87-003078RX The Citrus Hill Manufacturing Company vs. Department Of Citrus Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, December 9, 1987.

Summary: Rule which prohibited the petitioner to include the word ""juice"" on its products exceeds agency's delegated authority.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

THE CITRUS HILL MANUFACTURING )

COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation , )

)

Petitioner , )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 87-3078RX

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT )

OF CITRUS , )

)

Respondent. )

________________________________)

FINAL ORDER

Pursuant to notice, an administrative hearing was held before Diane D.

Tremor, Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, on

September 24, 1987, in Lakeland, Florida. The issue for determination in this

proceeding is whether the Department of Citrus' Rule 20-66.001(4), Florida

Administrative Code, which prohibits the word "juice" from appearing in labels

for diluted citrus products, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated

legislative authority.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner : Peter J. Winders and

James J. Kennedy, III

Carlton, Fields, Ward,

Emmanuel, Smith, Cutler & Kent, P.A.

One Harbor Place

Post Office Box 3239

Tampa, Florida 33601

and

Karl S. Steinmanis, Esquire

One Proctor and Gamble Plaza

Cincinnati, Ohio 45292-3315

For Respondent : J. Hardin Peterson, Jr., Esquire

Peterson, Myers, Craig, Crews,

Brandon & Mann, P.A.

Post Office Drawer BS

Lakeland, Florida 33802

and

Kristen C. Chadwell, Esquire

General Counsel

Department of Citrus

Post Office Box 148

Lakeland, Florida 33802-0148

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, petitioner, The Citrus Hill

Manufacturing Company, seeks an administrative determination of the validity of

Rule 20-66.001(4), Florida Administrative Code. This proceeding was

consolidated for hearing purposes with Division of Administrative Hearing's Case

No. 87-1611, bearing the same caption, which concerns the issue of whether the

terms of Rule 20-66.001(4) may be applied to petitioner's citrus fruit products

in Florida. The latter proceeding is the subject of a separate Recommended

Order entered on this same date.

In support of its position that the challenged rule constitutes an invalid

exercise of delegated legislative authority, petitioner presented the testimony

of Charles Anthony Parsons, the manager of purchases for Citrus Hill

Manufacturing Company (Citrus Hill); Richard J. Coomes, the regulatory affairs

manager for the beverage products division of Proctor and Gamble; and Joseph

Ottaviani, a vice-president and regional manager with Burke Marketing Research.

Petitioners' Exhibits 1, 2 6 and 7 were received into evidence.

The respondent, Department of Citrus, presented the testimony of Douglas

Hoffer, the former marketing director with the Department of Citrus, and Dr.

Poonam Mittal, a market research coordinator with the Department of Citrus. The

respondent's Exhibits A through D were received into evidence.

Official notice was taken of the documents listed in Hearing Officer's

Exhibit 1. Subsequent to the hearing, both parties submitted proposed orders.

To the extent that the parties' proposed findings of fact are not included in

this Final Order, they are rejected for the reasons set forth in the Appendix

hereto.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the

hearing, the following relevant facts are found:

1. Citrus Hill Manufacturing Company (Citrus Hill) is a wholly owned

subsidiary of Proctor and Gamble. Citrus Hill is in the business of producing,

manufacturing, packaging and distributing citrus products throughout the United

States. It's main product has been "Select" orange juice which is 100 percent

orange juice. Its principal manufacturing facility is located in Frostproof,

Florida. While Citrus Hill has four other manufacturing sites outside the State

of Florida, its Florida plant is the only facility for manufacturing frozen

products. While it can produce chilled products at its plants located outside

Florida, Citrus Hill's Florida plant is necessary to supply the demand for its

chilled products on a national basis.

2. In an effort to expand its market, Citrus Hill developed three products

which it produces and packs at its plant in Frostproof, Florida. These products

are and have been labeled as follows:

(a) "Lite Citrus Hill Orange Juice Beverage - 60 percent Orange

Juice,"

(b) "Lite Citrus Hill Grapefruit Juice Beverage - 45 percent

Grapefruit Juice," and

(c) "Plus Calcium Citrus Hill, Calcium Fortified Grapefruit Juice

Beverage - 60 percent Grapefruit Juice." The "lite" beverages are reduced

calorie diluted juice beverages with the addition of Nutrasweet. The third

product is a diluted grapefruit juice beverage fortified with calcium.

