99-002474 Department Of Health vs. John E. Mcdaniel, D/B/A Superior Septic And Sewer, Inc. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, March 23, 2000.

Summary: Agency established that Respondent committed the violations charged (as a septic tank contractor) by removing filters after final inspections. A fine of $3,300 should be imposed.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 99-2474

)

JOHN E. McDANIEL, d/b/a )

SUPERIOR SEPTIC AND SEWER, INC., )

)

Respondent. )

__________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This cause came on for formal hearing pursuant t o notice

before P. Michael Ruff, duly-designated Administrative Law Judge

of the Division of Administrative Hearings on November 9, 1999,

in Panama City, Florida. The appearances were as follows:

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire

Chief Legal Counsel

Department of Health

Northwest Law Office

1295 West Fairfield Drive

Pensacola, Florida 32501

For Respondent: Gary W. Tennyson, Esquire

3135 Lisenby Avenue

Panama City , Florida 32405

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issues to be resolved in the proceeding concern whether

the Respondent, a licensed septic tank contractor, installed

twelve septic tank systems at eleven locations in Bay and Walton

Counties in which the required filters were removed, allegedly

violating the various provisions of Chapter 381, Florida

Statutes, and Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code, cited

and discussed herein below and, if that is the case whether an

administrative fine should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Respondent, John E. McDaniel, is a licensed septic tank

contractor. It is alleged in the Administrative Complaint that

he installed twelve septic tank systems at eleven locations and

removed or caused to be removed the required filters from each of

eleven septic tank systems without authorization by Department of

Health (Department) personnel and contrary to the provisions of

the Florida Administrative Code cited below. In the Complaint,

the Petitioner seeks to assess a fine against the Respondent in

the amount of $3,300.00, amounting to $300.00 per charged

violation site. The Respondent availed itself of the right to a

formal proceeding to contest that Complaint and this formal

proceeding ensued.

The cause came on for hearing as noticed. The Petitioner

presented seventeen exhibits at the hearing. All of the

Petitioner's exhibits except Exhibits fourteen and fifteen, were

admitted into evidence. (The Petitioner's Exhibits fourteen and

fifteen were not admitted into evidence because, although

requested, those exhibits had not been disclosed during the

discovery phase of the proceeding). The Respondent presented two

exhibits which were admitted into evidence. The Petitioner

presented thirteen witnesses and the Respondent presented three

witnesses, including the Respondent himself.

At the conclusion of the proceeding the parties requested

the opportunity to submit proposed recommended orders. The

proposed recommended orders were timely submitted and have been

considered in the rendition of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Petitioner is an Agency of the State of Florida

charged, in pertinent part, with regulating the licensure and

compliance of septic tank contractors with the statutory and

regulatory authorities cited herein. That authority includes the

inspection and approval of the installation of septic tank and

drainfield waste disposal systems in Bay and Walton Counties,

Florida. It includes the authority to prosecute alleged

violations of the statutes and rules regarding appropriate and

legal installation of septic tanks and drainfield systems as are

involved in this case.

2. The Respondent, John E. McDaniel, is a licensed septic

tank contractor subject to the Department's jurisdiction and

regulation. His firm installed twelve septic tank systems at

eleven locations in Bay County, Walton County and one in

Fountain, Florida. Final inspections were conducted on those

systems from May 7, 1998 through January 11, 1999. Thereafter,

acting on information and belief, the Department inspected those

systems again and found that after final inspections that eleven

legally required filters from eleven septic tank systems had been

removed after the previous "final inspection." The removal of

those filters was without authorization and contrary to the

portions of the Florida Administrative Code cited below.

3. The petitioner agency took the position that the

Respondent and his company were responsible for the illegal

removal of the septic tank filters and took initial Agency action

assessing a fine in the proposed amount of $3,300.00, $300.00 per

violation. The Respondent contested that initial agency action

bringing about the subject formal proceeding and evidentiary

hearing.

4. Mike Guyne is the Environmental Health Director of the

Bay County Health Department. He is familiar with three

incidents of prior discipline where the Respondent was subjected

to fines for two citations issued by the Department in 1996.

