[*] Associate, Steel Hector & Davis, LLP, Tallahassee, Fla.; Executive Director of the Governor's Administrative Procedure Act Review Commission, 1995-96. B.S., University of Florida, 1977; J.D., Florida State University, 1992. Return to text.

[**] Partner, Steel Hector & Davis, LLP, Tallahassee, Fla.; Chair of the Governor's Administrative Procedure Act Review Commission, 1995-96. B.A., University of California, 1964; J.D., University of California at Berkeley, 1968; M.P.A., Harvard University, 1973. Return to text.

[1] Gov. Lawton Chiles, Remarks at the Bill Signing Ceremony for Fla. CS for SB 2290 & 2288 (1996) (the revised Administrative Procedure Act) (May 1, 1996). Return to text.

[2] Lt. Gov. Buddy MacKay, Remarks at the Bill Signing Ceremony for Fla. CS for SB 2290 & 2288 (1996) (the revised Administrative Procedure Act) (May 1, 1996). Return to text.

[3] FLA. STAT. ch. 120 (Supp. 1996). Return to text.

[4] Id. 120.542. Return to text.

[5] See Mary Smallwood, Update on the Governor's APA Committee, ADMIN. L. SEC. NEWSL., March 1996, at 7. Return to text.

[6] See GOV.'S ADMIN. PROC. ACT REV. COMM'N, FINAL REPORT 9 & app. H (1996) [hereinafter FINAL REPORT]; see also Jim Rossi, The 1996 Revised Florida Administrative Procedure Act: A Survey of Major Provisions Affecting Florida Agencies, 24 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 283, 290 (1997). Return to text.

[7] See Smallwood, supra note 5; Rossi, supra note 6, at 290-94. Return to text.

[8] The 15-member Commission was appointed by Governor Chiles in the fall of 1995 to evaluate all aspects of the APA. The Commission released its Final Report on Feb. 20, 1996. See generally FINAL REPORT, supra note 6. The vast majority of the Commission's recommendations were adopted by the Legislature during the 1996 legislative session. See Act effective Oct. 1, 1996, ch. 96-159, 1996 Fla. Laws 147; see also Donna E. Blanton & Robert M. Rhodes, Florida's Revised Administrative Procedure Act, FLA. B.J., July/Aug. 1996, at 30. Return to text.

[9] See Veto of Fla. CS for CS for SB 536 (1995) (letter from Gov. Chiles to Sec'y of State Sandra B. Mortham, July 12, 1995) (on file with Sec'y of State, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Fla.) [hereinafter 1995 Veto Message]. Return to text.

[10] Fla. CS for CS for SB 536, 8(2) (1995) (vetoed by the Governor) (emphasis added). Return to text.

[11] Id. 10(1) (proposed FLA. STAT. 120.547(1)). Return to text.

[12] Id. 10(2) (proposed FLA. STAT. 120.547(2)). Return to text.

[13] 1995 Veto Message, supra note 9, at 2. The Governor is a supporter of "common sense" in government and once distributed copies of PHILIP K. HOWARD, THE DEATH OF COMMON SENSE: HOW LAW IS SUFFOCATING AMERICA (1994) to all 160 legislators. See Bill Moss, The Monster That Nonsense Created, STATE LEGISLATURES, June 1995, at 16. Return to text.

[14] State statutes frequently include procedures that provide petitioners with an opportunity to request a hearing either upon petitioning for a variance or upon the agency's denial of a variance request. See, e.g., CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 25233 (West 1996) (hazardous waste control); DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 7, 6011 (1995) (environmental control). Statutes also frequently include requirements that the variance pose no adverse effects to the health, well being, or safety of the public. See, e.g., MO. REV. STAT. 260.405 (1994) (environmental control); WYO. STAT. ANN. 27-11-111 (Michie, LEXIS through 1996 Sess.) (OSHA). Sometimes variances may be issued only when the petitioner can demonstrate a particular hardship in complying with the regulation. See, e.g., KY. REV. STAT. ANN. 224.30.130 (Baldwin 1996) (public health); MICH. COMP. LAWS 125.1515 (1996) (zoning). Return to text.

[15] See, e.g., FLA. STAT. 403.201 (1995) (pollution control); id. 403.854 (drinking water); id. 381.0086 (migrant housing); id. 378.212 (phosphate land reclamation). Return to text.

[16] Id. 403.201(1). Return to text.

