STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MICHAEL REGGIA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 86-1808

)

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL) ENGINEERS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Final hearing in the above-styled case was held in Orlando, Florida, on August 22, 1986 before Mary Clark, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

The parties were represented as follows:

For Petitioner: Michael Reggia (self-represented)

2500 Chesterfield Court

Titusville, Florida 32780

For Respondent: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

ISSUE

The issue in this proceeding is whether Michael Reggia meets the Florida licensure requirements for a professional engineer in the field of manufacturing engineering. The issue is specifically whether the practice and principles portion of the licensing exam was valid.

Procedural Matters

At the final hearing, Petitioner, Michael Reggia testified in his own behalf and presented the testimony of manufacturing engineer, Howard Bender. Petitioner's exhibits #1 and #2, letters from Martin Marietta Aerospace and Harris Corporation, were rejected as hearsay. Exhibit #3, selected pages from Fundamentals of Engineering, published by the National Council of Engineering Examiners, was admitted without objection.

Respondent presented two witnesses: Cass Hurc, P.E. (by deposition, by agreement of the parties) and Allen Rex Smith, Executive Director of the Board of Professional Engineers. Respondent initially submitted four exhibits: #1 and #4 were admitted without objection, #2(a) and #2(b), were admitted over Petitioner's objection, and #3 was withdrawn.

The parties requested and were given 20 days to submit post-hearing briefs and proposed orders. On September 15, 1986, Petitioner filed his arguments and summary of she testimony and evidence. Nothing was filed by Respondent.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Michael Reggia resides in Titusville and works at the Kennedy Space Center. He is licensed in the state of California as a professional engineer and has practiced in the field of manufacturing engineering. California, like Florida, does not license an individual in a particular discipline of engineering but requires that an individual select an area in which he or she will be tested.

   
   

2. Mr. Reggia took the professional engineering license exam in Florida in October 1985. For part two of the examination, Professional Practice and Principles, he chose to be tested in his field of manufacturing engineering. He achieved a score of 64.4; in order to pass, a score of 70 is required.

   
   

3. The examination given in Florida is a national examination produced by the National Council of Engineering Examiners (NCEE) for certification or licensure throughout the United States. The October 1985 exam was developed based upon an extensive survey study initiated by NCEE in 1979. A report of that study was published in March 1981 as "A Task Analysis of Licensed Engineers". (Respondent's exhibit #4) The primary purpose of the study was to aid NCEE in developing"... fair, meaningful, uniform, and objective standards with which to measure minimum competency for professional licensure." (exhibit #4, page E1)

   
   

4. In drafting an exam the NCEE relies on the societies representing various engineering disciplines to submit examination problems for consideration. The Society of Manufacturing Engineers, through its professional registration committee, provides that service on behalf of the manufacturing engineers.

   
   

5. The October 1985 examination for manufacturing engineers did not include questions relating to electrical engineering, which is Mr. Reggia's sub- area of emphasis in the area of manufacturing engineering. Since manufacturing engineering includes overlap into the basic engineering disciplines, Mr. Reggia contends the exam was one-sided and invalid as he felt it concentrated on tool designing and mechanical engineering.

   
   

6. Some industries, particularly the aerospace industries now include a substantial number of electrical engineers on their staff. Engineering is an evolving discipline and manufacturing engineering has undergone changes with new technologies in recent years.

   
   

7. One way of addressing the diversity and changes in the field is to provide a two-book exam that would offer the applicant a wider variety of problems from which he or she could select. This has been recommended to the NCEE by the Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Another approach, and the one utilized by the NCEE, is to conduct periodic surveys to determine the tasks which engineers are actually performing and the level of judgement required to perform the tasks effectively.

   
   

8. It would be impossible, and perhaps inappropriate to develop an exam that would test each individual only on his or her particular expertise. In the area of manufacturing engineering the exams developed by NCEE are passed by 65-

   75 percent of the candidates, a rate which is comparable to that of the mechanical engineers for their exam. Seven out of ten applicants passed the same exam which Mr. Reggia took in October 1985.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

9. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1)Florida Statutes and Section 455.213(3) Florida Statutes.

