving commercial carrier vehicle weights 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. Tree Trimming is the owner of a "straight truck," i.e., a two-axle truck on which the cargo unit and the motor power unit are located on the same frame so as to form a single, rigid unit. See § 316.003(70), Fla. Stat. (2003). The truck carries Vehicle Identification No. ("VIN") 2FZAAJCP11AG86965 and Florida license no. D28CYX. The declared gross vehicle weight of the truck is 25,900 pounds, making that the maximum weight the truck can carry under its license. Tree Trimming also owns a wood chipper that rides on a single-axle trailer with VIN 60142267. The manufacturer's weight rating for the trailer is 7,040 pounds. On July 28, 2003, Officer John Brenner stopped Tree Trimming's truck and trailer, which was driven by Mr. McCarren, an employee of Tree Trimming. Officer Brenner requested Mr. McCarren to produce his driver's license and the vehicle registration for the truck. He performed an inspection of the truck and trailer, noting several minor safety violations, which are not relevant here. Officer Brenner then weighed the truck and trailer at the scene utilizing a set of certified, recently calibrated, Department-owned scales, using the standard weight procedures. He weighed them without detaching the trailer from the truck. Officer Brenner first placed the scales under each tire of the truck. The front axle of the truck weighed 8,000 pounds. The rear axle of the truck weighed 11,300 pounds. Officer Brenner next placed the scales under the tires of the trailer. The single axle of the trailer weighed 7,300 pounds. The total weight of the truck and trailer was 26,300 pounds. When the 25,900 pound maximum legal weight was subtracted from the actual weight, Tree Trimming's truck was seen to be 400 pounds overweight. That excess, taxed at five cents per pound, resulted in a civil penalty of $20.00. Officer Brenner noted that Mr. McCarren carried a Class D Florida driver's license. A Class D driver's license authorizes its holder to drive a truck with a weight of 8,000 pounds or more, but less than 26,001 pounds. To drive a motor vehicle combination weighing more than 26,001 pounds, a driver must possess a valid Class A, B, or C driver's license. See § 322.54(2)(c) and (d), Fla. Stat. (2003). Officer Brenner cited Tree Trimming for allowing its driver to operate a vehicle outside of his class and assessed Tree Trimming a civil penalty of $100.00. Tree Trimming contended that Officer Brenner should have disconnected the truck and trailer before weighing them. Tree Trimming argued that weighing the truck and trailer without disconnecting them resulted in the connecting tongue of the trailer being weighed twice. This contention is rejected. The tongue of the trailer resting on the back of the truck would naturally increase the measured weight of the truck, but would also decrease the measured weight of the trailer by a corresponding amount. There is no basis to find that the weight of the tongue would have registered twice on the scales. Tree Trimming also contended that Officer Brenner was either incompetent or overly eager to find violations. As to the incompetence allegation, no evidence was offered that Officer Brenner was unqualified to weigh Tree Trimming's vehicles. Officer Brenner is a certified law enforcement officer and has received 104 hours of training in weight, registration, permits, and over-dimensional aspects of commercial vehicles. He has completed 328 hours of training specifically related to his duties with the Office of Motor Carrier Compliance, including the roadside weighing of vehicles. As to the allegation of over-eagerness, Tree Trimming pointed to statistics showing that in 2003, Officer Brenner weighed 170 vehicles and issued citations to 158 of them, a citation rate of 93 percent. The Department's statewide statistics for 2003 indicated that 30,711 vehicles were weighed and 14,844 citations were issued, a citation rate of 48 percent. The disparity between Officer Brenner's citation rate and the statewide citation rate was said by Tree Trimming to establish that Officer Brenner is determined to issue citations to every vehicle he stops. The evidence established that none of Officer Brenner's 158-weight citations in 2003 were challenged, except for the one at issue in this proceeding. In any event, the cited statistics do not demonstrate that Officer Brenner did anything wrong in issuing this or any other citation. After issuing the citation, Officer Brenner allowed Mr. McCarren to disconnect the trailer from the truck and to drive the truck away. Officer Brenner explained that once the trailer was detached, the truck was under the weight limit and Mr. McCarren could legally drive it. Tree Trimming immediately drove the truck to a local dumping/recycling facility and had it weighed, once with its full load and again after the load was dumped. The scales at the dump indicated the loaded truck weighed 18,020 pounds, whereas Officer Brenner's weighing showed the truck weighed 19,200 pounds. Tree Trimming contends that this disparity proves that Officer Brenner's weighing was incorrect and that the truck was under the maximum weight. Tree Trimming did not offer evidence as to the accuracy or calibration of the scales at the dump or any verification that the load was not lightened on the way to the dump. Officer Brenner testified that the load of wood chips was falling out of the back of the truck at the time he weighed it. When the truck was weighed at the dump, it was not connected to the trailer. As indicated above, the truck was supporting some of the trailer's weight when Officer Brenner weighed it. Taking all of the evidence into account, Tree Trimming's weighing of the truck at the dumping facility is insufficient to establish that Officer Brenner's weighing of the truck and trailer at the roadside stop was inaccurate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered imposing an administrative fine of $15.00 on Tree Trimming & Removal, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 13th day of May, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Ann Cowles, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Glen Wayne Shelton, President Laura R. Chamberlain, Vice President Tree Trimming & Removal, Inc. 3808 Wilkinson Road Sarasota, Florida 34233 James C. Myers, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Parker Construction d/b/a Robert's Components, was operating a commercial vehicle, traveling north on Interstate Highway 75, on March 27, 1991. The truck stopped at the Department's weight scales located in the area of White Springs, Florida. The Department's Inspector checked the vehicle