16-006889RP Associated Industries Of Florida, Inc., Florida Farm Bureau Federation, Florida Retail Federation, Inc., Florida Trucking Association, Inc., And National Federation Of Independent Business, Inc. vs. Department Of Environmental Protection
 Status: Closed
DOAH Final Order on Friday, December 30, 2016.


View Dockets  
Summary: The proposed rule is invalid because the agency failed to follow rulemaking requirements, there is no statutory authority for the rule, it enlarges the law implemented, and it imposes invalid regulatory costs.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES OF

11FLORIDA, INC. ; FLORIDA FARM

15BUREAU FEDERATION ; FLORIDA

18RETAIL FEDERATION, INC. ; FLORIDA

22TRUCKING ASSOCIATION, INC. ; AND

26NATIONAL FEDERATION OF

29INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, INC.,

32Petitioners,

33vs. Case No. 16 - 6889RP

39DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

42PROTECTION,

43Respondent.

44_______________________________/

45FINAL ORDER

47At the request of the parties, the scheduled final hearing

57was canceled and the case was submitted to Bram D. E. Canter,

69Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative

77Hearings, for summary final order pursuant to section

85120.57(1)(h), Florida Statutes (2016). Oral argument on the

93partiesÓ motions for summary final order was heard on

102Decem ber 20, 20 1 6, in Tallahassee, Florida.

111APPEARANCES

112For Petitioners: Gregory M. Munson, Esquire

118Terry Cole, Esquire

121Deborah Madden, Esquire

124Gunster, Yoakley and Stewart, P.A.

129215 South Monroe Street, Suite 601

135Tallahassee, Florida 32301

138For Respondent: Jeffrey Brown, Esquire

143Francine Ffolkes, Esquire

146Department of Environmental Protection

150Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

1553900 Commonwealth Boulevard

158Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

163STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

167The issue to be determined in this case is whether proposed

178Florida Adm inistrative Code Rule 62 - 4.161 of the Department of

190Environmental Protection (ÐDEPÑ) is an invalid exercise of

198delegated legislative authority.

201PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

203On September 28, 2016, DEP caused to be published in the

214Florida Administrative Register a notice of its intent to adopt

224rule 62 - 4.161. On November 15, 2016, DEP caused to be published

237in the Register a Notice of Change to the proposed rule.

248Petitioners filed a timely petition to challenge the proposed

257rule.

258FINDINGS OF FACT

261The Parties

2631. D EP is the state agency granted regulatory and

273enforcement powers in chapter 403, Florida Statutes, to control

282air and water pollution.

2862. Associated Industries of Florida, Inc. , is a non - profit

297corporation. It is the largest association of business, trad e,

307commercial, and professional organizations, partnerships, and

313proprietorships in Florida .

3173. Florida Farm Bureau Federation is a not - for - profit

329agricultural organization. It is the StateÓs largest general -

338interest agricultural association with about 1 45,000 members.

3474. Florida Retail Federation, Inc., is a non - profit

357corporation with over 4,000 members, which are retail companies

367operating in Florida. The Florida Petroleum Marketers and

375C onvenience Store Association is a division of the Federation.

3855 . Florida Trucking Association, Inc. , is a non - profit

396corporation whose members include about 26,000 trucking

404companies.

4056. National Federation of Independent Business, Inc. , is

413the NationÓs leading small business association. It has about

42210,500 member s operating in Florida.

4297. A principal purpose of each Petitioner is to represent

439the interests of its members before elected and appointed

448officials of state government.

4528. For each Petitioner, a substantial number of its members

462are owners and operator s of installations or otherwise engaged in

473activities capable of having Ðreportable releasesÑ as that term

482is defined in the proposed rule.

488The Proposed Rule

4919. Proposed rule 62 - 4.161, entitled ÐPublic Notice of

501Pollution,Ñ is lengthy and does not need to be set out here in

515its entirety to understand the objections raised by Petitioners

524or the defenses advanced by DEP. In summary, the proposed rule

535requires a person who has a reportable release of a regulated

546substance to inform DEP, the general public (via television and

556newspaper), and the local government within 24 hours after the

566release occurs. Within 48 hours of the release, additional

575information must be provided to the same entities. If the

585release goes beyond the property of the owner/operator , the

594adjacent property owner must be notified within 24 hours, as well

605as DEP and the local government. The proposed rule describes the

616information that must be included in the notices and the penalty

627for non - compliance with the ruleÓs requirements.