Septic tank filters are required on all septic tanks. Although

homeowners or persons other than the septic tank contractor could

remove the filters, it would be difficult because the lids

covering the filter weigh fifty to seventy-five pounds and are

sealed with cement mortar and then covered with a layer of dirt.

Thus if any person were to remove the subject septic tank filters

it would be most easily accomplished before the system is sealed

with mortar and before it is covered with dirt (i.e., after the

final inspection of the system was made but before it was covered

up).

5. On February 16, 1999, Joseph W. Miner, an Environmental

Health Specialist for Washington County, went to a site in

Washington County to inspect a septic tank system installed by

Superior Septic Tank Company (Respondent). The filter in that

system had been painted orange on the top but the installers had

already moved to another job and so Mr. Miner was unable to

question them regarding the origin of that filter. Mr. Miner

went to the next site to inspect a septic tank system also

installed by Superior Septic Tank Company, and the filter in that

septic tank system had also been painted orange on its top. Some

counties mark filters by spray painting them when they are put

into service to keep them from being removed and used in another

system.

6. Mr. Miner engaged in a conversation with an employee of

the Superior Septic Tank Company whose name is unknown (gray-

haired gentleman with a ponytail) at the second location. This

employee was in the company of co-employee Mike Parker who

testified in this case. He was questioned by Mr. Miner. This

employee told Mr. Miner that Walton County had marked those

filters and once the inspections were complete and the inspector

left those Walton County job sites that, if the homeowner did not

want a filter on the system, employees of Superior Septic Tank

Company removed the filters before sealing the tank and system.

This same employee also told Mr. Miner that they could not re-use

the orange painted filter in Walton County because they would be

detected as having already been painted (for identification

reasons by Department personnel) and therefore, if they were

installed in a different system later the inspector would know

that they had been removed from a previous system. Consequently,

this employee told Mr. Miner that the painted filters from Walton

County were thereafter used in Washington County system

installations.

7. When Mr. Miner questioned this employee about the

authority for removing the filters he was told that Mr. McDaniel,

the Respondent and the owner of Superior Septic Tank Company, had

indicated that he had authorization "from Tallahassee"

authorizing the filter removal. Mr. McDaniel himself stated in a

phone conversation with Mr. Miner that he had a verbal agreement

to remove filters from septic tanks with the Director of

Environmental Health for Bay County. In any event, in Washington

County no septic tank systems are approved for final inspection

unless filters are installed according to Mr. Miner.

8. Amanda Brown had septic tank systems installed by the

Respondent at two sites. These systems later began failing and

at that point an employee of the Respondent, who happened to be

Brown's brother, Charles Eldridge, told Ms. Brown that the

filters in her systems had been removed after final inspection.

Environmental Health staff personnel later opened those three

systems installed by the Respondent company in Ms. Brown's

presence. Two of the three systems had no filters installed.

Ms. Brown had not authorized removal of those filters.

9. Ken Manley is a contractor who builds residential homes

including those at the addresses depicted in Exhibits three and

four. Mr. Manley did not authorize the removal of the filters

from the septic tank systems referenced in Exhibits three and

four, although someone removed them.

10. George Stanley Pitts is a land developer who contracted

with Superior Septic Tank Company and Mr. McDaniel to install

septic tank systems. The systems were installed at the locations

referenced in Exhibits five, six, seven and eight in evidence.

Mr. Pitts had a conversation with personnel of the Superior

Septic Tank Company who told him that the Health Department had

authorized leaving filters out of the systems if the owner did

not object. Mr. Pitts maintains that he did not remove nor

authorize removal of the filters referenced in those exhibits and

yet they were removed.

11. James Buchanan owns property that is referenced in

Exhibit nine in evidence. He had a septic tank system installed

by the Respondent on Angie Road as referenced in Exhibit nine.

He did not authorize removal of the filter from the septic tank

system at that location although they were removed after the

final inspection.

12. Thomas Owen as well had a septic tank system installed

at 12034 Oak Avenue, in Fountain, Florida, as depicted in Exhibit

ten. It was installed by Superior Septic Tank Company. After

the final inspection was done on the system, the filter was

removed although Owen states that he did not authorize removal of

the filter from his septic tank system.

