The issue to be determined by this Order is whether the Petition for Formal Proceedings filed with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on February 4, 2009, was timely 1/ and, if so, whether Petitioners have standing to challenge the DEP?s issuance of the Minor Modification to FDEP Operation Permit 171331-002-UO for IW-1 under 171331-003-UC (the Permit Modification).The Petition for Formal Proceeding was not timely filed and Petitioners failed to prove that they had standing as substantially affected persons. Although, Conservation Alliance proved standing under section 403.412(6), the Petitions should be dismissed.
The issues in the case are (1) whether the decision of the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) to not select Little Havana Activities and Nutrition Centers of Dade County, Inc. (Little Havana), for the award of a contract for the provision of long-term care managed care services pursuant to AHCA Invitation to Negotiation Solicitation No. AHCA ITN 011- 12/13, entitled "Statewide Medicaid Managed Care--Long Term Care, Region 11" (ITN) was contrary to the AHCA's governing statutes, rules, polices or any applicable ITN specification, and, if so, whether such selection decision was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious; whether Little Havana's response to the ITN was responsive; whether Little Havana was a responsible vendor; and (4) whether Little Havana's protest is barred for failure to submit the required protest bond.Protestor did not have standing to protest contract awards because it was neither responsive nor responsible.
Whether Florida Administrative Code Rules 65C- 22.009(2)(b)1. and 3., are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority and whether a statement in a Gold Seal Quality Care Program Fact Sheet constitutes an unadopted rule in violation of section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.Petitioner failed to prove rules requiring revocation of Gold Seal designation were invalid and did not demonstrate standing to challenge agency fact sheet as an unadopted rule.
The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Redlands Christian Migrant Association, Inc., d/b/a RCMA Smith Brown Child Development Center ("RCMA" or the "Center"), violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(5)(a) and section 402.281(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ and, if so, what licensure discipline should be imposed.Petitioner did not prove a violation by clear and convincing evidence.
Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-15.008, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it enlarges, modifies, or contravenes Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and because it exceeds Respondent’s rulemaking authority; and Whether an interpretation of Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, constitutes an unpromulgated “rule.”Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-15.008, is invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Petitioners failed to prove that the possible interpretation of the statute is an unpromulated rule.
The issue in this case is whether the Education Practices Commission should deny Petitioner's application for a teaching certificate on the grounds that Petitioner lacks the requisite good moral character and that he has committed an act or acts for which such a certificate could be revoked.Petitioner`s application for a teaching certificate should be denied because of his problematic criminal history, and because he provided false information in his application.
The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Luis Garcia, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, on December 6, 2006, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Petitioner has authority to revoke Respondent`s license, which was obatined with an invalid Miami-Dade Building Business Certificate of Competency, and obtained by Respondent without knowledge that the Certificate had been inproperly issued.
The issues in this case are, first, whether a section of an application form, which was adopted as a rule, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority; and, second, whether portions of an outdated online version of the same application form constituted an agency statement defined as a rule, which was not adopted in accordance with (and thus violated) Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.Respondent`s revised application form is a valid rule, and the outdated form, which was mistakenly made available to online applicants for a time after the adoption of the revised form, was not an unlawful unadopted rule.
The issue is whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) should issue water use permit (WUP) No. 2004912.006 to the City of Lakeland (City), and if so, how much water should be allocated under the permit and what conditions should be imposed on the allocation, particularly in regard to withdrawals from the City's Northeast Wellfield (NEWF).Petitioner provided reasonable assurances for a water use permit through 2014 with total allocations of 29.5 mgd, with 4.0 mgd from the City`s Northeast Wellfield. The evidence did not support its request for 36.8 mgd or 8.77 mgd from Northeast Wellfield.
The issue in this case is whether the Town of Grand Ridge (Grand Ridge) is entitled the Domestic Wastewater Facility Permit that the Department of Environmental Protection intends to issue.With the additional recommended permit conditions, Grand Ridge provided reasonable assurances that the proposed domestic wastewater treatment plant and sprayfield would comply with all rules applicable to their construction and operation.
