Subject Amended Proposed Order for Brian D. Rose, Case by yzc11728

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 13

									                                                                      Agenda
                                                                       Item
                                                                      V.A.3.




State of Oregon                                                    Board memo


Building Codes Division                                            November 19, 2009

To:        Oregon State Electrical and Elevator Board

From:      Liz Browder, Manager, Enforcement Services Section

Subject: Amended Proposed Order for Brian D. Rose, Case No. 2008-0167


Action requested:
Board to decide on adoption of amended proposed order.

Discussion:
The case before the board involves Brian D. Rose. Mr. Rose performed electrical work at two
locations in Bend, Oregon and is charged with engaging in the business of an electrical
contractor without an electrical contractor’s license, making electrical installations without a
journeyman electrician’s license and performing work without first obtaining permits. The work
involved the installations of in-floor heating systems.

On August 4, 2008, the Building Codes Division issued Mr. Rose a Notice of Proposed
Assessment of a Civil Penalty for $6,000. Mr. Rose timely requested a hearing, which was held
on March 24, 2009 in Salem, Oregon. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Susan Teppola presided
over the proceeding.

On June 24, 2009, ALJ Teppola issued a proposed order finding that Mr. Rose should be fined
$5,000 instead of the $6,000 initially proposed. In her opinion, ALJ Teppola found Mr. Rose’s
engagement in the business of an electrical contractor without an Oregon electrical contractor’s
license at two locations constituted only a single violation of ORS 479.620(1). ALJ Teppola did
find Mr. Rose made electrical installations without an Oregon supervising or journeyman license
and without first obtaining permits on two occasions.

Mr. Rose did not submit any exceptions to ALJ Teppola’s proposed order.
The Board reviewed this matter at the last meeting. The board approved a motion to amend the
proposed order to reflect two violations of engaging in the business of an electrical contractor
without an Oregon electrical contractor’s license and assess a total $6,000 civil penalty.

On October 12, 2006, an amended proposed order was issued to Mr. Rose. He did not file any
exceptions in response.

The amended proposed order and final order are attached for the board to review.

Options:
      Issue a final order, adopting the amended proposed order with no further changes.
      Amend the amended proposed order and ask that the amended proposed order be brought
      back to the next board meeting for consideration.
      Disapprove the amended proposed order, thus dismissing the case.

Recommendation:
The division recommends that the board issue a final order adopting the amended proposed order
with no further changes.
1          BEFORE THE ELECTRICAL AND ELEVATOR BOARD OF THE STATE OF
                                   OREGON
2

3

4
     IN THE MATTER OF:                                                        FINAL ORDER

5    BRIAN D. ROSE, AN INDIVIDUAL                              OAH CASE NO. 008702
6                                                              BCD CASE NO. 2008-0167
7
                          RESPONDENT

8

9    The Electrical and Elevator Board of the State of Oregon adopts and incorporates by reference
     the attached amended proposed order, dated October 12, 2009, assessing Respondent a total civil
10
     penalty of $6,000 for violations of the Oregon Electrical Safety Law.
11

12
     Dated this __________day of ____________________, 2009
13

14
     ____________________________________________
15   Chairman
     Electrical and Elevator Board
16
     State of Oregon
17

18
         NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW (COURT OF APPEALS)
19

20   You are entitled to judicial review of this Order pursuant to ORS 183.482. Judicial review may
     be initiated by filing a petition for review with the Oregon Court of Appeals within 60 days from
21   the date this order was mailed to you.
22

23

24

25




     Page 1 of 1
                               BEFORE THE
               DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND BUSINESS SERVICES
                         BUILDING CODES DIVISION
                     ELECTRICAL AND ELEVATOR BOARD
                             STATE OF OREGON


IN THE MATTER OF:                                     ) AMENDED PROPOSED ORDER
                                                      )
BRIAN D. ROSE                                         ) OAH Case No.: 800702
                                                      ) Agency Case No.: 2008-0167


        The Electrical and Elevator Board (Board), having considered this matter, the
Proposed Order issued on June 24, 2009, hereby proposes the following amended statement
of issues, conclusions of law, opinion, and order.

                                     HISTORY OF THE CASE

      On August 4, 2008, Building Codes Division (BCD) issued a Notice of Proposed
Assessment of a Civil Penalty and Final Order upon Default to Brian D. Rose (Respondent). On
August 22, 2008, Respondent requested a hearing. On September 15, 2008, BCD filed an
Amended Notice of Proposed Assessment of a Civil Penalty and Final Order upon Default.