[17] See id. Return to text.

[18] See id. 403.201(3)- (4); see also FLA. ADMIN. CODE R. 62-103.100 (1995) (repealed Dec. 31, 1995). Rule 62-103.100 required the petitioner or applicant to address six factors when requesting a variance. See id. The factors included the steps or measures the petitioner was taking to meet the requirement from which the variance was sought. See id. Further, the petitioner had to address the social, economic, and environmental impacts on the applicant, residents of the area, and the state if the variance were granted or denied. See id. Return to text.

[19] See, e.g., FLA. STAT. 381.0086(3) (1995) (relating to migrant housing). Return to text.

[20] See id. 378.212(1)(f) (phosphate land reclamation). Return to text.

[21] See sources cited supra note 14. Return to text.

[22] See FLA. STAT. 120.68(12) (1983). Return to text.

[23] Id. (emphasis added). Return to text.

[24] See e.g., General Tel. Co. v. Florida Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 446 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1984); Best Western Tivoli Inn v. Department of Transp., 435 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). These cases and the development of this doctrine are discussed in detail in F. Scott Boyd, How the Exception Makes the Rule: Agency Waiver of Statutes, Rules, and Precedent in Florida, 7 ST. THOMAS L. REV. 287 (1995). Return to text.

[25] See Act effective June 11, 1984, ch. 84-173, 4, 1984 Fla. Laws 519, 523-24 (amending FLA. STAT. 120.68(12) (1983)). Return to text.

[26] See Booker Creek Preservation, Inc. v. Southwest Florida Water Mgmt. Dist., 534 So. 2d 419, 423 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Return to text.

[27] The commissioners and their positions at the time of the Commission's creation were: Robert M. Rhodes, chair, partner, Steel Hector & Davis, LLP; Representative David I. Bitner, Repub., Port Charlotte; Representative Irlo "Bud" Bronson, Dem., Kissimmee; Senator Locke Burt, Dem., Ormond Beach; Senator Rick Dantzler, Dem., Winter Haven; Martha Edenfield, of counsel, Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson; Clay Henderson, president, Fla. Audubon Soc'y; Wade Hopping, partner, Hopping, Green, Sams & Smith; Eleanor Hunter, hearing officer, Div. of Admin. Hearings; Jon Mills, director, Ctr. for Govtl. Resp., University of Florida; Jon Moyle, Jr., partner, Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Fitzgerald & Sheehan; Representative Ken Pruitt, Repub., Port St. Lucie; Representative Dean Saunders, Dem., Lakeland; Linda Loomis Shelley, chief of staff, Exec. Office of the Gov.; and Alan Starling, president, Starling Chevrolet, Inc., Kissimmee. The Commission's executive director was Donna E. Blanton, an associate at the law firm of Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Marks, Bryant & Yon. Return to text.

[28] See generally FINAL REPORT, supra note 6. The recommendations of the Commission served as a starting point for the 1996 legislation. As these authors have expressed elsewhere, the success of the Commission in presenting an acceptable package of compromises to the Legislature was due in large measure to the Governor's foresight in appointing a balanced Commission consisting of six legislators, representatives of interest groups who had been deeply involved in debate about the APA in recent years, and his own chief of staff. See Blanton & Rhodes, supra note 8, at 30. In addition to the Commission's recommendations, many elements of the vetoed 1995 legislation were included in the 1996 proposal. Return to text.

[29] See FINAL REPORT, supra note 6, app. A, at 3. Return to text.

[30] See id. app. D, at 2. Return to text.

[31] See id. at 1 (executive summary). Return to text.

[32] See id. apps. A-B. Return to text.

[33] Id. app. H, at 1 (quoting Alfred C. Aman, Jr., Administrative Equity: An Analysis of Exceptions to Administrative Rules, 1982 DUKE L.J. 277, 289). Return to text.

[34] See id. app. A, at 3. Senator Dantzler, for example, expressed the view that applying rules literally can lead to "nonsensical results." Id. Commissioner Hopping mentioned a provision in Minnesota law that allows agencies to grant variances to rules. See id. Other Commissioners expressed interest in exploring the Minnesota model. See id. Return to text.

