Findings Of Fact Respondent Charles T. Noegel has been in the pest control business for some sixteen years. In February of 1976, the petitioner Office of Entomology sent all licensees a license renewal application for a license to be effective on March 31, 1976. Petitioner received a check from respondent, but the proceeds thereof were applied to review respondent's pest control operator's certificates. A check sent by respondent during 1975 had been returned for insufficient funds. A pest control business license cannot be issued unless there is evidence of a current operator's certificate in existence. Petitioner did not receive respondent's application or a check for the license which was to be effective on March 31, 1976. In June of 1976, petitioner notified respondent that they needed his application and a check for the renewed license. They also sent him an application form. According to respondent, he did not receive the entire application form. Respondent testified that he telephoned the petitioner's office in Jacksonville on two or three occasions and told a secretary there that he did not have a complete application form. In March of 1977, Mr. Page from petitioner's office called respondent. Respondent was not available and Mr. Page left the message with respondent's answering service that respondent was operating illegally without a license and asked Mr. Noegel to call him. Mr. Page received no reply from this message. According to Mr. Noegel, he received the message but did not receive the name or telephone number of the person who left the message. In April of 1977, petitioner did receive from respondent an application for the renewal of his operator's certificate and a check. Respondent has been delinquent in the past in applying for his license, and various checks have been returned for insufficient funds. Had respondent timely applied and paid for the renewal of his March 31, 1976, license, petitioner would have issued the license to him. By certified letter dated August 10, 1978, petitioner notified respondent that his pest control operator's certificate number 519 was being revoked for failure to comply with Chapter 482 of the Florida Statutes and Chapter 10D-55 of the Florida Administrative Code. Generally, respondent was charged with conducting his pest control business, known as the Seminole-Gator Exterminator, without a license. While more specific charges are contained in the August 10, 1978, letter, petitioner offered no evidence at the administrative hearing to substantiate such specific allegations.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that petitioner find that respondent violated Section 482.071(1) by operating his business without a valid license. It is further recommended that respondent's operator's certificate number 519 be suspended for a period of sixty (60) days from August 10, 1978, and that upon the payment of all back license renewal fees, respondent's certificate be reinstated, and respondent be placed on probation for a period of eighteen months. The terms of probation should include the timely renewal and payment of all permits required by petitioner's laws and regulations. Respectfully submitted and entered this 6th day of October, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of October, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Noegel Entomologist - Manager Seminole Gator Exterminator 1409 Pichard Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Donna Stinson, Esq. Department of HRS 2639 N Monroe Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William J. Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Andrew J. Rogers Director, Office of Entomology Department of HRS Post Office Box 210 Jacksonville, Florida 32231 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the practices or procedures set forth in Paragraphs 6a and 6b of Petitioner's 2nd Amended Challenge to Agency Statements constitute rules in violation of Subsection 120.54(4), Florida Statutes (2004).1
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, the "Structural Pest Control Act." The Director of the Division of Agricultural Environmental Services (Division) is appointed by the Commissioner of Agriculture to serve at his pleasure and is given the responsibility by Section 570.45, Florida Statutes, to enforce the provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. The Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control (Bureau), under the Division Director's supervision and the supervision of the Assistant Director of the Division, Steven Dwinell, investigates violations of Chapter 482. The Department filed two Administrative Complaints against Cirrincione, alleging that he violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E-14.016(1) by failing to wear necessary protective equipment as stated on the label for the pesticide he was applying and Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E-14.106(6) by applying a deficient concentration of pesticide for preconstruction soil treatments for prevention of subterranean termites. The evidence at final hearing did not establish that Cirrincione was a licensee, certified operator, or special identification cardholder as those terms are defined in Section 482.021, Florida Statutes. At the time of the alleged violations, Cirrincione was an employee of Diligent Environmental Services. As an employee of Diligent Environmental Services, Cirrincione applied pesticides during preconstruction pest control treatments and would be subject to disciplinary actions pursuant to Section 482.161, Florida Statutes. Cirrincione filed a challenge to certain practices and procedures of the Bureau relating to the investigative activities of the Bureau and its staff, alleging that the practices and procedures were unpromulgated rules. These practices and procedures are described in Paragraphs 6a and 6b of Petitioner's 2nd Amended Challenge to Agency Statements. Paragraph 6a provides: The practice of selectively advising pest control licensees in writing, that they are under investigation for possible violations of Florida Statute 482 and/or its associated administrative rules and requesting their licensees to respond to subject allegations with information, records, or documentation. This procedure is utilized when the Department either needs additional information in connection with their investigation or if they anticipate a substantial penalty, consisting of a $5,000.00 administrative fine, suspension, or revocation. Paragraph 6b of Petitioner's 2d Amended Challenge to Agency Statements provides: There is a regularly employed multiple step procedure pursuant to which the Department makes the determination of