Judges: DIANE K. KIESLING
Agency: Department of Transportation
Latest Update: May 26, 1987
Summary: Special DOT permits. Exception to dimension requirements. DOT's non-renewel unsupported in fact or law. Estoppal.
86-0374.PDFSTATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
NATIONAL FREIGHT, INC., )
)
Petitioner, )
vs. ) CASE NO. 86-0374
) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, )
)
Respondent, )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to Notice, a formal-hearing was held on March 25, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida, before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its designated Hearing Officer, Diane K. Kiesling.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: W. Douglas Hall, Esquire
Nancy. G. Linnan, Esquire Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel,
Smith, Cutler & Kent, P.A. Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
For Respondent: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire
Department of Transportation
562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The issue for determination is whether Petitioner ("National Freight") is entitled to renewal of its special permits for the operation of 100 tractor- trailers which exceed 48 feet in length.
Petitioner presented the testimony of Hal Kaplan, and' Petitioner's Exhibits 1-9 were admitted in evidence. Respondent ("DOT") presented the testimony of Jack W. Roberts, and Respondent's Exhibit 1 was admitted in evidence.
The parties had an opportunity to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Petitioner filed its proposed findings and conclusions on May 1, 1987, as agreed to by the parties. Respondent failed to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. A ruling has been made on each of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact in the Appendix attached hereto and made a part hereof.
FINDINGS OF FACT
National Freight is a trucking business. It currently uses 123 trailers in Florida which are longer than 48 feet, the length limitation set by Section 316.515, Florida Statutes. These trailers may operate in Florida only with a special permit issued by DOT pursuant to Section 316.550, Florida Statutes.
In 1981, when National Freight began operations in Florida, a special permit was required from DOT only if the tractor-trailer combination exceeded 55 feet in length. At that time, DOT's practice was to routinely issue special permits to tractor-trailer combinations which exceeded 55 feet in length but did not exceed 65 feet in length.
DOT issued special permits to a number of National Freight's vehicles in 1981 based upon a showing that the tractor-trailer combination exceeded 55 feet but not 65 feet in length. These permits were renewed in 1982 based upon this same showing.
In 1983, National Freight was orally notified by DOT that a special permit would no longer be required for an overlength tractor-trailer combination, only for an overlength trailer, and that an overlength trailer must have been registered and operating in Florida prior to December 1, 1982, to be eligible for a special permit.
DOT never promulgated any rule or prepared any written guidelines specifying these permit requirements. DOT expressed its policy of using Section 316.515(3)(b), Florida Statutes, as a guide for issuing special permits under Section 316.550. While DOT expressed this policy at the formal hearing, two weeks prior to the formal hearing, a contrary policy was expressed by Jack Roberts in his deposition. Specifically, Roberts stated at that time that Section 316.515(3)(b) removed DOT's discretion under Section 316.550. Under DOT's interpretation of Section 316.515(3)(b), as expressed at formal hearing, only those vehicles which were registered and operating in Florida as of December 1, 1982, should be issued special permits under Section 316.550.
On September 16, 1983, after discussing the new permitting requirements by telephone with Billy Berry, DOT's State Highway Permits Engineer, Hal Kaplan sent DOT a list of additional overlength trailers National Freight had intended to use in Florida. On September 19, 1983, National Freight supplied DOT with documentation that a number of these trailers had been ordered from the manufacturer in October, 1982, prior to the December, 1982, permitting deadline.
One hundred one (101) trailers were identified on the list supplied by National Freight, although one vehicle serial number was incorrect and that trailer was stricken from the list by DOT. Of the remaining 100 trailers, 53 had been ordered new from the manufacturer in October, 1982, and 47 were registered in New Jersey ,and used between several different states, including some use in Florida.
At all material times, Florida and New Jersey were both party to a "Multistate Reciprocity Agreement." Among other things, this Agreement exempts contracting jurisdictions from vehicle registration requirements in other participating jurisdictions when those vehicles are used in any type of interstate operation.
