09-001510PL Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Division Of Pari-Mutuel Wagering vs. John E. Shaw Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, May 14, 2009.

Summary: Respondent should be fined and his license suspended for post-race detection of an impermissible substance in three of his racehorses.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINES AND )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, )

DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL )

WAGERING, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 09-1510PL

)

JOHN E. SHAW, )

)

Respondent. )

________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case

on March 25, 2009, by video teleconference between Lauderdale

Lakes and Tallahassee, Florida, before Administrative Law Judge

Claude B. Arrington of the Division of Administrative Hearings

(DOAH).

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Joseph M. Helton, Jr., Esquire

David N. Perry, Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202

For Respondent: Bradford J. Beilly, Esquire

John Strohsahl, Esquire

1144 Southeast Third Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence

that Respondent is guilty of the offenses alleged in the Order

of Summary Suspension and in the Administrative Complaint.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Respondent, John E. Shaw (Respondent), is licensed by

Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation,

Division of Pari-mutuel Wagering (the Division), as a trainer of

thoroughbred horses. On February 4, 2009, the Division issued

an Order of Summary Suspension, which suspended Respondent’s

licensure upon its entry. Petitioner attached to the Order of

Summary Suspension a three-count Administrative Complaint

against Respondent. The alleged violations set forth in the

Order of Summary Suspension are identical to the alleged

violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint. The

factual allegations pertain to three separate thoroughbred

horses and three different races. Each count alleged a

violation of Section 550.2415(1)(a), Florida Statutes, 1 which

prohibits the racing of thoroughbred horses with an

impermissible drug.

Respondent filed an answer to the Administrative Complaint

and two election of rights forms in which he requests a hearing

pursuant to Section 550.24215(3)(c), Florida Statutes, as to the

Summary Suspension and a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1),

Florida Statutes, as to the Administrative Complaint.

Thereafter, these matters were referred to DOAH as a

consolidated proceeding.

This Recommended Order will contain a recommended

disposition of both the Order of Summary Suspension and the

Administrative Complaint.

Respondent’s answer admitted certain of the underlying

facts. Those facts will be incorporated in the Findings of Fact

section of this Order.

At the formal hearing, the Division presented the testimony

of Diana Neira (an investigator employed by the Division) and

Dr. Richard Sams (Director of the University of Florida Racing

Laboratory). The Division offered 16 sequentially-numbered

Exhibits, each of which was accepted into evidence. 2 Respondent

testified on his own behalf, but he presented no other testimony

and no exhibits.

A Transcript of the proceeding, consisting of one volume,

was filed on April 1, 2009. The parties timely filed proposed

orders, which have been duly-considered by the undersigned in

the preparation of this Order. 3

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Division is the agency of the State of Florida

charged with regulating pari-mutuel wagering pursuant to Chapter

550, Florida Statutes.

2. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent

held a pari-mutuel wagering trainer/thoroughbred license number

15043-1021 issued by the Division. Respondent has been a

thoroughbred racehorse trainer for approximately 30 years.

Excluding the allegations pertaining to this proceeding,

Respondent has had only two prior disciplinary actions taken

against his license by the Division. Each of the prior

disciplinary actions involved the post-race detection of a drug

in a horse trained by Respondent. Although the drug at issue in

the prior disciplinary proceedings cannot be in a horse’s system

during a race, those drugs can legally be administered to race

horses for therapeutic use. Neither violation resulted in a

suspension of Respondent’s license.

3. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent

trained horses that raced at Calder Race Course in Dade County,

Florida.

4. It is undisputed that at all times relevant to this

proceeding, Respondent was the trainer of record for the race

trainer of record, Respondent was the absolute insurer for the

condition of his horses. 4

RED NATION

5. It is undisputed that Red Nation was entered in the

seventh race at Calder on May 17, 2008, and finished the race in

first place.

6. Following the seventh race at Calder on May 17, 2008, a

urine sample and a blood sample were taken from Red Nation. 5

7. Urine sample 407762 was collected on May 17, 2008, and

processed in accordance with established procedures.

8. Urine sample 407762 was analyzed by the University of

Florida Racing Laboratory (the Lab), which is retained by the

Division to test urine and blood samples from animals racing at

pari-mutuel facilities in Florida. 6 The Lab found that the

sample contained Despropionyl Fentanyl (the subject metabolite

derivative), which is a metabolite derivative of Fentanyl (the

subject drug). The subject metabolite derivative is the

substance that remains in the urine after the horse’s body has

processed the subject drug. The sample concentration of the

subject metabolite derivative was 2.8 nanograms per milliliter.

