STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SOUTHEASTERN FISHERIES ASSOCIATION, )

INC., et al., )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. )

)

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, ) CASE NO. 86-1841RP MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION, )

)

Respondent, )

and )

) FLORIDA CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, )

)

Intervenor. )

)

FINAL ORDER

Pursuant to notice, an administrative hearing was held before Diane D. Tremor, Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, on June 23, 24 and 25, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether the Florida Marine Fisheries Commission proposed Rules 46-23.001 through 46.23.006, Florida Administrative Code, constitute invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioners: Segundo J. Fernandez, Esquire

and Douglas P. Manson, Esquire OERTEL & HOFFMAN, P.A.

Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507

For Respondent: Charles L. Shelfer, Esquire

General Counsel Suite 106

2540 Executive Center Circle West Tallahassee, Florida 32301

For Intervenor: Philip S. Parsons, Esquire

LANDERS, PARSONS & UHLFELDER

Post Office Box 271 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

INTRODUCTION

In support of their position that the challenged proposed rules are invalid, the petitioners presented the testimony of the following individuals: Scott Lyons, accepted as an expert in the area of fishery supplies and

equipment; Robert Bell, Albert Joseph Boromie and Roger Newton, commercial seafood processors; Dewey E. Destin, Bruce Stiler, Mark Taylor, T. Gene Hayes and Glen Black, commercial fishermen; Danny Raffield and Lloyd Winstead, fish spotter pilots; James Conner Davis, the Respondent's Executive Director; Walter Keithly, accepted as an expert in the fields of fisheries economics, econometric analysis and computer modeling; and Jerry H. Sanson, accepted as an expert in the field of fishery management. Petitioners' Exhibits 11, 12, 14, 53, 58A-58C, 59A and 62 were received into evidence.

The respondent presented the testimony of James Conner Davis, accepted as an expert in the field of fishery management, with emphasis upon population dynamics; and Roy O. Williams, accepted as an expert in the area of fishery biology, with emphasis upon the life history of fishes and stock assessment.

Respondent's Exhibits 2, 4-14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 29, 30, 33, and 46 were received into evidence.

Subsequent to the hearing, the petitioners and the respondent filed proposed findings of fact and proposed conclusions of law, and the intervenor adopted the respondent's proposals as its own. To the extent that the parties' proposed factual findings are not incorporated in this Order, they are rejected for the reasons set forth in the Appendix.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as those facts stipulated to by the parties, the following relevant facts are found:

   
   

2. Petitioner, Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc., is a not-for- profit incorporated association of commercial fishermen, fish processors, fish dealers, fish brokers, seafood restaurants and retailers, employing approximately 14,000 employees, and including 450 corporate and individual members. The executive offices of Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc. are located at 312 East Georgia Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1791. The members of Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc., either catch, process, transport or sell Spanish mackerel and Spanish mackerel constitutes a major part of their business and livelihood.

   
   

3. Petitioner, Organized Fishermen of Florida, Inc., is a not-for-profit incorporated association of 2,000 commercial fishermen, fish processors, fish dealers, fish brokers, seafood restaurants and retailers, with its headquarters at P. O. Box 740, Melbourne, Florida 32901.

   
   

4. Petitioner, Harry H. Bell & Sons, Inc., is a fish processor and sales company employing about 210 employees, located at 756-28th Street South, St. Petersburg, Florida 33712. A large percentage of the fish processed by Harry

   H. Bell & Sons, Inc., are Spanish mackerel.

   
   

5. Petitioner, Bayside Shellfish, Inc., is a fish processor and fish seller, located at P.O. Box 176, Apalachicola, Florida 32320. This petitioner also obtains a substantial amount of its business through the processing and sale of Spanish mackerel.

   
   

6. Petitioner, Inlet Fisheries, Inc., is a corporation with its headquarters at P. O. Box 3604, Ft. Pierce, Florida 33450, which unloads and ships fish, and, in particular, Spanish mackerel.

7. Petitioner, J. O. Guthrie, Inc., is a fish processor located at P.O. Box 895, Ruskin, Florida 33570. This petitioner processes fish, including Spanish mackerel, which makes up a high percentage of its fish processing.