On September 28 or 29, 1983, Hal Kaplan and Billy Berry met to discuss the documentation supplied by National Freight and the permitting status of the
100 additional overlength trailers. DOT was advised at that time that none of the 100 additional trailers were yet available for use in Florida and that National Freight thus could not have met the permitting deadline with respect to any of those trailers. National Freight was told that DOT would consider the documentation showing that the trailers had been ordered prior to the permitting deadline for intended use in Florida in determining whether it would issue permits for the additional trailers.
In October, 1983, DOT issued special permits for all 100 additional trailers. These permits were subsequently renewed in October, 1984.
After the permits were issued, it cost National Freight approximately
$60,000 to bring the 100 additional trailers into Florida. National Freight would not have incurred this expense had the trailers been denied Florida permits, and it acted in reliance upon DOT's issuance of the permits, reasonably assuming from DOT's action that the vehicles were permittable.
On January 16, 1985, in response to an inquiry concerning the validity of National Freight's special permits, DOT notified National Freight by Certified Mail that permits had been issued to the additional overlength trailers "with the understanding that they would be operating and registered in Florida prior to July 1, 1983." The letter requested National Freight to supply proof of registration prior to that date and stated that the permits were subject to cancellation if proof of timely registration was not received.
When National Freight was unable to supply the requested information, DOT initiated an administrative proceeding to revoke the 100 permits. After a formal administrative hearing, a recommended order was entered recommending against revocation. DOT later dismissed the proceeding as moot. (DOAH Case No. 85-1362)
By letters dated September 19 and October 15, 1985, National Freight applied for a second renewal of its special permits. In its October letter, National Freight acknowledged that 100 of the permits sought to be renewed were for trailers which had not been registered and operating in Florida before December 1, 1982, but had been offered for use in Florida before that date. The letter further stated that the 100 permits had been originally issued in 1983 based upon proof that the permitted vehicles had been ordered before December 1, 1982, and that the permits had been routinely renewed in 1984. Renewal for 1985 was requested on this same basis.
DOT denied renewal of the 100 permits by letter dated October 16, 1985. The sole reason for denial was National Freight's failure to provide proof that the 100 trailers for which these permits are sought were registered and operating in Florida on or before December 1, 1982.
Each of the 100 trailers, when used in a tractor- trailer combination, is over 55 feet but less than 65 feet in length. Each would thus have qualified for a special permit under DOT's permitting practice prior to 1983.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of these proceedings pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The permits requested by National Freight are governed by Section 316.550, Florida Statutes, which authorizes DOT to issue special permits allowing the operation of vehicles not meeting the dimensional requirements of Chapter 316 if "not contrary to the public interest."
Effective July 1, 1983, Florida enacted Subsection 316.515(3)(b), Florida Statutes, which provides in pertinent part that:
A semi-trailer which exceeds 48 feet in length and is used to transport divisible loads and which was registered in this state in accordance with s.320.08(5) and was in operation on the highways of this state on December 1, 1982, by virtue of a permit issued in accordance with s.316.550 may continue to operate by virtue of such permit for the remaining life of the vehicle or until January 1, 1990, whichever is sooner, provided such trailer meets the requirements of this chapter relating to vehicle equipment and safety.
Although DOT contends that its discretion under Section 316.550 is unaffected by Subsection 316.515(3)(b), it has interpreted this subsection as a "guide" for issuing special permits under Section 316.550. Under DOT's interpretation of Section 316.515(3)(b), only those vehicles which were registered and operating in Florida as of December 1, 1982, should be issued special permits under Section 316.550.
National Freight, on the other hand, contends that Subsection 316.515(3)(b) merely creates an exception to the length limits otherwise imposed by Chapter 316. Under National Freight's reading of the statute, a vehicle meeting the requirements of the subsection cannot be denied a special permit by DOT, but the statute nowhere suggests that only those vehicles are eligible for special permits.