registration handed to him by the driver. The tag registration was for a valid Georgia tag in the PF category. The PF category allows for a maximum gross vehicle weight of 30,000 pounds. The total weight of Respondent's truck on March 27, 1991, was 72,180 pounds. The total weight exceeded its registered weight by 42,180 pounds. Respondent was assessed a statutory penalty of five cents a pound for all weight over the commercial vehicle's registered gross vehicle weight of 30,000 pounds. At five cents a pound, the penalty assessed was $2,109.00. Robert Parker, president and owner of Parker Construction verified that the truck was registered in the PF category. Respondent was in the process of obtaining an IRP tag which would have allowed him to operate the truck at the weight it was carrying. Mr. Parker had no intent to purposely operate an overloaded truck and this was the first violation he had ever incurred since buying the truck. When Mr. Parker contacted a weight inspector with DOT, he was advised that if he wrote a letter to the Review Board advising them of the above facts, the fine would probably be reduced. Mr. Parker was also told that the decision rested with the Review Board. Mr. Parker followed the officer's advise. However, his fine was not reduced.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that the penalty of $2,109.00 was correctly assessed against Respondent, pursuant to Section 316.545, Florida Statutes, and that Respondent's request for a refund be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Robert Parker Robert's Components P. O. Box 2523 La Grange, Georgia 30241 Ben G. Watts, Secretary ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Is Ann L. Bell (Ms. Bell) entitled to the issuance of a license to act as an independent motor vehicle dealer through A & B Auto Sales of Jacksonville, Inc. (A & B), that license to be issued by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (the Department)? See Section 320.27, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Bell made application to the Department for an independent motor vehicle dealer license. The name of the business would be A & B. The location of the business would be 7046 Atlantic Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. In furtherance of the application Ms. Bell received a certificate of completion of the motor vehicle dealer training school conducted by the Florida Independent Automobile Dealers Association on January 26 and 27, 1999. Ms. Bell submitted the necessary fees and other information required by the Department to complete the application for the license, to include the necessary surety bond. At present Ms. Bell lives at 98 Kent Mill Pond Road, Alford, Florida, some distance from Jacksonville, Florida. Ms. Bell intends to move to Jacksonville, Florida, if she obtains the license. Ms. Bell's work history includes a 35-year career with the State of Florida, Department of Insurance, from which she retired as a Deputy Insurance Commissioner. Her duties included supervision of employees and auditing. More recently Ms. Bell has worked as an insurance agent for approximately five years with Allstate Insurance. Ms. Bell also had 17 years' experience involving a business with her former husband in retail floor covering in which she dealt with sales staff and contracts. During another marriage, her then-husband was involved in the automobile business in Mobile, Alabama, as well as the Florida panhandle. Ms. Bell was not an employee of the automobile business conducted by her husband. Ms. Bell was "in and out" of the dealership and attended automobile auctions with her husband. Ms. Bell intends to locate her dealership at the address where Mr. Badreddine formerly operated an independent motor vehicle dealership. Ms. Bell has known Mr. Badreddine for approximately 10 to 12 years. Ms. Bell has purchased cars from Mr. Badreddine. Ms. Bell has borrowed money from Mr. Badreddine. Mr. Badreddine has borrowed money from Ms. Bell. Ms. Bell has a lease related to the location where she would operate her dealership. At present Ms. Bell is using the prospective business location to collect on some accounts for automobiles purchased through Mr. Badreddine in which Ms. Bell has bought the accounts receivable from Mr. Badreddine. The arrangement concerning the accounts receivable is one in which Mr. Badreddine is expected to assist in the collection of monies owed on the accounts. The customers involved with those accounts are Arabs and African Americans. Mr. Badreddine is fluent in Arabic. The amount of money which Ms. Bell has invested is approximately $35,000, in relation to the purchase of the accounts receivable. If Ms. Bell obtains the license she intends to employ Mr. Badreddine to sell automobiles at her lot and to be involved in the purchase of cars at automobile auctions. These duties would be in addition to the collection on the accounts receivable which Ms. Bell purchased from Mr. Badreddine. Ms. Bell does not intend to allow Mr. Badreddine access to the company bank accounts or the completion of the necessary paperwork when cars are sold to the public from her business. In the past, Mr. Badreddine held independent motor vehicle dealer licenses issued by the Department. He lost those licenses based upon unacceptable performance under their terms. Ms. Bell is not unmindful of Mr. Badreddine's performance as a licensee, being informed by the Department in the details. Mr. Badreddine held an independent motor vehicle dealer's license under the name A & D Wholesale, Inc. (A & D), for a business at 9944 Beach Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. The Department issued an administrative complaint against that license in Case No. DMV-94FY-566, concerning problems in cars sold by A & D in which the titles and registrations were not transferred appropriately and emissions tests were not performed appropriately. This case was disposed of through an informal hearing and a $5,000 administrative fine was imposed. A further complaint was made against the licensee for the business A & D under an administrative complaint drawn by the Department in Case No. DMV-97FY-621. This complaint involved problems in title and registration transfer, failure to pay an existing lien on a trade-in, and the payment for automobiles obtained in automobile auctions upon which the drafts were not honored. No request for an administrative proceeding was received in relation to this administrative complaint. A final order was entered which revoked the independent motor vehicle dealer's license in relation to A & D. Subsequently, Mr. Badreddine made an application for an independent motor vehicle dealer's license under the business name