STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

OM PRAKASH BHOLA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 91-2457

)

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

)

Respondent. )

)

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to Notice, this cause was heard by Linda M. Rigot, the assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on August 2, 1991, in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Om Prakash Bhola, pro se

3600 Khayyam Avenue, Apt. #7

Orlando, Florida 32826

For Respondent: Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire

Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite LL04, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for licensure by examination as a professional engineer should be granted.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Respondent denied Petitioner's application for licensure by examination for failure to meet educational requirements, and Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing regarding that determination. This matter was thereafter transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of that formal proceeding.

Petitioner testified on his own behalf, and Respondent presented the testimony of Robert Kersten, P.E., PhD. Additionally, Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 1-5 and Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 were admitted in evidence.

Only the Respondent submitted post hearing proposed findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order. A specific ruling on each proposed finding of fact can be found in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner is an applicant for licensure by examination as a professional engineer.

   
   

2. By letter dated February 6, 1991, Respondent notified Petitioner that his education did not meet the criteria for licensure. Specifically, Petitioner's education was not deemed to be equivalent to an accredited engineering degree because it lacked 6 credit hours of mathematics, 24 credit hours of engineering sciences, and 8 credit hours of humanities and social sciences. Further, Petitioner had failed to submit any evidence of possessing computer skills.

   
   

3. Petitioner is a graduate of the Indian Institute of Technology in Kharagpur, India. He received a degree styled Bachelor of Technology in Civil Engineering in 1967.

   
   

4. Petitioner is not a graduate of Florida's State University System. Further, Petitioner did not notify Respondent before July 1, 1984, that he was engaged in active and responsible engineering work on July 1, 1981.

   
   

5. Petitioner had his transcript evaluated by the World Education Service (hereinafter "WES"). WES filed a report, dated September 20, 1985, attesting that Petitioner's education was the equivalent of an engineering technology degree. A second report issued by WES, dated March 14, 1988, is identical. A third report, dated January 7, 1991, is identical to the first two, except that in this latest report, the WES opines that Petitioner has the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in civil engineering.

   
   

6. The Board's Education Advisory Committee reviews foreign degree candidates to determine if their education meets the standards established by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc., (hereinafter "ABET"). The ABET standards for an approved baccalaureate degree in engineering include: 16 hours of mathematics (calculus through differential equations), 16 hours of basic sciences, 32 hours of engineering sciences, 16 hours of engineering design, and 16 hours of humanities and social sciences.

   
   

7. There is a major difference between an engineering degree and an engineering technology degree. An engineering technology degree does not require the same number of hours in advanced mathematics (calculus through differential equations) as an engineering degree. Furthermore, an engineering technology curriculum emphasizes the technical aspects of the profession, such as engineering design coursework, but does not stress the underlying engineering sciences.

   
   

8. Petitioner's transcript and course titles were typical of an engineering technology curriculum. Petitioner's mathematics courses were not solely at the advanced math level, but also included algebra and geometry. Furthermore, Petitioner's transcript only demonstrated 8 hours of engineering sciences.

9. The title of Petitioner's degree is not dispositive. What is dispositive is that Petitioner's course of study had its emphasis on technical design courses rather than on higher math and engineering sciences courses.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

10. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties hereto and the subject matter hereof. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

11. Section 471.013, Florida Statutes, sets forth the prerequisites for practicing as an engineer or engineer intern and provides, in part, as follows:

    
    

    (1)(a) A person shall be entitled to take an examination for the purpose of determining whether he is qualified to practice in this state as an engineer if the person is of good moral character and:

    1. Is a graduate from an approved engineering curriculum of 4 years or more in a school, college, or university which has been approved by the board and has a record of 4 years of active engineering experience of a character indicating competence to be in responsible charge of engineering.

    2. Is a graduate of an approved engineering technology curriculum of 4 years or more in a school, college, or university within the State University System, having been enrolled or having graduated prior to July 1, 1979, and has a record of 4 years of active engineering experience of a character indicating competence to be in responsible charge of engineering; or

    3. Has, in lieu of such education and experience requirements, 10 years or more of active engineering work of a character indicating that the applicant is competent to be placed in responsible charge of engineering. However, this subparagraph does not apply unless such person notifies the department before July 1, 1984, that he was engaged in such work on July 1, 1981.

       The board shall adopt rules providing for the review and approval of schools or colleges and the courses of study in engineering in such schools and colleges. The rules shall be based on the educational requirements for engineering as defined in section 471.005.

       The board may adopt rules providing for the acceptance of the approval and accreditation of schools and courses of study by a nationally accepted accreditation organization.

       (b) A person shall be entitled to take an examination for the purpose of determining whether he is qualified to practice in this

       state as an engineer intern if he is in the final year of, or is a graduate of, an approved engineering curriculum in a school, college, or university approved by the board.