[35] Mary Smallwood, a veteran practitioner of administrative law who is based in Tallahassee, told Commissioners at the first meeting that she believes "flexibility should be removed from government decisionmaking as much as possible." Id. app. A, at 2. Former Senator Curt Kiser, Repub., Palm Harbor, 1984-1994, who was deeply involved in drafting an earlier revision of Florida's APA, "also reminded Commissioners that the Florida [APA] was adopted in 1974 in large measure because of concerns about 'phantom government' and to rein in unbridled agency flexibility." Id. app. H, at 1. Return to text.

[36] See supra note 34. Return to text.

[37] MINN. STAT. 14.05 (1996). Return to text.

[38] See FINAL REPORT, supra note 6, app. H, at 2. Return to text.

[39] See id. In 1994, New Hampshire adopted a provision that prohibits agencies from granting variances unless they provide by rule for a waiver or variance procedure. See Act of June 10, 1994, ch. 412, 1994 N.H. Laws (WESTLAW). Thus, New Hampshire's new statute could be broadly interpreted as allowing agencies authority to grant variances as long as they adopt a procedure for variances by rule. This provision states: "No agency shall grant waivers of, or variances from, any provisions of its rules without either amending the rules, or providing by rule for a waiver or variance procedure. The duration of the waiver or variance may be temporary if the rule so provides." N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. 541-A:22 (Supp. 1995) (emphasis added).

Similarly, North Carolina has a statute that prohibits agencies from waiving or modifying "a requirement set in a rule unless a rule establishes specific guidelines the agency must follow in determining whether to waive or modify the requirement." N.C. GEN. STAT. 150B-19 (1995). Vermont also has a statute stating that agencies may not grant routine waivers of or variances from any provision of their rules "without either amending the rules, or providing by rule for a waiver or variance procedure." VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 3, 845 (LEXIS through 1995 Sess.).

All of these statutes are cast in terms of prohibiting variances, yet all appear to allow them as long as agencies establish guidelines or procedures by rule. There are no reported cases interpreting these provisions. Return to text.

[40] See FINAL REPORT, supra note 6, app. H, at 2. Return to text.

[41] See MINNESOTA COMM'N ON REFORM AND EFFICIENCY, REFORMING MINNESOTA 'S ADMINISTRATIVE RULEMAKING SYSTEM, SUMMARY REPORT 15 (1993). This report states:

Agencies should make better use of rule variances or waivers to facilitate the use of outcome measures.
Rule waivers encourage regulated parties to design alternative approaches, enhancing compliance with state policies. Agencies should develop processes that specify when a rule can be waived, such as when the legislature has set a broad standard. Authority to do so already exists in the APA. Frequent use of waivers can indicate a need for reviewing and perhaps updating a particular rule. Id. Return to text.

[42] See FINAL REPORT, supra note 6, app. H, at 3. Return to text.

[43] See Iowa SF 2404, 39 (proposed IOWA CODE 17A.4106). Return to text.

[44] Id. 39(2). Return to text.

[45] Id. 39(5). Return to text.

[46] See id. 39(7). Return to text.

[47] See discussion infra note 48. Return to text.

[48] See WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969). For a general discussion of waiver of federal regulations, see Jim Rossi, Making Policy Through the Waiver of Regulations at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 47 ADMIN. L. REV. 255 (1995). One example of an elaborate exceptions program is the federal Department of Transportation's (DOT) program for relieving a person from hazardous materials regulations. DOT recently proposed a rule amendment to streamline the exemption process, which would establish procedures for granting routine, priority, and emergency exceptions. See Exemption, Approval, Registration and Reporting Procedures, 60 Fed. Reg. 47,723-47,725 (1995) (to be codified at 49 C.F.R. 107, 171-73, 178) (proposed Sept. 14, 1995). The proposed rule allows for priority or emergency processing when routine processing would result in significant economic loss to the applicant. See id. at 47,725. In a report to Congress, DOT explained the need for flexibility in the hazardous materials area as follows:

The need for exemptions from the regulations arises from the changing nature of HM and the methods by which they are transported. Since the regulations are relatively static in nature, exemptions are vital to industry, allowing it to implement new technology and to evaluate new operational techniques which often increase productivity and enhance safety.
RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMIN., U.S. DEP 'T OF TRANSP., 1992-1993 BIENNIAL REPORT TO CONGRESS ON TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 5 (1993). Return to text.

[49] See, e.g., Peter H. Schuck, When the Exception Becomes the Rule: Regulatory Equity and the Formulation of Energy Policy Through an Exceptions Process, 1984 DUKE L.J. 163; Aman, supra note 33; Rossi, supra note 48. Return to text.