3. By a letter dated March 19, 1987, the Department of Citrus ordered

Citrus Hill to change its diluted citrus products labels and informed Citrus

Hill that the Department would enforce Rule 20-66.001(4), Florida Administrative

Code. That rule provides

"Labels for diluted citrus products

shall not include the word "juice" in

the name of the product."

4. As noted above, Citrus Hill markets and sells its product line

throughout the United States. It desires to utilize the names of its diluted

juice products as indicated in paragraph two above for three reasons. First,

Citrus Hill believes that its labeling is in compliance with federal law.

Second, it believes that a product name which includes the word "juice" more

fully informs the consumer of the nature of the product because it is more

exact, descriptive and less ambiguous than any name not using the word "juice",

such as "drink", "ade", or "beverage". Third, Citrus Hill fears that if it were

unable to disclose through its product name that the product is primarily a

juice product, it would be placed at a competitive disadvantage in the national

marketplace where non-Florida producers of similar products would not be bound

by the challenged Rule's ban on the use of the word "juice" in the name of

diluted juice products. While Citrus Hill could move its packaging facilities

outside the state and utilize two product labels (one for Florida shipment and

one for the non-Florida market), this alternative would be extremely expensive

and would constitute a "distribution nightmare." Many distributors and large

retail grocery stores work in multi-state regions and may not be willing to

segregate and keep track of petitioner's different product labels for shipment

in Florida and in non-Florida states.

5. No other state in the United States prohibits the word "juice" in the

labeling of diluted citrus juice products.

6. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, the subject of proper labeling of

diluted fruit juice beverages was under discussion by both the Florida

Department of Citrus and the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under

the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The FDA ultimately rejected the proposal of

prohibiting the word "juice" from the name of any product that was not 100

percent pure juice, and also rejected the approach of defining different

products through "standards of identity." This latter method of labeling

products would have defined a product as "ades" only if containing more than 10

percent, but less than 20 percent, juice, and various other category names based

upon the percentage of fruit juice contained in the product. The prohibition

against the word "juice" and the "standards of identity" proposals for the

labeling of diluted juice products were rejected by the FDA in favor of a common

or usual name approach, with a percent declaration of any characterizing

ingredient.

7. The pertinent federal regulations addressing the labeling of food

products are contained in 21 C.F.R. Chapter 1. The more general regulation

appears in 21 C.F.R. 102.5(a) and (b), and states, in pertinent part, as

follows:

Section 102.5 General Principles.

(a) The common or usual name of a

food . . . shall accurately identify

or describe, in as simple and

direct terms as possible, the basic

nature of the food or its

characterizing properties or

ingredients. The name shall be

uniform among all identical or

similar products and may not be

confusingly similar to the name of

any other food that is not reasonably

encompassed within the same name.

Each class or subclass of food shall

be given its own common or usual name

that states, in clear terms, what it

is in a way that distinguishes it

from different foods.

(b) The common or usual name of a

food shall include the percentage(s)

of any characterizing ingredient(s)

or component(s) when the . . .

component(s) . . . has a material

bearing on . . . consumer acceptance

or when the labeling . . . may

otherwise create an erroneous

impression that such . . .

component(s) is present in an amount

greater than is actually the case.

The following requirements shall

apply unless modified by a specific

regulation in Subpart B of this part.

(1) The percentage of a

characterizing ingredient or

component shall be declared on the

basis of its quantity in the finished

product. . . .

(2) The percentage of a

characterizing ingredient or

component shall be declared-by the

words "containing (or contains) ---

percent (or percent) ---" . . . with the

first blank filled in with the

percentage expressed as a whole

number not greater than the actual

percentage of the ingredient or

component named and the second blank

filled in with the common or usual

name of the ingredient or component.