   
   

8. Petitioner, C. & W. Fish Co., Inc., is a company which unloads and ships fresh fish, located at P.O. Box 1356, Port Salerno, Florida 33492. This petitioner earns its living from the loading and shipping of fresh fish including Spanish mackerel.

   
   

9. Petitioner, City Fish Company, Inc., also unloads and ships fish and is located at 3880 Gulf View Avenue, Marathon, Florida 33050.

   
   

10. Intervenor, Florida Conservation Association, located at 402 West College Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, is an affiliate of the Coastal Conservation Association, a non-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of Texas.

    
    

11. Effective November 28, 1985, the Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) adopted rules relating to the commercial harvesting of Spanish mackerel on the East Coast of Florida. As pertinent to this proceeding, those rules prohibited the harvesting of Spanish mackerel by power-assisted gill netting in Dade and Palm Beach Counties, and imposed a 3 and one half-inch mesh size minimum for the monofilament portion of gill nets used to take Spanish mackerel from the remainder of the East Coast of Florida until March 15, 1990. After that date, the entire net was to have a minimum mesh size of 3 and one half inch stretched mesh. These net size requirements were applicable to all gill nets used on the East Coast to harvest Spanish mackerel during the period from November 15th to March 15th. The existing rule allows the harvest of Spanish mackerel as an incidental by-catch of other lawfully targeted species, so long as the combined weight does not exceed 15 percent of the total weight of the lawfully harvested species.

    
    

12. The challenged proposed amendments to the MFC's Spanish mackerel rules continue the Palm Beach and Dade Counties gill net closures; establish gill net minimum sizes for three different regions of Florida; closes the weekend harvesting of Spanish mackerel by use of any nets; establishes set seasons for operators of vessels greater than 40 feet in length using power- assisted gill nets, said seasons subject to being shortened if the total regional commercial catch is projected to reach a specified poundage; and imposes a limit on the number of Spanish mackerel which recreational fishermen may possess per day.

    
    

13. More specifically, the challenged proposed rules impose the following net size requirements on the harvesting of Spanish mackerel for the three regions of Florida. For the East Coast, defined as those state waters north of the Dade-Monroe County line, the period of the 3 and one half inch mesh size for the monofilament portion of gill nets is shortened to October 1, 1988, with the required minimum size being increased to 3 5/8- inches thereafter until October 1, 1990, whereupon all portions of gill nets are to be 3 5/5 inches stretched mesh. For the Southwest Coast, defined as state waters between the Taylor-Dixie County line and the Dade-Monroe County line, the minimum monofilament portion mesh size is 3 3/8 inches until October 1, 1988, increasing to 3 5/8 thereafter until October 1, 1990, whereupon the entire net is to have a minimum mesh size of 3 5/8 inches stretched mesh. The corresponding requirement for the Northwest Coast, defined as state waters west of the Taylor-Dixie County line, is 3 inches

    until October 1, 1988, increasing to 3 5/8 inches thereafter. Except for the 15 percent by-catch allowance provided in the existing rule, harvesting Spanish mackerel by use of any net is prohibited in all three regions on weekends, defined as commencing at sunset on Friday and ending at sunset on the following Sunday.

    
    