       
       

       In furtherance of this authority, the Board has promulgated Rules 21H-20.001 and 21H-20.006, Florida Administrative Code, which provide, inter alia, definitions of Board-approved engineering programs and set forth ABET's criteria as the standard for evaluating an applicant's transcript and degree program.

       
       

12. Petitioner has the burden of proving his entitlement to licensure, and he has failed to do so. He is not a graduate of the Florida's State University System, and he did not notify the Department of Professional Regulation prior to July 1, 1984, that he was engaged in responsible engineering work on July 1, 1981. Accordingly, Petitioner is not eligible to take the examination pursuant to Section 471.013(1)(a)2. or 3., Florida Statutes.

    
    

13. As to Section 471.013(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes, Petitioner is not a graduate of an approved engineering curriculum in a school, college, or university which has been approved by the Board. Accordingly, the Educational Advisory Committee of the Board evaluated the transcript submitted to the Board by Petitioner. No detailed course descriptions or course catalogs accompanied the documentation submitted by Petitioner, and the Committee evaluated Petitioner's coursework based upon his transcript. Petitioner's transcript is typical of a course of study in engineering technology rather than in engineering. Petitioner has not proven that his education meets the standards established by ABET and applied by the Board.

    
    

14. Petitioner's arguments are not persuasive. For example, he argues that the credits he obtained for courses in English as a second language should be counted toward the humanities and social sciences requirements. Yet, Petitioner offered no evidence to show that his coursework in the English languange was other than English grammar or that English grammar courses are considered to fulfill humanities and social sciences requirements in the educational world. Similarly, Petitioner argues that he should receive credit for fulfilling his humanities requirements by virtue of some graduate courses in marketing and finance which he has taken at Florida Atlantic University. Yet, Petitioner offered no evidence that graduate courses in marketing and finance are considered to fulfill humanities and social sciences requirements in the educational world. On the other hand, Respondent offered expert testimony that English grammar courses, graduate courses in finance, and graduate courses in marketing are not considered to be humanities or social science courses.

    
    

15. Petitioner argues that the World Education Service has evaluated his transcript and has determined that his course of study was equivalent to a Bachelor's Degree in Civil Engineering. Petitioner is only partially correct. The World Education Service evaluated his transcript three times: twice attesting that his education was the equivalent of an engineering technology degree, and once attesting that his education was the equivalent of a civil engineering degree. No evidence was offered to explain why the World Education Service has issued conflicting reports regarding Petitioner's education, and the reports of the World Education Service in this instance do not constitute competent, credible evidence.

    
    

16. Petitioner also argues that he is well versed in computers even though he admits that he failed to present to the Board any evidence of having taken

    courses in computers or in computer science. Similarly, Petitioner offered no proof of his competency during the final hearing.

    
    

17. Respondent's file regarding Petitioner indicates that Petitioner sought certification as an engineer intern in 1987, which application was denied by the Board. The denial letter which advised Petitioner of his right to this administrative hearing and which initiated this matter being transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings discusses requirements that applicants for the professional engineers examination must meet. The denial letter is non- specific as to whether Petitioner's application was to take the examination for the purpose of determining whether Petitioner is qualified to practice in this State as an engineer intern or as an engineer. Subsection (b) of Section 471.013, Florida Statutes, would permit Petitioner to take the examination to determine his qualification to practice as an engineer intern if he meets the requirements of that section. Petitioner does not. Petitioner has failed to prove that he is a graduate of an approved engineering curriculum in a school, college, or university approved by the Board for the same reasons as have been previously discussed in this Recommended Order.

    
    

18. In its proposed recommended order, Respondent suggests that Petitioner has applied for licensure by examination as an engineering intern and has also used the term "engineer in training." It is unclear from the evidence in this cause whether Petitioner's earlier application for certification as an engineering intern was denied but subsequently reconsidered by the Board or whether the denial letter which forms the basis for this proceeding is a denial of a subsequent application to take the examination to be qualified to practice as an engineer, which application was simply not offered in evidence during the final hearing in this cause. Whether Petitioner's application to take the examination was to qualify to practice as an engineering intern or as an engineer is not dispositive in this case. Petitioner has failed to prove that he meets the educational requirements to take the examination to qualify as either an engineer or as an engineering intern.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application

for licensure by examination.

DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of September, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida.

LINDA M. RIGOT

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675.

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1991.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER

1. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 6, and 8-11 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order.

   
   

2. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause.

   
   

3. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 4 and 7 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law, argument of counsel, or recitation of the testimony.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Om Prakash Bhola 3600 Khayyam Avenue

Apt. #7

Orlando, Florida 32826

Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite LL04, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

Carrie Flynn, Acting Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers Northwood Centre, Suite 60

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 91-002457

Orders for Case No: 91-002457