King Kar Auto Sales, Inc. (King Kar) for the address at which Ms. Bell would operate her business. The decision was made to grant Mr. Badreddine's request for an automobile dealer license for King Kar. Following the grant of the license to King Kar an administrative complaint was brought in Case Nos. DMV-99FY-165 and DMV-99FY-166. The complaint involved the failure to pay off a lien, in which a check intended to settle the account with the lien holder was dishonored and falsification of the application in support of the license for King Kar. The final order disposing of these cases was premised upon the recognition that the license for King Kar had been revoked by virtue of the failure to maintain the necessary surety bond, rendering the allegations in the complaint moot. In the conduct of his automobile business Mr. Badreddine was accused of obtaining property in return for a worthless check involved in dealings with GMAC Corporation. The check was in the amount of $16,671.38. This action was taken in the case of State of Florida vs. Amine Badreddine, in the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida, Case No. 98-13690CFCR-E. Mr. Badreddine entered a plea of guilty to obtaining property in return for a worthless check and was placed upon probation for a period of one year, with a requirement to make restitution. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. In a discussion between Ms. Bell and Cindy King, Department Compliance Examiner and Nadine Allain, Regional Administrator for the Department, Ms. Bell told the Department employees that Ms. Bell would need Mr. Badreddine to go to the automobile auctions and that "she didn't think it was lady-like to go to an auction." This is taken to mean that Ms. Bell did not believe she should go to the automobile auctions. Ms. Bell also told the Department employees that she needed Mr. Badreddine to sell automobiles for her, that he was a good salesman and that he was good at dealing with Arabs and she was not. Ms. Bell noted that she didn't live in the area where the dealership would be operated and referred to her purchase of the accounts receivable. Ms. Bell told the Department employees that Mr. Badreddine would be given an office in the back of the dealership or in the dealership. Ms. Bell told the Department employees that "she knew absolutely nothing about selling cars." Ms. Bell indicated that she would be relying upon Mr. Badreddine for advise in running her dealership. The reliance on Mr. Badreddine to deal with Arab clients was mentioned pertaining to the circumstances with the previous accounts receivable. The Department offered to license Ms. Bell upon condition that Ms. Bell provide an affidavit to the effect that Mr. Badreddine would not be involved with her dealership. Ultimately, Ms. Bell did not accept this overture. In denying the application for the independent motor vehicle dealer's license the Department gave the following reasons: Your admission of not knowing anything about the car business coupled with your stated intention to rely on the advice and experience of Mr. Amine Badreddine to operate your dealership means that Mr. Badreddine is, de facto, the dealer. Mr. Badreddine previously held independent motor vehicle dealer license number VI-15265, as A & D Wholesale, Inc. An administrative complaint was filed by the department against his dealership involving consumer complaints filed by Gladys L. Stevens, complaint number 93110148; Merrian A. Coe, complaint number 94010340; and Richard Green, complaint number 94030339. As a result of the administrative action, Mr. Badreddine's license was found in violation and fined $5,000.00 for failure to apply for transfer of title within 30 days, issuing more than two temporary tags to the same person for use on the same vehicle, violation of any other law of the state having to do with dealing in motor vehicles, failure to have a vehicle pass an emissions inspection within 90 days prior to retail sale and failure to transfer title. On December 23, 1996, a second administrative complaint was filed against A & D Wholesale, Inc. because of complaints received from Mark S. Smith, complaint number 96020168; Telmesa C. Porter, complaint number 96050435; Nijole Hall, complaint number 96070365; Ella Didenko, complaint number 96080083; Salih Ferozovic, complaint number 96100067; Charles R. Wells, complaint number 9610068; and Adessa Auto Auction, complaint number 96110372. As a result of this administrative action, a Final Order was issued on January 27, 1997 revoking Mr. Badreddine's independent motor vehicle dealers [sic] license for failure to apply for a transfer of title within 30 days, - failure to comply with the provisions of section 319.23(6), F.S., failure to have a vehicle pass an emission inspection prior to retail sale, issuance of more than two temporary tags to the same person for use on the same vehicle, failure to have a title or other indicia of ownership in possession of the dealership from the time of acquiring the vehicle until the time of disposing of the vehicle, failure of a motor vehicle dealer to honor a check or draft. Mr. Badreddine applied for and was issued another motor vehicle dealer's license on April 24, 1998, under the name King Kar Auto Sales, Inc. The license was revoked on October 20, 1998, because of a surety bond cancellation. On November 24, 1998, the department received a complaint from Treflyn N. Congraves, complaint number 98070299. Ms. Congraves filed a complaint with the state attorney which resulted in Mr. Bareddine [sic] being placed on probation for issuing a bad check to GMAC and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $16,571.38. Mr. Badreddine is currently on probation. The department's investigation showed that Mr. Badreddine had a history of bad credit, failed to continually meet the requirements of the licensure law, failed to honor a bank draft or check given to a motor vehicle dealer for the purchase of a motor vehicle by another motor vehicle dealer, and had failed to satisfy a lien. Consequently, Mr. Badreddine's poor performance as a dealer forces us to deny a license where he may have a financial interest, active participation in the management, sales or any part in the operation of the dealership.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Facts Found and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which grants Ann L. Bell an independent motor vehicle dealer license for the business A & B. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward P. Jackson, Esquire Jackson & Mason, P.A. 516 West Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