whether or not to take disciplinary action against its licensees based inter alia upon the field inspector's investigative report. This procedure includes a preliminary determination that there is a sufficient factual and legal basis for disciplinary action which is characterized by the Department as the showing of "sufficient documentation." This preliminary disciplinary decision is made by a case reviewer who is then charged with the responsibility of drafting an administrative complaint consistent with his or her findings. The case reviewer's findings are then reviewed by the Environmental Manager/Enforcement Coordinator who, subject to any corrections, forwards the administrative complaint and associated documentation to the Assistant Division Director and Chief Officer of the Office of Entomology for final review. Ultimately, the Chief will execute the administrative complaint. The administrative complaints also include an addendum with a description of administrative penalties sought by the Department based upon policy guidelines. The Pest Control Enforcement Advisory Council (Council) is created within the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services "to advise the Commissioner of Agriculture regarding the regulation of pest control practices." § 482.243(1), Fla. Stat. At its November 20, 2003, meeting, the Council adopted unanimously Enforcement Response Guidelines, which included the following policy: When the disciplinary action to be sought as a result of this process is a monetary fine in excess of $5,000, or the suspension or revocation of a license, the Department will send a certified letter to the address of record notifying the responsible party that the Department intends to issue an administrative complaint. The responsible party will be given 14 working days to contact the Department to provide facts and arguments to the Department to consider to either modify the proposed administrative complaint, mitigate the proposed enforcement action, or to conclude that the proposed action should not be taken. If the certified mail is refused, the Department may proceed with the proposed action without further delay. If the responsible party responds to the notification that an administrative action is being considered, the Department will evaluate the additional information provided and either conduct additional investigation as warranted, modify the complaint as needed, or proceed with the complaint. The guidelines adopted by the Council are advisory, and the Department is not required to follow the guidelines; however, the Department has followed the guidelines pertaining to providing those who are subject to disciplinary actions an opportunity to provide additional information when the Department is considering taking disciplinary action in the form of an administrative fine in excess of $5,000, revocation, or suspension. The Department has also used the procedure when the Department's investigation reveals that additional information is necessary. The procedure has been described as the "opportunity letter" procedure. The opportunity letter is not sent to all persons who are under investigation for possible statutory or rule violations. When asked if the guidelines were being followed strictly by the Department, Steven Dwinell described the Bureau's adherence to the guidelines as follows: Well, I don't know if it was strictly. I mean, we're attempting to follow it, you know, I'm not going to testify that something slipped through, but as far as I know, we're following it. The opportunity letter is part of the investigatory process and does not require the person or entity that is the subject of the disciplinary investigation to respond to the request for additional information or to provide arguments for the modification, mitigation, or dismissal of the proposed action. There is no penalty for failure to respond. The ultimate decision of whether to issue an administrative complaint is made by either the Division Director or the Assistant Division Director. Prior to the issuance of an administrative complaint, an investigation is made by a field inspector, who completes a report setting out his findings. Sometimes the report will include a video tape of the application of the pesticide treatment at the site of the treatment. The report may also include a sample of the pesticide applied at the site. The sample will be sent to the Department's laboratory for testing, including the concentration level. The field inspector's report is reviewed by the field inspector's supervisor, who checks the investigatory file to make sure that it is complete. The file is then submitted to a reviewer, who looks at the video tapes and reviews the file and laboratory results. The reviewer prepares the first draft of the administrative complaint and sends the draft administrative complaint and the complete file to an environmental manager, who is responsible for enforcement coordination and supervising the reviewers. The environmental manager reviews the draft administrative report as a quality control measure. After review by the environmental manager, the draft administrative complaint and file are sent to the Division for review and consideration by either the Division Director or the Assistant Division Director. The decision to issue an administrative complaint is made at the Division level. After the administrative complaint is approved, it and the file are returned to the environmental manager for any cosmetic changes that may be necessary. The final draft of the administrative complaint is sent to the Bureau Chief for execution. This process of reviewing the file and drafting the administrative complaint prior to the decision being made to issue the administrative complaint is an internal process. It has no application outside the Department, does not affect the private interests of a person, and is not a plan or procedure that is important to the public.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be issued a Pest Control Identification Card pursuant to Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. Petitioner James C. Melvin appeared at the hearing without counsel. After being advised of his rights under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, he indicated that he understood such rights and did not desire to be represented by counsel.