635Rule making Authority

6381 0 . The proposed rule identifies seven statutes as

648authority for the rule.

652(a) Section 377.22(2) . This provision grants authority to

661DEP to adopt rules to implement and enforce the provisions of

672chapter 377, which regulates oil and gas resources.

680(b) Section 403.061(7) . This provision grants authority to

689DEP to adopt rules to implement the provisions of the Florida Air

701and Water Pollution Control Act, which is a part of chapter 403.

713(c) Section 403.061(8) . This provision grants autho rity to

723DEP to issue orders Ðnecessary to effectuate the control of air

734and water pollution.Ñ

737(d) Section 403.061(28) . This provision authorizes DEP to

746ÐPerform any other act necessary to control and prohibit air and

757water pollution.Ñ

759(e) Section 403.06 2 . This provision grants DEP general

769control over surface and ground waters under the jurisdiction of

779the state insofar as their pollution may affect public health or

790the public interest.

793(f) Section 403.855(1) . This provision authorizes DEP to

802adopt em ergency rules to protect the public health when DEP has

814information that a contaminant may present an imminent hazard or

824substantial danger to public or private water supplies.

832(g) Section 403.861(9) . This provision authorizes DEP to

841adopt rules to imple ment the provisions of the Florida Safe

852Drinking Water Act, which is a part of chapter 403.

862Law Implemented

8641 1 . The proposed rule identifies eight statutes as the law

876implemented by the rule. Two of these statutes, sections 403.62

886and 403.861(9), have al ready been described above. The other six

897statutes are described below.

901(a) Section 377.21 . T his provision, in pertinent part,

911authorizes DEP to collect data, make inspections, and Ð[p]rovide

920for the keeping of records and making of reportsÑ related to oil,

932gas, and other petroleum products.

937(b) Section 403.061(16) . This provision requires DEP to

946encourage voluntary cooperation to achieve the purposes of the

955Florida Air and Water Pollution Control Act.

962(c) Section 403.061(17) . This provision requires DEP to

971encourage local government s to handle pollution problems on a

981cooperative basis.

983(d) Section 403.061(18) . This provision requires DEP to

992conduct investigations and research related to pollution and its

1001causes, prevention, abatement, and control.

1006(e) Section 403.061(28) . This provision empowers DEP to

1015perform any act necessary to control and prohibit air and water

1026pollution.

1027(f) 403.855(3) . This provision authorizes DEP to establish

1036a program designed to prevent contamination or to minimize the

1046danger of contamination to potable water supplies.

10531 2 . Within chapters 377 and 403, the only provisions that

1065specifically address reporting of spills or contamination require

1073that the report be made to DEP only. For example, section

1084377.371(2) , Florida Statutes, requires that a spill or leak of

1094oil, gas, other petroleum product, or waste material be reported

1104to the Division of Resource Management within DEP.

11121 3 . Upon review of the proposed rule by the staff of the

1126Joint Administrative Procedures Committ ee (ÐJAPCÑ), DEP was asked

1135why the proposed rule was not an unlawful modification or

1145enlargement of section 377.371(2), which only requires notice to

1154DEP in the event of a spill or leak.

11631 4 . Section 376.30702, entitled ÐContamination

1170notification,Ñ requir es notice only to DEP for several scenarios

1181where contamination is discovered:

1185The Legislature finds and declares that when

1192contamination is discovered by any person as

1199a result of site rehabilitation activities

1205[pursuant to statutes dealing with dry -

1212clean ing, petroleum storage, brownfields, and

1218other contamination], it is in the publicÓs

1225best interest that potentially affected

1230persons be notified of the existence of such

1238contamination. Therefore, persons

1241discovering such contamination shall notify

1246the dep artment . . . and the department shall

1256be responsible for notifying the general

1262public.

1263§ 376.30702(1), Fla. Stat.

12671 5 . There are two other statutes that require notice to DEP

1280for actions which are somewhat analogous to a release of

1290pollution. Section 4 03.862(1)(b) provides that county health

1298departments must notify DEP of potential violations of standards

1307at any public water system. Section 403.93345(5) requires a

1316vessel owner or operator to notify DEP within 24 hours if the

1328vessel has struck or damage d a coral reef.

13371 6 . For comparison, section 376.707(11) requires an

1346applicant for a DEP solid waste facility permit to notify the

1357local government and the general public by newspaper that it has

1368applied for the permit. This statute shows the Legislature has

1378require d broader notice when it want ed .