       On November 20, 2008, BCD referred the hearing request to the Office of Administrative
Hearings (OAH). Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Susan E. Teppola was assigned to preside at
hearing.

       A hearing was held on June 15, 2009, in Salem, Oregon. BCD was represented by
Assistant Attorney General, Katherine M. Lozano. Testifying on behalf of BCD were Grant
Zadow, Assistant Chief Electrical Inspector, State of Oregon; Tammy Trenholm, former BCD
Enforcement Officer; Lucas Koomen, Chief Electrical Inspector for the City of Bend; Aaron
Clickett, President of Aaken Corporation Electric, a licensed electrical contractor; Tammy
Hoxie, formerly of Austin Tile Design Studio & Gallery (Austin Tile); David Kramer, a licensed
contractor; Harold Guthrie, electrical supervisor for THT Electric, a licensed electrical
contractor; and Matthew Rodriguez, BCD Enforcement Officer. Respondent appeared without
counsel and testified on his own behalf. The record closed at the conclusion of the hearing.

              On June 24, 2009, the ALJ issued a Proposed Order recommending the
assessment of a total of $5,000 in penalties against the Respondent (Proposed Order). The
Proposed Order found that: (1) Respondent did violate ORS 479.620(1) by engaging in the
business of making electrical installations without an electrical contractor’s license;
(2) Respondent did violate ORS 479.620(3)(5) by making electrical installations at 63318
Brightwater Rd. and 2619 Loggon Court in Bend, Oregon without a journeyman,
supervising or limited residential electrician’s license; and, (3) Respondent did violate ORS




In the Matter of Brian D. Rose, OAH Case No. 800702, Agency Case No. 2008-0167
Page 1 of 10
479.550(1) by making electrical installations at the listed addresses without valid electrical
permits.
        In accordance with ORS 183.650(2) and OAR 137-003-0665(3) and (4), the Board
modifies the Proposed Order and identifies and explains herein those modifications that
change the outcome or basis for the proposed final decision from the Proposed Order in
this case. The Board also made changes to correct references, punctuation, textual
placement, and other similar errors.

                                                ISSUES

        We have amended the statement of issue (1) to include the addresses where the
violations of ORS 479.620(1) took place.

       1. Whether Respondent engaged in the business of making electrical installations at
63318 Brightwater Road and 2619 Loggon Court in Bend, Oregon without an electrical
contractor’s license in violation of ORS 479.620(1).

        2. Whether Respondent made electrical installations at 63318 Brightwater Road and
2619 Loggon Court in Bend, Oregon without a journeyman, supervising or limited residential
electrician’s license in violation of ORS 479.620(3)(5).

        3. Whether Respondent made electrical installations at the listed addresses without valid
electrical permits in violation of ORS 479.550(1).
      4. If the violation(s) occurred, what penalty is warranted? ORS 455.895(1)(b), ORS
479.995 and OAR 918-001-0036(6).

                                     EVIDENTIARY RULING

       Pleading documents P1 through P 13 were admitted. Exhibits A1 through A19 offered
by BCD were admitted. Respondent offered financial information which the ALJ ruled was not
relevant and was therefore not admitted.

                                        FINDINGS OF FACT

       1. During the relevant period, Respondent was not licensed with BCD as an electrical
contractor or as a journeyman, supervising or limited residential electrician. (Test. of Trenholm
and Ex. A1.)

        2. Since June 22, 2007, Respondent has been registered with the Construction
Contractor’s Board (CCB) as a specialty contractor under the assumed business name Simply
Warm. (Ex. A2.) Respondent dba Simply Warm is also registered with the Secretary of State’s
Office, Business Registry Division. (Ex. A3.) Respondent has fax cover letter paper in the name
Simply Warm (Ex. A18) and invoice paper with that business name. (Ex. A7 at 2.) Respondent
represents and sells a product by Warmup, a radiant floor heating system. Respondent is listed




In the Matter of Brian D. Rose, OAH Case No. 800702, Agency Case No. 2008-0167
Page 2 of 10
as a reseller of the Warmup product on Warmup’s website. (Ex. A4.) Respondent’s business
card says, “Simply Warm, Brian D. Rose, Sales & Installation.” (Ex. A7, at 1 and 2.)

