STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

JOHN VINCIGUERRA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 88-0363

)

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL )

REGULATION, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Before J. Lawrence Johnston, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings.

Michael S. Schwartzberg, Esquire, of St. Petersburg, for Petitioner.

H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire, of Tallahassee, for Respondent.

This examination appeal was heard in Tampa on June 23, 1988. In it, the Petitioner, John Viciguerra, challenges the grade he received on the July, 1987, master electrician examination given by the Department of Professional Regulation for the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In July, 1987, the Petitioner, John Viciguerra, took the master electrician examination given by the Department of Professional Regulation for the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board. He received a grade of 74.5. A grade of 75 is passing.

   
   

2. One of the questions on the examination, number B-22, worth half a point, read:

   
   

   The branch circuit load in amps for one 8 KW residential range, rated 110/220 is closest to--amps.

   
   

   a) 14 c) 29

   b) 19 d) 35

   
   

   The Petitioner's answer, "d," was marked incorrect. The correct answer, according to the Respondent, is "c."

   
   

3. The Petitioner got his answer by simply applying Ohm's Law and dividing 8000 watts by 220 volts equals 36.36, or 35.

   
   

4. The Respondent got its answer by reference to Article 220-19 of the National Electrical Code. Note 4 to Article 220-19 states:

   Branch-Circuit Load. It shall be permissible to compute the branch-circuit load for one range in accordance with Table

   220-19. Article 220.19 states in pertinent part:

   
   

   Electric Ranges and Other Cooking Appliances--Dwelling Units(s). The feeder demand load for household electric ranges, wall-mounted ovens, counter-mounted cooking units, and other household cooking appliances individually rated in excess of

   1 3/4 KW shall be permitted to be computed in accordance with Table 220-19.

   
   

   Table 220-19 says to use 80% of the rated wattage of the range. The answer, according to the Respondent, therefore is 80% of 8000 watts divided by 220 equals 29.09, or 29.

   
   

5. The examination instructions for part B tell the examinees to choose the best answer and to use the general rule in the Code unless directed to an exception. Examination question B-22, and the answer it was seeking, fairly tests the candidate's knowledge of the Code.

   
   

6. Essentially, the question was testing for the examinee's familiarity with the demand load factor. If the question had given the examinees more information to make this clearer, all of the examinees would have been spoon-fed the answer, making the question worthless.

   
   

7. Similarly, if "d" is a correct answer because use of the demand factor table is just "permissible," B-22 could not test for knowledge of the Code because an examinee could always choose to "over-design" the electrical wiring for purposes of his answer by ignoring the demand factor and always using 100% of the load of the appliance even in a residential setting. In short, answer "c" is better than answer "d".

   
   

8. 94% of the examinees who had the top quarter overall grades on the examination answered B-22 "c". Only 42% of the middle half, and only 33% of the bottom quarter, answered it "c." The only other answer selected by any of the examinees was the Petitioner's choice, "d". These statistics suggest that the examinees who best mastered the information tested by the examination in general, and the Code in particular, chose "c" as the answer to B-22. Those with less mastery of the subject matter chose the answer the Petitioner chose, "d".

   
   

9. Question B-22 fairly, adequately and reliably tests for the examinees' knowledge of the National Electrical Code.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

10. Examinations administered by the Respondent under Section 455.2 17, Florida Statutes (1987), must "adequately and reliably measure an applicant's ability to practice the profession regulated . . .

    
    

11. As found, the Petitioner in this case was unable to prove that question B-22 failed to meet the standard of Section 455.217.

12. Even if question B-22 were ambiguous so as to make it inadequate under Section 455.217, the Petitioner's best remedy would be for the question to be rejected under Section 455.217(1)(a) and for the Petitioner's examination to be regraded under Rule 21-11.011(3)(1), Florida Administrative Code. But then the Petitioner's grade would be 74.5 or 74.87, still not quite passing.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's appeal and establishing his grade on the July, 1987, master electrician examination as 74.5.

RECOMMENDED this 1st day of July, 1988 in Tallahassee, Florida.

J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of July, 1988.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Michael S. Schwartzberg, Esquire

405 Central Avenue, 7th Floor St. Petersburg, Florida 33701

H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional

Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

Pat Ard

Executive Director

Electrical Contractors Licensing Board Department of Professional

Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

Docket for Case No: 88-000363

Orders for Case No: 88-000363