1387Lower Cost Regulatory Alternative

13911 7 . DEP prepared a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs

1402(ÐSERCÑ) for the proposed rule and published notice of its

1412availability as required by section 120.541. In the SERC, it is

1423estimated that the total increased regulatory costs are $182,000

1433per year.

14351 8 . On October 19, 2016, 27 regulated entities, including

1446Petitioners, submitted a Lower Cost Regulatory Alternative

1453(ÐLCRAÑ) to DEP. Florida Electric Power Coordinating Gro up,

1462Inc., also submitted a LCRA. Both LCRAs proposed that DEP be

1473responsible for notice to the general public, local governments

1482and adjacent property owners, which would result in lower costs

1492to the regulated community.

149619 . In the SERC made available to the public in

1507November 2016, DEP stated that it reject ed the LCRA because

1518(1) the party who caused an unauthorized release of contaminants

1528is the more appropriate party to incur the reporting costs

1538imposed by the proposed rule, and (2) the party who relea ses

1550contaminants is in a better position to know details a bout the

1562substances th at were release d which must be included in the

1574report.

1575CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

15782 0 . A party may move for summary final order when there is

1592no genuine issue as to any material fact. § 120.57(1)(h), Fla.

1603Stat. Petitioners and DEP moved for summary final order and the

1614Administrative Law Judge determined from the pleadings and

1622stipulated facts that there is no genuine issue of material fact

1633and the parties are entitled as a matter of l aw to a final order.

1648Standing

16492 1 . Any person substantially affected by a proposed rule

1660may seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of the

1670rule on the ground that the rule is an invalid exercise of

1682delegated legislative authority. § 120.56( 1)(a), Fla. Stat.

16902 2 . Generally, to establish standing a party must show that

1702the challenged agency action would result in real and immediate

1712injury in fact. See Jacob v. Fla. Bd. o f Med. , 917 So. 2d 358,

1727360 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). However, a less demandi ng test for

1739standing is applicable in rule challenge cases than in licensing

1749cases. In a rule challenge, the alleged injury does have to be

1761immediate. See NAACP v. Fla. Bd. o f Regents , 863 So. 2d 294, 300

1775(Fla. 2003).

17772 3 . For association standing under chapter 120, it must be

1789shown that a substantial number of an associationÓs members, but

1799not necessarily a majority, have a substantial interest that

1808would be affected, that the subject matter of the proposed rule

1819is within the general scope of interests a nd activities for which

1831the association was created, and the relief requested is of the

1842type appropriate for the organization to receive on behalf of its

1853members. Fla. Home Builders AssÓn v. DepÓt of Labor and EmpÓt

1864Servs. , 412 So. 2d 351, 35 2 - 354 (Fla. 1 982) ( Refusing to allow a

1881trade or professional association to represent the interests of

1890its members in a rule challenge proceeding defeats th e

1900legislative purpose of chapter 120 to expand access to the

1910activities of governmental agencies b ecause it signif icantly

1919limit s the public's ability to contest the validity of agency

1930rules ) .

19332 4 . DEP argues that Petitioners lack association standing

1943to challenge the proposed rule because PetitionersÓ members lack

1952individual standing. DEP contends that, because Petit ionersÓ

1960members do not know whether they will ever have a reportable

1971release that will require compliance with the proposed rule,

1980their alleged injury is speculative.

19852 5 . DEPÓs argument is inconsistent with the law of standing

1997applied to quasi - legislative actions such as agency rules.

2007Proposed rule 62 - 4.161 is directed to identifiable persons who

2018handle the kinds of substances that are regulated by DEP . With

2030the proposed rule, DEP is pointing its finger directly at these

2041persons and telling them what the y must do and the penalty for

2054noncompliance . They have standing to point back and object. If

2065they lack standing, then no one would have standing. And because

2076Petitioners represent a substantial number of these members,

2084Petitioners have association stand ing to challenge the proposed

2093rule.

