Are proposed amendments to Rules 6C-6.001, 6C-6.002 and 6C-6.003, Florida Administrative Code, calling for language to be repealed and added, "invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority?" Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.Proposed amendments to the Board of Regents` rules on student admissions were valid, with the exception that attempt at repeal of Rule 6C-6.001(10)(e)6 is invalid.

Whether the Department's proposed amendment of Rule 38F-3.017, Florida Administrative Code, notice of which was published on page 3529 of the June 19, 1992, edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly, constitutes in whole or in part an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority on the grounds alleged by Petitioners?Proposed rule adopting Worker's Compensation impairment rating guide neither invalid nor unconstitutional; rule complies with enabling statute; economic impact statement okay

The issue is whether respondent acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in initially awarding the contract for Bid No. 92-JEFFERSON-5720 to intervenor and then proposing to reject all bids.General and nonspecific suggestions made by vendor to agency regarding drafting of Invitation To Bid not sufficient to disqualify vendor.

This cause came before the Hearing Officer upon the Petition of Nancy K. Taylor submitted in accordance with Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The Petition was for review of the intent to issue a construction permit to the Cedar Key special Water and Sewer District for the Cedar Key Water Reclaiming Facility in Cedar Key, Florida. Subsequent to the filing of the Petition by the Petitioner; and prior to the hearing, the parties entered into a Stipulation narrowing the issues to the phasing out of septic tanks and the monitoring of the progress of local comprehensive plans to phase out septic systems in coastal areas, flood plains, rivers and the stream banks and above-shallow aquifers and the issue regarding capitalization and fees for future users. Subsequent to the entering into the Stipulation, the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation ("Department"), filed a Motion in Limine and later amended the Motion in order to limit the introduction of certain evidence. The Respondent, Cedar Key Special Water and Sewer District ("District"), concurred in the Motion in Limine. A hearing was held on the Motion in Limine by teleconference on October 22, 1990. At that hearing, the Motion in Limine was denied in part and granted in part. As a result of the hearing on the Motion in Limine, the issues were narrowed to (l) whether the Department has the authority to ensure that the modified facility would have sufficient capacity to serve the District's service area, and (2) whether the Department could require the District to install collection lines to unsewered properties within the service area that are currently utilizing septic tanks.Sewage treatment plants. DER has power to condition permitting on matters related to environment to include expansion of service area. DER rejected Recommended Order