14-002060RX David W.R. Brown vs. Department Of Environmental Protection Status: Closed DOAH Final Order on Wednesday, July 30, 2014.

Summary: Petitioner failed to prove that the Department's rule regulating cross-connection control for public water systems was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DAVID W.R. BROWN,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 14 - 2060RX

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

FINAL ORDER

The final hearing in this c ase was held by video -

teleconference on June 5, 2014, at locations in Tallahassee and

Tampa, Florida, before Bram D. E. Canter, Administrative Law

Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH").

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: David Wilson - Rin e Brown, pro se

1805 Burlington Circle

Sun City Center, Florida 33573

For Respondent: Benjamin M. Melnick, Esquire

Sidney C. Bigham, III, Esquire

Department of Environmental Protection

Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue to be determined in this case is whether the

proposed amendment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62 - 555.360

of the Department of Environmental Protection ( Ð Department Ñ ),

pertaining to cross - connection control for public water systems,

is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

PRELIMINARY S TATEMENT

On January 28, 2014, the Department published a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking in the Florida Administrative Register to

amend Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62 - 555, including rule

62 - 555.360, entitled ÐCross - Connection Control for Public Wate r

Systems.Ñ No rule challenge was filed within 21 days of the

publication of the rule and it became effective on May 5, 2014.

On May 5, 2014, Petitioner filed a petition to challenge

rule 62 - 555.360 which identifies the types of cross - connection

control devices that the Department requires for residential

service connections with auxiliary water systems and includes

required inspection schedules for the devices.

At the final hearing, Petitioner testified on his own behalf

and presented the testimony of t hree Department employees:

Geofrey Mansfield, 1/ John Sowerby, and Van Hoofnagle.

PetitionerÓs Exhibits 14, 15 (redacted in part), 16 (redacted in

part), 17 (redacted in part), 47, and 76 were accepted into

evidence.

The Department presented the testimon y of John Sowerby, who

was accepted as an expert in water and wastewater systems.

Department Exhibits 12, 14, and 15 were accepted into evidence.

The two - volume Transcript of the final hearing was filed

with DOAH. The parties filed proposed final orders that were

considered by the Administrative Law Judge in the preparation of

this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Parties

1. Petitioner is a natural person residing at 1805

Burlington Circle, Sun City Center, Hillsborough County, Florida.

2. The D epartment is the state agency with powers and

duties to protect public drinking water as set forth in the

Florida Safe Drinking Water Act, section 403.850, et seq.,

Florida Statutes (2013).

Background

3. The term Ðcross - connectionÑ is defined in rule

62 - 5 50.200(26) as:

any physical arrangement whereby a public

water supply is connected, directly or

indirectly, with any other water supply

system, sewer, drain, conduit, pool, storage

reservoir, plumbing fixture, or other device

which contains or may contain contaminated

water, sewage or other waste, or liquid of

unknown or unsafe quality which may be

capable of imparting contamination to the

public water supply as the result of

backflow.

4. Cross - connections are prohibited unless appropriate

backflow protec tion is provided to prevent backflow through the

cross - connection into the public water system. See Fla. Admin.

Code R. 62 - 550.360(1).

5. There are three types of backflow prevention devices

germane to this proceeding: Reduced Pressure Principle Asse mbly

("RP"), Double Check Valve Assembly ("DC"), and Dual Check Device

("DuCÑ).

6. Typically, but not in every case, the water customer is

responsible for the costs of installation, inspection, and

maintenance of a backflow prevention device.

7. It is un disputed that the RP is the most expensive to

purchase, install, and maintain; followed by the DC; and then the

DuC. 2/

8. The RP and DC are installed above - ground, usually near a

street. Test ports on these assemblies allow them to be tested

to determine whether they are still functioning to prevent

backflow.

9. The DuC is usually installed underground and has no test

ports. The Department asserts that this difference makes the DuC

less reliable than the RP and DC.

10. The rule states, and Petitioner d id not refute, that

the RP and DC offer greater backflow protection than the DuC.

11. Petitioner has an auxiliary water system at his

residence, which he uses to pump untreated water from a nearby

lake to irrigate his lawn.

12. There is no cross - connecti on between the plumbing

system in PetitionerÓs residence and his auxiliary water system.

13. Petitioner does not have a backflow prevention device

installed at his property.

14. Hillsborough County has an ordinance that requires the

installation of an RP device for residential customers who have

auxiliary water systems, but the County currently has a

moratorium on the enforcement of its ordinance.

15. Petitioner is on a local committee established to

investigate and advise the Hillsborough County Board o f County

Commissioners regarding cross - connection control. He believes

the County is likely to modify its ordinance and allow the DuC

for residential customers who have auxiliary water systems.

The Department Rule

16. The Department stated its purposes f or the rule in the

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:

These rules are being amended to

significantly reduce the overall regulatory

burden of cross - connection control

requirements on community water systems

(CWSs) and their residential customers by:

(1) allowin g a dual check device to be used

as backflow protection at or for residential

service connections from CWSs to premises

where there is any type of auxiliary or

reclaimed water system; and (2) allowing

biennial instead of annual testing of

backflow prevente r assemblies required at or

for residential service connections from

CWSs.

17. A community water system ( Ð CWS Ñ ) is a public water

system which serves at least 15 service connections or regularly

serves at least 25 year - round residents. See § 403.852(3), Fla.

Stat.

18. The Department requires each CWS to have a cross -

connection control program , and Table 62 - 555.360 - 2 in the rule

establishes the ÐMinimum Backflow ProtectionÑ that must be

provided at or for the service connection from the CWS to various

ty pes of water customers. The minimum backflow protection

specified in the table for a residential service connection with

an auxiliary water system is a DuC. All references hereafter to

Ðresidential service connectionÑ shall mean one with an auxiliary

wat er system.

19. There is a footnote for the DuC at the bottom of the

table, which explains:

A DuC may be provided only if there is no

known cross - connection between the plumbing

system and the auxiliary or reclaimed water

system on the customer's premises. Upon

discovery of any cross­connection between the

plumbing system and any reclaimed water

system on the customer's premises, the CWS

shall ensure that the cross - connection is

eliminated. Upon discovery of any cross -

connection between the plumbing sys tem and

any auxiliary water system other than a

reclaimed water system on the customer's

premises, the CWS shall ensure that the

cross - connection is eliminated or shall

ensure that the backflow protection provided

at or for the service connection is equal to

that required at or for a non­residential

service connection.

The SERC

20. As part of the rulemaking process for the proposed

amendments to rule 62 - 555.360, the Department prepared a

Statement of Estimated Regulatory Cost ("SERC"). Section

120.541 , F lorida Statutes (2013), governs the preparation of

SERCs and provides that a substantially affected person may

submit a Ðgood faith written proposal for a lower cost regulatory

alternative that substantially accomplishes the objectives of the

law being imp lemented.Ñ See § 120.541(1)(a) , Fla. Stat .

21. The parties dispute whether Petitioner challenged the

SERC. In his amended petition, Petitioner states no objection to

any statement in the SERC. Petitioner did not challenge the

SERC.

22. The parties dis pute whether Petitioner submitted a lower

cost regulatory alternative. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

stated:

Any person who wishes to provide information

regarding a statement of estimated regulatory

costs or provide a proposal for a lower cost

regula tory alternative must do so in writing

within 21 days of this notice.

23. Within 21 days of the notice, the Department received

Petitioner's written comments. In his comments, Petitioner cites

section 120.52(8)(f), which provides that a rule is invalid if it

imposes regulatory costs which could be reduced by adopting a

less costly alternative. Petitioner recommends that the rule be

changed to specify that the less costly DuC is the only

acceptable backflow prevention device for residential service

conne ctions and ÐA CWS shall not impose a requirement for a more

expensive type of backflow prevention valve.Ñ

24. The Department contends that PetitionerÓs comments did

not constitute a good faith lower cost regulatory alternative,

citing pages 87 - 98 of the T ranscript. Those pages contain some

argument on the issue, but do not prove Petitioner did not submit

a lower cost regulatory alternative.

25. PetitionerÓs timely written comments included a

citation to the relevant statute and a plainly - worded proposal.

As explained in the Conclusions of Law, PetitionerÓs comments

were sufficient to constitute a lower cost regulatory

alternative.

PetitionerÓs Objections

26. Petitioner objects to rule 62 - 555.360 because (1) it

specifies use of the RP and DC, which he co ntends are

unreasonably dangerous to public health and safety; (2) it

specifies the DuC for residential service connections as the

ÐminimumÑ protection, which he contends allows a CWS to require

the more expensive RP or DC; (3) it requires testing of backf low

devices Ðat least bienniallyÑ (once every two years), which he

believes is too frequent; (4) it makes biennial testing a

ÐminimumÑ testing interval, which he contends allows a CWS to

require more frequent inspection; and (5) it does not require the

bac kflow prevention device to be attached to the CWSÓs water

meter where Petitioner believes it should always be located.

Unreasonable Danger

27. Petitioner contends that the RP and DC are unreasonably

dangerous to public health and safety because a person c ould

intentionally pump contaminants through a test port on one of

these assemblies into a public water supply. The Department does

not dispute that a person could introduce contaminant s into a

public water supply in this way .

28. The flaw in PetitionerÓ s reasoning is his failure to

see the danger in proper perspective. Department personnel and

other persons with expertise in public water systems throughout

the United States are well aware that there are many access

points in potable water collection, tr eatment, and distribution

systems and many methods to introduce contaminants into these

systems. There are many access points other than RPs and DCs.

29. For example, there are methods available that would

allow contaminants to be pumped into a public wa ter system from

any building connected to the system that has no backflow

prevention device installed.

30. RPs and DCs are primarily designed to prevent

accidental introduction of contaminants into a public water

system. However, they also prevent a pers on from intentionally

pumping contaminants into the public water system from inside a

house or building, hidden from view.

31. The danger described by Petitioner assumes that the

criminal who is intentionally pumping contaminants through the RP

or DC will do it while standing next to the device, in the open,

near a street.

32. It is a well - known fact officially recognized by the

Administrative Law Judge that criminals prefer to conduct their

criminal activities hidden from sight rather than in plain view.

Therefore, a criminal planning to contaminate a public water

supply is more likely to choose a means other than introducing

contaminants through an RP or DC.

33. RPs and DCs are already in wide use. There is no

reported incident of intentional contamin ation of a public water

supply by pumping contaminants through one of these devices.

34. When these factors are taken into account, the ruleÓs

specifications for the continued use of RPs and DCs do not create

an unreasonable danger to the public health an d safety.

Minimum Backflow Protection

35. Petitioner contends that Table 62 - 555.360 - 2 is invalid

because it violates the DepartmentÓs duty under section 120.5 41

to adopt Ðless costly alternatives . Ñ Petitioner asserts that by

specifying t he DuC as the Ð m i nimum Ñ b ackflow p rotection required

for residential service connections the rule allows a local

government to require the more costly RP or DC.

36. The Department cannot dispute that the DuC

substantially accomplishes the statutory objectives. The RP and

DC provide greater backflow protection than the DuC, but the

Department specified the DuC for residential service connections,

indicating that the lower protection provided by the DuC did not

make it fall short of the statutory objectives.

37. However, a s explained in the Conclusions of Law, the

rule imposes the least costly regulatory alternative for

residential service connections because it only requires the DuC.

Biennial Testing Schedule

38. Petitioner contends that s ection III.D. of Table

62 - 55 5 .360 - 1 also violates the DepartmentÓs duty to adopt less

costly alternatives because the rule requires Ð backflow

assembliesÑ to be tested biennially, which Petitioner believes is

too frequent. The term Ðbackflow preventer assembliesÑ refers

only to the RP and DC. See footnote 1 of Table 62 - 555.360 - 1.

39. Section III.E. of Table 62 - 5 5 5.360 - 1 indicates that the

DuC must be refurbished or replaced Ðat least once every 5 to 10

years.Ñ Petitioner did not object to th is requirement .

40. The preponderance of the evidence presented shows that

biennial testing is reasonable. Furthermore, i t is determined in

the Conclusions of Law that Petitioner has no standing to object

to the testing frequency specified for the RP and DC, because the

rule does not require him to have an RP or DC.

Location of the Backflow Preventer

41. Petitioner objects to s ection III.B. of Table

62 - 555.360 - 1 , which requires backflow prevention devices to be

Ðinstalled as close as practical to the CWSÓs meter or customerÓs

property line.Ñ Petiti oner contends that this is an

unconstitutional interference with private property and is

unreasonably dangerous because it provide s a means for

intentional contamination.

42. PetitionerÓs private property rights claim is based on

his allegation that if he were required by Hillsborough County to

have an RP and DC, the device could be placed on his private

property. Petitioner did not allege or present evidence to show

that placing an RP or DC on his property would deprive him of all

reasonable uses of his property so as to cause a taking of his

private property for a public purpose without full compensation.

See Art. X, § 6(a), Fla. Const. Furthermore, it is determined in

the Conclusions of Law that Petitioner has no standing to raise

this issue because t he rule does not require him to have an RP or

DC.

43. Petitioner contends the rule should require that

backflow prevention devices always be attached to the water meter

because that reduces the opportunity for intentional

contamination. Petitioner is not an expert in public water

systems, generally, or the installation of backflow prevention

devices, in particular . He is not competent to state the

relevant factors and constraints associated with installation of

the devices. He is not competent to expres s an opinion whether

it is always possible or always appropriate to attach the devices

directly to the water meter. Furthermore, PetitionerÓs claim of

unreasonable danger was refuted above.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Standing

4 4 . Any person substantially affecte d by an existing rule

may seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of the

rule on the ground that the rule is an invalid exercise of

delegated legislative authority. § 120.56(1)(a), Fla. Stat.

4 5 . To demonstrate standing, Petitioner must sh ow a real

and sufficiently immediate injury to an interest within the zone

of interests to be protected or regulated. See Ward v. Bd. o f

Trs. of the Int. Impust Fund , 651 So. 2d 1236, 1237 (Fla. 4th

DCA 1995).

4 6 . A less demanding test for standing i s applicable in

rule challenge cases than in licensing cases. See Fla. DepÓt of

Prof. Reg. v. Fla. Dental Hygienists AssÓn. , 612 So. 2d 646 (Fla.

1st DCA 1993).

4 7 . A petitionerÓs standing does not require that he

prevail on his allegation of injury ; it depends on offering

evidence to prove the allegation. See St. Johns Riverkeeper v.

St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. , 54 So. 3d 1051 , 1054 (Fla. 5th

DCA 2011); Peace River/Manasota RegÓl Water Supply Auth. v . IMC

Phosphates Co. , 18 So. 3d 1079 , 1084 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

4 8 . Petitioner alleged in his amended petition that rule

62 - 555.360 creates an unreasonable danger and violates the

statutory requirement to impose a less costly regulatory

alternative. Petitioner offered evidence at the final hearing to

p rove that t he CWS from which he obtains his drinking water could

be contaminated , and that he could be injured by having to pay

for an unnecessarily costly regulation. PetitionerÓs evidence

was not sufficient to prove his claims of unreasonable danger and

unnecessarily costly regulat ion, but Petitioner has standing to

raise the claims. See Palm Bch. Cnty. Envtl. Coalition v. DepÓt

of Envtl. Prot. , 14 So. 3d 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (P r evailing on

the merits is not required for standing; otherwise every los ing

party would lack standing ) .

49 . Because the rule does not require Petitioner to install

an RP or DC, he does not have standing to challenge the ruleÓs

requirement s applicable only to RPs and DCs.

Burden and Standard of Proof

5 0 . The burden is on Peti tioner to prove that rule

62 - 555.360 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative

authority. § 120.56(3)(a), Fla. Stat.

5 1 . The standard of proof in this proceeding is

preponderance of the evidence. § 120.56(1)(e) , Fla. Stat .

5 2 . Section 120.52(8) d efines the term Ðinvalid exercise of

delegated legislative authorityÑ as action that goes beyond the

powers, functions, and duties delegated by the Legislature and

sets forth seven grounds for invalidity. Petitioner invokes

sections 120.52(8)(d), (e), and (f).

5 3 . Under section 120.52(8)(d), a rule is invalid if it is

vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency

decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency. This

ground requires a determination that the rule forbids or requires

the p erformance of an act in terms that are so vague that persons

of common intelligence must guess at its meaning and differ as to

its application. See State Dep't of Fin. Svs. v. Peter R. Brown

C o nst., Inc. , 108 So. 3d 723, 728 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

5 4 . Unde r section 120.52(8)(e), a rule is invalid if it is

arbitrary or capricious. ÐA rule is arbitrary if it is not

supported by logic or the necessary facts; a rule is capricious

if it is adopted without thought or reason or is irrational.Ñ

§ 120.52(8)(e), Fl a. Stat.

5 5 . Under section 120.52(8)(f), a rule is invalid if the

rule imposes regulatory costs which could be reduced by the

adoption of less costly alternatives that substantially

accomplish the statutory objectives.

Lower Cost Regulatory Alternative

5 6 . The Department contends that, in order to trigger the

Department's statutory duty to respond to or adopt a proposed

regulatory alternative, it must, at a minimum, include (1) a

clearly articulated alternative to the proposed regulatory

scheme ; (2) valid and objectively supported economic data showing

how the alternative would in fact be less costly than the

regulatory scheme provided in the proposed rule ; and (3) an

explanation of how the alternative would actually be as effective

as (or more effective t han) the proposed rule in meeting the

statutory objectives.

5 7 . S ection 120.541(1)(a) says nothing about the required

elements of a lower cost regulatory estimate. A proposed

alternative must be described with enough detail to be understood

and it must h ave some supporting data , but the a mount of

explanation and data necessary will vary depending on the nature

of the particular alternative that is proposed.

5 8 . In this case, the DepartmentÓ s own economic data in the

SERC supports PetitionerÓs statement t hat a DuC is less expensive

to install, inspect, and maintain than the RP and DC.

Furthermore, the DepartmentÓs specification of a DuC for use at

residential service connections constitutes a Department

determination that a DuC substantially accomplishes the statutory

objectives.

59 . PetitionerÓs proposal for the Department to amend the

rule so it does not allow a local government to require the more

costly RP or DC is easy to understand. He did not need to

present a more detailed explanation or more dat a to make his

lower cost regulatory alternative understandable.

6 0 . T he Department is wrong in suggesting that if an agency

d isagrees with the explanation or data in a lower cost regulatory

alternative the agency does not have to respond. Section 120.541

clearly contemplates that the agency will respond and explain why

it disagrees.

6 1 . The comments submitted by Petitioner were sufficient to

constitute a good faith lower cost regulatory alternative.

6 2 . Section 120.541(1)(e) states that an agencyÓs fail ure

to respond to a written lower cost regulatory alternative Ðis a

material failure to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures

set forth in this chapter.Ñ However, Petitioner waived this

ground for invalidating the DepartmentÓs rule when he failed to

raise the issue in his amended petition. 3 /

6 3 . The DepartmentÓs failure to amend the rule as proposed

by Petitioner constitutes a rejection of PetitionerÓs proposed

alternative. Therefore, Petitioner met the prerequisite for

challenging the DepartmentÓs rule under section 120.52(8)(f) .

Effect of the Rule

6 4 . Petitioner was misled by his focus on the word

ÐminimumÑ in the rule. The rule would have the same effect if

the word ÐminimumÑ was removed. Most Department standards are

minimums or maximums, whe ther labeled as such or not. The fact

that the challenged rule is directed to local government s with

separate regulatory powers may make this less obvious, but rule

62 - 555.360 establishes the DuC as the state standard for backflow

prevention for residenti al service connections . The rule does

not establish the RP or DC as the state standard.

6 5 . Absent a statutory grant to the Department of exclusive

regulatory authority over an activity or subject, local

governments are not prevented by a Department stan dard from

exercising their own police powers and imposing more stringent

local standards. The Florida Safe Drinking Water Act does not

grant exclusive regulatory authority to the Department in the

area of cross - connection control.

6 6 . Petitioner objects because the DepartmentÓs rule

ÐallowsÑ a local government to require him to install an RP or

DC. However, the rule grants no authority to a local government

that the local government does not already have. The rule only

requires a DuC for PetitionerÓs si tuation, which he does not

oppose. If Hillsborough County hereafter requires Petitioner to

install an RP or DC, the County cannot cite rule 62 - 555.360 as

the source of its authority to do so. The County must look to

its own local powers.

6 7 . Petitioner correctly points out that local governments

are not subject to the prohibition in section 120.541 against

imposing regulatory costs that could be reduced by adopting a

less costly alternative. PetitionerÓs error is in believing that

the Department can fix this ÐproblemÑ in its rule by taking away

the authority of local governments to regulate cross - connections

in their own public water systems. Without specific statutory

authority, the Department cannot do that.

6 8 . Rule 62 - 555.360 requires that Petition er have a DuC,

which is the lowest cost backflow prevention device. Therefore,

the rule does not impose regulatory costs on Petitioner that

could be reduced by adopting a less costly alternative.

Petitioner failed to prove the rule is invalid under secti on

120.52(8)(f).

Vague, Arbitrary, or Capricious

69 . PetitionerÓs claims of invalidity under sections

120.52(8)(d) and (e) are based on his failure to see that the

challenged rule establishes a clear and specific state standard

for backflow prevention at residential service connections -- the

DuC. The fact that the rule does not completely control how

local governments will regulate backflow prevention does not make

the rule vague, arbitrary , or capricious.

Other Issues

7 0 . Petitioner claims the Department rule is invalid

because it violates section 112.311(6), Florida Statutes (2013),

which declares the public policy that public employees should act

for the benefit of the public, and violates section 403.851(3),

which declares the public policy that safe d rinking water should

be provided with due regard for economic factors. These

statements of legislative policy do not provide a basis for

invalidating the Department rule.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is det ermined that Florida Administrative Code Rule

62 - 555.360 is a valid exercise of delegated legislative

authority.

DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of July , 2014 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

BRAM D. E. CANTER

Adm inistrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hear ings

this 30th day of July , 2014 .

ENDNOTES

1/ Geofrey MansfieldÓs first name is incorrectly recorded as

ÐJeffreyÑ in the Transcript of the final hearing.

2/ See D epartment Exhibit 14, p. 64, for an analysis of estimated

costs under different installa tion assumptions.

3/ Nor was the issue raised in the partiesÓ Joint Pre - Hearing

Stipulations. Petitioner raised the issue for the first time in

his proposed final order.

COPIES FURNISHED:

David Wilson - Rine Brown

1805 Burlington Circle

Sun City Center , Florida 33573

Benjamin M. Melnick, Esquire

Sidney C. Bigham, III, Esquire

Department of Environmental Protection

Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary

Department of Environmenta l Protection

Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

Matthew Z. Leopold , General Counsel

Department of Environmental Protection

Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, F lorida 32399 - 3000

Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk

Department of Environmental Protection

Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

Ken Plante, Coordinator

Joint Administrative Procedures Committee

Room 680, Pepper Building

111 West Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1400

Liz Cloud, Program Administrator

Administrative Code

Department of State

R. A. Gray Building, Suite 101

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

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 the original

notice of administrative app eal with the agency clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings within 30 days of rendition

of the order to be reviewed, and a copy of the notice,

accompanied by any filing fees prescribed by law, with the clerk

of the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where

the agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides or

as otherwise provided by law.