The Issue Whether Respondent properly fined Petitioner the sum of $647.00 for the reasons set forth in the Load Report Citation Number 029011M, issued March 5, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner of Keys Marine Drilling, which operates in Monroe County, Florida. Petitioner uses a large floating pile driver in his business. This pile driver is usually stored on Petitioner's property until it is needed on the job site. The pile driver usually remains on the job site until the job is completed. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was the owner and operator of a 1978 Ford van. This van had been licensed as a “collectible” vehicle and had a gross vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds. On March 5, 1997, Petitioner was driving his van on U. S. 1 in Monroe County. Petitioner was using his van to tow the floating pile driver, which had been placed on a trailer. On March 5, 1997, Jorge Fernandez Delara, a motor vehicle compliance officer employed by Respondent observed that Petitioner did not stop at a weigh station at Plantation Key. Officer Delara immediately thereafter stopped Petitioner. On the instructions of Officer Delara, Petitioner returned to the weigh station.1 Officer Delara determined that Petitioner had registered his van as a collectible vehicle.2 This registration would not permit Petitioner's vehicle to have a gross vehicle weight in excess of 10,000 pounds. Officer Delara weighed Petitioner’s van, trailer, and the load on the trailer, and determined that the combined weight was 22,940 pounds. Thereafter, Officer Delara issued to Petitioner the citation that is at issue in this proceeding. Officer Delara correctly determined that Petitioner’s van's registration was not proper.3 He determined that Petitioner’s rig was 12,940 pounds overweight. He thereafter fined Petitioner the sum of $647.00, which is calculated, pursuant to Section 316.545(2)(b), Florida Statutes,4 by multiplying the number of pounds the rig was overweight by $0.05.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order that sustains the fine imposed against Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1998.
Findings Of Fact DOT Motor Carrier Compliance Officer Raul Vargas, Jr., stopped a commercial vehicle traveling on Interstate Highway 95 (S.R. 9), for a safety inspection on February 19, 1991. The vehicle was operated by William Henry Golden. Officer Vargas had Mr. Golden drive the truck off the interstate highway so that it could be weighed safely. There was no certified weight station within five miles of where he stopped Mr. Golden's vehicle, so Officer Vargas used portable scales that had last been calibrated January 17, 1991, 32 days preceding this event. The frequency for calibration of these scales is at six-month intervals, so there was great probability that these scales were accurate on February 19, 1991. Officer Vargas weighed the steering, drive, and rear axles of the vehicle, which resulted in a total weight of 85,800 pounds. Either the vehicle registration or the ICC authorization card ("bingo card") was made out to "Brisk Transportation Inc." The I.R.P. registration permitted only a gross vehicle weight of 80,000 pounds. Officer Vargas issued Load Report and Field Receipt No. 44747J to Brisk Transportation Inc., assessing a penalty of $290.00 for 5,800 pounds over the registered gross vehicle weight. Mr. Golden paid the $290 penalty personally and the vehicle was released to him as operator. Upon the testimony of Officer Vargas and Lt. Chuck Snellson, Officer Vargas' supervisor who reviewed the incident, and in consideration of these officers' education, training, and experience, it is found that Officer Vargas followed the proper and standard departmental procedure in weighing the vehicle and levying the $290.00 penalty. Nancy Golden, William Golden's wife, testified that her husband had a contract with Brisk Transportation to transport the product in the vehicle in question on February 19, 1991. She testified further that Mr. Golden was paid based on the product he was carrying at any given time and that there was no relationship between the weight of the product and the pay for transporting it. Nancy Golden was not present at any time when the product was being loaded, unloaded, transported, or weighed. Consequently, her assertion that Mr. Golden's vehicle actually weighed less than the weight registered by Petitioner's portable scale is not credible or persuasive. The several exhibits admitted in evidence in support of Mrs. Golden's assertion are not, in fact, probative of it. 1/ Mrs. Golden's unrefuted testimony that she and Mr. Golden owned the vehicle in question on February 19, 1991 and have since sold it is accepted as credible. There is no dispute between the parties that Mr. Golden, individually, paid the penalty and no suggestion by either party that the penalty was paid by Brisk Transportation Inc., a corporation. Even though Officer Vargas cited Brisk Transportation Inc. on the Load Report and Field Receipt, Mr. Golden (truck owner and operator) actually paid the fine to DOT. This entire administrative proceeding originated upon Mr. Golden's petition, and he is the appropriate party in interest here to whom a refund would be owed if the penalty were unlawful.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that the penalty of $290.00 was correctly assessed Brisk Transportation Inc./William H. Golden under provisions of Section 316.545 F.S. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of October, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 1990.
The Issue Should Respondent be required to pay Petitioner Twenty-Five Hundred dollars ($2,500.00), as a civil penalty for causing or permitting an out-of-service driver to operate a commercial motor vehicle (vehicle)?