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner made application for a Pest Control Identification Card through Guardian Termite and Pest Control Company of Tampa, Florida, a certified operator, on February 13, 1978. By letter of March 2, 1978, to that organization, the Respondent's Director, Office of Entomology, advised that the application was denied because of Petitioner's previous noncompliance with Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, and Pest Control Regulations of the then Florida State Board of Health. (Exhibits 7, 8) Petitioner was employed by several pest control firms in Tampa during the period 1956 to 1962, and 1964 to 1965, during which periods he held a Pest Control Identification Card issued by Respondent. (Testimony of Bargren) On December 12, 1962, Petitioner was found guilty of violating State Board of Health structural pest control rules in the County Judges Court of Hernando County and sentenced to $15.00 costs and a suspended five-day confinement. On June 21, 1967, Petitioner pleaded guilty to a pest control violation in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $200.00 or be confined in the county jail at hard labor for a period of sixty (60) days. Again, on September 11, 1967, in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Polk County, Florida, Petitioner pleaded guilty to engaging in structural pest control without a license and, on December 8, 1967, was sentenced to pay a fine of $200.00 or be confined in the county jail for a term of ninety days. (Exhibits 1, 4, 5)
Recommendation That the application of James C. Melvin for a Pest Control Identification Card be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: William Park, Esquire W. T. Edwards Facility 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Fourth Floor Tampa, Florida 33614 James C. Melvin 1310 West Rambla Street Tampa, Florida 33612 Steven W. Huss, Esquire Central Operations Services Department of HRS 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES JAMES C. MELVIN, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 78-645 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER A hearing was held in the above styled administrative cause before a Hearing Officer Thomas C. Oldham, Florida Division of Administrative Hearings, on May 23, 1978, upon the Petition of James C. Melvin which contested the denial of his application for a pest control identification cared through Guardian Termite and Pest Control Company of Tampa, Florida. Present at the hearing were the Petitioner, James C. Melvin and William M. Park, Attorney for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, District VI. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has reviewed the recommended order by Thomas C. Oldham, Hearing Officer, and adopts said order as follows:
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, Joey Collins Pest Control of America, Inc. (Collins Pest Control) was subject to the regulatory provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, and the pertinent rules adopted by Petitioner, as a business entity licensed by Petitioner to engage in pest control in the State of Florida. At all times pertinent hereto, Eric C. Van De Ven was employed by Collins Pest Control as a pest control operator and was subject to the regulatory provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, and the pertinent rules adopted by Petitioner. On May 15, 1990, Mr. Van De Ven performed a termite inspection at the residence located at 8411 S.W. 84th Terrace, Miami, Florida, at the request of J. Raul Cosio and Maria F. Trabanco, in connection with their intended purchase of that residence. This work was performed in his capacity as an employee of Collins Pest Control. Mr. Van De Ven prepared, signed, and caused to be delivered to Mr. Cosio and Ms. Trabanco, a written inspection report pursuant to Section 482.226, Florida Statutes. This report was prepared on behalf of his employer, Collins Pest Control, on Collins Pest Control's letterhead. This report, states that visible evidence of Formosan termites was observed on the main beam above the pool deck, that live Formosan termites were observed on the main beam above the pool deck, and that there was visible evidence of damage by Formosan termites. The report also estimates that treating the premises by "tent and soil poisoning" would cost $1,525.00. The report did not include observable damage that had been caused by drywood termites. Mr. Van De Ven had observed this damage, but he did not note this damage in his report because the owner of the premises had been aware of the damage, the damaged area had been treated, and the area had been patched. Mr. Van De Ven recommended to Mr. Cosio and Ms. Trabanco that the owners of the premises should contact Truly Nolen, the company that had treated the premises for drywood termites, to determine whether Truly Nolen would pay for any additional treatment that may be necessary. Mr. Van De Ven erroneously identified a drywood termite as being a Formosan termite. There were no Formosan termites on the premises, and there was no condition that would have warranted the treatment recommended by Mr. Van De Ven. All damage that had been observed by Mr. Van De Ven had been caused by drywood termites. Mr. Van De Ven should have been able to distinguish between evidence of Formosan termites and evidence of drywood termites because of the physical differences between the two types of termites and because of the differences between the damage each type does to an infested area. Mr. Van De Ven was negligent in failing to distinguish between the two types of termites and in recommending the unnecessary treatment. There was no evidence that Mr. Van De Ven deliberately misled his customers or that he was trying to sell unnecessary services. There was no evidence that Mr. Cosio or Ms. Trabanco suffered any damages as a result of their dealings with Respondents. There was no evidence that either Respondent had been previously disciplined by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which: finds that Respondents Eric C. Van De Ven and Joey Collins Pest Control of America, Inc. have violated the provisions of Section 482.226(1), Florida Statutes, by performing the subject inspection in a negligent manner; further finds that said Respondents have violated the provisions of Rule 10D-55.1046(6), Florida Administrative Code, by recommending treatment for Formosan termites where there was no evidence of such infestation; and imposes an administrative fine in the amount of $250 against each Respondent. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of February, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, and 10 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 3-9 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The only post-hearing submittal submitted by Respondents was in the form of a letter addressed to the Hearing Officer filed January 28, 1991. This letter contained no proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 111 Georgia Avenue Third Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Joey Collins Pest Control of America, Inc. 243 N.E. 5th Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33483 Joseph A. Collins, III Owner Joey Collins Pest Control of America, Inc. 243 N.E. 5th Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33483 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was, and is, a Florida certified pest control operator. Petitioner owns and operates Campbell's Pest Control, a firm licensed by the State of Florida for pest control purposes and doing business in Alachua, Florida. In his capacity as owner and operator of that firm, Petitioner supervises two cardholder employees. In the latter part of 1982, Petitioner received two letters from Respondent, one dated August 13, 1982, and the other September 7, 1982. Both of these letters contained notification to Petitioner of Respondent's contention that he had failed to comply with the requirements of Section 482.152, Florida Statutes, which provides as follows: A certified operator in charge of pest control operations of a licensee shall be a Florida resident whose primary occupation is in the structural pest control business, who is employed on a full-time basis by the licensee, and whose principal duty is the personal supervision of and participation in the pest control operations of the licensee as the same relate to the following: The selection of proper and correct chemicals for the particular pest control work to be performed. The safe and proper use of these pesticides. The correct concentration and formulation of pesticides used in all pest control work performed. The training of personnel in the proper and acceptable methods of pest control. The control measures and procedures used. The notification of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services within 24 hours of any knowledge of accidental human poisoning or death connected with pest control work performed on jobs he is supervising. Two memoranda were enclosed with the letter from Respondent dated September 7, 1982. The first of these was a legal memorandum from Respondent's counsel concerning an interpretation of Section 482.152, Florida Statutes, quoted above. This memorandum provided in pertinent part that: It is clear from a careful reading of Chapter 482 that the requirement concerning a fully qualified certified operator exists as a condition precedent to licensure because of the many dangers inherent in pest control activities. The interpretation placed on the language above quoted from Section 482.152, F.S. is that the certified operator's primary job should be that of a certified operator. Because of the many functions which are required to be performed by the certified operator, he should be on the job on a full-time basis or a nearly full-time basis for the licensee. It is obvious that the legislature, by using the language above described, intended to preclude 'certificate selling'. . . The other memorandum was dated February 23, 1978, and furnished to all commercial pest control licensees and certified operators, and concerned the subject of "renting" of pest control certificates. This memorandum provided in part that: It has come to the attention of this office that some licensees and certified operators are not in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 482.121 and 482.152, Florida Statutes, concerning the status and activities of a certified operator in charge of pest control activities of a licensee. * * * The intent and purpose of the provisions of the Pest Control Act . . . are to prevent such practices as certificate 'renting' or 'selling' under the pretense that the certified operator is in the [sic] charge of pest control activities of the licensee, when in fact he or she is not. The Office of Entomology will enforce the referenced provisions of chapter 482 F.S. as interpreted by legal counsel [in the January 25, 1977 memorandum] with regard to certificate 'renting'. Licensees and certified operators should examine their present arrangements with regard to this matter to determine if they are in compliance with the law. Violations could be grounds for suspension or revocation of licenses or certificates. Any licensee adversely affected would be entitled to apply for an emergency certificate upon loss of certified operator. By Administrative Complaint dated October 13, 1982, Petitioner was charged with a violation of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes: . . . in that you are presently employed on a full-time basis by the City of Gainesville as a firefighter and at the same time registered with the Department as an employee--identification cardholder and as a certified operator in charge of the pest control operations of Campbell's Pest Control . . . This constitutes a violation of Section 482.152, F.S., which requires, in part, that the primary occupation of a certified operator in charge of the pest control operations of a licensee shall be in the pest control business and that such certified operator be employed on a full-time basis by the licensee with the principal duty of personal supervision of and participation in the licensee's pest control operations as these operations relate to selection and safe, and correct use of pesticides, control measures and procedures used, and training of personnel; and a violation of section 482.121(1), F.S., which provides that no certified pest control operator shall allow his certificate to be used by any licensee to secure or keep a license unless such certified operator is in charge of the 'pest control activities of the licensee in the category or categories covered by his certificate and is a full-time employee of the licensee.