14. Identical commercial fishing seasons for the use of power-assisted gill net gear by vessels greater than 40 feet in length are set for all three regions of Florida. That season opens on December 15 of each year and closes on November 1 of the following year. For other forms of commercial harvesting of Spanish mackerel, the season is year-round, or defined as from December 15 through December 14 of the following year. However, the proposed rule, Rule 46- 23.004, provides a mechanism for shortening the seasons in each region for all forms of commercial fishing (except for the various by-catch allowances) when the total harvest for each region reaches a specified number of pounds. For the larger vessels using power-assisted gill nets, the seasons for the East Coast, Southwest Coast and Northwest Coast close prior to November 1st if the total regional commercial harvest is projected to reach, respectively, 1,670,400 pounds, 1,350,900 pounds and 354,600 pounds. For commercial fishermen using other types of gear, the year-round season will close when the total regional commercial harvest in the season reaches, before December 14, 1,856,000 pounds (East Coast), 1,501,000 pounds (Southwest Coast) and 394,000 pounds (Northwest Coast). In addition to the 15 percent by-catch allowance previously mentioned, the proposed rule also excepts from the required season closures Spanish mackerel harvested as an incidental by-catch of other lawfully targeted species so long as the total weight of mackerel does not exceed 500 pounds, as well as those harvested with a net size greater than 4 inches stretched mesh used to lawfully harvest another target species. When the specified poundages which trigger the closing of the seasons are projected to be reached, the proposed rule provides for the giving of notice by the Executive Director of the Department of Natural Resources in the manner provided in Section 120.52(15)(d), Florida Statutes.

    
    

15. Proposed Rule 46-23.005 sets forth a bag limit for recreational fishermen which applies during all times of the year. That limit is four Spanish mackerel per person per day.

    
    

16. Because of evidence indicating that the abundance of Spanish mackerel in Florida is declining, the MFC began considering that fishery as a subject of possible regulation in March of 1984. Stock assessments were performed and updated, federal studies and mackerel fishery management plans were considered, various workshops and meetings were held, and numerous management option papers and alternatives were considered. Many of the witnesses in the instant rule- challenge proceeding appeared before, testified or otherwise provided input to the MFC during the rule promulgation process. In considering the proposed regulations, the MFC had before it evidence that commercial and recreational landings of Spanish mackerel had substantially decreased since the 1970's and that seasonal and areal compression had occurred in this fishery. While it could not be concluded with certainty whether the resource was experiencing recruitment overfishing or growth overfishing, the MFC determined that the resource was being overfished to the extent that a reduction in effort and an increase in the size of the fish caught was necessary to protect, conserve and recover the resource.

17. While single year or seasonal commercial and recreational landing statistics may not be entirely accurate due to under-reporting, they are reliable indicators of trends and can be utilized to indicate abundance. Likewise, declining commercial landing statistics can be indicative of a decline in the effort directed toward harvesting and/or market conditions.

    
    

18. In approximately 1977, there were over 120 large roller rig boats in the Spanish mackerel fishery. At the present time, there are approximately 41 large roller rig vessels utilized to commercially harvest Spanish mackerel. The size of fish desired in the market has changed somewhat, with a declining demand for the smaller fish. While the price of Spanish mackerel per pound has remained relatively stable over the past ten or more years, its price in relationship to other species of fish and shellfish has declined. The above factors, as well as the voluntary use of larger mesh size nets and the recent closure of Palm Beach and Dade Counties, may provide some rationale for the decline in commercial landing statistics since the 1970's. However, given the evidence concerning a decline in recreational landings, seasonal and areal compressions, and the increased capacity of large power-assisted gill netting vessels, it was not unreasonable for the MFC to conclude that the decline in commercial landings is indicative of a decline in abundance resulting from overfishing.

    
    

19. The conceptual goal of the proposed rules is to return the Spanish mackerel fishery to the condition in which it was in the early 1970's. In order to accomplish this goal, the MFC determined to effect an approximate 45 percent reduction in efforts devoted to harvesting and to effect an increase in the size of the fish harvested for commercial purposes. The minimum gear size proposed is directed toward the desired fish size, and the reduction in effort goal is to be accomplished through continued closures of certain areas, weekend closures, and the establishment of commercial seasons, commercial season catch limits and recreational bag limits.