Findings Of Fact Bryant Gay is a Motor Vehicle Compliance Officer who works for Petitioner. He was on duty on March 6, 1998. On that date, consistent with his employment, he stopped a commercial motor vehicle owned by Respondent and operated by Danny Holton. The stop was made in Gadsden County, Florida, on U.S. 90. The time of the stop was approximately 5:00 p.m. The basis for this stop was the suspicion that there was a violation of the weight axle law, premised upon Officer Gay's observation of the truck tires and springs. Once the stop was made the truck was weighed and was found to be of legal weight. But a check of Mr. Holton's driver's license revealed that the license did not carry the proper endorsements to operate a tank vehicle (such as Respondent's) of a capacity of more than one thousand gallons. As a consequence, Mr. Holton was cited for operating the vehicle without the proper driver's license and was fined one- hundred dollars ($100.00), pursuant to citation. Officer Gay also advised Mr. Holton that Mr. Holton was being placed out-of-service. After placing Mr. Holton out-of-service, Dan Strauss, the son of Fred Strauss, who is the owner and president of Respondent, was contacted. At that time Dan Strauss was serving as the acting representative of the Respondent in Fred Strauss' absence. Dan Strauss came to the scene of the stop and paid the $100.00 civil penalty for Mr. Holton's violation of the driver's license requirement that had been cited. Dan Strauss also brought a second driver to drive the subject vehicle back to Respondent's business premises. The second driver was allowed to return the subject vehicle based upon Officer Gay's belief that the second driver had the necessary license endorsements to operate the vehicle. Nothing in the conversation held between Officer Gay and Dan Strauss, at the point in time when the $100.00 civil penalty was paid, and the truck placed in the custody of the second driver, could reasonably be interpreted by Dan Strauss to allow Mr. Holton to continue to operate the subject vehicle before obtaining appropriate license endorsements. Nor did the conversation create a reason to believe that such an operation by Mr. Holton, if discovered by Petitioner's officer, would again be met with a further citation not to exceed $100.00. Nonetheless, Dan Strauss made the business judgment, that a customer, who was in immediate need of assistance to deal with a failed septic system, should not be ignored, even in the circumstance where Mr. Holton would be called upon to drive the subject vehicle to provide the service. Thus, Dan Strauss, having been told by Officer Gay that Mr. Holton was out-of-service to operate the subject vehicle, dispatched Mr. Holton to provide the service to the customer. At around 6:30 p.m., on March 6, 1998, Officer Gay saw Mr. Holton pulling the subject vehicle onto U.S. 27, in Gadsden County, Florida, and stopped the vehicle again. On this occasion, Officer Gay imposed a further citation in the amount of a civil penalty of twenty-five hundred dollars ($2,500.00), against Respondent, for permitting Mr. Holton to operate the subject vehicle when Mr. Holton had been declared out-of-service. When contacted about the additional citation, Dan Strauss told Officer Gay that he understood that Mr. Holton had been placed out-of-service as a driver of the subject vehicle; however, Dan Strauss told Officer Gay, that he, Dan Strauss, had assumed that if Mr. Holton was caught operating the vehicle it would only lead to another $100.00 civil penalty. No facts presented at hearing mitigate the twenty-five hundred dollar ($2,500.00) civil penalty for allowing an out-of- service driver to operate Respondent's vehicle.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which imposes a twenty-five hundred dollar ($2,500.00) civil penalty against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kelly A. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Fred Strauss Talquin Septic Tank Post Office Box 559 Midway, Florida 32343 Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue The only issue remaining in this case is the extent to which the Petitioner, the Department of Transportation (DOT), should penalize the Respondent, Keystone Excavators, Inc. (Keystone), for operating a commercial motor vehicle with an expired vehicle registration and for exceeding the maximum legal weight of 35,000 pounds allowed under Section 316.545, Fla. Stat. (1987).
Findings Of Fact On July 8, 1987, one of Keystone's commercial motor vehicles was operating on Interstate I-4 near Plant City, Hillsborough County, Florida, with a registration that expired on May 31, 1987. According to the DOT scales, the weight of the vehicle, loaded, was 82,520 pounds. The DOT's Form 509-13, Revised 1/86, titled the "Load Report and Field Receipt," specifies that, in subtracting the legal weight from the the scaled weight to determine the amount of overweight, a ten percent tolerance should be added to the legal weight. This is how the DOT interprets and applies the requirement of Section 316.545(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1987), that for enforcement purposes, all scaled weights of the gross or axle weight of vehicles and combinations of vehicles shall be deemed to be not closer than 10 percent to the true gross weight. When Keystone last registered the vehicle in question, it obtained a six-month registration instead of an annual registration. As a result, the registration expired May 31, 1987. For some reason, the sticker stating the month of expiration of the registration was not put on the vehicle's registration tag. Through inadvertent oversight, Keystone failed to renew the registration on the vehicle. When the DOT discovered the violation, it fined Keystone $2,376, calculated as 5 cents for each pound the vehicle weighed over 35,000 pounds. Keystone paid the fine under protest, taking the position that the fine was excessive under the circumstances. On the same day, after the DOT citation, Keystone paid a late fee and renewed the vehicle's registration for the period from May 31, 1987, forward. Keystone's evidence proved that Keystone did not intentionally violate the vehicle registration laws in this instance. Keystone does not intentionally violate the applicable laws and attempt to avoid or escape detection of violations. Nor does Keystone conduct business in a reckless or careless manner with respect to compliance with the applicable laws and treat penalties for detected violations as a cost of doing business. Notswithstanding this violation, Keystone generally has a good record for operating safe and properly licensed and permitted vehicles. The violation in this case resulted from an isolated case of inadvertent oversight. Keystone requested that the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board (the Review Board) drop or reduce the fine. The Review Board considered Keystone's request on August 13, 1987, and denied it by letter dated August 18, 1987. Keystone then requested a rehearing. The Review Board met on December 8, 1987, and denied rehearing by letter dated December 14, 1987.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a final order reducing the fine against Keystone to $750. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 1991.