8. The FDA has also promulgated regulations dealing with the labeling of

specific nonstandardized foods, including diluted orange juice beverages and

diluted fruit or vegetable juice beverages other than diluted orange juice

beverages. With respect to diluted orange juice beverages, 21 C.F.R. Section

102.32 provides as follows:

102.32. Diluted Orange Juice Beverages.

(a) The common or usual name of a non-

carbonated beverage containing less than

100 percent and more than 0 percent

orange juice shall be as follows:

(1) A descriptive name for the product

meeting the requirements of Section

102.5(a) (e.g., diluted orange juice

beverage or another descriptive phrase),

and

(2) A statement of the percent of each

juice contained in the beverage in the

manner set forth in Section 102.5(b)(2).

The percent of the juice shall be declared

in 5 percent increments, expressed as a

multiple of five not greater than the

actual percentage of orange juice in the

product, except that the percent of

orange juice in products containing more

than 0 percent but less than 5-percent

orange juice shall be declared in the

statement as "less than 5" percent.

Diluted fruit or vegetable juice beverages other than diluted orange juice

beverages are the subject of 21 C.F.R. Section 102.33, 1/ which provides as

follows:

102.33 Diluted fruit or vegetable juice

beverages other than diluted orange juice

beverages.

(a) The common or usual name of a non-

carbonated beverage containing less than

100 percent and more than zero percent

fruit or vegetable juice(s), other than

only orange juice, shall be as follows:

(1) A descriptive name meeting the

requirements of Section 102.5(a)(e.g.,

"diluted grape juice beverage", "grape

juice drink", or another descriptive

phrase) and

(2) A statement of the percent of each

juice contained in the beverage in the

manner set forth in Section 102.5(b)(2).

The percent of the juice shall be

declared in five percent increments,

expressed as a multiple of five not

greater than the actual percentage of

juice in the beverage except that the

percentage of any juice in beverages

containing more than zero percent but

less than 5 percent of that juice shall

be declared in the statement as "less

than 5" percent.

9. The Department of Citrus has conducted two consumer surveys for the

purpose of determining whether the word "juice" in a product name of a diluted

citrus juice product is confusing or misleading. The Drossler study was

conducted in 1972, and concluded that consumers are confused by the word

"juice." However, that conclusion appears to be founded on the premise that the

only proper use of the word "juice" is in the technical sense of "100 percent

pure juice." In other words, what was measured in the survey was the consumer's

failure to use the word "juice" in a limited sense to mean "100 percent pure

juice." The surveyed consumer was asked to look at several products, and then

state "what kind of product is this?" The products viewed consisted of several

different dairy products and a citrus beverage. If the consumer used the word

"juice" to describe the kind of product pointed to, he was treated as being

confused if the product was less than 100 percent juice. No follow-up questions

were asked concerning the consumer's understanding of the content of the

product. The Chelsea study was conducted at the request of the Department of

Citrus in 1987. It, too, concludes that there would be less consumer confusion

if the word "juice" were eliminated from products comprised of less than 100

percent pure citrus juice. However, there was evidence that this study

attempted to address too many issues, including consumer preferences, and that

"question contamination" could well have occurred. This refers to the

intentional or unintentional biasing of the interviewees by the ordering or

phraseology of the questions asked. Both the Burke study and the Chelsea study

indicate that consumers are not confused by a beverage label using the word

juice in the product name when it is accompanied by the declaration of the

percentage of juice contained in the product.

10. The Burke study was conducted on behalf of the petitioner in 1987.

After conducting interviews of 1200 people from all age groups in six different

cities throughout the United States, it concluded that there was no significant

difference in consumer confusion between the use of the word "juice" and

"beverage" in the product name when the percentage of citrus juice content is

indicated on the label. In other words, whether the label identified the

product as a "juice beverage" or a "beverage", the respondents were able to

determine the amount of actual juice contained in the product.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

11. As a producer, manufacturer, packager and distributor of citrus

products and diluted citrus beverages in Florida and throughout the United

States, the Citrus Hill Manufacturing Company is substantially affected by a

rule governing the label contents of its products. Petitioner thus has

standing, pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, to seek an

administrative determination of the invalidity of Rule 20-66.001(4), Florida

Administrative Code, which prohibits the word "juice" from appearing on the

label of any diluted citrus product manufactured or labeled in Florida.