20942 6 . DEP attempted to distinguish the NAACP case, but it is

2107strong support for PetitionersÓ standing. In NAACP , the Florida

2116Supreme Court held that the NAACP had association standing to

2126challenge a proposed rule related to university student

2134admissions because a substantial number of its members were

2143prospective applicants for admission to a Florida university and

2152each of them had individual standing to challenge the admissions

2162rule. The Supreme Court rejected the lower courtÓs opinion that

2172the impact to the prospective applicants was not a Ðreal and

2183sufficiently immediate injury in factÑ because they had not

2192applied for and been denied admission as a result of the

2203challenged rule. The Supreme Court did not interpret th e term

2214Ðsubstantially affectedÑ in section 120.56(1)(a) as requiring

2221more than being a person to whom the rule was directed and who

2234would be subject to the ruleÓs requirements if they applied for

2245admission. See also Ward vustees of the Internal Improv ement

2255Trust Fund , 651 So. 2d 1236, 1237 - 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(A real

2269and sufficiently immediate injury in fact arises when a

2278challenged rule directly regulates the challengerÓs occupational

2285field). Here, it is sufficient that a substantial number of

2295Petit ionersÓ members are persons to whom proposed

2303rule 62 - 4.161 is directed and who would have to comply with the

2317ruleÓs requirements if they ha ve a reportable release.

2326Burden and Standard of Proof

23312 7 . A challenger has the burden of going forward with its

2344case for the invalidity of a proposed rule. § 120.56(2)(a), Fla.

2355Stat. Petitioners met this burden.

23602 8 . The agency then has the burden to prove by a

2373preponderance of the evidence that the proposed rule is not an

2384invalid exercise of delegated legislative aut hority as to the

2394objection raised. Id.

239729 . The proposed rule is not presumed to be valid or

2409invalid. § 120.56(2)(c), Fla. Stat.

2414PetitionersÓ Claims of Invalidity

24183 0 . Whether a proposed rule serves a useful purpose is only

2431relevant when a challenger cla ims the rule is invalid because it

2443is arbitrary or capricious. Petitioners do not claim proposed

2452rule 62 - 4.161 is arbitrary or capricious. Therefore, whether the

2463proposed rule serves a useful purpose is irrelevant in this case.

24743 1 . Petitioners invoke fo ur of the grounds for invalidity

2486that are outlined in section 120.52(8). Petitioners contend DEP

2495has Ðmaterially failed to follow the applicable rulemaking

2503procedures or requirementsÑ (section 120.52(8)(a)), DEP has

2510Ðexceeded its grant of rulemaking autho rityÑ

2517(section 120.52(8)(b)), the proposed rule Ðenlarges, modifies, or

2525contravenes the specific provisions of law implementedÑ

2532(section 120.52(8)(c)), and the proposed rule Ðimposes regulatory

2540costs on the regulated person, county, or city which could be

2551reduced by the adoption of less costly alternatives that

2560substantially accomplish the statutory objectives Ñ

2566(section 120.52(8)(f)).

2568Failure to Follow Rulemaking Procedures or Requirements

25753 2 . PetitionersÓ argument in support of their claim that

2586DEP materi ally failed to follow applicable rulemaking procedures

2595or requirements arises from their claim that DEP wrongfully

2604rejected their LCRA. It is addressed later in the Final Order in

2616the discussion of the LCRA.

2621Exceeds Rulemaking Authority

26243 3 . The seven sta tutes cited in the proposed rule as

2637rulemaking authority are general grants of authority. They are

2646inadequate authority for the proposed rule. Section 120.52(8)

2654states:

2655Statutory language granting rulemaking

2659authority or generally describing the powers

2665a nd functions of an agency shall be construed

2674to extend no further than implementing or

2681interpreting the specific powers and duties

2687conferred by the enabling statute.

2692In other words, only the specific powers and duties conferred by

2703statute reveal the allow able subjects of rulemaking. There is no

2714statute that specifically authorizes DEP to adopt a rule which

2724requires persons to notify entities other than DEP when there is

2735a release of a contaminant.

27403 4 . DEP argues that the requirement to report pollution i s

2753so integral to DEPÓs ability to control pollution that DEPÓs

2763authority under section 403.061(7) to control pollution is

2771specific enough to authorize the proposed rule. However, as

2780explained in Southwest Florida Water Management District v. Save

2789the Mana tee Club, Inc. , 773 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000),

2802Ð [t] he question is whether the statute contains a specific grant

2814of legislative authority for the rule, not whether the grant of

2825authority is specific enough . Either the enabling statute

2834authorizes the r ule or not.Ñ Id. at 599 . See also DepÓt of

2848Health v. Bayfront Med . Ctr., Inc. , 134 So. 3d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA

28622013); Fla. DepÓt of High . Saf . & Motor Veh . v. JM Auto, Inc. ,

2878977 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); State Bd. o f Tr ustees of the

2894Int ernal Imp rovem ent Trust Fund v. Day Cruise AssÓn, Inc. , 794

2907So. 2d 696 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

29143 5 . Furthermore, because the statutes which a ddress the

2925reporting of contamination require only DEP to be notified, the

2935statutes which do not address reporting cannot reasonably be

2944interpreted to authorize a rule with broader notice requirements.