   
   

10. Sub-Section 455.217(1)(a) Florida Statutes provides that the Department of Professional Regulation shall ensure that examinations adequately and reliably measure an applicant's ability to practice the profession regulated by the Department. Sub-section 455.217(1)(c) Florida Statutes, requires the Department to use any national examination which is available and approved by the board.

    
    

11. The Board of Professional Engineers has approved, by rule, the examination provided by the National Council of Engineering Examiners. Rule 21H-21.01 Florida Administrative Code. The exam consists of two parts. Rule 21H-21.02(3) Florida Administrative Code provides:

    
    

    In Part Two of the examination the applicant will usually be required to solve from seven to ten problems which the applicant may choose from approximately twenty problems drawn from a test pattern generally set forth as follows:

    
    

    (n) Manufacturing

    Engineering - Assembly Casting, Molding and Metallurgical Processing, Engineering Materials, Finishing and Coating, Inspection and Quality Control, Manufacturing Management Council, Manufacturing/Numerical Control Systems, Material Forming, Material Removal, Tool

    Engineering and Engineering Economics.

    
    

12. Manufacturing engineering is one of fifteen areas of specialization listed in the rule; an applicant for registration must select one of these areas for part two of the examination. Further, the rule provides that"... the Board may also authorize examinations in other engineering disciplines when the Board determines that such disciplines warrant the giving of a separate examination in terms of cost effectiveness. Rule 21H-21.02(2) Florida Administrative Code.

    
    

13. Michael Reggia contests his grade on the manufacturing exam on two grounds:

    1. the exam, as it was applied to him, failed to test his ability to apply acceptable engineering practice to problems which are representative of his discipline, as required by Rule 21H-21.02(2) Florida Administrative Code; and

       
       

    2. the exam is invalid on a broader basis as it fails to include questions on electrical and electronic engineering which reflect modern day practice of manufacturing engineering.

       
       

14. Mr. Reggia, as a Petitioner seeking licensure, has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the exam administered to him was invalid. Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So 2nd 349, (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) Mr. Reggia has failed to meet that burden.

    
    

15. An exam tailored to measure the expertise of each individual applicant would likely result in a 100 percent pass rate and would provide no assurance to the public that licensed professionals have achieved a measured level of competency. The purpose for examinations and the statutory requirement for examinations were addressed in a case involving the challenge to a rule proposed by the Board of Engineers. In that case the Board sought in its rule to award extra points on the examination for work or educational experience on the theory that as an engineer became more specialized by experience he or she would become stale in areas covered by the exam. The proposed rule, which related to the general portion of the exam, was declared invalid as contrary to the requirements of section 455.217 Florida Statutes (1979). Department of Professional Regulation v. Board of Engineers, 4 FALR 2465A (Final order entered January 22, 1980).

    
    

16. By rule, the Board of Engineers has listed the areas of competency to be tested for manufacturing engineering. (see paragraph 3, above.) Mr. Reggia claims those areas are inappropriate, not that the exam did not address those areas. The agency's discretion in specifying those areas is entitled to great weight. Department of Insurance v. Southeast Volusia Hospital District, 438 So 2nd 815 (Fla. 1983) Mr. Reggia has failed to prove that discretion was abused.

    
    

17. Both the Board and the National testing agency have procedures for providing input as to the contents of the exam and the updating of the exam to meet contemporary needs of the profession. The pass rate for manufacturing engineers would suggest that those procedures have been generally effective. Like other members of the profession Michael Reggia is entitled to utilize procedures to provide to the Board and to the professional society his suggestions for improving the examination. The record in this proceeding, however, does not establish the right to have his exam invalidated.

Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED,

That Michael Reggia's petition and the relief sought within be denied.

DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 19th day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida.

MARY CLARK

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675

FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 1986.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Michael Reggia

2500 Chesterfield Court

Titusville, Florida 32780

H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 86-001808

Orders for Case No: 86-001808