        3. The product Respondent sells and installs is a “heating mat” permanently attached
underneath flooring. It requires heat producing wire laid in a pattern, a transition to wire that
does not produce heat, a raceway for wire from the floor to the junction box and then the
attachment of the system to the home’s electrical source. If an electrical contractor has a permit
for the entire project, the installation of a radiant floor heating system is covered by the permit,
but only if installed by the contractor or the contractor’s licensed employee. Otherwise, a
separate electrical permit and a licensed electrician are needed to install the radiant floor heating
system. (Test. of Zadow.)

        4. David Kramer is a licensed contractor who undertook a remodeling project at 63318
Brightwater Road (Brightwater project) in Bend, Oregon. (Test. of Kramer.) Aaken Corporation
was the licensed electrical contractor on the project and Aaken’s employee, Chris Brown, was
the on-site electrician. (Test. of Clikcett and Ex. A10 at 1.) Austin Tile was hired by the general
contractor for the tile floor work. In turn, Austin Tile engaged Respondent to install a radiant
floor heating system to be laid under the tile. (Test. of Hoxie.)

       5. On or about July 5, 2008, Respondent (1) prepared the floor, (2) laid the wire, and (3)
taped down the wire pursuant to the manufactures instructions for the radiant floor heating
system at the Brightwater project. (Ex. A5 at 2.) Respondent knew he was not supposed to lay
the wire, but he did so anyway, because he thought that Aaken Corporation had given him
permission to lay the wire using Aaken’s electrical permit for the project. (Test. of Respondent
and Ex. A5 at 3.) However, neither Aaken Corporation Electric, nor its on-site electrician, Chris
Brown, believed that Respondent had been given permission to make electrical installations
under Aaken’s permit. (Test. of Clickett and Ex. A10.)

       6. On July 5, 2008, Respondent, using a Simply Warm invoice, billed Austin Tile
$1,873.00 for between 280 and 303 square feet of radiant floor heating system and a
programmable thermostat for the Brightwater project. (Ex. A7 at 2.)

        7. On July 7, 2008, Respondent requested that a City of Bend electrical inspector inspect
the radiant floor heating system at the Brightwater project. The inspector found that the radiant
floor heating system had not been installed by the electrical contractor who had signed for the
electrical permit. The electrical inspector also found the installation was unsafe, as there was
open wiring (the sheath had been removed) running up the wall to the control boxes, the wires
were nicked, and the splice between wires was not done properly. (Test. of Koomen and Clickett
and Exs. A6, A8 and A11.)

        8. On July 28, 2008, as a result of the Brightwater project, Respondent said, “Going
forward I will not accept any jobs without having my own electricians pull the permits and install
so as to have [n]o further violations.” (Ex. A5 at 3.)

       9. On July 31, 2008, Pacwest Development, LLC, a contractor, entered into a contract
with Simply Warm on a residential project Pacwest had undertaken at 2619 NW Loggon Court



In the Matter of Brian D. Rose, OAH Case No. 800702, Agency Case No. 2008-0167
Page 3 of 10
in Bend, Oregon (Loggon project.). Simply Warm was designated as the subcontractor. The
subcontractor’s duties were to, “furnish all labor, services, materials, installation, cartage,
hoisting supplies, insurance, equipment, scaffolding, tools and all other facilities of every kind
and description required for the prompt and efficient completion of the described Work per the
attached detailed scope.” Under “Description of the Work” Simply Warm was to, “INSTALL
RADIANT FLOOR HEAT AS PER THE FOLLOWING: Install loose-wire line voltage radiant
floor heating throughout the master bedroom and toilet area. Include dial type thermostat
control.” (Ex. A12.)

        10. THT Electric LLC was the electrical contractor for the Loggon project, but it was not
hired to install the radiant floor heating system. Supervising electrician Harold Guthrie was
supervising electrical installations at the Loggon project. (Test. of Guthrie.)

        11. On or about August 4, 2008, Guthrie met with Respondent at the Loggon project.
Respondent was preparing to install the radiant floor heating system in the master bath. Using
nails, Respondent had marked out the pattern for installation of wire on the floor. (Test. of
Guthrie and A15.) Guthrie left the Loggon project for about an hour and a half that day. During
Guthrie’s absence, Respondent ran wire around the nails in the pattern he had earlier laid out.
When Guthrie returned, the radiant floor heating system had been installed. (Test. of
Respondent and Exs. A13 at 2 and A15.)