The legislative history of Subsection 316.515(3)(b) reflects that it was enacted in response to certain provisions of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, 49 U.S.C., Section 2301, et. seq. Specifically, 49 U.S.C., Section 2911(b), provides in part that:
No state shall establish, maintain, or enforce any regulation of commerce which has the effect of prohibiting the use of trailers or semi-trailers of such dimensions as those that were in actual and lawful use in such state on December 1, 1982.
Thus, Subsection 316.515(3)(b) was an effort to comply with Congress' directive by allowing the continued use of trailers which were lawfully operating in Florida as of December 1, 1982, including those operating under special permits issued pursuant to Section 316.550. However, nothing in either the state or federal statute suggests that the intent of the law was to curtail or limit the issuance of special permits under Section 316.550, or under any other statute.
The federal court for the Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division, reached this same conclusion in Continental Can Company, Inc. v. Mellon, Case No. TC-85-7197-WS (August 13, 1986). In an unpublished opinion, the Court there noted that Subsection 316.515(3)(b) had been enacted in response to federal legislation, and with respect to the interaction between that subsection and Section 316.550 held that:
Rather than creating new restrictions on the issuance of subsection 550 permits, these provisions of Section 316.515 allow the continued operation of certain trailers which might otherwise be denied permits. Under Section 315.515 any trailer that was registered in Florida and operating pursuant to a subsection 550 permit on December 1, 1982, must be permitted to continue to operate until 1990 or through the remaining life of the vehicle. That is, the Florida Department of Transportation may not exercise its discretion to refuse to issue a sub-
section 550 permit. As to all other trailers, however, the ground rules for obtaining Sec- tion 550 permits are the same, and the Department may, in its discretion, refuse to issue the permit. Thus, Section 316.515 is not a change in the ground rules for issuing subsection 550 permits.
Id. at page 12 (emphasis supplied).
Likewise, the Florida First District Court of Appeals in National Freight, Inc. v. State Department of Transportation, 483 So.2d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), recognized that Subsection 316.515(3)(b) imposes no restrictions upon the issuance of permits under Section 316.550. Addressing the same renewal application involved in this administrative proceeding, the issue before the First District Court of Appeal was whether National Freight could continue to operate its 100 vehicles pending final agency action. The Court found that National Freight could continue operations, and held that its acknowledged inability to meet the time requirements of Subsection 316.515(3)(b) in no way affected the sufficiency of its renewal application.
The Department argues first that Petitioner's application for renewal failed to meet the sufficiency requirement of subsection 120.66(6) because the application was for vehicles which admittedly did not meet the requirements of subsection 316.515. Since the application was for renewal of permits issued pursuant to subsection 316.550, this argument is patently without merit.
Id. at 743.
In addition to these judicial interpretations of the statute, there are several aspects of the legislation creating Subsection 316.515(3)(b), Chapter 83-298, Laws of Florida, which further support National Freights interpretation of the law. For example, the title of Chapter 83-298 describes
the legislation as "providing maximum width, height and length requirements for vehicles; providing exceptions" (emphasis supplied).
It is well recognized that the title of a legislative act is an extremely helpful guide for determining legislative intent. Williams v. New England Mutual Life Insurance Co., 419 So.2d 766 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Parker v. State, 406 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 1982). The title of this particular legislation suggests that the legislature's intent in enacting Subsection 316.515(3)(b) was only to create an exception to the statutory dimensional requirements and exempt those vehicles which were registered and in operation in Florida under special permits as of December 1, 1982. Contrary to DOT's assertions, this in no way implies that the legislature intended for only or even specially for those vehicles which fit within the exception to be eligible for special permits. To the contrary, by removing DOT's discretion to deny special permits to vehicles which satisfy the exception, the legislature must have recognized that DOT would continue to exercise its discretion to issue or deny special permits as to all other vehicles.
