STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

PAUL MOLOY HALL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 03-4601

) DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND ) PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Robert E. Meale, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, conducted the final hearing in Port St. Lucie, Florida, on February 12, 2004.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Paul Moloy Hall, pro se

2035 Southeast Harding Street Port St. Lucie, Florida 34952

For Respondent: Charles F. Tunnicliff

Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for his answer to Question 74 on the July 2003 Electrical Contractor's Examination.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated November 11, 2003, Petitioner requested a hearing on his claim that Respondent improperly gave him no credit for his answer to Question 74 on the July 2003 Electrical Contractor's Examination. He challenged his scores on three other questions, but later dropped these challenges.

At the hearing, Petitioner called one witness and offered into evidence one exhibit. Respondent called two witnesses and offered into evidence one exhibit. The parties jointly offered one exhibit. All exhibits were admitted. Respondent filed the exhibits after the hearing, but omitted Joint Exhibit 1, which was the question and answer sheets. This is a harmless omission because the question was adequately identified at the hearing.

The court reporter filed the transcript on March 9, 2004.

The parties filed posthearing filings by March 18, 2004.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner took the July 2003 Electrical Contractor's Examination and ultimately earned a 74 after a subsequent adjustment to his grade. A passing score is 75, so Petitioner needs to obtain credit for an answer to one question, if he is to pass the examination.

2. Question 74 required the candidates to calculate the maximum sign load, in amperes, for a 120-volt, 20-amp circuit in an industrial occupancy. The examination allowed candidates to

   use the 2002 National Electrical Code codebook (NEC). Petitioner's answer was 20 amps, but the answer for which Respondent gave credit was 16 amps.

3. NEC Article 210.23(A)(1) provides that the rating of any one cord-and-plug-connected utilization maximum permissible load for a 20-amp circuit shall not exceed 80 percent of the branch-circuit ampere rating. This authority suggests that the correct answer to Question 74 is 16 amps.

4. NEC Article 210.20(A) provides that the rating of the overcurrent device on a branch circuit supplying continuous loads, which are elsewhere defined as any load expected to continue more than three hours, such as a sign, shall be 125 percent of the continuous load. An overcurrent device of 20 amps thus would be required for a continuous load of 16 amps.

5. Thus, whether a cord-and-plug or continuous-load circuit, the maximum sign load on a 20-amp circuit is 16 amps, as is consistent with the trade knowledge in the electricians' profession.

6. Petitioner relied on NEC Article 600.5(B)(1), which specifies that branch circuits for signs with incandescent and fluorescent forms of illumination shall be rated not to exceed

   20 amps. This is the rating of the circuit, as described in Question 74, which proceeds to ask the maximum sign load for this 20-amp circuit.

7. Question 74 does not seem to have been confusing. It was answered correctly by 58 percent of the well-performing candidates and 52 percent of all candidates taking the examination in July 2003. Question 74 was a difficult question, but useful in discriminating between levels of competence of candidates taking the examination.

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

8. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. (2003).

9. As the applicant, Petitioner has the burden of proving that the scoring of his test was arbitrary or capricious. Espinoza v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 759 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

10. Petitioner has failed to prove that the scoring of Question 74 on his examination was arbitrary or capricious.

RECOMMENDATION

It is

RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the scoring of his July 2003 Electrical Contractor's Examination.

DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2004, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

ROBERT E. MEALE

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 2004.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Tim Vaccaro, Director

Construction Industry Licensing Board Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and

Professional Regulation Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202

Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202

Paul Moloy Hall

2035 Southeast Harding Street Port St. Lucie, Florida 34952

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of 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: 03-004601

Orders for Case No: 03-004601