29533 6 . DEP argues that its authority under section 403.061(8)

2964to Ðissue such orders as are necessary to effectuate the control

2975of air and water pollutionÑ is sufficient authority for the

2985p roposed rule, based on a theory that orders may evolve into

2997policies of general applicability and, thus, become rules. It

3006suffices to repeat that section 403.061(8) is a general grant of

3017authority and, therefore, insufficient to authorize the proposed

3025rul e.

30273 7 . DEP argues that the Administrative Law Judge must give

3039deference to DEPÓs interpretation of the statutes it administers

3048as grant ing authority for the pr oposed rule. However, deference

3059to an agencyÓs interpretation is a judicial principle . It is n ot

3072required by any provision of the Administrative Procedure Act,

3081chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Deference to an agencyÓs

3089interpretation of law would be inconsistent with chapter 120Ós

3098emphasis on de novo proceedings and its prohibition against an

3108agencyÓ s rejection of an Administrative Law JudgeÓs conclusion of

3118law unless the agency makes a specific finding that its own

3129interpretation of law is Ðas or more reasonableÑ than the

3139rejected interpretation. See § 120.57(1)(l), Fla. Stat. (T here

3148would be no occ asion to reject an Administrative Law JudgeÓs

3159interpretation of a statute or rule if the ALJ was compelled to

3171defer to the interpretation advanced by the agency ) . In the

3183context of a challenge to a proposed rule, deference to an

3194agencyÓs interpretation wo uld conflict with chapter 120Ós

3202directive not to presume the validity of a proposed rule.

3212D eference to an agency is inappropriate when determining whether

3222there is specific authority for a rule. ÐEither the enabling

3232statute authorizes the rule or not.Ñ Save the Manatee Club,

3242Inc. , 773 So. 2d at 599.

32483 8 . There is no rulemaking authority for proposed

3258rule 62 - 4.161. Therefore, the proposed rule is an invalid

3269exercise of delegated legislative authority under section

3276120.52(8)(b).

3277Enlarges the Specific Prov isions of Law Implemented

328539 . The eight statutes cited in proposed rule 62 - 4.161 as

3298implemented by the rule do not contain specific language

3307regarding reporting requirements for the release of contaminants.

3315Therefore, the proposed rule is an invalid exer cise of delegated

3326legislative authority under section 120.52(8)(c) because it

3333enlarges the provisions of law implemented.

3339Imposes Unnecessary Regulatory Costs

334340 . Petitioners contend that their LCRA proposal , which

3352calls for DEP to take responsibility for and incur the costs of

3364notifying the general public, local government, and adjacent

3372property owners , would reduce regulatory costs and, therefore,

3380DEP should have adopted the proposal. Petitioners also contend

3389that, because DEPÓs basis for rejecting the LCRA is not a valid

3401basis under section 120.541, DEP materially failed to follow

3410applicable rulemaking procedures and requirements.

341541 . Petitioners argue that DEP could only reject the LCRA

3426if DEP did not agree that the LCRA would lower regulatory costs,

3438or because the LCRA would not substantially accomplish the

3447statutory objectives. DEP argues that no Ðmagic languageÑ is

3456required to reject a LCRA. However, it appears that

3465section 120.541 requires an agencyÓs stated reason s for rejecting

3475a LCRA to amount to one or both of the propositions stated above .

34894 2 . It is reasonable inference that the phrase

3499Ðsubstantially accomplish the statutory objectivesÑ in section

3506120.52(8)(f) refers to the objectives in the rulemaking authority

3515for the proposed rule and in the law implemented by the rule.

35274 3 . DEPÓs reasons for rejecting the LCRA, that (1) the

3539person who releases contaminants is the more appropriate party to

3549incur the associated costs since the release is unauthorized, and

3559(2) the person who releases contami nants is in a better position

3571to know details associated with the release that must be included

3582in the report, amount to a determination by DEP that the LCRA

3594would not substantially accomplish the statutory objectives.