[50] See Aman, supra note 33, at 293-322. Return to text.

[51] FINAL REPORT, supra note 6, app. H, at 6-7. Return to text.

[52] See id. app. J. Return to text.

[53] See id. app. B, at 3. Return to text.

[54] For a detailed discussion of the nondelegation doctrine as it relates to a potential variance and waiver provision in the Florida APA, see id. app. I. Return to text.

[55] See id. app. I, at 1. Return to text.

[56] FLA. CONST. art. II, 3. Return to text.

[57] See, e.g., Chiles v. Children A, B, C, D, E, and F, 589 So. 2d 260, 264 (Fla. 1991). Return to text.

[58] Id. Return to text.

[59] Id. Return to text.

[60] See B.H. v. State, 645 So. 2d 987, 992 (Fla. 1994). Return to text.

[61] See id. ("In sum, Florida has expressly and repeatedly rejected whatever federal doctrine can be said to exist regarding nondelegation."). Return to text.

[62] 372 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 1978). Return to text.

[63] Id. at 924. Return to text.

[64] Id. Return to text.

[65] Id. Return to text.

[66] For discussions of the courts' treatment of the doctrine, see John E. Fennelly, Non-Delegation Doctrine and the Florida Supreme Court: What You See Is Not What You Get, 7 ST. THOMAS L. REV. 247 (1995); Johnny C. Burris, The 1988 Survey of Florida Law, Administrative Law, 13 NOVA L. REV. 727 (1989). Return to text.

[67] Ameraquatic, Inc. v. Department of Nat. Resources, 651 So. 2d 114, 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Return to text.

[68] These exceptions are discussed by Judge Ervin in A.A. v. State, 605 So. 2d 106, 107 n.2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (Ervin, J., specially concurring). Return to text.

[69] See Astral Liquors, Inc. v. Department of Bus. Reg., 463 So. 2d 1130, 1131 (Fla. 1985). Return to text.

[70] See Department of Bus. Reg., Div. of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco v. Jones, 474 So. 2d 359, 361-62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Return to text.

[71] See Department of Ins. v. Southeast Volusia Hosp. Dist., 438 So. 2d 815, 820 (Fla. 1983), appeal dismissed sub nom., Southeast Volusia Hosp. Dist. v. Florida Patient's Compensation Fund, 466 U.S. 901 (1984); State v. Bender, 382 So. 2d 697, 700 (Fla. 1980); Jones v. Department of Revenue, 523 So. 2d 1211, 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); see also Brown v. Apalachee Reg'l Planning Council, 560 So. 2d 782, 785 (Fla. 1990) (upholding against a nondelegation challenge a regional planning council rule assessing fees for review of Development of Regional Impact applications). Return to text.

[72] 589 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1991). Return to text.

[73] See id. at 267-68. Return to text.

[74] See id. at 264. Return to text.

[75] See id. at 268. Return to text.

[76] Id. Return to text.

[77] B.H. v. State, 645 So. 2d 987, 993 (Fla. 1994). Return to text.

[78] See id. Return to text.

[79] See FINAL REPORT, supra note 6, app. I, at 3. Return to text.

[80] For additional discussion of this point, see Boyd, supra note 24. Although granting agencies general authority to waive or vary statutory provisions is problematic, the Legislature can adopt statutes granting agencies specific authority to waive specific statutory provisions, as long as standards and guidelines are provided. See supra notes 15-20 and accompanying text. Return to text.

[81] See FINAL REPORT, supra note 6, at 9-15; id. app. I, at 3. Return to text.

[82] See id. Return to text.

[83] See id. Return to text.

[84] See FLA. STAT. 120.542(4)-(7) (Supp. 1996); see also infra Parts III-IV. Return to text.

[85] See FINAL REPORT, supra note 6, at 9-15; id. app. I, at 4. Return to text.

[86] Id. app. I, at 4. Return to text.

[87] See generally FLA. STAT. 120.542 (Supp. 1996). Return to text.

[88] See generally FINAL REPORT, supra note 6. Return to text.

[89] Id. apps. C-F. Return to text.

[90] Compare id. app. J with FLA. STAT. 120.542 (Supp. 1996). Changes added during the legislative process include provisions for temporary and emergency variances and waivers, see FLA. STAT. 120.542(3) (Supp. 1996), and a statement that the agency must provide persons with a copy of the underlying statute that forms the basis for a rule if a person seeking relief from the rule requests it, see id. 120.542(4). Return to text.