SHEA STADIUM

9. It is undisputed that Shea Stadium was entered in the

sixth race at Calder on November 20, 2008, and finished the race

in second place.

10. Following the sixth race at Calder on November 20,

2008, a urine sample and a blood sample were taken from Shea

Stadium.

11. Urine sample 423241 was collected on November 20,

2008, and processed in accordance with established procedures.

12. Urine sample 423241 was analyzed by the Lab. The Lab

found that the sample contained the subject metabolite

derivative. The sample concentration of the subject metabolite

derivative was 2.8 nanograms per milliliter.

MI CORREDORA

13. It is undisputed that Mi Corredora was entered in the

third race at Calder on November 22, 2008, and finished the race

in first place.

14. Following the third race at Calder on November 22,

2008, a urine sample and a blood sample were taken from Mi

Corredora.

15. Urine sample 424032 was collected on November 20,

2008, and processed in accordance with established procedures.

16. Urine sample 424032 was analyzed by the Lab. The Lab

found that the sample contained the subject metabolite

derivative. The sample concentration of the subject metabolite

derivative was 5.7 nanograms per milliliter.

SUMMARY SUSPENSION

17. On February 4, 2009, the Division issued an Order of

Summary Suspension of Respondent’s licensure pursuant to Section

550.2415(3(b), Florida Statutes. The Division contends in the

Order of Summary Suspension and in the Administrative Complaint

that urine sample 407762 was taken from Red Nation, that urine

sample 423241 was taken from Shea Stadium, and that urine sample

424032 was taken from Mi Corredora

FENTANYL

18. The subject drug is a narcotic analgesic. The effect

of the subject drug on a horse is dose dependent. A lower dose,

8 milligrams or less, stimulates a horse and makes the horse run

faster. The subject drug was the drug of choice in the 70’s and

above 8 milligrams causes the horse to lose coordination, which

slows the running of the horse. After testing became more

sophisticated, the subject drug lost its popularity.

19. The subject drug has been designated by the

Association of Racing Commissioners International as a Class 1

drug. Class 1 drugs have the highest potential to impact the

performance of a horse in a race and they have no therapeutic

value in a racehorse. The subject drug is not approved for use

in horses in the United States by the U.S. Food and Drug

Administration.

20. A nanogram is one-thousandth of a microgram. A

microgram is one-thousandth of a milligram. There was no

evidence as to whether the levels of the subject metabolite

derivative detected in the subject urine samples would have had

an impact to the performances of these racehorses in the subject

races.

21. The testimony of Dr. Sams established that all

appropriate protocols were followed in testing the three urine

samples at issue in this proceeding. The testing procedure used

by the Lab is considered to be, as phrased by Dr. Sams, the gold

standard for the identification of drugs in urine.

22. The presence of the subject metabolite derivative in

each of the three urine samples at issue in this proceeding

established that the subject drug had been administered to each

horse from which one of the subject samples had been drawn.

23. The Lab thereafter submitted a report to the Division

reflecting that the three urine samples at issue in this

procedure had tested positive for the subject metabolite

derivative. The report identified each sample only by the

sample number. The Lab had no information to identify a sample

by the name of the horse or trainer.

POST-RACE SAMPLING

24. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-6005 governs the

post-race sampling process and provides, in relevant part, as

follows:

(1) The winner of every race and other

such racing animal participants the

stewards, judges, division, or track

veterinarian of the meet designate, shall be

sent immediately after the race to the

detention enclosure for examination by the

authorized representative of the division

and for the taking of urine, blood or other

such samples as shall be directed for the

monitoring and detection of both permissible

and impermissible substances. . . .

* * *

(3) The owner, trainer of record, groom,

or other authorized person shall be (present

in the testing enclosure) able to witness

when urine, blood or other specimens are

taken from that person’s racing animal. The

specimen shall be sealed in its container,

assigned an official sample number which is

affixed to the specimen container, and the

correspondingly numbered information portion

of the sample tag shall be detached and

signed by the owner, trainer, groom, or the

authorized person as a witness to the taking

and sealing of the specimen. The racing

animal and authorized person shall remain in

the detention enclosure until the sample tag

is signed. Said specimens shall be

maintained in such a manner as to preserve

the integrity of the specimen. Specimen

containers shall be of the disposable type

and shall not be reused.

(4) Only those persons stated in

subsection (3) of this rule shall be

admitted at any time to the detention

enclosure except the division staff

immediately in charge of such work, the

stewards or judges, or such other persons as

shall be authorized by the director or the

division veterinarian.