36014 4 . The analysis of whether a LCRA w as properly rejected is

3615a straightforward matter when the proposed rule is otherwise

3624valid. However, when, as in this case, it is determined there is

3636no rulemaking authority for a proposed rule and the rule

3646improperly enlarges the provisions of law implem ented, a SERC

3656versus LCRA analysis is pointless because the regulatory costs of

3666the proposed rule cannot be imposed. Th e proposed rule is an

3678invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority under section

3686120.52(8)(f) because it would impose unauthorize d regulatory

3694costs that c ould have b e e n reduced by the alternative of

3708withdrawing the rule .

37124 5 . DEP materially failed to follow applicable rulemaking

3722procedures or requirements when it rejected the LCRA because the

3732LCRA proposed the only reporting require ment and associated cost

3742to the regulated community for which there is some statutory

3752authority. Therefore, the proposed rule is an invalid exercise

3761of delegated legislative authority under section 120.52(8)(a).

3768CONCLUSION

3769Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

3779Law, it is concluded that proposed Florida Administrative Code

3788Rule 62 - 4.161 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative

3799authority.

3800DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of December , 2016 , in

3810Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

3814S

3815BRAM D. E. CANTER

3819Administrative Law Judge

3822Division of Administrative Hearings

3826The DeSoto Building

38291230 Apalachee Parkway

3832Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

3837(850) 488 - 9675

3841Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

3847www.doah.state.fl.us

3848Filed with the Clerk of the

3854Division of Administrative Hearings

3858this 30th day of December , 2016 .

3865COPIES FURNISHED:

3867Frederick L. Aschauer, Esquire

3871Department of Environmental Protection

3875Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

38803900 Commonwealth Boulevard

3883Tallahasse e, Florida 32399 - 3000

3889(eServed)

3890Gregory M. Munson, Esquire

3894Terry Cole, Esquire

3897Deborah Madden, Esquire

3900Gunster, Yoakley and Stewart, P.A.

3905Suite 601

3907215 South Monroe Street

3911Tallahassee, Florida 32301

3914(eServed)

3915Samantha Hunter Padgett, Deputy General Cou nsel

3922Florida Retail Federation

3925227 South Adams Street

3929Tallahassee, Florida 32301

3932(eServed)

3933Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire

3937Department of Environmental Protection

3941The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

39473900 Commonwealth Boulevard

3950Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

3955(eServed)

3956Jeffrey Brown, Esquire

3959Department of Environmental Protection

3963Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

39683900 Commonwealth Boulevard

3971Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

3976(eServed)

3977Deborah Madden, Esquire

3980Gunster, Yoakley and Stewart, P.A.

3985215 South Mon roe Street , Suite 601

3992Tallahassee, Florida 32301

3995Lee Crandall, Agency Clerk

3999Department of Environmental Protection

4003Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

40083900 Commonwealth Boulevard

4011Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

4016(eServed)

4017Jonathan P. Steverson, Secretary

4021Department of Environmental Protection

4025Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

40303900 Commonwealth Boulevard

4033Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

4038(eServed)

4039Ken Plante, Coordinator

4042Joint Administrative Procedures Committee

4046Room 680, Pepper Building

4050111 West Madison S treet

4055Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1400

4060(eServed)

4061Ernest Reddick, Chief

4064Alexandra Nam

4066Department of State

4069R. A. Gray Building

4073500 South Bronou g h Street

4079Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0250

4084(eServed)