[91] See FINAL REPORT, supra note 6, at app. J. Return to text.

[92] Bill Herrle, a lobbyist for the National Federation of Independent Businesses, requested that the Commission add this language. Return to text.

[93] Commissioners Eleanor Hunter, an administrative law judge with the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), and Clay Henderson, the president of the Florida Audubon Society, voted against the proposal. See FINAL REPORT, supra note 6, app. F, at 2. Commissioner Jon Mills, a University of Florida College of Law professor and former speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, voted in favor of the proposal but expressed concerns about Florida's nondelegation doctrine and noted that he expects the proposal to be challenged on those grounds. See id. Return to text.

[94] See id. Return to text.

[95] Id. Return to text.

[96] See id. at 9-15. The Executive Council of the Administrative Law Section of The Florida Bar opposed the creation of a general waiver and variance statute within the APA. See Smallwood, supra note 5, at 8. The Council recommended instead that any variance provisions be incorporated into individual substantive statutes, a proposal that the Commission decided would be time-consuming and impractical. See FINAL REPORT, supra note 6, at 12. The Council's view is best expressed by Mary Smallwood, who wrote:

[T]here is no reason to believe that a one-size-fits-all variance process will work. Is it really appropriate to use the same criteria in evaluating a request for a variance from a chemical manufacturing facility from hazardous waste financial responsibility requirements as it is to determine whether a cosmetologist should be granted a variance from a licensing requirement?
Smallwood, supra note 5, at 9. Although Commissioners recognized the Council's concerns, there was general agreement that a general policy concerning variances and waivers could be incorporated into the APA with an assurance that granting a waiver or variance would achieve the purpose of the underlying statute. See FINAL REPORT, supra note 6, at 12. Thus, in addition to the criteria included within the variance and waiver statute, Commissioners believed agencies would receive adequate guidance as to whether a variance or waiver was appropriate from the language of the underlying substantive statute. See id. Return to text.

[97] See FLA. STAT. 120.68(12) (1983); see also supra text accompanying notes 22-24. Return to text.

[98] FINAL REPORT, supra note 6, at 13-14. Return to text.

[99] See Rossi, supra note 6. Return to text.

[100] See id. at 292; see also FLA. STAT. 120.54(1)(a) (Supp. 1996) (stating that rulemaking is not a matter of agency discretion and that agency statements defined as rules must be adopted as soon as feasible and practicable). Return to text.

[101] See Rossi, supra note 6, at 293. Return to text.

[102] See id. Return to text.

[103] Id. (citations omitted). Return to text.

[104] See FLA. STAT. 120.54(1), .56(4), .57(1)(e) (Supp. 1996). Return to text.

[105] See FINAL REPORT, supra note 6, at 37. Return to text.

[106] See FLA. STAT. 120.56(1), (3) (Supp. 1996). Return to text.

[107] Id. 120.542(1). Return to text.

[108] See supra notes 76-81 and accompanying text. Return to text.

[109] FLA. STAT. 120.542(1) (Supp. 1996). Return to text.

[110] See id. Return to text.

[111] See id. Return to text.

[112] Interestingly, the Legislature in 1996 included variance and waiver provisions virtually identical to those in section 120.542 within at least one substantive statute. See Act effective July 1, 1996, ch. 96-277, 5, 1996 Fla. Laws 1121, 1148. In a major rewrite of the state's underground petroleum storage tank clean-up program, the Legislature included the following language concerning the petroleum clean-up reimbursement requirements:

[DEP] is authorized to grant variances and waivers from the documentation requirements of paragraph (e)2, and from the requirements of rules applicable in technical and financial audits conducted under this section. Variances and waivers shall be granted when the person responsible for site rehabilitation demonstrates to [DEP] that application of a financial or technical auditing requirement would create a substantial hardship or would violate principles of fairness. For purposes of this subsection, "substantial hardship" means a demonstrated economic, technological, legal, or other type of hardship to the person requesting the variance or waiver. For purposes of this subsection, "principles of fairness" are violated when the application of a requirement affects a particular person in a manner significantly different from the way it affects other similarly situated persons who are affected by the requirement or when the requirement is being applied retroactively without due notice to the affected parties.
FLA. STAT. 376.3071(12)(k)(5)(a) (Supp. 1996). According to Betsy Hewitt of DEP's Office of the General Counsel, this language was included by legislators in case the revised APA did not pass. See Workshop on Proposed Amendments to Rules 62-773, Fla. Admin. Code (July 8, 1996) (transcript of proceedings) (on file with authors). Return to text.