12. Petitioner challenges the validity of Rule 20-66.001(4) on many

grounds. Several of the grounds raised are constitutional in nature (such as

violations of the United States' Constitution's Supremacy Clause, Commerce

Clause and Equal Protection Clause), and may not properly be ruled upon by a

Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings in a rule challenge

to an existing rule. Petitioner also contends that the challenged rule is an

invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it conflicts with

the respondent's statutory grant of authority, it is not an appropriate

regulatory measure to achieve the statutory goals and it bears no rational

relationship to the purposes and goals of the Florida Citrus Code.

13. The respondent Department of Citrus urges that the challenged rule is

reasonable, rational and is within its statutory authority. It is further urged

that the federal rules are neither mandatory, preemptive or repugnant to

Florida's rule on the labeling of diluted citrus products.

14. The legislature recognized that the citrus crop is the major

agricultural enterprise in Florida and enacted the Florida Citrus Code to

protect health and welfare and to stabilize and protect the citrus industry.

Section 601.02(1), Florida Statutes. Other purposes for the enactment of the

Citrus Code include the protection and enhancement of the quality and reputation

of Florida citrus fruit in domestic and foreign markets, the stabilization of

the citrus industry, the protection of the public against fraud, deception and

financial loss through unscrupulous practices and haphazard methods of

processing and marketing, and the promotion of the general welfare of the citrus

industry. Section 601.02(3) ,(5) and (6), Florida Statutes.

15. To effectuate the purposes and intent of the Citrus Code, the

Legislature bestowed upon the Department of Citrus broad rulemaking authority in

order to exercise and perform its duties under Chapter 601. See Section

601.10(1), Florida Statutes. With regard to the labeling of citrus fruit

products, the Department was delegated the authority to prescribe rules or

regulations

provided, however, that no standard,

regulation, rule, or order under this

section which is repugnant to any

requirement made mandatory under

federal law or regulations shall apply

to citrus fruit . . . products . . .

which are being shipped from this

state in interstate commerce . . .

Section 601.11, Florida Statutes. That same section goes on to provide that the

Department's regulations, rules and orders with regard to the marking of citrus

fruit products

shall, when not inconsistent with

state or federal law, have the force

and effect of law.

16. It is the respondent's position in this proceeding that the federal

rules regarding the general labeling of foods and the specific labeling of

diluted fruit juice beverages are not mandatory and are thus not preemptive of

Florida rulemaking on the same subject. Whether those portions of the federal

rules are or are not preemptive, thus rendering the inconsistent Florida rule on

the subject invalid as a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States

Constitution, is not and need not be determined in this proceeding. The

enabling statute, and the law sought to be implemented by Rule 20-66.001(4),

prohibits rules repugnant to mandatory requirements of federal rules, and also

prohibits rules which are inconsistent with federal law. It was not necessary

for the Legislature to instruct the Department of Citrus that it could not

violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States. The

legislative intent is clear. The Department was given authority to adopt rules

not repugnant to requirements made mandatory under federal law or regulations

and not inconsistent with federal law. Section 601.11, Florida Statutes.

17. There can be no doubt that both the general and the more specific

federal regulations regarding the labeling of food and beverage products are

mandatory. The federal regulations with respect to the labeling of food

products proclaim that the common or usual name of a food "shall" accurately

identify or describe the basic nature of the food and "shall" include the

percentage of any characterizing ingredient. 21 C.F.R. Section 102.5(a) and

(b). With respect to the labeling of diluted orange juice products, the federal

rule proclaims that the name "shall be" a descriptive name for the product

meeting the requirements of Section 102.5(a) and a statement of the percent of

each juice contained in the beverage. 21 C.F.R. Section 102.32. The labeling

of diluted juice beverages other than orange juice is similarly prescribed in

mandatory terms in 21 C.F.R. Section 102.33.

