Florida League of Cities, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Regulation
Citation | 603 So.2d 1363 |
Decision Date | 18 August 1992 |
Docket Number | 90-1748 and 90-1749,Nos. 90-1733,s. 90-1733 |
Parties | FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Appellee. PINELLAS COUNTY, Florida, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Appellee. CITY OF ALTAMONTE SPRINGS, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Appellee. 603 So.2d 1363, 17 Fla. L. Week. D1966 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Appellants in these three consolidated cases appeal from an order dismissing their section 120.54(4) 1 petitions challenging the proposed adoption of Chapter 17-640, Florida Administrative Code, which establishes minimum standards for the management and disposal of domestic wastewater residuals, particularly rule 17-640.300 dealing with permit requirements. The parties raised the following three issues on appeal: (1) Whether the hearing officer erred in determining that appellant Florida League of Cities, Inc. (League), did not have standing to participate in the rule challenge, (2) whether the hearing officer erred in determining that proposed rule 17-640.300 is a valid exercise of legislative authority, and (3) whether the economic impact statement submitted by appellee, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), meets the requirements of Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes (1989). We affirm.
In regard to the standing issue, Section 120.54(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), provides that "[a]ny substantially affected person may seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of any proposed rule on the ground that the proposed rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority." Because one of the purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act was to expand public access to the activities of governmental agencies, both trade and professional associations are accorded standing to represent the interests of their injured members. Florida Home Builders Ass'n v. Department of Labor & Employment Sec., 412 So.2d 351, 352-53 (Fla.1982). Thus a trade or professional association should be able to institute a rule challenge even though it is acting solely as the representative of its members. Id. at 353. To do so the association must demonstrate that a substantial number of its members, although not necessarily a majority, are substantially affected by the challenged rule, that the subject matter of the rule is within the association's general scope of interest and activity, and that the relief requested is of the type appropriate for a trade association to receive on behalf of its members. Id. at 353-54. See also Coalition of Mental Health Professions v. Department of Professional Reg., 546 So.2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA1989); Florida Medical Ass'n v. Department of Professional Reg., 426 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA1983); Farmworker Rights Org. v. Department of Health & Rehab. Servs., 417 So.2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA1982); Federation of Mobile Home Owners of Fla., Inc. v. Department of Business Reg., Div. of Fla. Land Sales, Condominiums & Mobile Homes, 479 So.2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA1985).
Here the League has satisfied the test for standing. First, it alleged in its petition, and the parties stipulated, that the League is a wholly owned instrumentality of over 380 member cities and charter counties, a great number of which own and operate domestic wastewater treatment facilities that produce wastewater residuals. It is not necessary for the League to elaborate how each member would be personally affected by the proposed rule, because a substantial portion of the League's members will be regulated by the rule. Coalition of Mental Health Professions, 546 So.2d at 28. Second, the parties stipulated that the League is charged to work for the general improvement of municipal government and its effective administration, and to represent its members on statewide issues affecting municipal governments. Because the rule sets forth the procedure for permitting wastewater treatment plants, an activity many of the League's members perform, the proposed rule falls within the League's general scope of interest and activity. Finally, the relief requested, invalidation of the proposed rule, is the type of relief appropriate for an association to receive on behalf of its members. Florida Home Builders Ass'n.
Although the hearing officer erred in concluding that the League did not have standing to participate in the proceeding, we regard the error to be harmless pursuant to Section 120.68(8), Florida Statutes (1989), and therefore affirm, because the fairness of the proceedings and the correctness of the action taken was not impaired by the error. This is so because the League was able to fully participate in the hearing and because the League's arguments were substantially covered by the other appellants to this cause.
Turning to appellants' second issue, we cannot agree that rule 17-640.300 is an invalid exercise of legislative authority. Although the only explicitly stated ground under section 120.54(4)(a) for challenging a proposed rule is that the proposed rule constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, case law, beginning notably with Agrico Chemical Co. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 365 So.2d 759, 763 (Fla. 1st DCA1978), cert. denied sub nom. Askew v. Agrico Chemical Co., 376 So.2d 74 (Fla.1979), has engrafted specific criteria that must be applied in determining whether the rule or proposed rule complies with the enabling statute. The challenger, among other things, is required to show that the requirements of the rule are inappropriate to the ends specified in the legislative act, or that the requirements proposed are not reasonably related to the purpose of the enabling legislation, or that the proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious. See also General Tel. Co. of Fla. v. Florida Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 446 So.2d 1063, 1067 (Fla.1984); Florida Waterworks Ass'n v. Florida Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 473 So.2d 237, 239-40 (Fla. 1st DCA1985), review denied, 486 So.2d 596 (Fla.1986); Department of Professional Reg., Bd. of Medical Examiners v. Durrani, 455 So.2d 515, 517 (Fla. 1st DCA1984). These criteria have since been codified by the 1987 legislature, amending section 120.52 by adding subsection (8) thereto, defining the term "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority." See Ch. 87-385, Sec. 2, Laws of Fla. See also Staff of Florida, House Committee on Governmental Operations, "Staff Analysis of Proposed Amendments to Chapter 120, F.S. for House Bill 710 and Senate Bill 608" (1987) (Florida State Archives), explaining that Section 120.52(8)(e), Florida Statutes (1987), relating to the term arbitrary or capricious, "codifies the long established principle that administrative rules cannot be arbitrary or capricious, i.e., unsupported by logic, despotic or irrational." In support of this statement the Staff Analysis refers to the Agrico Chemical Co. and the General Telephone Co. of Florida opinions.