        12. On August 5, 2008, Respondent requested that a City of Bend electrical inspector
inspect the radiant floor heating system at the Loggon project. The inspector found that the
radiant floor heating system had not been installed by the electrical contractor who had signed
for the electrical permit. (Exs. A13 and A14.)

        13. The Board’s previous penalty matrix was in effect at all of the aforementioned times.
(Test. of Rodriguez and Ex. P10.)

                                     CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

       We have added the addresses of the locations where Respondent engaged in the
business of making electrical installations to the first conclusion of law and amended the
fourth conclusion of law, regarding the appropriate penalty for the violations found.

        1. Respondent engaged in the business of making electrical installations at 63318
Brightwater Road and 2619 Loggon Court in Bend, Oregon without an electrical contractor’s
license.

        2. Respondent made electrical installations at 63318 Brightwater Rd. and 2619 Loggon
Court in Bend, Oregon without a journeyman, supervising or limited residential electrician’s
license.

       3. Respondent made electrical installations at the listed addresses without valid electrical
permits.




In the Matter of Brian D. Rose, OAH Case No. 800702, Agency Case No. 2008-0167
Page 4 of 10
        4. Respondent should be fined $6000.00 for such violations.


                                                   OPINION

       This case involves the installation radiant floor heating systems at two residential projects
in Bend, Oregon. The questions are whether the floor system is an electrical installation,
whether Respondent made them without the necessary licenses and permits, and whether he held
himself out as an electrical contractor making these types of installations.

        Standard and Burden of Proof

        Oregon has enacted the Electrical Safety Law. ORS 479.510 et. seq. The purpose of the
law is to ensure the health and safety of Oregon residents, to prevent shocks, fires and explosions
and to ensure that electrical installations are made by people who are fully qualified to do them.
ORS 479.520.

        The Board alleges that Respondent violated the law by making electrical installations
without a license and without permits. The Board further alleges that Respondent held himself
out as an electrical contractor. The Board had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the
evidence that Respondent violated the Oregon Electrical Safety Law. Harris v. SAIF, 292 Or
683, 690 (1982) (the burden is on the proponent of a fact or position). The standard of proof in
an administrative hearing is preponderance of the evidence. Metcalf v. AFSD, 65 Or App 761,
765 (1983). Proof by a preponderance of the evidence means that the fact finder is persuaded
that the facts asserted are more likely than not true. Riley Hill General Contractor v. Tandy
Corp., 303 Or 390, 402 (1987).

        Electrical Installations

        An “electrical installation” is defined in ORS 479.530(10) as:

           [T]he construction or installation of electrical wiring and the permanent
           attachment or installation of electrical products in or on any structure that is
           not itself an electrical product.

        Under ORS 479.530(11), an “electrical product” is:

           [A]ny electrical equipment, material, device or apparatus that * * *
           requires a license or permit to install and either conveys or is operated by
           electrical current.

        Electrical Contractors

       ORS 479.620(1) states, “a person may not * * * [w]ithout an electrical contractor’s
license, engage in the business of making electrical installations, advertise as or otherwise



In the Matter of Brian D. Rose, OAH Case No. 800702, Agency Case No. 2008-0167
Page 5 of 10
purport to be licensed to make electrical installations or purport to be acting as a business that
makes electrical installations.”


        Electrical Licenses

        Generally, to make electrical installations, a person is required to have a license. ORS
479.620(3) states that, “[A] person may not * * * make any electrical installation without a
supervising or journeyman electrician’s license.” ORS 479-620(5) also allows electrical
installations on single or multifamily dwelling unit not exceeding three floors above grade to be
done with a limited residential electrician’s license.

        Electrical Permits

        ORS 479.550 provides that no work may be done on a new electrical installation until a
permit has been issued. OAR 918-309-0000(5) states, “An electrical permit * * * issued to one
person or firm is not transferable and shall not permit any other person or firm to perform any
electrical work thereunder.”

        Application of the Statutes and Rules

        The first matter to be addressed is whether the radiant heat flooring system is an
“electrical product.” Because it involves wire that carries electrical current to heat the floor, I
conclude that the system is an “electrical product.” The permanent attachment of the wiring
under the finish flooring, which is not itself an electrical product, makes the installation of the
system an “electrical installation.”