18. The Florida rule banning the word "juice" from the labeling of diluted

citrus products is both repugnant to and inconsistent with the federal rules.

Where the general federal rule requires a common or usual name, in as simple and

direct terms as possible, along with the percentage declaration of any

characterizing ingredient; the Florida rule would prohibit both the common name

and a percentage declaration. Likewise, the more specific federal rules

pertaining to diluted juice beverages require both a descriptive name for the

product and a statement of the percent of each "juice" contained in the product.

It would be impossible to comply with these federal requirements without

utilizing the word "juice." Thus, the Department's Rule 20-66.001(4) is both

repugnant to and inconsistent with the federal regulations set forth in 21

C.F.R. 102.5(a) and (b), 102.32 and 102.33.

19. An agency has no inherent authority, but has only those powers granted

by statute. Administrative regulations must be consistent with the statutes

under which they are promulgated, and they may not add to, amend or repeal the

statute. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. The Florida

Psychiatric Society, Inc., et al., 382 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1980), nor can

an administrative rule enlarge, modify or contravene the provisions of a

statute. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. McTigue, 387

So.2d 454 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1980). A rule which is so directly repugnant to and

inconsistent with the federal regulations on the same subject clearly

contravenes the legislative delegation of authority to the Department to adopt

rules regarding the marking and labeling of citrus products. As such, the

challenged rule constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative

authority.

20. Even if there were no federal regulations concerning the labeling of

foods and diluted citrus juice products, the rule in question does not appear to

be reasonably related to the purposes of the enabling legislation. The purposes

of the Citrus Code are to both protect and promote the citrus industry and to

protect consumers from fraud or other deceptive practices. The petitioner in

this proceeding has demonstrated that Citrus Hill, a Florida producer, packager

and distributor of Florida citrus products in Florida and throughout the United

States, would be severely disadvantaged economically and competitively if it

were not able to include the word "juice" or list the percentage thereof, in its

products containing less than 100 percent pure citrus juice. The studies

performed on behalf of the Department of Citrus indicated a consumer preference

for products containing "juice." No other state prohibits the word "juice" from

appearing on labels for diluted citrus fruit beverages. The federal law on the

subject, as discussed above, requires the word "juice" to appear on the labels

of diluted fruit juice beverages. By severely limiting the competitive strength

of national distributors operating out of Florida, the challenged rule does not

"stabilize and protect the-citrus industry of the state" (Section 601.02(1)),

nor does it "promote the general welfare of the Florida citrus industry"

(Section 601.02(6)). There was no evidence presented by the Department that the

availability of diluted citrus juice beverages in the marketplace would

adversely affect the sale of Florida citrus fruit.

21. A further purpose of the Citrus Code is the protection of consumers.

It is difficult to imagine how the listing of a beverage by the common name of

the fruit juice contained therein, together with a statement of the actual

percentage of such fruit juice contained therein, could be more informative,

truthful or accurate. Certainly, a label containing such information could not

be considered an "unscrupulous practice" or a "haphazard method of marketing."

See Section 601.02(5), Florida Statutes. The challenged rule requires the

choosing of an arbitrary word other than "juice," such as "drink," "ade or

beverage," without denoting any attributes of the product. This requirement

does not accurately or completely describe the product offered for sale and thus

does not protect the public against fraud, deception or financial loss. See

Section 601.02(5), Florida Statutes. Indeed, where the characterizing

ingredient in a product is citrus juice, it would be false and misleading to

label the product as a "beverage," "ade" or "drink" without any designation of

its citrus "juice" content. By communicating less information to consumers

about the product offered for sale, the challenged rule prohibiting the word

"juice" for diluted citrus fruit products frustrates the legislative purpose of

protecting consumers from unscrupulous practices, and bears no rational

relationship to any other statutory provision of the Florida Citrus Code.