13. Charles Eldridge was employed by Superior Septic Tank

Company and John McDaniel. He was employed at four different

times during a five-year period including 1998. When he was

employed in 1998, the installation of filters in septic tank

systems was a relatively new requirement. Mr. Eldridge performed

work on his sister's septic tank systems which are described in

Exhibits one and two in evidence. He removed the filters from

those systems. Mr. Eldridge maintains that Mr. McDaniel told

employees and frequently reminded them to remove filters from

septic tank systems after final inspections were performed by

Health Department officials. Mr. McDaniel, according to

Eldridge, told his employees that the filters cost from $28.00 to

$38.00 and could be used again in a later system (implicitly for

reasons of saving money).

14. Kevin Cobb is a Environmental Health Specialist for the

Walton County Health Department. He is an inspector of septic

tank systems. He did a final construction inspection and a final

inspection of the septic tank system installed by Mr. McDaniel's

Superior Septic Tank Company which is described in Exhibit

eleven. When he performed the final inspection he spray-painted

the top of the filter with orange paint, which is the practice

and policy in Walton County as a means to show that that filter

had been used; therefore if it appears in a later-constructed and

installed system it will show the inspector at that later time

that the filter had previously been used and illegally removed

from another system. Mr. Cobb was accompanied by another Health

Department employee and re-inspected the septic tank system

described in Exhibit eleven. After removing the lid over the

filter location he found that there was no filter in the outlet

"T" fitting, although orange paint remained on top of the "T"

fitting as shown in the photographs, in evidence as Exhibits

sixteen and seventeen. Mr. Cobb discovered the filters were

missing in two of the three systems installed by Superior Septic

Tank Company which he inspected.

15. Ralph McDonald is an Environmental Health Inspector for

the Bay County Health Department. He inspected the septic tank

systems depicted in Exhibits one, two, six, nine and ten, which

were installed by the Superior Septic Tank Company. When he made

the construction inspection of those systems he found filters to

be in place in those systems. He did not authorize removal of

the filters. Brian Hughes is also an Environmental Health

Inspector for the Bay County Health Department. He made the

construction inspection on septic tank systems referenced in

Exhibits three, four, and eight in evidence, which were also

installed by the Superior Septic Tank Company. When he made that

inspection he found the filters to be properly in place. He also

would not authorize removal of filters from septic tank systems

nor approve permitting systems which did not have filters. After

final approval of the septic tank systems referenced in Exhibits

two, five, six, seven, eight, nine and ten, the Bay County Health

Department re-inspected those systems and found according to Mr.

Hughes and Mr. Darsey's testimony, as well as Mr. Ellis', that

the filters were then missing from those same systems. Thus they

had been removed after the final construction and inspection had

been performed.

16. Carl Darsey is a Supervisor in Environmental Health for

the Bay County Health Department. The septic tank systems

installed by the Superior Septic Tank Company described in

Exhibits five and seven also had filters at the time the

construction approval inspection was performed. Mr. Darsey never

authorized removal of those filters nor would he approve systems

without the filters in place. Leroy Ellis is employed in the

Disease Intervention section of the Bay County Health Department

and accompanied the other named employees of the Bay County

Health Department on the re-inspections of the above-referenced

septic tank systems. His testimony corroborates that of Hughes

and Darsey. After final approval of the septic tank systems

referenced in Exhibits three and four, Mr. Guyne, with other

environmental health staff of the Bay County Health Department,

re-inspected those systems installed by the Superior Septic Tank

Company and found that the filters were missing from those

systems as well.

17. Septic tank system filters are designed to clean the

effluent and add longevity to the septic tank systems, to help

prevent clogging of the drainfields. Filters have been installed

in all septic tanks according to Department rules and policies

for approximately the last two years and, according to Mr. Guyne,

no complaints on system failures have been brought to the Bay

County Health Department's attention related to filters.