Moreover, at the same time Subsection 316.515(3)(b), was enacted, the legislature created Section 316.516. See, Chapter 83-298, Section 4, Laws of Florida. That section in pertinent part provides that:
Whenever an officer, upon measuring a vehicle or combination of vehicles and
the load thereon, determines that such vehicle exceeds the dimensional criteria established in s.316.515 and that no valid special permit exists for such vehicle or vehicles, the officer may require the driver to stop the vehicle in a suitable place and remain standing until either:
a special permit is obtained in accordance with s.316.550, or
all offending irregularities are corrected.
This section expressly provides for the continued issuance of special permits under Section 316.550, and in no way suggests that the special permits should be issued only to those vehicles which meet the time requirements of Subsection 316.515(3)(b). Indeed, this statute strongly supports precisely the opposite conclusion--that DOT can and should continue to issue special permits in its discretion just as it had before the new law.
Finally, it is worth noting that the legislature in 1983 also amended Section 316.550 to increase the allowable term of the special permits and to provide for a higher permit fee. See, Chapter 83-226, Laws of Florida. If, as DOT contends, the legislature intended to provide additional guidance with respect to the issuance of special permits, surely such legislative guidance would have appeared in the amendments to the permitting statute itself, Section 316.550, rather than through an exception inserted in an entirely different statutory provision.
In short, the guidance read into Subsection 316.515(3)(b) by DOT does not appear to have been intended by the legislature. DOT's interpretation of this provision is simply too inconsistent with the plain language and apparent purpose of the statute and the other provisions of Chapter 316 to be sustained.
Subsection 316.515(3)(b) is merely an exception to the dimension limitation otherwise imposed by Chapter 316. It was not intended to guide, restrict or limit in any way, either expressly or implicitly, DOT's permitting practices under Section 316.550.
Ordinarily, an agency's interpretation of a statutory provision which it must administer is given great weight and deference. Such deference, however, is inappropriate and unnecessary where the agency itself urges a construction of the statutory terms based upon their common ordinary meanings, for in these instances the agency "disavows the utilization of any special agency expertise in its interpretation of the statute." All Seasons Resort, Inc.
v. Division of Land Sales, 455 So.2d 544, 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), quoting from Department of Insurance v. Insurance Services Offices, 434 So.2d 908, 912, n.6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
This is precisely the position DOT has taken here. DOT's state maintenance engineer, who oversees its road permits office, testified that the Department considers Subsection 316.515(3)(b) to be very clear on its face; so clear that formal rulemaking procedures are deemed unnecessary for its implementation. With this acknowledgment, DOT disavows any special agency expertise which may be necessary to interpret and implement the statute, and its construction of the law, already found to be at odds with the plain language and legislative history of the statute, need not be accorded any special weight or deference.
Unquestionably, an agency is free to develop new policy without always resorting to formal rulemaking procedures. However, whenever the agency chooses this course, it "must be prepared to defend such policy against challenge in Section 120.57 hearings and...fully and skillfully expound such policy by conventional proof methods." City of Delray Beach v. Department of Transportation, 456 So.2d 944, 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). See also, Florida Cities Water Company v. Florida Public Service Commission, 384 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 1980).
Moreover, in permit renewal cases, Florida courts have recognized that:
One could justifiably expend considerable sums of money in reliance upon the right to continue to engage in a specific business. Penal sanctions should therefore be directed only towards those who by their conduct have forfeited their privilege, and such privilege should be denied only after due process of law in a full, open and fair hearing. The power to stop the renewal of licenses once issued and needed in order to engage in a specific business is indeed an ominous power and should be exercised with no less careful circumspection than the original issuance of the license.
Wilson v. Pest Control Commission of Florida, 199 So.2d 777, 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967) (Emphasis supplied). The First District Court of Appeal in Dubin
v. Department of Business Regulation, 262 So.2d 273, 275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972), further held that:
Before the respondent board may refuse to renew a license, charges must be filed against the licensee setting forth with a reasonable degree of specificity the grounds upon which it bases its action and all other procedural safeguards as provided by Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, must be afforded. In such a proceeding, the burden is upon the administrative agency to adduce evidence supportive of the charges proffered.
Id. (emphasis supplied).