        To engage in the business of making electrical installations, a person must have an
electrical contractor’s license. The uncontroverted evidence in this case is that Respondent has
been in business as Simply Warm for about two years. His business is registered with CCB as a
specialty contractor. His business cards indicate he sells and installs radiant floor heating
systems. In addition to holding himself out to the public as a business that is able to perform the
installations, the facts established that in at least the two instances (the Brightwater and Loggon
projects) that were the subject of this hearing, Respondent entered into contracts and installed the
systems. Respondent acted as an electrical contractor without an electrical contractor’s license.

        We have deleted the discussion on the issue of engaging in the business of making
electrical installations in the Proposed Order because it followed an incorrect legal
analysis, based on the presumption that a finding of having engaged in the business of
making electrical installations inherently requires multiple instances of so engaging, and
that, therefore, the two instances in which the Respondent did so engage constitute a single
violation. Therefore, we have replaced the Proposed Order’s analysis with the following
discussion:

        Pursuant to ORS 479.620(1), a person may not, “without an electrical contractor’s
license, engage in the business of making electrical installations, advertise as or otherwise



In the Matter of Brian D. Rose, OAH Case No. 800702, Agency Case No. 2008-0167
Page 6 of 10
purport to be licensed to make electrical installations or purport to be acting as a business that
makes electrical installations.”

        The statute contains three separate violations a person may commit: (1) engage in the
business of making electrical installations; (2) advertise as or otherwise purport to be licensed to
make electrical installations; and, (3) purport to be acting as a business that makes electrical
installations.

        In this case, the alleged violations were acts of (1) engaging in the business of making
electrical installations. Therefore, acts (2) and (3) are not at issue here and require no further
analysis.

        The term, “engaging in the business of” is defined by rule. As OAR 918-030-0010(8)
sets forth, “’Engaging in the business’ means to advertise or solicit, contract or agree to perform,
or to perform work for which a license or permit is required under Oregon law, including but
not limited to a single instance.” (Emphasis added.)

       The rule contains three separate and distinct actions that would qualify as “engaging in
the business”: (1) advertise or solicit work for which a license or permit is required; (2) contract
or agree to perform work for which a license or permit is required; and (3) perform work for
which a license or permit is required.

        The rule’s phrase, “including but not limited to a single instance” clarifies that even a
single instance of one of these acts constitutes a violation of a statute prohibiting engaging in
business of something. Therefore, multiple instances of committing these acts are not necessary
to establish that an individual is engaging in the business of, in this case, making electrical
installations.

        In this case, the facts establish that Respondent did not hold an electrical contractor’s
license and that he did not obtain permits for installing electrical radiant heat flooring systems.
Respondent’s business cards indicate that he sells and installs radiant floor heating systems; here
he holds himself out to the public as a business that is able to perform the installations.
Furthermore, in addition to so holding himself out to the public, the facts establish that in at least
the two instances (the Brightwater and Loggon projects), which were the subjects of this
hearing, Respondent entered into contracts or agreements to make electrical installations, work
which requires proper licensure and permits. The facts also establish that in at least two
instances, at those same locations, Respondent did install electrical radiant heat flooring systems,
performing work for which proper licensure and permits are required. Thus, Respondent engaged
in the business of making electrical installations without an electrical contractor’s license, in
three different manners, on at least two separate occasions.

        As is evident from the plain language of OAR 030-0010(8), any single instance of
committing these prohibited acts constitutes “engaging in the business.” Because the facts
establish that Respondent engaged in all three prohibited acts, in two clearly distinct instances –
instances separated by time, client, and location, there is no question that Respondent committed
two distinct violations of ORS 479.620(1).



In the Matter of Brian D. Rose, OAH Case No. 800702, Agency Case No. 2008-0167
Page 7 of 10
        Next, Respondent made electrical installations at the Brightwater and Loggon projects
without an electrician’s license. In both instances, Respondent had excuses for why he did so,
but in the end, he admitted to both violations. In addition, although the electrical contractor’s
permits for the projects would have covered the electrical contractors installations of the systems
if they had been performed by licensed electricians under the direction of the contractor, those
permits were not transferable to Respondent.