Mike Parker is an installation supervisor employed by the

Superior Septic Tank Company. He had a conversation with

Mr. Miner in Washington County and informed him of customer

problems with maintenance of the filters. Mr. Guyne established,

however, that homeowners are responsible for problems with their

septic tank filters after the final inspection. It was not

established, however, that any of the homeowners or customers of

the Superior Septic Tank Company and Mr. McDaniel removed the

filters themselves.

18. Initially, in approximately early 1998, Mr. McDaniel

took the position that he had some informal authority from Health

Department Personnel to remove filters and so informed

Mr. Eldridge and Mr. Miner. Later, however, when the dispute

arose concerning the removal of the filters and who might have

removed them, he took the position that he did not remove any

filters.

19. In a one-year period Mr. McDaniel's installation

personnel typically installed about two hundred and fifty septic

tank systems. In Walton County two filters were missing out of

three tanks checked, and in Bay County ten filters were missing

out of fourteen tanks checked. Mr. Eldridge testified that if an

inspector remained on a site during the time that the system was

being back-filled or covered up then the filter would be left in

the system.

20. Thus two employees of the Respondent stated that they

were instructed to remove the filters after the final inspection.

Moreover, a random sampling of septic tank systems installed by

the Respondent established that a great majority of them had had

the filters removed. The explanation that vandals may have taken

the twelve filters does not make sense. It strains belief to

think that twelve of seventeen septic tanks would be vandalized

and then only vandalized as to the removal of filters with no

other damage done to the systems. Further, the two employees

testifying on behalf of the Respondent have testimony deficient

in materiality or weight. Mike Parker was not employed by the

Respondent when the installations of the majority of these

systems occurred. He had no knowledge of doing the installation

on the eleven systems involved and was not working for McDaniel

during the relevant period in 1998. He was not aware that

filters in Walton County are painted with orange paint to try to

prevent their removal and re-use, and does not remember any

orange paint on filters installed in Washington County, which was

clearly established to be the case on the filters that

Mr. McDaniel was installing. Additionally, Mr. Halstead's memory

is deficient because upon being questioned about annual

installations performed, his testimony varied about how many

weekly or annual installations are performed. Mr. Halstead

stated that he had never seen any filters in Walton County

painted with orange paint when the testimony of Mr. Cobb,

corroborated by the photographs in evidence, show that they

clearly were painted with orange paint in Walton County. Thus

both Mr. Halstead and

Mr. Parker's testimony is entitled to little weight.

21. Mr. McDaniel submitted a report in evidence showing

that Charles Eldridge had apparently used marijuana at one point

and had gotten into an altercation resulting in a trespass

warning from the Sheriff's Department. This was supposedly

related to a dispute over payment of wages, in conjunction with

Mr. Eldridge apparently quitting his job with Mr. McDaniel in

anger. This evidence was intended to show that Mr. Eldridge was

a disgruntled former employee who might therefore have a motive

to lie in his testimony to retaliate against Mr. McDaniel for

perceived past grievances. The evidence shows clearly, however,

that after this report was entered concerning Mr. Eldridge and

after their verbal altercation, that, according to Mr. McDaniel's

own testimony, he had hired Mr. Eldridge several more times.

Thus there is an insufficient demonstration in the evidence of a

motive on the part of Mr. Eldridge to actually lie in retaliation

against Mr. McDaniel.

22. Mr. Eldridge had apparently become upset when he worked

for Mr. McDaniel because of a shortage of pay due him and

Mr. McDaniel testified that he admittedly had caused that problem

with Mr. Eldridge, but this does not warrant a finding that

Mr. Eldridge's testimony was fabricated. This is because the

statement made to Mr. Miner by the "gray-haired employee with the

ponytail," who made the incriminating statement about

instructions from Mr. McDaniel to remove filters, was not

refuted, which fact corroborates Mr. Eldridge's testimony. That

employee clearly stated that the fluorescent painted filters came

from Walton County and were removed from Walton County septic

tank systems and then re-used in Washington County. The reason

given for the removal was that Mr. McDaniel had instructed his

personnel to remove them. That is consistent with the testimony

given by Mr. Eldridge. Mr. Miner phoned Mr. McDaniel back at the

time the question first arose concerning the Walton and

Washington County systems, and Mr. McDaniel told him that he had

authorization from the Environmental Health Director in Bay

County to remove filters. That authorization was shown never to

have existed even if relevant. Later, at hearing, Mr. McDaniel

denied making that statement and said that he never removed any

filters at all. That assertion renders his testimony

inconsistent and thus it cannot be credited.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

23. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction of the parties hereto and the subject matter of

these proceeding in accordance with Sections 120.569 and

120.57(1), Florida Statues. This prosecution arose under Section

381.0065, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 64E-6, Florida

Administrative Code (formerly Chapter 10d-6, Florida

Administrative Code).

24. The Petitioner is charged with administering a

comprehensive program to ensure on-site sewage treatment and

disposal systems that are designed, sized, constructed,

installed, modified, properly abandoned and maintained in

compliance with the statutes and rules designed to preserve

public health. See Section 381.0065(3)(e), Florida Statutes.

Section 381.0065, provides in pertinent part as follows:

(1) LEGISLATIVE INTENT. - It is the intent

of the Legislature that . . . the department

shall issue permits for the construction,

installation, modification, abandonment, or

repair of on-site sewage treatment and

disposal systems. . .

(2) DEFINITIONS. - As used in ss. 381.0065-

381.0067, the term:

(j) "Onsite sewage treatment and disposal

system" means a system that contains a . . .

drainfield . . .[and] a septic tank . . .

(3) DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH. - The department shall:

(a) Adopt rules to administer ss 381.0065-

381.0067.

(b) Perform application reviews and site

evaluation, issue permits, and conduct

inspections and complaint investigations

associated with the construction,

installation, maintenance, modification,

abandonment, or repair of an on-site sewage

treatment and disposal system for a residence

. . .

* * *

(h) Conduct enforcement activities,

including imposing fines, issuing citations .

. . for violations of this section . . . or

for a violation of any rule adopted under

this section . . .

* * *

(4) PERMITS; INSTALLATION; AND CONDITIONS. -

A person may not construct, repair, modify,

abandon, or operate an on-site sewage

treatment and disposal system without first

obtaining a permit approved by the

department. The department may issue permits

to carry out this section.

* * *

(5) ENFORCEMENT; RIGHT OF ENTRY; CITATION. -

(a) Department personnel who have reason to

believe noncompliance exists, may at any

reasonable time, enter the premises . . . to

determine compliance with . . . rules . . .

adopted under 381.0065 . . .

(b)1. The department may issue citations that

may contain . . . an order to pay a fine . .

. for violations of ss 381.0065-381.0067 . .

.

25. The applicable rules generated from the above statutory

authority and which control the Department's actions in this case

are:

64E-6.003 Permits.

(1) System Construction Permit - No portion

of an on-site sewage treatment and disposal

system shall be installed, . . . until an

"On-site Sewage Treatment and Disposal System

Construction Permit" has been issued on DH

Form 4016.

* * *

(2) System Inspection - Before covering with

earth and before placing a system into

service, a person installing or constructing

any portion of an on-site sewage treatment

and disposal system shall notify the county

health department of the completion of the

construction activities and shall have the

system inspected by the department for

compliance with the requirements of this

Chapter.

64E-6.008 System Size Determinations.

(2) . . . The use of an approved outlet

filter device shall be required . . . Outlet

filters shall be placed to allow

accessibility for routine maintenance.

Utilization and sizing of outlet filters

shall be in accordance with the

manufacturer's recommendations. The Bureau

of On-site Sewage programs shall approve

outlet filter devices per the department's

Policy on Approval Standards For On-site

Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems Outlet

Filter Devices, February 1995, which is

herein incorporated by reference.

64E-6.025 Definitions.

Definitions in Chapter 64E-6, parts I and II,

are also applicable to Chapter 64E-6, part

IV.