Significantly, the same factors used to test the validity of a statute on the ground that it constitutes a violation of the equal protection clause, in cases in which the rational basis standard is applicable, apply as well to rule challenges at the administrative trial level. Agrico Chem. Co., 365 So.2d at 762 ( ). In that the regulation at bar involves an exercise of the police power, we consider it would be helpful to recite the following language in an opinion expressly relied upon by Agrico:
When a commission promulgates a legislative regulation in the exercise of the police power delegated to it by the legislature, it is subject to the same test as to reasonableness and the basic facts justifying the regulation as would be applied if the legislature had enacted the regulation as a statute. As stated in Crescent Cotton Oil Co. v. State of Mississippi, 1921, 257 U.S. 129, 137, 42 S.Ct. 42, 44, 66 L.Ed. 166:
" * * * [A]ny classification adopted by a state in the exercise of this [police] power which has a reasonable basis, and is therefore not arbitrary, will be sustained against an attack based upon the equal protection of the laws clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and also that every state of facts sufficient to sustain such classification which can be reasonably conceived of as having existed when the law was enacted will be assumed."
Florida Citrus Comm'n v. Owens, 239 So.2d 840, 848 (Fla. 4th DCA1969) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 242 So.2d 873 (Fla.1971).
Stated in another way, the constitutional requirement of equal protection of the laws does not inhibit the legislative power in securing the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the public, and a classification enacted by the legislature for such purposes will not be annulled by the courts unless it is wholly without a reasonable or practical basis, and therefore purely arbitrary. See, e.g., State ex rel. Lawson v. Woodruff, 134 Fla. 437, 184 So. 81 (1938); State ex rel. Bennett v. Lee, 123 Fla. 252, 166 So. 565 (1936); Noble v. State, 68 Fla. 1, 66 So. 153 (1914). Accordingly, it is helpful to examine cases in which the constitutional validity of a statute has been challenged on the ground that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Southwest Florida Water Management Dist. v. Charlotte Cty.
...wholesale customers is neither unsupported by logic, nor despotic or irrational. See Florida League of Cities, Inc. v. Department of Envtl. Regulation, 603 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Pinellas also argues that because the District intends to impose the SWUCA per capita provisions on who......
-
McElrath v. Burley, 97-1210
...test because no suspect class or violation of fundamental rights has been implicated. See Florida League of Cities, Inc. v. Florida Dep't of Envtl. Regulation, 603 So.2d 1363, 1368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); see also Schwarz v. Kogan, 132 F.3d 1387, 1391 (11th Under this "minimal scrutiny," the s......
-
Cortes v. State, Bd. of Regents, 93-1886
...Indians" and added "record keeping and documentation requirements." At 193). See generally Florida League of Cities, Inc. v. Department of Envtl. Regulation, 603 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Durrani. While executive branch agencies cannot usurp legislative prerogatives, "rulemaking autho......
-
Swfl Water Mgmt District v. Charlotte County
...wholesale customers is neither unsupported by logic, nor despotic or irrational. See Florida League of Cities, Inc. v. Department of Envtl. Regulation, 603 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Pinellas also argues that because the District intends to impose the SWUCA per capita provisions on wh......
-
Standing in Florida administrative proceedings.
...Dental Hygienist Association, Inc., 612 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1993). (42) See, e.g., Florida League of Cities, Inc. v. DER, 603 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. Richard M. Ellis is a senior attorney with the Department of Insurance. He was formerly a senior attorney with the Agency for He......
-
Rule-challenge standing after NAACP, Inc. v. Florida Board of Regents.
...associational standing for NAACP, Inc., as given, citing Florida League of Cities, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 603 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), and Florida Home Builders Association v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 412 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1982). (8) Howev......
-
Standards of review under the Florida Administrative Procedure Act.
...[section] 12.28 FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE 12-33 - 12-35 (2004). (23) Fla. League of Cities, Inc. v. Dep't of Envtl. Regulation, 603 So. 2d 1363, 1368-69 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. (24) Knight v. Winn, 910 So. 2d 310, 312 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 2005); Parlato v. Secret Oaks Owners Ass'n, 793 So. 2d 11......