Findings Of Fact The Parties H. B. Walker, Inc. is in the business of demolition, excavation and land clearing. The company transports heavy equipment to and from job sites and transports debris from job sites and is a commercial motor carrier. The company maintains a terminal for its motor vehicles at 1913 Bruton Boulevard, Orlando, Florida. All commercial motor carriers operating over the public highways in Florida are subject to certain federal regulations governing driver and vehicle safety and record-keeping. Those federal regulations are adopted by reference in the Florida Statutes, which statutes are amended from time to time to address a later version of the federal regulations. The DOT has the authority and responsibility to enforce those safety and record-keeping requirements, which it does, in part, through terminal audits, sometimes called "compliance reviews". The Process On April 18, 1995, after conferring with his supervisor, Officer Terron Lindsey, a seasoned agency motor carrier compliance officer, visited H. B. Walker's terminal and conducted a review of Walker's records. As a result of the review, Officer Lindsey found multiple violations of the record-keeping requirements of 49 CFR, parts 391 and 396. He advised Walker's personnel that he would return in 60 - 90 days and no penalty would be imposed if the violations were corrected. On a follow-up audit on July 12 and 13, 1995, Officer Lindsey found that some, but not all corrections were made. On August 1, 1995, the agency issued to H. B. Walker a Safety Report and Field Receipt stating the violations and citations to the federal rules and assessing penalties in the total amount of $4,000. Officer Lindsey delivered the Safety Report and Field Receipt to Walker's terminal and was told that the penalty would not be paid. Walker did not pay the $4,000, but protested the agency's findings to the Commercial Motor Carrier Board (Board). By 1995 the DOT had some brief experience with conducting terminal audits and assessing penalties for record- keeping violations, but this was the first time that a motor carrier had refused to pay the penalty prior to presenting its protest to the Board. Captain E. A. Brown, Officer Lindsey's supervisor, called the Tallahassee headquarters of DOT's motor carrier compliance office and the DOT's legal office to find out how to proceed. As motor carriers are aware, DOT exercises authority in road-side safety inspections to require immediate payment of any penalty or to impound the vehicle when a compliance officer issues a citation. Based on DOT's existing rules, Chapter 18 of the Motor Carrier Compliance Manual and experience with road-side safety enforcement, Colonel McPherson advised Captain Brown that the agency had authority to impound an H. B. Walker vehicle. After receiving directions from his headquarters, Captain Brown wrote letters to H. B. Walker and orally informed Walker's employee, John Valois, that if the penalty were not paid, a vehicle would be held, consistent with past enforcement actions on non-payment of penalties. On August 28, 1995, at the direction of Captain Brown, Officer Rick Hunter detained one of Walker's vehicles and impounded it at a DOT maintenance yard. In the meantime, after the Board received H. B. Walker's request for a hearing on the violations, the Board's Executive Secretary, Elyse Kennedy, telephoned Walker's counsel and told him that the Board could not hear his case until the penalties were paid, or a bond was posted. Later, after confirming with DOT legal staff, Ms. Kennedy sent a letter advising Walker's counsel that the Board could schedule and hear the case, as the impoundment of a vehicle was equivalent to payment of the penalties or the bond. H. B. Walker's case was scheduled with consultation with Walker's attorney. On the appointed date, when no representative from H. B. Walker appeared, the Board considered written material submitted by Walker's attorney and testimony from Officer Lindsey. The Board notified H. B. Walker of its denial of relief in a letter dated September 15, 199[5]. The letter states in pertinent part: Dear Sir: Pursuant to Section 316.545, Florida Statutes, the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board at its meeting of July 13, 199[5], carefully reviewed all of the information placed before it and determined that a refund was not appropriate in this case for the following reason. After hearing testimony of Officer Lindsey and Captain E. A. Brown, the Board felt that H. B. Walker, Inc. was not in compliance with CFR 391.51; CFR 391.43; CFR 391.103 and CFR 396.3. Pursuant to Rule 14A-1.012, Florida Administrative Code, you are entitled to request a rehearing in this matter by filing such a request with the Executive Secretary within ten (10) days of the receipt of this letter. Pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, you have the right to either a formal or an informal hearing. A formal hearing will be granted where disputed issues of material fact exist; in other words, where you disagree with the specific facts contained in this letter upon which the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board bases its intent to deny your request for refund. All requests for either type of hearing must be in writing. * * * You are hereby notified that the conclusion contained in this letter shall become final with 21 days of receipt of this letter, unless, you file a written request for an informal or formal Administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, with the Clerk of Agency Proceedings within 21 days. * * * Walker's timely request for a formal hearing tolled the Board's conclusion. The 1995 Rules In 1995, at the time of the H. B. Walker terminal audit and ensuing Board meeting, rules 14A-1.004 and 14A-1.007, Florida Administrative Code, provided, in pertinent part: 14A-1.004 Meetings . . . Only penalties which have been paid or for which a Section 316.545 bond has been posted, will be considered by the Review Board. 14A-1.007 Timely Written Request for Meeting Any person who is aggrieved by the imposition of a civil penalty imposed upon the provisions of section 316.545 or 316.3025, Florida Statutes, after payment of the penalty, or posting a section 316.545, Florida Statutes, bond may request consideration by the Review Board by notifying the Review Board office in writing within 60 days of the date of the penalty notice (Load and Field Receipt Date) that the penalty is being protested and a Review Board consideration is requested . . . . At the relevant period, rules 14-87.011(1) and 14-87.002 provided, in pertinent part: 14-87.011 Definitions * * * "Citation" means: A Load Report and Field Receipt issued to the owner or driver of a commercial motor vehicle for violation of weight and vehicle registration laws: or A Safety Report and Field Receipt issued to the owner or driver of a commercial motor vehicle for violation of safety laws and regulations and permit violations; or The penalty portion of an I. R. P. Trip Permit & Temporary Fuel Use Permit issued to the owner or driver of a commercial motor vehicle in violation of the fuel use tax requirements contained in Chapter 207, Florida Statutes. 