Case Name: MOTEL 6, OPERATING L.P., d/b/a Motel 6, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1990-05-01
Citations: 560 So. 2d 1322
Docket Number: No. 88-2756
Parties: MOTEL 6, OPERATING L.P., d/b/a Motel 6, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS, Appellees.
Judges: WENTWORTH, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 560
Pages: 1322–1325

Head Matter:
MOTEL 6, OPERATING L.P., d/b/a Motel 6, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS, Appellees.
No. 88-2756.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
May 1, 1990.
Rehearing Denied June 4, 1990.
Jonathan S. Grout, of Dempsey & Goldsmith, P.A., Tallahassee, for appellant.
Elizabeth C. Masters, Asst. General Counsel, Dept, of Business Regulation, Tallahassee, for appellees.

Opinion:
ERVIN, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of a declaratory statement rendered by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, Department of Business Regulation (Department), in response to two petitions for declaratory statement filed by appellant concerning two proposed highway signs. The Department determined that both proposed signs failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Section 509.201(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1987). We affirm.
Section 509.201(2)(a) provides:
No person shall display or cause to be displayed any sign which may be seen from a public highway or street, which sign includes a statement or numbers relating to the rates charged at a public lodging establishment renting by the day or week, unless such sign includes in letters and figures of similar size and prominence the following additional information: the number of rental units in the establishment and the rates charged for each, whether the rates quoted are for single or multiple occupancy if such fact affects the rate charged, and the dates during which such rates are in effect. The rates shall in each instance coincide with the rates posted in each rental unit of the establishment and with those filed with the division. No such sign shall be displayed which includes a statement or numbers which appear to relate to the rate charged at a public lodging establishment when in fact the statement or numbers do not relate to such rates.
(Emphasis added.) The object of the statute "was to require hotels, motels and other rooming house operators to tell the whole story when they exercise the privilege of advertising their rooms." Adams v. Miami Beach Hotel Ass'n, 77 So.2d 465, 466-67 (Fla.1955) (emphasis added) (en banc) (referring to the predecessor of section 509.201). See also Nugent v. Florida Hotel & Restaurant Comm'n, 147 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962).
The two highway signs proposed by appellant state, "MOTEL 6, $20.95 SINGLE" and "MOTEL 6, $20.95 SINGLE, ALL ROOMS ALL YEAR." The Department determined that the posting of one rate does not exempt the proposed highway signs from the requirements of section 509.201(2)(a), and that both signs were vio-lative of the statute, because they advertised only one rate, when in fact other rates would be charged for the same room based upon the number of occupants. In addition, while finding the "ALL ROOMS" language in the second proposed sign to be in compliance with the statute's requirement that the signs state the "number of rental units in the establishment," the Department concluded that the "ALL YEAR" language did not comply with the requirement that the "dates during which such rates are in effect" be listed.
It is axiomatic that an agency's construction of its governing statutes and rules will be upheld unless clearly erroneous; if an agency's interpretation is one of several permissible interpretations, it must stand despite the existence of other reasonable alternatives. State Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Framat Realty, Inc., 407 So.2d 238, 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Here, because more than one rate would apply to each room, the Department's interpretation that the statute's requirements are applicable and that the proposed signs were deceptive is not unreasonable. The Department's determination that "ALL YEAR" does not meet the requirements of the statute that applicable "dates" be posted is similarly within the permissible range of statutory interpretations. In so concluding, we observe that it is not necessary that an agency's interpretation of a regulatory statute be the most desirable interpretation, merely that it not be unreasonable or outside the range of possible interpretations. Department of Professional Reg., Bd. of Medical Examiners v. Durrani, 455 So.2d 515, 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). See also Tri-State Sys., Inc. v. Department of Transp., 491 So.2d 1192, 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) ("interpretation of critical term . does not have to be the only one or the most desirable one; it is enough if it is permissible"). Because the Department's construction of section 509.201(2)(a), as it applies to the appellant's two proposed highway signs, is not clearly erroneous, the order is
AFFIRMED.
WENTWORTH, J., concurs.
ZEHMER, J., dissents with written opinion.
. For similar requirements, see also Rule 7C-3.-002(3), Florida Administrative Code.