4085NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

4091A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is

4102entitled to judicial review pursuant to section 120.68, Florida

4111Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules

4120of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing

4129the original notice of adminis trative appeal with the agency

4139clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings within 30 days

4149of rendition of the order to be reviewed, and a copy of the

4162notice, accompanied by any filing fees prescribed by law, with

4172the clerk of the District Court of App eal in the appellate

4184district where the agency maintains its headquarters or where a

4194party resides or as otherwise provided by law.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 07/06/2017
Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding Respondent's Exhibits to Respondent.
PDF:
Date: 12/30/2016
Proceedings: DOAH Final Order
PDF:
Date: 12/30/2016
Proceedings: Final Order (oral argument held December 20, 2016). CASE CLOSED.
Date: 12/20/2016
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 12/16/2016
Proceedings: Petitioners' Response to Respondent's Motion for Summary Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/16/2016
Proceedings: Department's Response to Petitioners' Motion for Summary Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/14/2016
Proceedings: Petitioners, Associated Industries of Florida, Inc., Florida Farm Bureau Federation, Florida Retail Federation, Inc., Florida Trucking Association, Inc., and National Federation of Independent Business' Motion for Summary Final Order to Respondent, State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/14/2016
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Notice of Filing In Support of Motion for Summary Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/14/2016
Proceedings: Department's Motion for Summary Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/12/2016
Proceedings: Department's Response to First Supplemental Requests for Admission filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/12/2016
Proceedings: Order.
PDF:
Date: 12/09/2016
Proceedings: Joint Motion to Set Briefing Schedule filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/09/2016
Proceedings: Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/06/2016
Proceedings: Petitioner's, Associated Industries of Florida, Inc., Florida Farm Bureau Federation, Florida Retail Federation, Inc., Florida Trucking Association, Inc., and National Federation of Independent Business First Supplemental Request for Admissions to Respondent, Florida Department of Environmental Protection filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/02/2016
Proceedings: Petitioner's, Associated Industries of Florida Inc., Florida Farm Bureau Federation, Florida Retail Federation, Inc., Florida Trucking Association, Inc. and National Federation of Independent Business', Objections and Responses to Florida Department of Environmental Protection's First Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/02/2016
Proceedings: Petitioner, Associated Industries of Florida Inc.'s, Notice of Service of Objections and Responses to Florida Department of Environmental Protection's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/02/2016
Proceedings: Petitioner, National Federation of Independent Business' Notice of Service of Objections and Responses to Florida Department of Environmental Protection's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/02/2016
Proceedings: Petitioner, Florida Trucking Association Inc.'s, Notice of Service of Objections and Responses to Florida Department of Environmental Protection's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/02/2016
Proceedings: Petitioner, Florida Retail Federation, Inc.'s Notice of Service of Objections and Responses to Florida Department of Environmental Protection's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/02/2016
Proceedings: Petitioner, Florida Farm Bureau Federation's Notice of Service of Objections and Responses to Florida Department of Environmental Protection's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/02/2016
Proceedings: Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection's Answers to First Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/02/2016
Proceedings: Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection's Response to First Request for Production of Documents from Petitioner's, Associated Industries of Florida, Inc., Florida Farm Bureau Federation, Florida Trucking Association, Inc. and National Federation of Independent Business, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/02/2016
Proceedings: Notice and Certficate of Service of Respondent DEP's Answers to First Set of Interrogatories from Petitioner's, Associated Industries of Florida, INC., Florida Farm Bureau Federation, Florida Trucking Association, Inc., and National Federation of Independent Business, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/02/2016
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Appearance (Gregory Munson, Terry Cole, Deborah Madden) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/02/2016
Proceedings: Order.
PDF:
Date: 12/02/2016
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Gregory Munson, Terry Cole, Deborah Madden) filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/28/2016
Proceedings: Agreed Motion for Extension of Time for Responses to Discovery filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/23/2016
Proceedings: Notice and Certificate of Service of Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner's filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/23/2016
Proceedings: Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection's Notice of Service of First Request for Production to Petitioner's filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/23/2016
Proceedings: Petitioner's, Associated Industries of Florida, Inc., Florida Farm Bureau Federation, Florida Trucking Association, Inc., and National Federation of Independent Business, Inc.'s First Request for Admissions to Respondent, Florida Department of Environmental Protection filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/22/2016
Proceedings: Notice of Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/22/2016
Proceedings: Petitioner's, Associated Industries of Florida, Inc., Florida Farm Bureau Federation, Florida Trucking Association, Inc., and National Federation of Independent Business, Inc.'s First Request for Production to Respondent, Florida Department of Environmental Protection filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/21/2016
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Jeffrey Brown) filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/21/2016
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Francine Ffolkes) filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/21/2016
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 11/21/2016
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for December 20, 2016; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 11/21/2016
Proceedings: Order of Assignment.
PDF:
Date: 11/21/2016
Proceedings: Rule Challenge transmittal letter to Ernest Reddick from Claudia Llado copying Ken Plante and the Agency General Counsel.
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2016
Proceedings: Petition for Administrative Determination of Invalidity of Proposed Rule filed.

Case Information

Judge:
BRAM D. E. CANTER
Date Filed:
11/18/2016
Date Assignment:
11/21/2016
Last Docket Entry:
07/06/2017
Location:
Tallahassee, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
Department of Environmental Protection
Suffix:
RP
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (13):