14-87.002 Penalties and Fees Due Penalties and fees imposed upon the operations of commercial motor vehicles are due and payable upon the issuance of a citation or a permit. . . The 1996 Amendments On June 7, 1996, DOT published notices of rule-making, proposing to amend various provisions of rule chapters 14-87, 14-108 and 14A-1. On July 16, 1996, the agency filed the amendments to Chapter 14A-1 for adoption, and those amendments became effective August 5, 1996. The amendments to Chapters 14-87 and 14-108, Florida Administrative Code, became effective in September 1996. The cumulative effect of these amendments is to distinguish between the penalty process for road violations and the process for violations found during a terminal audit/compliance review. The amendments provide that a commercial motor carrier who has been assessed penalties for violations found during a terminal audit may obtain a Review Board hearing prior to payment or posting a bond. The amendments also distinguish between a "notice of non- compliance" issued after a terminal audit to advise the carrier of violations and the penalties that will be assessed if the violations are not corrected, and a "notice of violation" which identifies the violations and assesses penalties. DOT's amendments to chapter 14-87, Florida Administrative Code, are, in relevant part, as follows: (Underlined material has been added, material struck through has been deleted.) 14-87.0011 Definitions * * * "Penalty" means a monetary amount prescribed by statute or Department rule as a civil penalty to be assessed administratively for a violation of a commercial motor vehicle law pursuant to the issuance of a citation or a notice of violation. * * * "Notice of Violation" means a notice of violation as defined by Rule 14-108.002(5). * * * 14-87.002 Penalties and Fees Due; Detaining and Impounding Motor Vehicles When Citation or Permit Issued Penalties and fees imposed upon the operations of commercial motor vehicles are due and payable upon the issuance of a citation or a permit. Penalties due under chapter 14-108 are due in accordance rule 14-108.004. All penalties and fees not guaranteed by a Surety Bond must be paid to the officer or inspector issuing the citation or permit or detaining the vehicle for nonpayment of penalties prescribed under rule 14-108.005 prior to further operation of the affected commercial motor vehicle on the roads of this State. Payment may be in cash, by cashier's check or by money order. In the event that payment is not made when payment is due, the motor vehicle will be impounded in accordance with sections 316.3025 or 316.545, Florida Statutes. When a Surety Bond has been properly filed and accepted by the Department, the vehicle will be released upon presenting written evidence of the surety bond to the officer or inspector detaining the vehicle the citation or permit will be issued to the owner or driver of the vehicle, and payment must be remitted to the officer or inspector who issued the citation or permit within ten working days of the release of the vehicle date of issuance. Company checks may be accepted when a proper Surety Bond is on file. In the event that payment is not made within ten working days of release of the vehicle, the Department will take action to recover the penalty amount from the surety bond. Motor vehicles impounded in accordance with this rule will be released upon payment of the penalty or the posting of a bond pursuant to Section 316.545, Florida Statutes, or upon a determination by the Commercial Motor Carrier Review Board to cancel or revoke the penalty or upon the issuance of a Department order setting aside the penalty as the result of a proceeding held pursuant to section 120.57, Florida Statutes. Motor vehicles released as a result of the posting of a bond under section 316.545, Florida Statutes, remain subject to the lien imposed by that statute. The Department's amendments to chapter 14-108, Florida Administrative Code, are, in relevant part, as follows: 14-108.002 Definitions * * * "Notice of Noncompliance" means a notice issued to a motor carrier that advises the motor carrier of violations found during a terminal audit/compliance review and identifies the penalties that will be assessed if the violations are not corrected within 60 days of receipt of the notice. "Notice of Violation" means a written notice which identifies violations of safety laws and regulations found during the conduct of a terminal audit/compliance review and assesses penalties pursuant to these rules. Such a notice will be issued after violations are found and penalties are to be assessed under this Chapter. (5) "Penalty" means a monetary amount prescribed by statute as a civil penalty to be assessed administratively for violation(s) of safety laws and regulations found during the conduct of a terminal audit/compliance review. (6) "Terminal Audit" or "Compliance Review" means an onsite investigation at a motor carrier's terminal or office of property carrier or passenger carrier records such a driver's hours of service, maintenance and inspection, driver qualification, commercial drivers license requirements, financial responsibility, accidents and other safety and business records to determine compliance with the safety laws and regulation. The investiga- tion will compliance review may result in the initiation of an enforcement action to include the assessment of the applicable penalty(ies) prescribed by statute and this rule chapter. 14-108.003 Applicability; Compliance Required * * * Any person or motor carrier who operates or causes or permits nonpublic- sector buses to be operated on any road, street, or highway open to travel by the public in the transportation of passengers shall be in compliance with the applicable safety laws and regulations contained in section 316.70, Florida Statutes, and Title 49 C.F.R. Parts 382, 385 and 390 through 397 301, 393, 394 and 396. Any person or motor carrier found to be in violation of these rules during the conduct of a terminal audit or compliance review shall be subject to the penalties herein described. The penalties prescribed by rule 14-108.105 will be waived and a notice of violation will not be issued if, as a result of the first terminal audit or compliance review conducted of a Motor Carrier, the Motor Carrier corrects the described violations within 60 days after receipt of a written notice of noncompliance. Penalties for the following violations will not be waived under the above provision, even if they are found during the first terminal audit or compliance review and are corrected immediately. Failure to comply with controlled substance testing requirements Exceeding driver hours of service. Violations involving hazardous materials. Lack of valid commercial driver's licenses, including revoked, suspended or cancelled licenses. 