    
    

20. Gill mesh nets are highly selective for a specific size of fish. A 1/8 inch difference in gill net mesh size makes a significant amount of difference in the size of the fish caught. The large nets utilized for Spanish mackerel harvesting can cost up to $20,000.00, with the monofilament portion of the net costing between $3,000.00 and $4,000.00. Due to destruction by sharks and normal wear and tear, the life expectancy of the monofilament portion of a gill net is between 1/2 to 3 seasons. The initial minimum mesh sizes proposed in the challenged rules for the monofilament portion of gill nets are reflective of the sizes currently being utilized in the industry in each of the three regions specified in the rule. No conclusive scientific data exists on a statewide basis as to the size of fish that will be captured using a 3 5/8 inch gill net mesh size. The MFC does intend to gather more data concerning gill net mesh size selectivity, and that is one of the reasons the proposed rule delays imposition of the 3 5/8 inch requirement until October of 1988. The evidence does demonstrate that Spanish mackerel in the Northwest Coast region or Panhandle area tend to be longer and thinner with less yield per fish than those found in the East Coast or Southwest Coast areas. There is insufficient evidence to conclude, however, that the Gulf Spanish mackerel stock and the Atlantic Spanish mackerel stock constitute two separate populations.

    
    

21. Due to the seasonal migration of the Spanish mackerel in a southerly and northerly direction along the East Coast of Florida, it is impossible to determine the precise impact on effort reduction of the closure of Palm Beach and Dade Counties. The MFC heard evidence from commercial fishermen that the impact from closing those areas could result in a reduction in catch of at least

    30 percent. The MFC's calculation of a lower percentage was not unreasonable given the large capacity of the power-assisted gill net industry and the potential for harvesting Spanish mackerel while en route to or from these closed counties.

    
    

22. The proposed season catch limits for commercial fishermen are intended to provide a backup to the other effort reduction measures in the proposed rules. It is intended that if the commercial seasons for larger power-assisted rigs, the weekend closures, the increased net sizes, and the areal closures do not significantly reduce the actual landings of Spanish mackerel in Florida, then the season for all commercial fishing can be shortened to effectuate such a result. The quota for each region constitutes a fixed cap on commercial landings per season. Consequently, if abundance does increase, there is no automatic mechanism in the proposed rule for increasing season catch limits. This, of course, will result in the unreliability of landing statistics alone as an indicator of stock abundance.

    
    

23. Because the proposed rule contains no restrictions upon the number of recreational fishermen who may enter the fishery, no season for recreational fishing and no limit upon the number of fish caught, as opposed to possessed, by recreational fishermen, the rule could cause some reallocation of the Spanish mackerel fishery from the commercial sector to the recreational sector. In recent years, the commercial sector has maintained at least a 75 percent share of the Spanish mackerel resource.

    
    

24. Within the commercial sector, there is no domestic substitute for Spanish mackerel.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

25. In accordance with the declared Legislative policy of this State to manage and preserve renewable marine fishery resources, the Marine Fisheries Commission has been delegated the authority to enact rules relating to marine life in the following areas:

    
    

    1. Gear specifications;

    2. Prohibited gear;

    3. Bag limits;

    4. Size limits;

    5. Species that may not be sold;

    6. Protected species;

    7. Closed areas;

    8. Quality control codes;

    9. Seasons; and

    10. Special considerations relating to eggbearing females and oyster and clam relaying.

        
        

        Section 370.027(2), Florida Statutes. Such rules must be consistent with the following standards set forth in Section 370.025(a)-(h), Florida Statutes:

        
        

        1. The paramount concern of conservation and management measures shall be the continuing health and abundance of the marine fisheries resources of this state.

        2. Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best information

           available, including biological, sociological, economic, and other information deemed relevant by the commission.

        3. Conservation and management measures shall permit reasonable means and quantities of annual harvest, consistent with maximum practicable sustainable stock abundance on a continuing basis.

        4. When possible and practicable, stocks of fish shall be managed as a biological unit.

        5. Conservation and management measures shall assure proper quality control of marine resources that enter commerce.

        6. State marine fishery management plans shall be developed to implement management of important marine fishery resources.

        7. Conservation and management decisions shall be fair and equitable to all the people of this state and carried out in such a manner that no individual, corporation, or entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges.

        8. Federal fishery management plans and fishery management plans of other states or interstate commissions should be considered when developing state marine fishery management plans. Inconsistencies should be avoided unless it is determined that it is in the best interest of the fisheries or residents of this state to be inconsistent.