* * *

(6) All specimens taken by or under

direction of the division veterinarian or

other authorized representative of the

division shall be delivered to the

laboratory under contract with the division

for official analysis. Each specimen shall

be marked by number and date and also bear

any information essential for its proper

analysis; however, the identity of the

racing animal from which the specimen was

taken or the identity of its owner, trainer,

jockey, stable, or kennel shall not be

revealed to the laboratory staff until

official analysis of the specimen is

complete. . . .

25. Ms. Neira is an investigator who has been employed by

the Division for over 20 years. In discharging her official

responsibilities, Ms. Neira has observed the post-race sampling

process at Calder. Ms. Neira was not present when any of the

subject samples were taken and she is not the custodian of the

records maintained at by the Division at Calder. Those records

are taken by persons employed by the Division. Those records

are maintained in a secure location that is under the

supervision of a Division employee. Ms. Neira has access to

those records and she utilizes those records in the discharge of

her official duties.

26. After receiving the report from the Lab pertaining to

the subject urine samples, Ms. Neira followed standard

investigative protocol. Ms. Neira went to the Division’s South

Florida Regional Office at the North Broward Regional Service

Center in Fort Lauderdale, Florida (South Region) offices where

the urine specimen cards (Specimen Cards) are kept in a locked

file cabinet. The Specimen Cards collected at Calder are

maintained separately from Specimen Cards taken from other

licensed pari-mutuel facilities. The Specimen Cards for Calder

are filed by the date the sample was taken. Ms. Neira located

each of the Specimen Cards at issue in this proceeding using the

specimen numbers. She thereafter matched each specimen number

identified as being positive by the Lab report to that specimen

number’s Specimen Card. While Ms. Neira is not the records

custodian for the records maintained at the South Region Office,

she has access to and utilizes those records in the discharge of

her official duties.

27. Each Specimen Card at issue in this proceeding (the

Division’s Exhibits 3, 6 and 9, respectively) indicates the date

the sample was taken, the name of the animal, its color and age,

its race, its order of finish in the race, its owner, its

trainer, the name of the person taking the urine sample, the

names of the witnesses (including the owner’s witness), and the

horse's tattoo number (taken from the horse’s upper inside lip).

Each Specimen Card is a state record maintained in the regular

course of business. The subject Specimen Cards established that

urine sample 407762 was taken from Red Nation following the

seventh race at Calder on May 17, 2008; that urine sample 423241

was taken from Shea Stadium following the sixth race at Calder

on November 20, 2008; and that urine sample 424032 was taken

from Mi Corredora following the third race at Calder on

November 22, 2008.

28. A form styled “State Detention Area Security Log”

(Security Log) is kept at Calder in the regular course of

business. Those Security Logs reflect the dates and times

people and horses enter and exit the secure State Detention Area

(the Detention Area). The Security Logs are completed by

Division employees and are maintained in a secure location at

Calder that is under the supervision of Division employees. Ms.

Neira has access to those Security Logs in the discharge of her

official duties.

29. A document styled “Daily Record of Sample Collection

for Race Horses” (Sample Record) is also kept at Calder in the

ordinary course of business. Sample Records are completed by

Division employees and are maintained in a secure location at

Calder that is under the supervision of Division employees.

Ms. Neira has access to the Sample Records in the discharge of

her official duties.

30. Following each race, the horses that must be tested

are tagged by a veterinarian’s assistant (vet assistant) who

tags the animal with an identifying tag and escorts the animal

and the trainer’s representative 7 to the Detention Area. After a

cool-down period, the vet assistant takes the urine sample from

the horse and the state veterinarian takes the blood sample from

the animal. The state veterinarian and the vet assistant are

employees of the Division. The urine sample and the blood

sample are taken in the presence of witnesses, one of whom is

the trainer’s representative. At that point the Specimen Card

discussed above is filled out. The trainer’s’ representative

signs the specimen card. The horse and the trainer’s

representative are then released from the Detention Area.

31. The Security Log for May 17, 2008 (the Division’s

Exhibit 2), reflects that Andrew J. Mitchell entered the

Detention Area with Red Nation following the seventh race at

3:10 p.m. and that he left the Detention Area with Red Nation at

3:50 p.m. The subject Sample Record (the Division’s Exhibit 4)

reflects that Red Nation’s urine sample and blood sample were

taken on that date at 3:50 p.m. Red Nation was identified by

name and by tattoo number. The Sample Record reflects that the

specimen number assigned these samples was 407762. On May 17,

2008, Mr. Mitchell acted as Respondent’s representative.

Mr. Mitchell signed the Specimen Card admitted into evidence as

the Division’s Exhibit 3 as the trainer’s representative.