The Issue The issues to be resolved are as follows: With regard to Count Four of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge and more particularly whether sufficient facts have been alleged to identify the challenged rule, whether existing, proposed, or unpromulgated; and whether, through an unpromulgated rule, the Department (Respondent) has prohibited the installation of "pest control insulation" or borate containing insulation by anyone other than a card-carrying employee of a certified pest control operator or licensee. If so, it must be determined whether such action is outside the Respondent's rulemaking authority, whether it is contrary to statute, whether it disregards the exceptions proved in Section 482.211(9), Florida Statutes, and whether it violates Section 482.051, Florida Statutes. With regard to Count Five of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge to a proposed or existing rule or have offered evidence legally sufficient to establish a rule, proposed, or existing, which the Petitioners are challenging relating to the Respondent allegedly having selectively investigated pest control operators performing 100 or more pre-construction termite treatments annually, and whether such action is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. With regard to Count Six of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge to a proposed or existing rule or have offered evidence legally sufficient to establish a rule, proposed, existing, or unpromulgated, which the Petitioners are challenging relating to the Respondent's alleged enforced application of termiticide arbitrarily and capriciously by not requiring the best available technology and not regulating according to acceptable standards in the manner in which it conducts field investigations. With regard to Count Seven of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge based on a proposed or existing rule or have offered legally sufficient evidence to establish a rule, proposed, existing, or unpromulgated, which the Petitioners are challenging relating to the Respondent's enforcement of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, as it relates to preventive soil treatments for new construction and its alleged failure to protect the public. With regard to Counts Two, Three, and Eight of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have alleged any facts or presented any evidence to establish a proposed, existing, or unpromulgated rule substantially affecting the interests of the Petitioners. Whether either the Petitioners or the Respondent are entitled to recovery of attorney's fees and costs.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners conceded at hearing that the Order on the Motion to Dismiss, prior to the hearing, concerning the mootness caused by the withdrawal of the above-referenced agency memos not only disposed of Count One of the Amended Petition, but had rendered moot Counts Two and Three, as well. No evidence was presented as to the those counts. Neither was any evidence or argument presented regarding Count Eight of the Amended Petition. Thus, Counts Two, Three, and Eight, as well as Count One, should be dismissed. The Petitioners, with regard to Count Four of the Amended Petition, did not allege the text of any statement or description of one which could be construed as an unpromulgated rule by the agency, which prohibited the installation of insulation containing borate by anyone other than a "card- carrying" employee of a certified pest control operator or licensee. There was no evidence to establish the existence of such an unpromulgated statement or rule of general application. Cliff Killingsworth testified that he was an officer and party representative of the Petitioners' companies in this case. "In-cide" is a cellulose fiber with borate or borate- containing materials for fire retardancy and fungal control. The manufacturer had increased the borate content in the material so that it could make claims with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the product's pest control value. Mr. Killingsworth acknowledged that it was a licensed and registered "pest control product." While Mr. Killingsworth agreed that claims to the public about the pest control value of the product should be done by a pest control operator, he felt that should not prevent him from subcontracting the installation of the insulation material to a professional insulation installer so that the material would be properly installed in a home or other building. Mr. Killingsworth met with Steve Dwinell and Joe Parker, representatives of the Respondent agency, in Jacksonville, Florida, in the summer of 1997. He provided them with a 30-to-40-page report regarding installation of the insulation with its pest control properties. He received no communication from the Respondent following this meeting and sought no written opinion from the Respondent about the use of the material before he began using it. Mr. Killingsworth invited George Owens, a field inspector for the Respondent in the Northwest Florida area, to observe the product being installed in a structure. Mr. Killingsworth testified that Mr. Owens, thereafter, sent him a letter stating that the Respondent was not going to regulate that material. Mr. Killingsworth, however, did not produce that letter or a copy of it. Mr. Owens testified that he had visited a site in Destin, Florida, at Mr. Killingsworth's invitation, where "Green Stone" insulation was being applied by being blown into a small section of a wall. He did not know that a subcontractor was making the application when he visited the site. He thought that an employee of Mr. Killingsworth was performing the installation of the material. Mr. Owens did not recall telling Mr. Killingsworth or any of his representatives that application of the product by an agent other than Mr. Killingsworth's own company would be prohibited. It was not Mr. Owens' belief that he had authority to make those decisions. He did not believe that he had authority to approve or disapprove the application of a pesticide. Mr. Killingsworth invited Mike McDaniels, another field investigator with the Respondent in the Gainesville, Florida, area to observe the installation of the product in the spring of 1998. Mr. McDaniels commented to Mr. Killingsworth that he was glad that they were doing it, but he made no report. After the Petitioners' companies had been operating for two or three months in the Gainesville area, sharing space with Green Stone Industries, the company producing the insulation, Mr. McDaniels returned. He informed Mr. Killingsworth that the Respondent agency had changed its position on the application of the product. Because it was a "labeled material," that is, labeled and promoted as a certified pest control product, for purposes of EPA regulations, it had to be installed and handled only by a pest control operator meeting the definition of an employee under Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. Mr. McDaniel was shown the insulation in question by Mr. Killingsworth and how it was installed at a job site. He never told Mr. Killingsworth whether he could use the product or not, but during a "non-adversarial inspection," he told him that he had to have "ID cardholders" (i.e., employees of a licensed pest control operator) install the insulation, since it had advertised pesticide qualities. Mr. McDaniel was shown a warehouse with two different types of insulation. One had borate advertised as a fire retardant. The other had a higher content of borate which was advertised to have pesticide qualities. Mr. McDaniel determined