           
           

26. In their challenge to proposed Rules 46-23.001 through 46-23.006, the petitioners contend that the quota or seasonal catch limit provisions exceed the delegated legislative authority of the MFC; that portions of the rules are arbitrary and capricious;' that the rules, being penal in nature, are unconstitutionally vague as to when an act becomes unlawful; and that the rules are not consistent with the statutory standards and violate petitioners' rights to equal protection of the law.

    
    

27. Whether the proposed rules' seasonal poundage limitations upon commercial fishing be labeled quotas, seasonal catch limits, mechanisms for determining season lengths or back- up measures to other effort reduction provisions, it is concluded that their inclusion in the proposed rules does not exceed the MFC's statutory authority. When it is reasonably determined to be necessary for the continuing health and abundance of the resource, the MFC has the authority to establish seasons, establish bag limits, prohibit the use of certain gear, and even close certain areas to harvesting. There was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Spanish mackerel fishery in Florida has experienced reduced abundance, areal compression and seasonal compression, and that commercial overfishing may well be the cause of such conditions. Rather than taking a wait-and-see approach, the MFC has applied a conservative management philosophy in response to these conditions so as to arrest the continuing reduction and prevent the future depletion of the resource. That conservative approach combines various fishery management techniques and applies them to different types of fishing operations. The differing seasonal catch limits or quotas for commercial fishermen is an attempt to assure that the ultimate goal of restoring the resource is attained, and it also allocates the

    resource and increases the availability of the resource to other fishermen should the remaining restrictions prove to be inadequate. While the MFC could have established shorter seasons for commercial harvesting, closed other areas or even prohibited large-scale gill netting of Spanish mackerel altogether in order to achieve its desired goals, it chose instead to combine a series of management techniques in an effort to fairly allocate the resource and achieve a

    45 percent reduction in commercial effort. Such a combination of techniques clearly falls within the statutory standards and provisions set forth in Sections 370.025 and 370.027, Florida Statutes. Certainly, the MFC would have had the authority to establish a shorter commercial season by reasonably estimating the date upon which the 45 percent reduction would occur. Instead, it chose a combination of other techniques to effectuate that reduction and, as a back-up measure, a review of landings data to assure that the goals will be reached on a seasonal basis. While a harvesting cap will render future landing statistics meaningless in terms of demonstrating increased abundance, there are other means available for that purpose. The location and the dates upon which the specified quotas are actually reached will be indicative of areal and/or seasonal compression, thus providing some input to population abundance.

    
    

28. Petitioners' attack upon the proposed rules on the ground that they are arbitrary and capricious is likewise without merit. This argument is directed primarily toward the statewide requirement of a 3 5/8 inch gill net mesh size by October 1, 1988, especially as it impacts commercial fishermen and processors in North Florida and market conditions. At the present time, there is inadequate data concerning the selectivity of various gill net mesh sizes. While the undersigned, and obviously the petitioners, may have written the rule differently with regard to the date or size restrictions of nets in the various regions, it can not be concluded that the MFC was arbitrary or capricious in determining the dates or sizes set forth in the proposed rules. Its phased-in approach, starting with the sizes currently in use by the industry in the three different regions, is economically fair and affords all concerned persons the opportunity to further study the effects of the size differentials upon the industry, the market and the resource. Should it become apparent that different sizes or a regional differentiation is justified, in protecting both the resource and the industry, the rules can be amended to effectuate such a result. There is no reason to assume that the MFC, or the commercial sector, will not continue to study and monitor the future health and abundance of the Spanish mackerel fishery in Florida.

    
    

29. The proposed rules provide that the regional seasons close on the projected date that the total regional harvest reaches a specified amount. Notice of that date is to be given in the manner provided in Section 120.52(15)(d), Florida Statutes. Petitioners contend that this notice provision, in light of the criminal penalties imposed by Section 370.021(2) and the confiscation of property provisions of Section 370.061, Florida Statutes, are inadequate, unconstitutionally vague and deprive commercial fishermen of due process of law. Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes, defines a "rule" for the purposes of the Administrative Procedures Act, and exempts from that term

    
    

    Agency action which has the effect of altering established hunting or fishing seasons when such action is adequately noticed in the area affected through publishing in a newspaper of general circulation or through notice by broadcasting in an electronic media.

    Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes.

    While this section of the statute is, indeed, a definitional section, it provides adequate guidelines and advice to the public of the type of notice which must be given prior to the regional season closures. The challenged rules speak in terms of "projected" seasonal catches, and Section 120.52(15)(d) exempts from regular rulemaking only those season alterations which are "adequately noticed" in a specified manner. These requirements indicate that advance notice is contemplated, and any claim of due process denial will be dependent upon the specific manner and timing of the notice provided. The mere possibility of inadequate notice is not sufficient to invalidate the proposed rules on due process or vagueness grounds.

    
    

30. Citing the statutory standard that conservation and management decisions must be fair and equitable to all persons, Section 370.025(2)(g), Florida Statutes, petitioners contend that the proposed rules discriminate against the commercial sector and reallocate the resource to the recreational sector. The rules place new restrictions upon both recreational fishermen, in the form of a bag limit, and commercial fishermen, in the form of gear specifications, seasons, catch limits and areal and weekend closures. The evidence demonstrates that, due to their efficiency and capacity, the large, power-assisted gill net roller boats take the largest portion of the present Spanish mackerel catch. Accordingly, the challenged rules' heaviest impact is upon this sector of the commercial fishery. Limits are imposed upon the remainder of the commercial sector, as well as upon the recreational fishermen. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the proposed limitations on the commercial sector are unduly restrictive or are out of proportion with the relative threat to the resource posed by the large commercial operations, the smaller commercial operations or the recreational fishermen. By imposing the greatest restrictions upon the largest harvesters, the rules further the statutory goal of fairness, equity and "that no individual, corporation, or entity acquires an excessive share" of the privileges. Section 370.025(2)(g), Florida Statutes.

    
    

31. While the petition challenging the proposed rules alleged the inadequacy of the Economic Impact Statement, petitioners failed to present any proof that said Statement does not comply with Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes, or is otherwise inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or insufficient. Likewise, petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the MFC exceeded its delegated legislative authority or failed to comply with the standards for rulemaking set forth in Section 370.025(2), Florida Statutes.

    
    

32. The parties have stipulated that the petitioners and the intervenor are substantially affected by the proposed rules, and thus have standing to seek an administrative determination of their validity pursuant to Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes.

    
    

    FINAL ORDER

    
    

33. Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is concluded that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate that proposed Rules 46-23.001 through 46-23.006, Florida Administrative Code, constitute invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority and

IT IS ORDERED that the petition challenging their validity is DISMISSED.

DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of August, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida.

DIANE D. TREMOR

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1986.

APPENDIX TO FINAL ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1841RP

The proposed findings of fact submitted by the petitioners and the respondent have been carefully considered and are accepted and/or incorporated in this Final Order, except as noted below:

Petitioners

64,66 & 67. Rejected; not conclusively established by the evidence.

68. Rejected; contrary to the greater weight of the evidence.

Respondent - Beginning with paragraph 8, the respondent's proposed findings of fact are replete with summaries of testimony, statements of the parties' legal positions and/or legal conclusions, rendering the proposed factual findings more in the nature of a brief or closing argument. It is thus impossible to rule on each proposed "finding of fact" submitted by counsel for the respondent.

However, each of the topics included has been addressed in either the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law sections of this Final Order.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Segundo J. Fernandez, Esquire Dr. Elton Gissendanner and Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Executive Director

OERTEL & HOFFMAN, P.A. Dept. of Natural Resources

Post Office Box 6507 Executive Suite

Tallahassee, Florida 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard 32314-6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32303

Charles L. Shelfer, Esquire Liz Cloud, Chief

General Counsel Bureau of Administrative Code

Suite 106 1802 The Capitol

2540 Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Circle, West

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carroll Webb, Executive

Director

Philip S. Parsons, Esquire Administrative Procedure LANDERS, PARSONS & UHLFELDER Committee

Post Office Box 271 120 Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

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 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.

Docket for Case No: 86-001841RP

Orders for Case No: 86-001841RP