32. Urine sample 407762 was taken from Red Nation on

May 17, 2008, following the seventh race at Calder.

33. The Security Log for November 20, 2008 (the Division’s

Exhibit 7) reflects that Victor H. Flores entered the Detention

Area with Shea Stadium following the sixth race at 3:00 p.m. and

that he left the Detention Area with Shea Stadium at 3:40 p.m.

The Sample Record (the Division’s Exhibit 9) reflects that Shea

Stadium’s urine sample and blood sample were taken on that date

at 3:50 p.m. Shea Stadium was identified by name and by tattoo

number. The Sample Record reflects that the specimen number

assigned these samples was 423241. On November 20, 2008,

Mr. Flores acted as Respondent’s representative. Mr. Flores

signed the Specimen Card admitted into evidence as the

Division’s Exhibit 8.

34. Urine sample 423241 was taken from Shea Stadium on

November 20, 2008, following the sixth race at Calder.

35. The Security Log for November 22, 2008 (the Division’s

Exhibit 12) reflects that Victor H. Flores entered the Detention

Area with Mi Corredora following the third race at 1:30 p.m. and

that he left the Detention Area with Mi Corredora at 2:00 p.m.

The Sample Record (the Division’s Exhibit 14) reflects that Mi

Corredora’s urine sample and blood sample were taken on that

date at 2:00 p.m. Mi Corredora was identified by name and by

tattoo number. The Sample Record reflects that the specimen

number assigned these samples was 424032. On November 22, 2008,

Mr. Flores acted as Respondent’s representative. Mr. Flores

signed the Specimen Card admitted into evidence as the

Division’s Exhibit 13.

36. Urine sample 424032 was taken from Mi Corredora on

November 22, 2008, following the third race at Calder.

37. Each of the urine samples at issue in this proceeding

was subjected to a split testing procedure as required by

Section 550.2415(1)(a), Florida Statutes.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

38. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto

pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

39. In this disciplinary proceeding, the Division has the

burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the

allegations against Respondent. See Ferris v. Turlington , 510

So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987); Evans Packing Co. v. Department of

Agriculture and Consumer Services , 550 So.2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA

1989); and Inquiry Concerning a Judge , 645 So.2d 398 (Fla.

1994). The following statement has been repeatedly cited in

discussions of the clear and convincing evidence standard:

Clear and convincing evidence requires

that the evidence must be found to be

credible; the facts to which the witnesses

testify must be distinctly remembered; the

evidence must be precise and explicit and

the witnesses must be lacking in confusion

as to the facts in issue. The evidence must

be of such weight that it produces in the

mind of the trier of fact the firm belief of

(sic) conviction, without hesitancy, as to

the truth of the allegations sought to be

established. Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So.2d

797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

40. Section 550.001 provides that Chapter 550, Florida

Statutes, constitutes the Florida Pari-Mutuel Wagering Act.

Section 550.2415(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides in relevant

part, as follows:

(1)(a) The racing of an animal with any

drug, medication, stimulant, depressant,

hypnotic, narcotic, local anesthetic, or

drug-masking agent is prohibited. It is a

violation of this section for a person to

administer or cause to be administered any

drug, medication, stimulant, depressant,

hypnotic, narcotic, local anesthetic, or

drug-masking agent to an animal which will

result in a positive test for such substance

based on samples taken from the animal

immediately prior to or immediately after

the racing of that animal. . . .

41. Section 550.2415(1)(c), Florida Statutes, provides

that test results shall constitute prima facie evidence as

follows:

(c) The finding of a prohibited substance

in a race-day specimen constitutes prima

facie evidence that the substance was

administered and was carried in the body of

the animal while participating in the race.

42. Subsections 550.2415(2) and (3), Florida Statutes,

provide for the Division to take action as follows:

(2) Administrative action may be taken by

the division against an occupational licensee

responsible pursuant to rule of the division

for the condition of an animal that has been

impermissibly medicated or drugged in

violation of this section.

(3)(a) Upon the finding of a violation of

this section, the division may revoke or

suspend the license or permit of the violator

or deny a license or permit to the violator;

impose a fine against the violator in an

amount not exceeding $5,000; require the full

or partial return of the purse, sweepstakes,

and trophy of the race at issue; or impose

against the violator any combination of such

penalties. The finding of a violation of

this section in no way prohibits a

prosecution for criminal acts committed.

(b) The division, notwithstanding the

provisions of chapter 120, may summarily

suspend the license of an occupational

licensee responsible under this section or

division rule for the condition of a race

animal if the division laboratory reports the

presence of an impermissible substance in the

animal or its blood, urine, saliva, or any

other bodily fluid, either before a race in

which the animal is entered or after a race

the animal has run.

