delineates the exceptions). 25. As a result, the commission’s procedural rules — at least to the extent that they conflict with the Uniform Rules — have not been effective since at least July 1, 1998. See Dept. of Corrections v. Saulter, 742 So.2d 368, 369-70 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (characterizing the effect of Section 120.54(5)(a) as a “legislative repeal” of agency procedural rules in conflict with the Uniform Rules). And cf. Crawford v. Dept. of Children & Families, 785 So.2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA) (certifying conflict with Saulter, but only on the issue of whether an agency’s procedural rule is superceded even if the Uniform Rules do not address the substance of the agency rule), rev. dismissed, 761 So.2d 328 (Fla.2000); Gaston v. Dept. of Revenue, 742 So.2d 517, 521-22 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, a determination as to whether
holding that the plaintiff was required to arbitrate his claim which accrued before he became bound by the arbitration rules of the new york stock exchange because he was fully aware of the existing claim at the time he became a member of the exchange and became bound by its arbitration rules recognizing that administrative agencies are not bound by rules of evidence holding that iiriras effective date is april 1 1997 holding that prisoners whose convictions became final on or before april 24 1996 must file their  2255 motions before april 24 1997 holding that the uniform rules became binding on all agencies on april 1 1997 and not a later date when the agency gave notice that it was following the uniform rules