With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". deprive both the State and criminal defendants of the expertise and discretion of the analysts, as their training and practical experience is necessary to properly address the wide variety of factual scenarios that may arise. For instance, we would be loath to require the FDLE to mandate a single, one-size-fit-all needle choice for blood collection, as the unique facts of each case may require a different choice. This determination is best left for the trained professionals on the ground, as are many of the choices made in the testing laboratories across the State, The rules at issue, when combined with basic laboratory practices, are sufficient to protect the safety and interests of the court system and defendants alike. See Wissel v. State, 691 So.2d 507, 507-08 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION Appellant has failed to show that

A: holding that procedures that are implicit and incidental to procedures otherwise explicitly provided for in a properly adopted rule or regulation do not require further codification by a further adopted rule or regulation and to hold otherwise belies statutory intent   and that such an argument based on the lack of a rule or regulation to cover every step of the testing procedures  is not only speculative and theoretical but also hypertechnical
B: holding that the claim must be based upon the implementation or execution of a policy statement ordinance regulation or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that bodys officers
C: holding that where a regulation could not fairly be read to have spoken at all on an issue an agencys proposed interpretation of the regulation as it pertained to that issue was not a reasonable interpretation of the regulation
D: holding that pma process is not specific regulation because the requirements are not contained in formal regulation
A.