        Respondent argued that he talked to people at the City of Bend and at the Building Codes
Division and he believed that the installations he performed were in a “gray area” where no one
really knew whether installing radiant floor heating systems was lawful without a license and
permit. That may be true in part. There are procedures that are performed in preparation for
laying the wire. There is a pattern for the wire that involves driving nails. There is something
else that covers the wiring after it is laid. There might be legitimate questions about whether
those functions constitute electrical installations. But, running electrical wire around the pattern,
running wire from the mat to the wall, and transitioning from heat producing wire to non heat
producing wire are, without question, electrical installations.

        The Penalty

        We have amended parts of this section to make them consistent with our discussion
of engaging in the business of electrical installations without an electrical contractor’s
license, and also to adjust discussion of appropriate penalties accordingly.

        Having found that Respondent acted as an electrical contractor without an electrical
contractor’s license (two violations), and made electrical installations without a license (two
violations) or permits (two violations), the question becomes whether a civil penalty is
appropriate and, if so, in what amount.

       ORS 455.895(1)(b) and 479.995 allow the Electrical and Elevator Board to impose a civil
penalty against a person for violations of ORS 479.510 to 479.945, or rules adopted for the
administration or enforcement of ORS 479.510 to 479.945. Under OAR 918-001-0036(6):

         The division may, subject to approval of a board, develop a penalty matrix for
         the board’s use to promote equity and uniformity in proposing the amount and
         terms of civil penalties and conditions under which the penalties may be
         modified based on the circumstances in individual cases.

        The penalty matrix in effect at the time of Respondent’s actions specified $1000 per
violation if a violator did not have an adverse final order issued by the board or department
within the past 36 months. There is no evidence in the record that Respondent had previous
violations within 36 months preceding these violations. Having totaled six violations, it is
appropriate for the Board to issue the following:




In the Matter of Brian D. Rose, OAH Case No. 800702, Agency Case No. 2008-0167
Page 8 of 10
                                                ORDER

        Respondent violated: ORS 479.620(1), by acting as an electrical contractor without an
electrical contractor’s license; ORS 479.620(3) and (5), by making electrical installations
without a license; and 479.550(1), by making electrical installations without a permit.
Respondent is subject to civil penalty in the amount of $6000 for six violations.


Dated, Effective, and Issued this __________ day of _______________, 2009




                                                                        Chairman
                                                                            for
                                                            the Electrical and Elevator Board
                                                                     State of Oregon




                       EXCEPTIONS TO AMENDED PROPOSED ORDER

               If you disagree with any part of this Amended Proposed Order, you may make
written objections called “exceptions” and present written argument in support of your
exceptions. Exceptions and argument must be filed with the Building Codes Division, not later
than 14 days following the date of service of the Amended Proposed Order, at the following
address:

                                     Building Codes Division
                                Manager, Enforcement and Licensing
                                          PO Box 14470
                                     Salem, OR 97309-0404

The Board will not consider evidence that was not a part of the original hearing record.

In addition, your exceptions must be in accordance with the following:

    a.      Your exceptions must be confined to factual and legal issues which are essential to
            the ultimate and just determination of the proceeding, and may be based only on the
            grounds that:

            1)      A necessary finding of fact is omitted or, a finding of fact that is included is
                    erroneous or unsupported by the preponderance of evidence in the record;

            2)      A necessary legal conclusion is omitted or, a legal conclusion that is included
                    is contrary to law or to the Board’s rules or written policies; or


In the Matter of Brian D. Rose, OAH Case No. 800702, Agency Case No. 2008-0167
Page 9 of 10
            3)      Prejudicial procedural error occurred.

    b.      Your exceptions must be numbered and must specify the disputed findings, opinions
            or conclusions, identified by page and line number of the Amended Proposed Order.
            The nature of the alleged error must be specified and the alternative or corrective
            language provided.

    c.      If you wish to present argument in support of your exceptions, your argument must be
            made in writing, filed timely with the Board along with your written exceptions, and
            only on those points raised in the written exceptions. Oral argument is not allowed.

                                             FINAL ORDER

       The Board will issue a Final Order in this case after considering any timely filed
    exceptions along with the evidence.

                                                 APPEAL

       If you wish to appeal the Final Order after it is issued, you must file a petition of review
    with the Oregon Court of Appeals within 60 days after the Final Order is served upon you.
    See ORS 183.480 et seq. The contact number for the Oregon Court of Appeals is (503) 986-
    5555.




In the Matter of Brian D. Rose, OAH Case No. 800702, Agency Case No. 2008-0167
Page 10 of 10

								
To top