(c) If an occupational licensee is

summarily suspended under this section, the

division shall offer the licensee a prompt

post-suspension hearing within 72 hours, at

which the division shall produce the

laboratory report and documentation which, on

its face, establishes the responsibility of

the occupational licensee. Upon production

of the documentation, the occupational

licensee has the burden of proving his or her

lack of responsibility.

(d) Any proceeding for administrative

action against a licensee or permittee, other

than a proceeding under paragraph (c), shall

be conducted in compliance with chapter 120.

43. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-6.011((a)

contains disciplinary guidelines to be imposed against the

trainer following the detection of a Class I impermissible

substance in one of the trainer’s racing animals. For the first

violation, the recommended penalty is an administrative fine in

the amount of $500.00 to $1,000.00 and the suspension or

revocation of the trainer’s licensure. For any subsequent

violation, the recommended penalty is an administrative fine in

the amount of $1,000.00 to $5,000.00 and the suspension or

revocation of the trainer’s licensure. These penalties are in

addition to the provisions of Section 550.2415(3)(a), Florida

Statutes, which authorizes the Division to require the full or

partial return of the purse at issue.

44. The Division proved by clear and convincing evidence

that Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Order of

Summary Suspension and in the Administrative Complaint. In

forming the recommendation that follows, the undersigned has

considered that Respondent has been a trainer for approximately

30 years with two minor blemishes on his record and no major

blemish. The undersigned has also considered Respondent’s

disciplinary guidelines and the recommended disposition set

forth in Petitioner’s Revised Proposed Recommended Order.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that

adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth

herein. It is, further, RECOMMENDED that the Final Order uphold

the Order of Summary Suspension. It is, further, RECOMMENDED

that the Final Order find Respondent guilty of the three counts

alleged in the Administrative Complaint; impose against him an

administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 per count (for a

total of $3,000.00); suspend his licensure for a period of one

year from the date of the emergency suspension; and require him

to return any purse won by the horses at issue for the races at

issue.

DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 2009, 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

[phone]

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 14th day of May, 2009.

ENDNOTES

1 / All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2008).

2 / Respondent objected to Petitioner’s Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 7, 8,

9, 12, 13, and 14 on the grounds that each Exhibit is

inadmissible hearsay. Those objections were overruled following

arguments of counsel. Those arguments, and the undersigned’s

rulings, are contained in the Transcript. Each record is a

document maintained by a state employee in a secure manner.

Ms. Neira has access to these records in the discharge of her

official duties and she established the requisite foundation for

the admissibility of these records. For the reasons argued by

Petitioner at the formal hearing and in its Proposed Recommended

Order, these records are admissible as business records and as

public records pursuant to the provisions of Subsections

90.803(6) and (8), Florida Statutes.

3 / Pursuant to Section 550.2415(5), Florida Statutes, split

samples of the subject urine samples were forwarded for analysis

to a racing laboratory in Louisiana. Because of the expedited

nature of this proceeding, the analysis of those samples had not

been completed as of the date of the formal hearing. On May 1,

2009, counsel for Petitioner filed “Petitioner’s Notice of Split

Sample Results” which represented that analysis of the three

split samples by the Louisiana laboratory confirmed the presence

of the subject metabolite derivative in each sample. Those

confirming tests have not been admitted into evidence and have

not been considered by the undersigned in the preparation of the

Order Sustaining Summary Suspension or in the preparation of

this Recommended Order. The parties verbally advised the

undersigned of the results of that testing and agreed that all

issues were ripe for determination. The parties were afforded

an opportunity to submit arguments as to penalty. Respondent’s

counsel advised that Respondent elected not to submit additional

argument. Thereafter, Petitioner submitted “Petitioner’s

Revised Proposed Recommended Order” on May 1, 2009.

4 / Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-6.002(1) provides, in

relevant part:

(1) The trainer of record shall be

responsible for and be the absolute insurer

of the condition of the horses . . . he/she

enters to race. . . .

5 / The manner in which the urine samples were taken from all

three horses will be discussed below. The blood samples are not

at issue in this proceeding.

6 / The testing procedures for the urine samples at issue in this

proceeding will be discussed below.

7 / This person could be the representative of the trainer or the

owner. The representatives at issue in these proceedings were

representatives of the trainer.

COPIES FURNISHED :

David Perry, Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 40

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202

Bradford J. Beilly, Esquire

Bradford J. Beilly, P.A.

1144 Southeast Third Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316

David J. Roberts, Director

Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Ned Luczynski, General Counsel

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

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.