22. Even if the Department or the State of Florida has some interest in

promoting products containing 100 percent pure Florida citrus juice (a fact not

proven at the hearing), it has no power to prohibit the manufacture or sale of

diluted juice products. It may not discourage the production and sale of

diluted products by requiring potentially misleading or non-descriptive labeling

or by requiring the labeling of a product in a manner which is inconsistent and

in conflict with federal regulations.

23. It is interesting to note, though not dispositive of the issue of

whether the challenged rule is an invalid exercise of legislative authority,

that the challenged portion of the rule conflicts with the remaining portions of

Rule 20-66.001. Subsection (1) of Rule 20-66.001 requires that all Florida

processed citrus products be labeled in compliance with established Florida

standards and any other applicable "Federal food labeling requirements or

regulations. Labeling may include any truthful and non-misleading qualifying

adjectives." Subsection (2) of Rule 20-66.001 provides that where no Florida

standards have been established, the label

shall bear a factual and descriptive

product name and shall include a

statement in immediate conjunction

with the product name which fully and

truthfully describes the product and

its ingredients.

And, subsection (3) of Rule 20-66.004 requires that labels for unsweetened

single strength and concentrated citrus juices prominently show that the product

is 100 percent juice. To single out diluted citrus products for a different

manner of labeling which is not descriptive of the product or its ingredients

conflicts with the remaining portions of the rule and finds no statutory

support. In addition, any alleged "confusion" on the part of consumers should

be cured by the regulatory requirement set forth in Rule 20-66.001(3) that

single strength products be labeled "100 percent."

24. In summary, it is concluded that subsection (4) of Rule 20-66.001,

Florida Administrative Code, conflicts with and exceeds the authority delegated

to the Department of Citrus by the legislature and bears no rational

relationship to the stated purposes for the enactment of the Florida Citrus

Code.

FINAL ORDER

Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it

is ORDERED that Rule 20-66.001(4), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an

invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

DONE and ORDERED this of 9th day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee,

Florida.

___________________________________

DIANE D. TREMOR

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

[phone]

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 9th day of December, 1987.

ENDNOTE

1/ Apparently, enforcement of 21 C.F.R. Section 102.33 has been stayed by the

FDA, and the agency has requested comments on the rule.

APPENDIX

(Case No. 87-3078RX)

The proposed findings of fact submitted by both parties have been fully

considered and are included and/or incorporated herein, except as noted below:

Petitioner:

Many of the Petitioner's proposed

findings of fact constitute legal

conclusions or legal argument. As such,

they have not been incorporated into

this Order's Findings of Fact, but have

been considered or included in the

Conclusions of Law.

Respondent:

B. Rejected as contrary to the evidence.

C. Accepted with regard to the Department's

intent, but rejected as to the Rule's

effect.

D. Rejected as contrary to the evidence.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Peter J. Winders and

James J. Kennedy, III

Carlton, Fields, Ward,

Emmanuel, Smith, Cutler &

Kent, P.A.

One Harbor Place

Post Office Box 3239

Tampa, Florida 33601

Karl S. Steinmanis, Esquire

One Proctor and Gamble Plaza

Cincinnati, Ohio 45292-3315

J. Hardin Peterson, Jr., Esquire

Peterson, Myers, Craig, Crews,

Brandon & Mann, P.A.

Post Office Drawer BS

Lakeland, Florida 33802

Kristen C. Chadwell, Esquire

General Counsel

Department of Citrus

Post Office Box 148

Lakeland, Florida 33802-0148

Dan L. Gunter, Executive Director

Department of Citrus

Post Office Box 148

Lakeland, Florida 33802-0148

Liz Cloud, Chief

Bureau of Administrative Code

1802 The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

Carroll Webb, Executive Director

Administrative Procedures

Committee

120 Holland Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300

NOTICE OF JUDICIAL RIGHTS

A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED, TO

JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES. REVIEW

PROCEEDINGS ARE GOVERNED BY THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE SUCH

PROCEEDINGS ARE COMMENCED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE

AGENCY CLERK OF THE DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND A SECOND COPY,

ACCOMPANIED BY FILING FEES PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL,

FIRST DISTRICT, OR WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT

WHERE THE PARTY RESIDES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF

RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED.