96-000343RP Calder Race Course, Inc.; Tropical Park, Inc.; And Gulfstream Racing Association, Inc. vs. Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Division Of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Status: Closed DOAH Final Order on Friday, June 13, 1997.

Summary: Proposed rule permitting warrantless searches by division of pari-mutuel wagering is invalid as no specific statute authorizes such searches.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

CALDER RACE COURSE, INC., a )

Florida corporation; TROPICAL )

PARK, INC., a Florida )

corporation; and GULFSTREAM )

RACING ASSOCIATION INC., a )

Florida corporation, )

)

Petitioners, )

and )

)

FLORIDA HORSEMEN'S BENEVOLENT )

AND PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, INC., ) CASE NO. 96-0343RP

and FLORIDA VETERINARY MEDICAL )

ASSOCIATION, )

)

Intervenors, )

)

vs. )

)

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION )

OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING, )

)

Respondent. )

___________________________________)

INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PALM )

BEACH d/b/a PALM BEACH KENNEL CLUB )

and PALM BEACH JAI ALAI, WEST )

FLAGLER ASSOCIATES, LTD. d/b/a )

FLAGLER GREYHOUND TRACK, HARTMAN )

AND TYNER, INC. d/b/a HOLLYWOOD )

GREYHOUND TRACK, ASSOCIATED )

OUTDOOR CLUBS, INC. d/b/a TAMPA )

GREYHOUND TRACK, ST. PETERSBURG )

KENNEL CLUB, INC. d/b/a DERBY )

LANE, SOUTHWEST FLORIDA )

ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a BONITA-FT. )

MYERS GREYHOUND TRACK, BAYARD )

RACEWAYS, INC. d/b/a ST. JOHNS )

GREYHOUND PARK, JACKSONVILLE )

KENNEL CLUB, INC. d/b/a )

JACKSONVILLE KENNEL CLUB, AND )

ORANGE PARK KENNEL CLUB, INC. )

d/b/a ORANGE PARK KENNEL CLUB, )

SPORTS PALACE, INC. d/b/a )

MELBOURNE GREYHOUND TRACK, )

SEMINOLE RACING, INC. d/b/a )

DAYTONA BEACH KENNEL CLUB AND )

SEMINOLE GREYHOUND PARK, )

SANFORD-ORLANDO KENNEL CLUB, INC. )

d/b/a SANFORD-ORLANDO KENNEL CLUB, )

SARASOTA KENNEL CLUB, INC. d/b/a ) CASE NO. 96-0344RP

SARASOTA KENNEL CLUB, WASHINGTON )

COUNTY KENNEL CLUB, INC. d/b/a )

EBRO GREYHOUND TRACK, )

)

Petitioners, )

and )

)

FLORIDA HORSEMEN'S BENEVOLENT )

AND PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, INC., )

and FLORIDA VETERINARY MEDICAL )

ASSOCIATION, )

)

Intervenors, )

)

vs. )

)

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION )

OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING, )

)

Respondent. )

___________________________________)

TAMPA BAY DOWNS, INC., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

and )

)

FLORIDA HORSEMEN'S BENEVOLENT )

AND PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, INC., )

and FLORIDA VETERINARY MEDICAL )

ASSOCIATION, )

) CASE NO. 96-0345RP

Intervenors, )

)

vs. )

)

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION )

OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING, )

)

Respondent. )

___________________________________)

TAMPA BAY DOWNS, INC., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

) CASE NO. 96-2465RP

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION )

OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING, )

)

Respondent. )

___________________________________)

CALDER RACE COURSE, INC., a )

Florida corporation; TROPICAL )

PARK, INC., a Florida corporation; )

and GULFSTREAM RACING ASSOCIATION, )

INC., a Florida corporation, )

)

Petitioners, )

) CASE NO. 96-2620RP

vs. )

)

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION )

OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING, )

)

Respondent. )

___________________________________)

FINAL ORDER

In lieu of formal hearing, by stipulation of the parties,

the issues in these consolidated cases, involving challenges to

proposed rules, were presented for disposition on the record

described below.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioners, Wilbur E. Brewton, Esquire

Calder Race Course, Inc. Kelly B. Plante, Esquire

Tropical Park, Inc., and Gray Harris & Robinson P.A.

Gulfstream Park Racing Suite 250

Association, Inc. 225 South Adams

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

David Romanik, Esquire

Romanik Lavin Huss & Paoli

1901 Harrison Street

Hollywood, Florida 33020

For Petitioners, Harry F.X. Purnell, Esquire

Investment Corporation of Rutledge Ecenia Underwood

Palm Beach et al. Purnell & Hoffman P.A.

Post Office Box 551

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For Respondent, John J. Rimes, III, Esquire

Division of Pari-Mutuel Lee Ann Gustafson, Esquire

Wagering Assistant Attorney General

Department of Legal Affairs

PL-01, The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Alex Twedt, Esquire

Assistant General Counsel

Division of Pari-Mutuel

Wagering

725 South Bronough Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The parties’ stipulation filed March 21, 1997, states there

are no disputed facts and describes these disputed issues of law:

a. whether proposed rule 61D-2.002 is an invalid exercise

of delegated legislative authority;

b. whether proposed rule 61D-2.002 violates the 4th

Amendment of the United States Constitution; and

c. whether proposed rule 61D-2.002 violates Article I,

Sections 12 and 23 of the Florida Constitution.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On December 29, 1995, the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering

published in the Florida Law Weekly its proposed rules intended

to regulate pari-mutuel wagering pursuant to Chapter 550, Florida

Statutes. On January 19, 1996, Petitioners, Calder Race Course,

Inc., Tropical Park, Inc. and Gulfstream Park Racing Association,

Inc. (hereinafter Calder, Tropical and Gulfstream, respectively)

filed a joint petition challenging thirty-seven of the proposed

rules; Petitioner, Tampa Bay Downs, Inc. (Tampa Bay) filed a

petition challenging fourteen of the proposed rules; and

Petitioners, Investment Corporation of Palm Beach, et al., filed

a petition challenging nine of the proposed rules. The cases

were assigned and set for hearing.

On January 31, 1996, Petitioners and the Division of Pari-

Mutuel Wagering agreed to consolidate the cases, to waive the 30-

day hearing deadline, to postpone the hearing which was scheduled

for February 21, 1996, and to hold the case in abeyance for

settlement conferences.

On February 7, 1996, the Florida Veterinary Medical

Association (FVMA) filed a Petition for Leave to Intervene in the

consolidated case seeking to challenge sixteen of the proposed

rules. On February 13, 1996, the Florida Horsemen’s Benevolent

and Protective Association, Inc. (FHBPA) filed a Motion to

Intervene in the consolidated case. An order entered March 6,

1996, granted the FHBPA and FVMA’s petitions to intervene, but

limited the issues in the case to those raised in the initial

petitions filed on January 19, 1996.

An order on March 26, 1996, continued to hold the

consolidated case in abeyance while the parties conducted

settlement conferences.

On May 10, 1996, the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering

published in the Florida Law Weekly a notice of change to

numerous rules which were at issue in the consolidated case. On

May 22, 1996, Tampa Bay filed a petition renewing its challenges.

On May 31, 1996, Petitioners, Calder Race Course, Inc., Tropical

Park, Inc. and Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc. filed a

petition challenging thirty-three of the changed rules. These

petitions were consolidated with the instant consolidated case,

and the hearing was set for July 22-26, 1996. This hearing was

later continued for good cause on the joint request of the

parties.

On August 23, 1996, Petitioners, Calder, Tropical,

Gulfstream, Tampa Bay, and Investment Corporation of Palm Beach,

et al., entered into a Joint Stipulation for Partial Dismissal

dismissing all of the challenges to the proposed rules except the

challenges to proposed rules 61D-2.002, 61D-2.003, 61D-2.005 and

61D-2.011. This stipulation effectively disposed of the

challenges by Tampa Bay. On September 23, 1996, Intervenor,

FVMA, filed a Notice of Joinder in the Joint Stipulation for

Partial Dismissal. The hearing on the four remaining rules was

scheduled for March 31, 1997.

On March 21, 1997, Petitioners, Calder, Tropical, Gulfstream

and Investment Corporation of Palm Beach, et al., filed another

Joint Motion for Partial Dismissal dismissing all of the

challenges to the proposed rules except the challenge to proposed

rule 61D-2.002, stipulated that there were no disputed factual

issues remaining in the case, described stipulated exhibits and

requested filing proposed final orders in lieu of a formal

hearing. An order on March 31, 1997, canceled the hearing, and

required that the parties file proposed final orders on or before

May 1, 1997.

On April 16, 1996, the following stipulated exhibits were

filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings:

1. Deposition of John Pozar, pages 1 through 61,

including exhibits A, B and C to the

deposition;

2. Deposition of C. Kenneth Dunn, pages 7 through 13;

3. Deposition of Douglas Donn, pages 1 through 26;

4. Deposition of Tony Otero, all pages;

5. Calder 1996 Employee Handbook;

6. Gulfstream Park Frontside Security Standard

Operating Procedures 1994-1995 (3 pages); and

7. Gulfstream Park Stable Security Standard

Operating Procedures 1994-1995 (13 pages).

These exhibits have been considered and the

parties’ proposed findings are substantially adopted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioners hold valid pari-mutuel permits and licenses

to operate pari-mutuel facilities and conduct pari-mutuel

wagering in the State of Florida, and are governed by Chapter

550, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated by the

Respondent (Division) under Chapter 550, Florida Statutes.

The Proposed Rule and Statutory Underpinings

2. Proposed rule 61D-2.002 provides:

61D-2.002 Authorized Search

The Division, investigating violations of

Chapter 550, or enforcing the provisions

thereof, and the rules promulgated

thereunder, shall have the power to permit

persons authorized by the Division to search

the person, or to enter and search the

stables, rooms, lockers, vehicles, and

automobiles or other places within a pari-

mutuel wagering permitted facility at which a

race, game meeting, or pari-mutuel wagering

is held, or other permitted or licensed

places where racing animals eligible to race

at said race meeting are kept. Searches of

persons shall be limited to those individuals

licensed by the Division on a permitted

facility. Each licensee, in accepting a

license, does thereby consent to such search.

Division personnel who are authorized to

conduct searches are as follows: Division

Investigators, Chief Inspectors, Division

Veterinarians, Division Judges/Stewards,

Regional Managers and Auditing Field

Personnel. All Division personnel authorized

to conduct searches must follow the Division

of Pari-Mutuel Wagering’s Search Guidelines,

herein incorporated by reference.

3. The incorporated Search Guidelines provide:

1. Searches are conducted by authorized

personnel of the Division of Pari-Mutuel

Wagering.

2. Searches of individuals will be limited

to occupational licensees, only on Pari-

Mutuel facilities licensed to conduct pari-

mutuel events by the Division of Pari-Mutuel

Wagering.

3. Routine searches are conducted on

licensee’s vehicles, stables, compounds, or

other areas of a pari-mutuel facility, to

determine that there are no violations of

Statutes or Rules governing pari-mutuel

wagering, and are not limited to drug related

violations.

4. The persons and areas of routine

searches shall be randomly selected.

However, all licensees shall be subject to

the search process, and care must be taken to

ensure this process is not used to abuse the

rights of any one individual. To ensure

fairness to all participants, the following

procedure will be followed:

a. An Inspection/Search Report

Form will be prepared on all

searches, to include the name of

the subject, the area(s) inspected,

and the findings. If there are no

violations, it should be so noted.

If there are violations, they shall

be listed, and what action was

taken.

b. Inspection/Search reports will

be kept on file for each facility,

and will be periodically reviewed.

5. Searches of barns, and kennels will only

be conducted in the presence of the trainer,

or a person of authority representing the

trainer, or the stable/kennel operator.

Exceptions, [ sic ] are cases where the stable

or kennel is unsecured, with no one in

attendance, and drugs, medications or

paraphernalia or other contraband are

observed in plain view, or there is a reason

to believe that contraband will be removed if

the search is not carried out immediately.

The search will then be conducted only under

the following circumstances:

a. [ sic ] A witness, other than

bureau personnel, is present. A

greyhound or horseman’s

representative, a Steward/Judge,

the Chief Inspector, or the

Security Chief, or one of his

representatives.

6. On Searches that are the result of a

drug positive, reported violations, or as a

result of an investigation, a report of

investigations shall be prepared, and the

Search report shall be attached as a

supplement to the report.

7. On all cases where drugs, contraband, or

evidence is confiscated, a case will be

opened, and a copy of the search report,

Report of Investigation, and a copy of the

Property receipt will be attached to the case

file.

4. Proposed rule 61D-2.002 cites section 550.0251(3),

Florida Statutes, as the specific authority, and section

550.0251, Florida Statutes, generally, as the law implemented by

the proposed rule.

5. Section 550.0251(3), Florida Statutes, provides:

(3) The division shall adopt reasonable rules

for the control, supervision, and direction

of all applicants, permittees, and licensees

and for the holding, conducting, and

operating of all racetracks, race meets and

races held in this state. Such rules must be

uniform in application and effect, and the

duty of exercising this control and power is

made mandatory upon the division.

6. Section 550.0251(3), Florida Statutes, is the general

rulemaking authority of the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering.

There is nothing in its text which addresses searches and seizure

by the Division.

7. Proposed rule 61D-2.002 cites no other statute as the

specific authority for the rule.

8. Section 550.0251, Florida Statutes, the “law

implemented”, is entitled “The powers and duties of the Division

of Pari-mutuel Wagering of the Department of Business and

Professional Regulation”. The Division argues that certain

provisions within that section are implemented by the proposed

rule.

9. Section 550.0251(4), Florida Statutes, provides:

(4) The division may take testimony

concerning any matter within its jurisdiction

and issue summons and subpoenas for any

witness and subpoena duces tecum in

connection with any matter within the

jurisdiction of the division under its seal

and signed by the director.

10. Section 550.0251(5), Florida Statutes, grants the

Division the authority to promulgate rules concerning the testing

of occupational licenseholders for controlled substances or

alcohol.

11. Chapter 550.0251(9), Florida Statutes, authorizes the

Division to conduct investigations in enforcing Chapter 550,

Florida Statutes, and also defines an active investigation as an

investigation being conducted with “a reasonable, good faith

belief that it could lead to an administrative, civil or criminal

action” by the appropriate authorities.

12. Section 550.0251(11), Florida Stat utes, requires that

the Division shall supervise and regulate the welfare of racing

animals at pari-mutuel facilities.

13. Those subsections do not expressly authorize the

Division to conduct the activities contemplated by its proposed

rule.

Practices by the Division

14. The Division uses routine searches to locate drugs or

other contraband, including mechanical devices used to affect the

performance of an animal. The proposed rule would permit a strip

search of an individual, but pat-downs are most common. Drugs

and drug paraphernalia and illegal electric devices have been

uncovered in these searches.

15. Training of Division investigators in the Division’s

policies and procedures is primarily on-the-job training. All of

the investigators have some law enforcement background. Under

the proposed rule Division personnel authorized to conduct

searches are not limited to Division investigators.

16. The Division considers random searches an important

function within the Division’s responsibility to prevent

individuals from violating Chapter 550, Florida Statutes.

17. The Division, while not required by the rule, generally

involves personnel of the licensee in the searches. Members of

the Florida Thoroughbred Breeders’ and Horsemens’ Association are

often invited on random barn inspections because they make good

witnesses. Security personnel hired by the tracks also conduct

random searches under procedures adopted by the facilities.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

18. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the instant action pursuant to Section 120.56,

Florida Statutes. (Supp. 1996)

19. It is undisputed that all the petitioners have standing

pursuant 120.56, Florida Statutes, which provides that any person

substantially affected by a rule or a proposed 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.

20. Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996),

describes “invalid exercise”:

(8) “Invalid exercise of delegated

legislative authority” means action which

goes beyond the powers, functions, and duties

delegated by the Legislature. A proposed or

existing rule is an invalid exercise of

delegated legislative authority if any one of

the following applies:

(a) The agency has materially failed to

follow the applicable rulemaking procedures

and requirements set forth in this chapter;

(b) The agency has exceeded its grant of

rulemaking authority, citation of which is

required by section 120.54(3)(a)1.;

(c) The rule enlarges, modifies, or

contravenes the specific provisions of law

implemented, citation to which is required by

s. 120.54(3)1.;

(d) The rule is vague, fails to establish

adequate standards for agency decisions, or

vest unbridled discretion in the agency;

(e) The rule is arbitrary or capricious;

(f) The rule is not supported by competent

substantial evidence; or

(g) The rule imposes regulatory costs on

the regulated person, county, or city which

could be reduced by the adoption of lest

costly alternatives that substantially

accomplish the statutory objective.

21. Both Section 120.52(8), and Section 120.536(1), Florida

Statutes, (Supp. 1996) provide that:

A grant of rulemaking authority is necessary

but not sufficient to allow an agency to

adopt a rule; a specific law to be

implemented is also required. An agency may

adopt only rules that implement, interpret,

or make specific the particular powers and

duties granted by the enabling statute. No

agency shall have the authority to adopt a

rule only because it is reasonably related to

the purpose of the enabling statute and is

not arbitrary and capricious, nor shall an

agency have the authority to implement

statutory provisions setting forth general

legislative intent or policy. Statutory

language granting rulemaking authority or

generally describing the powers and functions

of an agency shall be construed to extend no

further than the particular powers and duties

conferred by the same statute.

22. Prior to the 1996 amendment s to Chapter 120, Florida

Statutes, courts held that an agency’s rulemaking authority may

be implied to the extent necessary to properly implement the

agency’s statutory duties and responsibilities. Department of

Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers v.

Florida Society of Professional Land Surveyors , 475 So. 2d 939,

942 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Thus, in the past, where the enabling

provisions of a statute simply stated that an agency “may make

such rules and regulation as may be necessary to carry out the

provisions of this Act”, regulations were valid as long as they

were reasonably related to the purposes of the enabling

legislation, and not arbitrary and capricious. Florida Beverage

Corp. v. Wynne , 306 So. 2d 200, 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).

However, this legal principle was expressly repealed by the 1996

amendments to section 120.52(8), and by the creation of section

120.536(1), Florida Statutes.

23. The agency now has the burden of proving that a

proposed rule is not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative

authority when challenged by a petition pursuant to section

120.56(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996).

24. The 1996 amendments to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes,

apply in the instant case. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. v.

Sawyers Care Center, Inc. , 683 So.2d 609, (Fla. 1 st DCA 1996),

Florida Ass’n of Blood Banks v. Board of Clinical Laboratory

Personnel , DOAH case no. 96-4335 (April 2, 1997).

25. The Division may no longer rely on prior authority

which upheld a predecessor of proposed rule 61D-2.002. In

Federman v. State Dept. of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-

Mutuel Wagering , 414 So.2d 28 (Fla. 3 rd DCA 1982), the court

affirmed orders of the Division of Administrative Hearings which

approved rules authorizing random searches within the confines of

a pari-mutuel permit holder’s premises. The court in Federman

relied in turn on Solimena v. State of Florida, Dept. Business

Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering , 402 So.2d 1240 (Fla

3 rd DCA 1981), rev . den . 412 So.2d 470 (Fla. 1982), where the

court validated an absolute insurer rule as reasonably related to

the Division’s broad duties to supervise and control pari-mutuel

wagering.

26. As provided in the 1996 amendments to Chapter 120,

discussed above, “reasonably related” or implied authority is no

longer sufficient. However reasonable the proposed rule may be,

there is no specific authority in Chapter 550 for the rule, and

it therefore constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated

legislative authority as described in section 120.52(8)(b) and

(c), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996).

27. A grant of specific legislative authority is needed for

the Division’s search rule. An example of such authority is

found in Chapter 562, Florida Statutes, governing a different

industry “pervasively and completely regulated”: the liquor

industry. There, in section 562.41, Florida Statutes, the

legislature has provided:

(5) Licensees, by the acceptance of their

license, agree that their places of business

shall always be subject to be inspected and

searched without search warrants by the

authorized employees of the division and also

by sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, and police

officers during business hours or at any

other time such premises are occupied by the

licensee or other persons.

28. Although constitutional claims in a proposed rule

challenge are cognizable, see , Department of Environmental

Regulation v. Leon County , 344 So.2d 297 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1977);

Cortes v. State Board of Regents , 655 So.2d 132 (Fla. 1 st DCA

1995), it is unnecessary to reach those claims, as the proposed

rule must fall on statutory grounds as concluded above. 1

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED: Proposed rule 61D-2.002 is an invalid exercise of

delegated legislative authority.

DONE and ORDERED this 13 th day of June 1997 in Tallahassee,

Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

MARY CLARK

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto B uilding

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing [phone]

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings th

this 13 day of June 1997.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Wilbur E. Brewton, Esquire

Kelly Brewton Plante, Esquire

Gray Harris and Robinson

Suite 250

225 South Adams Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Gary R. Rutledge, Esquire

Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire

Rutledge Ecenia Underwood

1 It is unnecessary, for example to compare the text of the similar prior rule that was upheld against a

constitutional challenge in Federman , supra , with proposed rule 61D-2.002.

Purnell and Hoffman, P.A.

Post Office Box 551

Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551

Howell L. Ferguson, Esquire

Cindy L. Bartin, Esquire

Landers and Parsons

Post Office Box 271

Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0271

Alexander H. Twedt, Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007

John J. Rimes, III, Esquire

M. Catherine Lannon, Esquire

Lee Ann Gustafson, Esquire

Office of the Attorney General

Department of Legal Affairs

PL-01, The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

Bruce David Green, Esquire

600 South Andrews Avenue, Suite 400

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire

Carlton Fields Ward Emmanuel

Smith and Cutler, P.A.

Post Office Drawer 190

Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190

David S. Romanik, Esquire

Romanik Lavin Huss and Paoli

Post Office Box 1040

Hollywood, Florida 33022-1040

Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Deborah R. Miller, Director

Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Carroll Webb, Executive Director

Administrative Procedure Committee

120 Holland Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300

Liz Cloud, Chief

Bureau of Administrative Code

The Elliott Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

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 one copy of

a notice of appeal with the 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.