* * *

(3) Baseline system standards - A passive,

gravity fed subsurface trench system that is

made up of the following components and

characteristics, and is in compliance with

part I requirements:

(a) a dual compartment septic tank, or tanks

in series,

(b) an approved outlet filter device meeting

the manufacturer's recommendations, installed

on the septic tank discharge outlet

immediately prior to discharge into the

drainfield,

(c) anticipated effluent concentrations from

the treatment tank are within the following

ranges:

1. CBOD5 - 120-240 mg/l

2. TSS - 65-176 mg/l

3. TN - 36-45 mg/l

4. TP - 6-10 mg/l,

(d) a distribution box or header pipe,

(e) A mineral aggregate drainfield trench

with the following characteristics:

1. measures 12 inches deep by 26 inches

wide.

2. the top of the drainfield no closer to

the ground surface than 6 inches.

3. the bottom of the drainfield no farther

from the ground surface than 30 inches.

4. bottom of drainfield is a minimum of 24

inches above the seasonal high water table in

undisturbed natural soil.

5. a 4 inch distribution line.

26. Rule 64E-6.022, Florida Administrative Code, specifies

penalties as follows:

64E-6.022 Disciplinary Guidelines.

(1) The following guidelines shall be used

in disciplinary cases, absent aggravating or

mitigating circumstances and subject to other

provisions of this section.

* * *

(b) Permit violations.

* * *

(2) Contracted work is completed without a

permit having been issued, or no permit

application is received until after

contracted work was completed, resulting in

missed inspection or inspections. First

violation, $1,000 fine . . .

* * *

(p) Installation, modification, or repair of

an on-site sewage treatment and disposal

system in violation of the standards of

s. 381.0065 or s. 381.00655, F.S., or Chapter

64E-6, F.A.C. First violation, $500 per

specific standard violated . . .

27. The above Findings of Fact show that the Respondent

installed the subject septic tank systems and caused the removal

of the twelve referenced and required filters after final

inspections were performed. That removal was without

authorization. The eleven locations where the twelve filters

were removed and with the accompanying construction permit

numbers are as follows:

Bay County - Permit 3678 at 9141 Angie Road,

final inspection 5/7/98; Permit 4047 at 9135

Angie Road, final inspection 5/7/98; Permit

4702 at 8806 Creek Run, final inspection

2/4/99; permit 4701 at 8914 Creed Run, final

inspection 2/4/98; Permit 4622 at 7011 Keiber

Ct., final inspection 10/1/98; Permit 4621 at

7218 Keiber Circle, final inspection 10/4/98;

Permit 4620 at 7006 Keiber Ct., final

inspection 10/1/98; Permit 4619 at 7021

Keiber Ct., final inspection 12/11/98; Permit

4798 at 9238 Angie Road, final inspection

12/24/98; Permit 4385 at 12034 Oak Ave.,

Fountain, FL, final inspection 12/24/98;

Walton County - Permit 98-656-P at a house

off Magnolia Drive, final inspection 1/11/99.

28. Thus it has been established that the Respondent

committed the violations charged. The totality of the

circumstances supported by the evidence and found above show that

the violations were not due to a mistake as to the legal

requirement on the part of the Respondent. Rather, the

Respondent was shown to have been aware of a requirement to

install filters during the time period in question and removed

the filters after the final inspections were done, after having

the filters installed when they were visible by the inspecting

officials. This shows a clear intent to mislead the regulatory

authorities. Accordingly, a substantial penalty is warranted.

RECOMMENDATION

Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact,

Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and

demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of

the parties, it is, therefore, recommended that a final order be

issued by the Department of Health finding that the Respondent

committed the violations charged and assessing a $3,300.00 fine

against the Respondent.

DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 2000, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

P. MICHAEL RUFF

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 23rd day of March, 1999.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire

Chief Legal Counsel

Department of Health

Northwest Law Office

1295 West Fairfield Drive

Pensacola, Florida 32501

Gary W. Tennyson, Esquire

3235 Lisenby Avenue

Panama City, Florida 32405

Angela T. Hall, Clerk

Department of Health

2020 Capital Circle, Southeast

Bin A02

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703

Amy M. Jones, Acting General Counsel

Department of Health

2020 Capital Circle, Southeast

Bin A02

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15

days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to

this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will

issue the Final Order in this case.