Thus, in addition to explicating its nonrule change in policy, DOT has the burden in these proceedings to prove a valid basis for denial of National Freight's special permits.
Based upon the testimony and evidence adduced at the final hearing, DOT has failed to carry either burden. The only support in the record for its policy change is the purported guidance provided by Subsection 316.515(3)(b). Likewise, National Freight's failure to comply with this subsection is the sole basis advanced by DOT for nonrenewal of the special permits. However, as discussed above, DOT's reliance on subsection 316.515(3)(b) as a guide for permitting under Section 316.550 is unfounded; Subsection 316.515(3)(b) has nothing to do with DOT's discretion to issue special permits under Section 316.550, though it removes DOT's discretion to deny permits to certain vehicles. Since DOT has failed to adequately support by conventional proof methods its nonrule change in policy, and since each of National Freight's 100 overlength trailers satisfies the permitting requirements in place before the policy change, DOT has established no legal or factual basis to deny renewal of the disputed permits.
There is an additional reason why DOT should grant 53 of National Freight's renewal applications. By indicating that the trailers would be considered for special permits if National Freight could show that they had been ordered for use in Florida prior to December 1, 1982, and later issuing the permits when National Freight supplied such proof, DOT effectively communicated to National Freight that it would grant National Freight an exception to the permitting deadlines purportedly imposed by Subsection 316.515(3)(b). Because National Freight reasonably relied on DOT's position and spent a significant sum of money to bring the additional trailers into Florida, DOT is estopped from now reviving those permitting deadlines, over two years later, as a basis for denying renewal of these same permits. However, because National Freight concedes that only 53 of its 100 trailers were ordered from the manufacturer prior to December 1, 1982, DOT is estopped from denying renewal only as to those
53 trailers.
National Freight argues that because the remaining 47 trailers were registered in New Jersey and being used in interstate operations as of December 1, 1982, including use in Florida, those trailers were constructively registered in Florida at that time pursuant to the Multi-State Reciprocity Agreement.
DOT suggests that the Multi-State Reciprocity Agreement is not binding on it, and insists that actual registration and operation in Florida must be shown to meet the permitting requirements. Section 320.39, Florida Statutes, which specifically authorizes the reciprocity agreement, states:
The Department of Highway Safety and Motor vehicles may negotiate and consumate with the proper authorities of the several states of the United States or any foreign country reciprocal agreements whereby residents of such other states or foreign country operating motor vehicles properly licensed and registered in their respective states or foreign country may have such privileges and exemption in the operation of their motor vehicles in this state as residents of this state whose vehicles are properly registered in this state may have and enjoy in the operation of their motor vehicles in such other state or foreign country.
(Emphasis supplied).
The plain language of this statute clearly shows that, where the reciprocal agreement so provides, a vehicle registered in one participating state may be operated in any other participating state. This does not provide that registration in one participating state is the same as registration in all participating states. Since National Freight's 47 trailers used in interstate commerce were properly registered in New Jersey as of December 1, 1982 they could be operated in Florida at that time as well. However, they cannot be deemed registered in Florida. Consequently, these 47 trailers do not fit within the exception set out in Subsection 316.515(3)(b), and the special permits for those trailers should not be renewed solely on that basis.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation grant National Freight's
application for renewal of special permits for the operation of the 100 tractor-
trailers identified therein.
DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida.
DIANE K. KIESLING
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of May, 1987.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-0374
The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case.
Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, National Freight, Inc.
Petitioner's proposed findings of fact 1-16 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1-16.
Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Transportation
Respondent failed to file proposed findings of fact.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building
605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
W. Douglas Hall, Esquire Nancy G. Linnan, Esquire
Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith Cutler and Kent, P.A.
Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation
562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NATIONAL FREIGHT, INC.,
Petitioner,
vs. DOAH CASE NO. 86-0374
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
The record in this proceeding has been reviewed along with the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer. The Respondent, Florida Department of Transportation timely filed Exceptions to the Recommended Order. The first exception does not materially effect the outcome of this cause. The second and third exceptions are for the most part accepted and are addressed below in the partial rejection of the conclusions of law.
The Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact are accepted in full. The Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law are accepted in part and rejected in part. The Department accepts as law of the case that the Department has discretion to issue permits under Section 316.550, Florida Statutes independent of the requirements of Section 316.515, Florida Statutes. The Department interpreted Section 316.515(3)(b) as creating a guide for the issuance of special permits for semitrailers which exceed 48 feet in length and are used to carry divisible loads. The Department relied solely upon the fact that the Petitioner's trailers did not meat the registration and operation deadline of Section 316.515(3)(b), Florida Statutes, in denying the Petitioner's permit applications. The Hearing Officer is correct when she stated that the Department failed to present any other justification for denial of the permits.
Due to the complex procedural history of the case and the law this unique case has generated, the Department accepts the Hearing Officer's Recommendation and orders that Petitioner's special Permits for the operation of the 100 tractor-trailers be renewed for a Period of twelve months.
The Hearing Officer, however, is incorrect in concluding that the Department ordinarily would have the burden of proving "a valid basis for denial of National Freight's special Permits." Section 316.550, Fla. Stat. places the burden of proving entitlement to a special Permit upon the applicant. Section 316.550, Florida Statutes, requires that the applicant must show good cause why the permits would not be contrary to the public interest. A license applicant apart from the statute has the burden of proving the affirmative of an issue.
Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So.2d 349 (Fla.
1st DCA 1977); Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
The Department also rejects any suggestion in the Hearing Officer's legal conclusion that a special permit is renewable as a matter of right or that renewal is merely a ministerial function. On the contrary, Section 316.550 permits are discretionary permits, and the Petitioner will be required at the expiration of its current permits to establish de novo that reissuance of its permits will not be contrary to the public interest.
The Department also rejects the conclusion of the Hearing Officer that estoppel applies to the facts of this case. The Department's representations in connection with the issuance of the permit were partially based on false information supplied by the Petitioner. Accordingly, the principle of equitable estoppel does not apply. See T&L Management, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 497 So.2d 685 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In fact the evidence revealed that the trailers had already been ordered for Florida before the law even passed. So the actions taken by National Freight to order the manufacture of the trailers were not made upon any representation by employees of the Department.
Finally, the Hearing Officer's conclusions with respect to the effect of the reciprocity agreement on Section 316.515, Florida Statutes is accepted.
Trailers registered in New Jersey on December 1, 1982 do not meet the Florida statutory registration requirement set forth in Section 316.515(3)(b), Fla.
Stat.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that special permits for a period of twelve months be issued for the Petitioner's 100 oversized trailers.
DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of August, 1987.
KAYE N. HENDERSON, P.E.
Secretary
Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building
605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Copies furnished to:
DIANE KIESLING, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
CHARLES GARDNER, ESQUIRE
Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS 58 605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
W. DOUGLAS HALL, ESQUIRE Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
CHRISTINE SPEER
Director of Maintenance Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS 57 605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
BILLY BERRY
Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street
Haydon Burns Building, MS 62L Tallahassee, Florida 32399
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW
Judicial review of agency final order may be pursued in accordance with Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(c) and 9.110. To initiate an appeal, a Notice of Appeal must be filed with the Department's Clerk of Agency Proceedings, Haydon Burns Building, 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458, and with the appropriate District Court of Appeal within 30 days of the filing of this Final Order with the Department's Clerk of Agency Proceedings. The Notice of Appeal filed with the District Court of Appeal should be accompanied by the filing fee specified in Section 35.22(3), Florida Statutes.
Docket for Case No: 86-000374
Orders for Case No: 86-000374
| Issue Date |
Document |
Summary |
|
Aug. 24, 1987 |
Agency Final Order
|
|
|
May 26, 1987 |
Recommended Order
|
Special DOT permits. Exception to dimension requirements. DOT's non-renewel unsupported in fact or law. Estoppal.
|