that employees applying the second type of product were conducting pest control by installing that product and should, therefore, have pest control operator identification cards. He explained that to Mr. Killingsworth and thought he may have written that opinion on an inspection form which he supplied to Mr. Killingsworth. He also believes he notified his supervisor, Phil Helseth. His normal practice, when a new material is reported to him or observed, is to inform his superior of the facts concerning that product. He never told Mr. Killingsworth or his representatives that they could not install the product in question. He informed them that since it was listed as a pesticide that they would have to be have employees of a licensed pest control operator to legally install the product. Mr. McDaniel did not consult with anyone at the Respondent agency about this, but rather relied on his own judgment as to agency policy and the interpretation of the statutes and rules enforced by the Respondent. He testified that he had no central direction from his superiors at the Department on the issue and was unaware what other districts or regions under the Department's regulation were doing to address this question. He simply determined that if the Petitioners' personnel were applying a product that was a registered pesticide insulation that, under his understanding of the broad statutory definition of pesticides as anything that "curbed, mitigated, destroyed, or repelled insects," then the installers would have to be employees of a registered pesticide operator. Mr. Dwinell testified as the bureau chief for the Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control. He met with Mr. Killingsworth along with Mr. Parker, another employee of the bureau. Mr. Killingsworth made a presentation regarding the product in dispute, the borate-impregnated cellulose insulation. He determined that the product was a pesticide because it was advertised as a registered pesticide and performed pesticide functions, in addition to its insulation function. He did not recall that the precise issue of subcontracting with a non- licensed pest control operator or insulation installer was a topic of their conversation. Following that meeting, he may have discussed the question with Mr. Helseth, in a general way, but does not recall discussing it with any other person. He recalls some discussion concerning the Gainesville office of the Killingsworth companies and whether Mr. Killingsworth, or that office of his company, was licensed as a certified operator. He believes he recalls that a cease and desist letter informing the Killingsworth companies of the need to have the application of the product performed by someone licensed to do pest control may have been sent, although he is not certain. Mr. Dwinell established that the Respondent agency had never published anything regarding pest control insulation. He noted that a pesticide was a pesticide under the statutory definition, whether a corn bait, insulation, or mixed in a jug. The same laws applied to it and under Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, a pesticide must be applied by a licensed applicator. Mr. Killingsworth insisted that the insulation product, though a registered pesticide, was exempt from the provisions of Section 482.211(9), Florida Statutes, because it was a derivative wood product. He agreed that the product in question was a wood by-product and not wood. If a product did not meet the statutory definition of being exempt, then it would be appropriate for the Respondent to issue a cease and desist directive until the Petitioners came into compliance with Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. Mr. Dwinell opined that the subject insulation product was not exempt under the provisions of Section 482.211(9), Florida Statutes. Unlike pre-treated lumber, which is exempt, the installation product at issue is a registered pesticide. Pre-treated lumber, though treated with pesticide in the manufacturing process, is not intended to be used as pesticide, nor is it a registered pesticide. The Petitioners have not stated a basis for a rule challenge pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, as to Counts Five and Six of the Amended Petition. Although references were made to alleged "actions" by the Respondent agency, the Petitioners have not alleged with particularity, nor adduced any competent, substantial evidence of any rule provisions alleged to be invalid, nor have they shown, in an evidential way, any to be invalid. The evidence does not show that there is a rule, either proposed, existing, or as an unpromulgated agency statement of general applicability, which is actually being challenged by the Petitioners. There has not been a definitive showing by preponderant evidence that such exists concerning the product and operation at issue. The Petitioners in Count Seven of the Amended Petition have not stated any basis for a rule challenge in accordance with Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. There are numerous references to provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, but it is not alleged with any particularity which rule provisions are purported to be invalid, nor has preponderant evidence been adduced to establish any rule provisions either proposed, existing, or as unpromulgated agency statements, which have imposed a substantial effect on the Petitioners. In this regard, the Petitioners' counsel argued at the hearing: Your Honor, what we have suggested is that the rule that's being challenged is the Department's statutory obligation under the statute as it relates to their promulgated Rule 5E-14.105, and as it relates to their treatment guarantees or warranties that are required by that regulation for a treatment that just doesn't work. The Department rule requires a certain warranty and requires a renewable warranty, placing that upon the pest control operator under the guise of protecting the consumer, but the fact of the matter is, it doesn't protect the consumer, and it just endangers the pest control operator. And so I guess the actual rule is the 5E-14.105. In addition to that we have the statutory obligations of the Department, which is to provide a protection to the public health and the economic benefit of the consumer and evaluate these chemicals that they are requiring warranties for. That's the basis of the rule challenge, and admittedly, this one is a little bit nebulous, but there is a regulatory, I guess, mandate of these preconstruction soil treatments as a method, as the preferred method, and to the extent that the operators, who are the regulated entity in this case are required to--is mandated to require a warranty for a method they know doesn't work . . . . Mr. Killingsworth acknowledged in his testimony that he was not contending that there should not be a warranty requirement for treatments of subterranean termites, as stated in the above-cited Rule 5E-14.105, Florida Administrative Code. He also acknowledged that he was not contending that the Respondent should require warranties from pest control companies for every kind of pest control performed. He thought there were a lot of factors not within a pest control operator's control affecting particular wood fungi, but what was in the pest operator's control was the opportunity to do a preventive treatment for more than just subterranean termites and they, in his view, should not be prevented from doing so. When asked what preventive treatment he had been prevented from doing by the Respondent, his reply was: The effect of memos and other actions prevented us from doing our choice of preventative treatment, the borate application, through the effects of raising questions in building officials' eyes, through the effects of increasing the economic impact to us to get it done. Builders will not pay enough to do both soil treatment and bait and borate. The memoranda referred to as preventing Mr. Killingsworth from doing his choice of preventive treatment were not actually identified in the record, however. Mr. Dwinell testified that the EPA guidelines require an efficacy standard for soil treatments which states: "Data derived from such testing should provide complete resistance to termite attack for a period of five years." The EPA also provides guidelines for preventive treatment/wood impregnation: "When acceptable data derived from testing for at least two years, or less than five years, shows complete resistance to termite attack, the product may be registered." The efficacy standard for borate, thus, was not five years, but two years. Mr. Dwinell had concerns about the type of data that had been relied upon by the EPA for registration and how that data related to the situation in Florida. That was the basis for the negotiated rulemaking process that the Respondent was engaged in at the time of the hearing in this case. The purpose of the negotiated rulemaking process was to comply with the statute that required a rule, but ultimately the purpose was to have a mechanism in the State of Florida where the product was registered for use under construction and a reliable set of data that could show whether the product would actually protect against termites when applied. The ultimate goal of the statute at issue is to protect the consumer, which is the Respondent's statutory duty. Borate pesticides are registered for use, with label directions for use during construction. They are one of three categories of materials for use in construction, including soil- applied pesticide materials, baiting products, and wood treatments, the last being the borates. There are no directives issued by the Respondent that specifically preclude the use of either borate as a stand-alone treatment or a baiting system as a stand-alone treatment. The Respondent does not require soil treatments only. Mr. Dwinell has never told any licensee that he could not use borate products if he were licensed.
Findings Of Fact 1. On August 25, 1982, petitioner received an application for pest control business license and identification cards, Petitioner's Exhibit 1, signed by Perry Commander, requesting licensure for Donald and Bales Exterminating Company, Inc., at 615 East Chestnut Avenue in Crestview, Florida. Ronnie James McLean was listed among those on whose behalf identification cards were sought. Petitioner granted this application on September 22, 1982, issuing License No. 343. Since approximately 1974, there have been applications for licenses at this location. Based on an application not in evidence signed by Byron Bales sometime before August 17, 1983, petitioner issued an emergency certificate. On August 17, 1983, petitioner received application form signed by Byron Bales, which petitioner returned to Mr. Bales for more information, and received a second time on August 29, 1983. Petitioner's Exhibit 2. The form gave Donald and Bales Exterminating Co., Inc., as the applicant's firm name and 615 East Chestnut Avenue in Crestview as the firm's address. Ronnie James McLean was listed among those on whose behalf identification cards were sought. Perry Commander's name was crossed out, as was his designation as "Certificate Holder." Nobody else was designated certificate holder, and nobody was listed as a certified operator. This application, which was made on a multipurpose form, has not been acted on. Boxes were printed next to various categories including "Initial (New) License," "Change-of-Business Ownership License" and "Renewal License." No box was checked, however. On February 4, 1976, Aggie B. Nelson of Chipley, Florida contracted with Donald and Bales Exterminating Co., Inc., (Donald & Bales) for treatment of the foundation of her two-bedroom frame house for termites and agreed to pay $30 a year thereafter for annual inspections and preventive sprayings. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. The contract gave a Crestview address for Donald & Bales. On March 24, 1982, respondent arrived at the Nelson home in a truck emblazoned with the Donald & Bales logo and sprayed underneath Ms. Nelson's house. He emerged with five or six bugs in his hand that he told Ms. Nelson were beetles. He said the house needed to be sprayed for beetles and offered to do it while he was there fob $230. Ms. Nelson allowed as how that would sure put her in a bind, but agreed to have him spray. Mr. McLean and Ms. Nelson each signed a Donald & Bales form contract on which Mr. McLean checked the box beside the word "Prevention" but not the box beside the word "Infested." The contract showed a Crestview address for Donald & Bales. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. Ms. Nelson wrote a check for $230 to Ronnie J. McLean personally. Later she began to inquire and eventually arranged for William E. Page, an entomologist in petitioner's employ, to inspect her house. At the hearing, Mr. Page was qualified as an expert in pest control and testified without contradiction that there was no sign of there having been a beetle infestation at Ms. Nelson's home at any time. Mardra Stewart was at home in her three-bedroom log house down below Orange Hill from Chipley when Ronnie J. McLean stopped by on April 19, 1982. "He sent some of the men he had with him under the house, and they c[a]me out with a handful of the sills," wood that appeared to have been eaten into by termites. Respondent told Ms. Stewart she should have her house sprayed because insects "had eat it up under there." (T. 89) She agreed to the spraying and paid respondent $225 for spraying. Mr. McLean and Ms. Stewart each signed a Donald & Bales form contract on which Mr. McLean checked the box beside the word "Prevention" but not the box beside the word "Infested." The contract showed a Crestview address for Donald & Bales. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8. The next day Ms. Stewart called the sheriff and eventually she telephoned petitioner's Jacksonville offices. Mr. Page inspected her house and found no evidence of an active or recent infestation of insects of any kind, although he did discover evidence of old powder-post beetle damage. In his opinion, the Stewart house probably needed treatment. On September 15, 1982, Mrs. J. C. Phillips telephoned her daughter, Margaret Powell, and asked her to come to the Phillips house on Bayshore Drive in Niceville "to write the check for the exterminator." (T. 94) By the time Ms. Powell arrived, the spraying had been done. Ms. Powell asked respondent and his companion(s) to show her some beetles. When they were unable to do so, she declined to pay, even after respondent referred her to Byron Bales who was at work next door. Mr. McLean and Ms. Phillips each signed a Donald & Bales form contract on which Mr. McLean checked the box beside the word "Prevention," but not the box beside the word "Infested." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9. The contract indicated prophylactic treatment of the foundation for powder-post beetles for $150, and called for annual inspections and resprayings for $45 per year. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9. On September 22, 1982, when Mr. Page inspected the Phillips house, he found no sign of any infestation, new or old, by beetles (or termites). When tenting is not resorted to, the treatment for beetles is applying Lindane with a power sprayer in such a concentration that the odor lasts about a month. This odor was not present when Mr. Page inspected, one week after respondent's visit. Although Mr. Bales did not discharge Mr. McLean when he first learned that money had been diverted, "not on the first one. . ." (T. 167), he had fired Ronnie James McLean by the time of the hearing, because "he stole money from me." (T. 165) He accomplished this theft by selling contracts and cashing checks. (T. 167) Except for Petitioner's Exhibit 7, all the Donald & Bales form contracts state, "Please make check to representative." Having customers write checks in favor of the individual exterminator is "company policy." The Hearing Officer has had the benefit of petitioner's proposed recommended order and memorandum of law in preparation of the foregoing Findings of Fact. Proposed findings have been adopted, in substance, for the most part. To the extent they have been rejected, they have been deemed unsupported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, cumulative or subordinate.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint filed against respondent as moot. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 15th day of December, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is the regulatory agency charged with regulating the terminate and pest control industry in Florida. Respondent, Howard R. Kempton, is a certified operator licensed by the Petitioner. During times material, Respondent was a certified pest control operator for Pinellas Termite and Pest Control, Inc., in St. Petersburg. On July 24, 1991, Respondent was the certified operator in charge of fumigation of a residential structure at 3318 Shamrock in Tampa, Florida. In carrying out the fumigation, Respondent used the fumigant product VIKANE (sulfuryl fluoride). Respondent did not provide Petitioner a notice of the intended fumigation at 3318 Shamrock in Tampa within 24 hours in advance of the fumigation as is required by the Petitioner's rules and the labeling provisions for the product VIKANE. In addition, Petitioner's inspector, William Bargen, who has been employed by Petitioner in the office of entomology in excess of 28 years, visited the residence on the day of the fumigation and the tarpaulin that Respondent used was not air tight as practicable in that it contained numerous slits and tears that was not properly sealed at the ground level encompassing the structure. The safety warning signs fastened to the exterior of the tarpaulin were not printed in indelible ink or paint and the emergency phone numbers for the certified operator were not legible. As a result of the improper seals, the fumigant VIKANE was escaping from the tarpaulin while the gas was being pumped into the structure at 3318 Shamrock on July 24, 1991. Inspector Bargen took photos of the fumigation tent as it was in place at 3318 Shamrock on the day in question, July 24, 1991 and it depicts the condition of the tarpaulin and the improper signs that were utilized by Respondent on that jobsite. The owner of the property called Petitioner's office and Inspector Bargen visited the site on July 24, 1991. It is undisputed that Respondent alerted the homeowner to call Petitioner who in turn dispatched Inspector Bargen to the site based on instructions from Respondent that he alert the Department of the on-going problems that he was having with his employer, Pinellas Termite and Pest Control, Inc. Respondent admits that the manner in which the fumigation occurred on July 24, 1991 at 3318 Shamrock in Tampa was improperly performed. However, Respondent offers that he did as much as he could under the circumstances to comply with the Petitioner's rules and regulations and the labelling instructions for the fumigant VIKANE as set forth by the manufacturer. Respondent related numerous occurrences whereby he attempted to convey the importance of carrying out the proper instructions to his employer without success. As a result, Respondent sought other employment and is no longer employed as a certified operator with Pinellas Pest Control. Finally, while Respondent recognized that a certified operator is responsible for the overall operations of the fumigation projects that he is in charge of, he relates that instructions were given to office personnel at Pinellas Pest Control to advise the Petitioner of the 24 hour notice prior to the date of fumigation and he was under the impression that timely notice was forwarded to Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $250.00 payable to Petitioner within 30 days of the entry of the Petitioner's final order.1/ DONE and ENTERED this 29 day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29 day of May, 1992.
