STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

WILLIAM LANTRIP, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

) CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING ) BOARD, )

)

Respondent. )

Case No. 03-2891

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was conducted in this case on October 17, 2003, in Largo, Florida, before Carolyn S. Holifield, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: William Lantrip, pro se

927 Lakewood Drive

Dunedin, Florida 34698-7218

For Respondent: Barbara Rockhill Edwards, Esquire

Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure by endorsement, pursuant to Section 489.115, Florida Statutes (2003).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On or about April 4, 2003, Petitioner, William Lantrip (Petitioner), applied to Respondent, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board), for licensure as a certified plumber in the State of Florida. At that time, because Petitioner was licensed as a plumber in Georgia, he applied for licensure by endorsement pursuant to Section 489.115, Florida Statutes (2003). By Notice of Intent to Deny (Notice) dated June 25, 2003, the Board denied Petitioner's application. According to the Notice, the application was denied because the Board determined that the licensure examination Petitioner took in Georgia was not substantially equivalent to the licensure examination administered in Florida.

Petitioner challenged the denial and timely requested a formal hearing. On August 7, 2003, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge to conduct the hearing and prepare a recommended order. By notice issued August 28, 2003, the matter was set for hearing and was conducted, as noted above.

At the final hearing, Petitioner testified in his own behalf but called no other witnesses. Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 were received into evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of two witnesses: 1) Stephen Allen, a psychometrician with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation;

and 2) Timothy Vaccaro, executive director of the Board. Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2 were received into evidence.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the time for filing proposed recommended orders was set for ten days from the date the Transcript was filed.

A Transcript of the proceeding was filed on October 22, 2003. Both parties filed Proposed Recommended Orders, which have been duly considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On or about April 4, 2003, Petitioner applied for a certified plumbing contractor's license by endorsement.

2. Applicants who seek a licensure by endorsement must have passed an examination that is substantially equivalent to the examination given in Florida or hold a license in another state or territory of the United States where the criteria for issuance of the license is substantially equivalent to Florida's criteria.

3. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner was licensed or certified as a plumber in Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee. For the purpose of his application for licensure by endorsement, Petitioner submitted information to the Board regarding the examination he took in Georgia. Petitioner was not precluded from submitting information regarding the

   examinations he took in Alabama and Tennessee. However, Petitioner submitted the information regarding the examination he took in Georgia because it was the one he had taken most recently.

4. Georgia gives three different plumbing examinations and issues three different plumbing licenses. One examination is for a journeyman's license. Another examination is for a

   Class I restricted plumbing license. Still, another examination is given for a Class II unrestricted plumbing license.

5. In order to obtain his plumbing license in Georgia, Petitioner successfully completed the Class I Restricted Georgia Examination (Georgia Examination).

6. Florida issues only one certified plumbing contractor's license and that license is the equivalent of Georgia's Class II unrestricted plumbing license. To meet the examination requirement for licensure as a plumber in Florida, an applicant must successfully complete the Certification Examination for Plumbing Contractors (Florida Examination or Certification Examination for Plumbing Contractors).

7. Stephen Allen, a psychometrician employed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, evaluated the Georgia Examination to determine if it were substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination. In determining whether the Georgia Examination and the Florida Examination were

   substantially equivalent, Mr. Allen considered and compared the material covered; the emphasis placed on various topics; the actual content of the examinations; the general characteristics of the examination; the number of questions; the amount of time allowed to complete the examination; the weight given to various areas or categories of the examinations; and the method of measuring knowledge in the various content areas.

8. Based on a comprehensive review and analysis of the Georgia Examination and the Florida Examination, Mr. Allen properly determined that the Georgia Examination was not substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination.

9. The area in which the examinations are significantly different is the isometric area or category. First, the relative weight on the isometric area of the examinations varies greatly. On the Florida Examination, the weight given to the isometric area is 31 percent. On the Georgia Examination, the weight given to the isometric area is, at most, only 6 percent. Second, the knowledge of isometrics is measured differently on the examinations. The Florida Examination requires that the candidate demonstrate knowledge of isometrics by having the candidate draw five different isometric drawings, which show the room's plumbing based on the fixtures to be installed. The five drawings are graded on legibility, orientation, flow, angles, piping, labeling, and vents. The Georgia Examination is a

   multiple choice examination and measures knowledge of isometrics by the candidate's selecting the correct answer from four possible answers.

10. The Georgia Examination successfully completed by Petitioner to obtain his master plumber's restricted license is not substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination.

11. Petitioner is ineligible for licensure by endorsement because the examination he took in Georgia is not substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

12. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes (2003).

13. Section 489.115(2), Florida Statutes (2003), authorizes the Board to issue a certificate of registration to applicants who submit applications, the appropriate fee, and otherwise meet the provisions of the section under which they seek licensure.

14. In this case, Petitioner seeks to obtain a plumber's license in Florida pursuant to Section 489.115(3), Florida Statutes (2003). That provision authorizes an applicant, who meets the requirements in that provisions contained therein, to obtain a license by endorsement.

15. Section 489.115(3), Florida Statutes (2003), states

    
    

    1. The board shall certify as qualified for certification by endorsement any applicant who:

       
       

       1. Meets the requirements for certification as set forth in this section; has passed a national, regional, state, or United States territorial licensing examination that is substantially equivalent to the examination required by this part; and has satisfied the requirements set forth in s. 489.111;

          
          

       2. Holds a valid license to practice contracting issued by another state or territory of the United States, if the criteria for issuance of such license were substantially equivalent to Florida's current certification criteria; or

          
          

       3. Holds a valid, current license to practice contracting issued by another state or territory of the United States, if the state or territory has entered into a reciprocal agreement with the board for the recognition of contractor licenses issued in that state, based on criteria for the issuance of such licenses that are substantially equivalent to the criteria for certification in this state.