14-108.004 Administration: Enforcement. All penalties imposed and collected in accordance with these rules shall be paid to the treasurer, who shall credit the total amount collected to the State Trans- portation Trust Fund in accordance with section 316.3025(5)(b), Florida Statutes. Penalties assessed as a result of a terminal audit are due and shall be paid no later than ten working days after receipt of the notice of violation, unless a timely appli- cation is made to the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board under rule 14A-1.007, in which case the penalty (or the remaining part thereof) is due and shall be paid no later than ten working days after receipt of a written decision by the Review Board sustaining the penalty in whole or in part. Whenever any person or motor carrier violates the provisions of these rules and becomes indebted to the State because of such violation(s) and refuses to pay the appropriate penalty, the penalty becomes a lien upon the property including the motor vehicles of such person or motor carrier and may be foreclosed by the State in a civil action in any court of this state as prescribed by section 316.3025(4), Florida Statutes. Motor vehicles of the person or motor carrier will be detained and impounded for nonpayment in accordance with Rule 14-87.002. The adopted amendments to Chapter 14A-1, Florida Administrative Code, are, in relevant part, as follows: 14A-1.004 Meetings The Review Board shall sit as an admin- istrative body in equity to consider testimony or written documents in mitigation, extenuation, modification, cancellation, revocation, or maintenance of any penalty or penalties imposed pursuant to 316.540, 316.545, or 316.3025, Florida Statutes. Only penalties which have been paid or for which a section 316.545 bond has been posted, will be considered by the Review Board. However, this provision shall not prevent the owner of a motor vehicle that has been impounded for nonpayment from receiving a Review Board hearing. Further, as provided in Rule 14-108.004, a motor carrier may obtain a Review Board hearing on penalties assessed as a result of a terminal audit prior to payment or posting of a bond. Review Board meetings may be scheduled as often as determined necessary, based on a sufficient number of penalties being avail- able for review to justify the expense of hold a meeting. The Review Board shall meet not less than six times per year. Location of meetings shall be determined by the Review Board. Upon timely written request, cases involving Florida based persons will be scheduled at the next meeting held in their geographic area. However, cases involving requests for Review Board conside- ration of unpaid penalties imposed for violations found during a terminal audit will be scheduled for the next meeting regardless of location. Upon timely written request, cases involving non-Florida based persons will be scheduled at the next meeting of the Review Board. Persons may request the scheduling of their case at a specific city at which the Review Board meets. Such requests must be in writing to the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board, Haydon Burns Building, 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450. * * * 14A-1.007 Timely Written Request for Meeting Any person who is aggrieved by the imposition of a civil penalty imposed upon the pro- visions of Section 316.545 or 316.3025, Florida Statutes upon compliance with Rule 14A-1.004, after payment of the penalty, or posting a Section 316.545, Florida Statutes, bond may request consideration by the Review Board by notifying the Review Board office in writing within 60 days of the date of the Penalty Notice (Load and Field Receipt Date) that the penalty is being protested and a Review Board consideration is requested. The request shall set forth in detail the basis of the protest and all matters to be considered so that the Review Board can be prepared to discuss the issue at the meeting if the protestor does not appear. The request must be received within 60 days. A written request for Review Board consideration of a penalty imposed for violations found during a terminal audit must be submitted and received within ten working days after receipt of the notice of violation in order to be considered timely and such written request must be submitted via hand-delivery or certified mail. 14A-1.008 Appearances Those persons, firms or corporations who have been assessed a penalty for violations of Section 316.540, 316.545, or 316.3025, Florida Statutes, and have complied with the requirements of Rules 14A-1.004 and 14A-1.007 either have paid the penalty or posted a Section 316.545, Florida Statutes, bond shall appear in person, through an authorized representative or by legal counsel. Each person shall be given ample time to explain the reasons for seeking relief. The Review Board, at its discretion, may inquire into any testimony presented at the meeting or written statements presented. Testimony also may be received from the agency that imposed the penalty. Although Mr. Walker testified that he never received notice of rule- making to amend Chapter 14A-1, Florida Administrative Code, he did not present evidence that he requested notice. Nor did he argue that the amendments were otherwise invalid. Chapter 18, Motor Carrier Compliance Operations Manual As stated in its first paragraph, Chapter 18, "Collection of Civil Penalties", within the Motor Carrier Compliance Operations Manual, the purpose of Chapter 18 is, to establish a uniform procedure for the collection of overweight penalties and other commercial vehicle penalties assessed pursuant to Florida Statutes and, Department Rules. (DOT Exhibit Number13) Like the rules of DOT in 1995, the Chapter 18 procedures provided for immediate collection of a penalty, or posting a bond or impoundment of a vehicle at the time enforcement action is taken. Although agency personnel invoked Chapter 18 as part of their basis for seeking immediate payment by H. B. Walker, the provisions of the Chapter nowhere specifically mention penalties assessed as the result of terminal audits. On April 15, 1996, the agency issued Enforcement Bulletin 18-001, to be inserted in Chapter 18 describing procedures for imposition and collection of civil penalties associated with terminal audits. Those procedures are the same as the procedures described in the rule amendments addressed in paragraphs 18 through 20, above.