[113] The Environmental Regulation Commission was created by section 20.255(7), Florida Statutes, as part of DEP. The Marine Fisheries Commission was created by section 370.026, Florida Statutes, and is part of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. The Environmental Regulation Commission is explicitly granted rulemaking authority by sections 403.1838 and 403.3804, Florida Statutes. The Marine Fisheries Commission is granted rulemaking authority by sections 370.025, 370.027, 370.062, and 370.16, Florida Statutes. Return to text.

[114] See supra text accompanying notes 16-18. Return to text.

[115] See 96-68 Op. Fla. Att'y Gen. 1 (1996); see also Draft of proposed Fla. Admin. Code ch. 28-104, Variance or Waiver, at 14 (Sept. 26, 1996) [hereinafter Uniform Rules Draft] (tracking the Attorney General opinion). Return to text.

[116] FLA. STAT. 120.542(2) (Supp. 1996). Return to text.

[117] Id. Return to text.

[118] Id. Return to text.

[119] See supra notes 49-51 and accompanying text. Return to text.

[120] The "better mousetrap" concept was frequently used by commissioners during discussions on the proposed changes to describe the idea of allowing citizens to develop their own means of accomplishing statutory requirements. See FINAL REPORT, supra note 6, app. D, at 1. Return to text.

[121] See supra notes 36-42 and accompanying text. Return to text.

[122] See FLA. STAT. 120.52(18)-(19) (Supp. 1996). Return to text.

[123] See id. 120.52(18). Return to text.

[124] Id. 120.52(19). Return to text.

[125] See id. 120.542(5); see also FINAL REPORT, supra note 6, app. C, at 3; id. app. D, at 2. Return to text.

[126] See FLA. STAT. 120.542(5) (Supp. 1996). Return to text.

[127] See id. 120.542(4). The new APA directs that the Administration Commission adopt uniform rules by July 1, 1997. See id. 120.54(3). These rules must establish procedures that will be used by each agency subject to the APA unless the Administration Commission grants an exception. See id. 120.54(5)(a)(1). Although agencies are given until July 1, 1998, to comply with the uniform rules, see id., the portions of those rules relating to variances and waivers should be observed as soon as they are adopted by the Administration Commission. Return to text.

[128] See id. 120.542(4). Return to text.

[129] See Uniform Rules Draft, supra note 115, at 16. Return to text.

[130] See id. Return to text.

[131] See FLA. STAT. 120.542(5) (Supp. 1996). Return to text.

[132] See id. Return to text.

[133] See Uniform Rules Draft, supra note 115, at 14-15. Return to text.

[134] See id. at 15. Return to text.

[135] See id. Return to text.

[136] See FLA. STAT. 120.542(6) (Supp. 1996). Return to text.

[137] See Uniform Rules Draft, supra note 115, at 15. Return to text.

[138] See id. Return to text.

[139] See FLA. STAT. 120.542(7) (Supp. 1996). Return to text.

[140] See id. 120.60. Return to text.

[141] See id. 120.542(7). Return to text.

[142] See id. Return to text.

[143] See id. 120.569, .57. These sections govern agency decisions that affect substantial interests. Return to text.

[144] Id. 120.542(7). Return to text.

[145] For example, if an applicant requested a permit or a license and received a notice of intent to deny the request, the applicant could file a petition pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57 for an adjudicatory hearing on the denial. The applicant could then request that the adjudicatory proceeding be abated while the applicant petitions for a variance or waiver. If the petition for a variance or waiver were denied, then the adjudicatory proceedings on both denials could be combined. Return to text.

[146] See FLA. STAT. 120.542(8) (Supp. 1996). Return to text.

[147] See id. 120.53(2)(a)(2). Return to text.

[148] See id. 120.542(3) (emphasis added). Return to text.

[149] Id. 120.542(8). Return to text.

[150] See Uniform Rules Draft, supra note 115, at 16. Return to text.

[151] See id. Return to text.

[152] See id. Return to text.

[153] See id. Return to text.

[154] See id. Return to text.

[155] See id. Return to text.