          
          

16. Petitioner holds a valid plumber's license in Georgia and seeks to qualify for certification as a plumber under Section 489.115(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), which authorizes certification by endorsement, if the applicant has passed a regional, state, or United States territorial licensing examination that is substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination.

17. As the applicant for licensure by endorsement or the party asserting the affirmative of the issue, Petitioner has the burden of proof. See Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Security and Investor Protection v. Osborne Stern and Co., 670 So. 2d 932, 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); and Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

18. Petitioner has failed to meet his burden.

    
    

19. Section 489.108, Florida Statutes (2003), grants to the Board rulemaking authority to implement the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes (2003).

20. With regard to the examinations required as a condition of licensure, Section 455.217(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2003), requires that the Board "shall by rule specify the general areas of competency to be covered on the examination, the relative weight to be assigned in grading each area tested, the score necessary to achieve a passing grade "

21. Pursuant to its rulemaking authority, the Board has promulgated Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-16.001(12) which provides in relevant part:

    (12) Certification Examination for Plumbing Contractors. The certification examination shall consist of two tests.

    
    

    1. Test one shall consist of questions relating to the business and financial management of a contracting firm. The

       content areas to be covered and the approximate weights to be assigned to said areas are set forth in subsection 61G4-16.001(20), F.A.C.

       
       

    2. Test two shall consist of questions relating to general knowledge of the plumbing trade. The content areas to be covered and the approximate weights to be assigned to said areas shall be as follows:

    
    

    1. 20%	Drainage;
    2. 20%	Water Distribution;
    3. 15%	Natural Gas Piping;
    4. 20%	Medical Gas Piping;
    5. 10%	Industrial Piping;

    
    

    1. 5% Swimming Pools, Wells and Irrigation;

       
       

    2. 5% Solar;

       
       

    3. 5% Fire Protection; and

       
       

    4. Test two shall include, but shall not be limited to, five plumbing isometric drawings. The content of the drawings shall conform to the content areas listed in 1. through 8. above. Each of the isometric drawings is worth up to a maximum of 10 points. Based on the criteria listed below, each drawing will be independently evaluated by three graders. At least two of the graders must agree that a criterion is correct in order for that criterion to be graded as correct and points to be awarded. If one or more criterion is determined to be incorrect by at least two of the graders, points will not be awarded for that criterion. The awarded points for all criteria will be summed and converted to a

    10 point scale to determine the score for each drawing. The following are the

    criteria and points used by the graders to evaluate each of the five isometric drawings.

    
    

    1. Legibility. Drawing is clear and readable. Drawing is sufficient in size. Lines and labels are distinguishable.

       (8 points)

       
       

    2. Orientation. All fixtures are shown in the correct location relative to each other. (20 points)

       
       

    3. Flow. Direction of flow is shown when going from vertical to horizontal. The direction of flow must be indicated even if the direction is implied for all waste lines and all fixture connections. Direction of flow is not required for vent lines. (12 points)

       
       

    4. Angles. Isometric drawing uses 30-60-

       90 degree angles. All angles used on the drawing are displayed at the appropriate orientation. (8 points)

       
       

    5. Piping. All pipes, fittings, traps, clean-outs, and similar portions of the piping structure are included on the drawing. All piping is shown exactly as on the drawing (regardless of specific code requirements). The piping must display the correct elevation in reference to the floor plan. (20 points)

       
       

    6. Labeling. All fixtures are labeled according to the legend provided in the examination instructions. (4 points)

       
       

    7. Vents. All vents are properly indicated. (16 points)

       
       

    8. Fixtures. All fixtures shown on the floor plan are appropriately indicated on the isometric drawing. (12 points)

    
    

    (Emphasis supplied.)

22. According to Florida Administrative Code

    
    

    Rule 61G4-16.001(12)(b)9. quoted above, the Certification Examination for Plumbing Contractors shall consist of five plumbing isometric drawings, which shall conform to content areas listed in Subsections 1 through 8 of the Rule. The criteria for grading the isometric drawings are listed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-16.001(12)(b)9.a. through h.

23. The evidence established and is undisputed that Petitioner is licensed as a plumber in Georgia. However, Petitioner failed to establish that the Georgia Examination, which he successfully completed, is substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination. Contrary to the assertion of Petitioner, the evidence established that the Georgia Examination is not substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination.

24. The evidence established that the Georgia Examination and the Florida Examination vary significantly with regard to the method of determining a candidate's knowledge of isometrics and the weight given to that section.

25. Having failed to establish that the Georgia Examination, which he successfully completed, is substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination, Petitioner does not qualify for certification by endorsement pursuant to

Section 489.115(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2003). Moreover, Petitioner failed to establish that he is eligible for licensure by endorsement pursuant to Section 489.115(3)(b) or (c), Florida Statutes.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement.

DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD

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 15th day of December, 2003.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Barbara Rockhill Edwards, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs

The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

William Lantrip 927 Lakewood Drive

Dunedin, Florida 34698-7218

Timothy Vaccaro, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and

Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and

Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202

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: 03-002891

Orders for Case No: 03-002891