The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for licensure by examination as a professional engineer should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an applicant for licensure by examination as a professional engineer. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
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 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. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. 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
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's academic record meets the academic requirements that are prerequisites to taking the Fundamentals of Engineering examination.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner submitted an application for approval to take the Fundamentals of Engineering examination. The Petitioner studied engineering at the Tongji University in the People's Republic of China from 1991 to 1995. He majored in Building Engineering and was awarded the degree of Bachelor of Engineering on July 10, 1995. Beginning in September of 1995, the Petitioner studied engineering at the graduate level at Tongji University. His graduate studies lasted until April of 1998, at which time he was awarded the degree of Master of Engineering with a major in Structural Engineering. During the course of his graduate studies at Tongji University from September of 1995 until April of 1998, the Petitioner completed a total of 38 semester credit hours. Those semester credit hours included the following courses with their indicated semester credit hours: Applied Statistics 2 credit hours Numerical Analysis 3 credit hours The courses titled Applied Statistics and Numerical Analysis are both higher mathematics courses. In the fall of 2000, the Petitioner began further graduate studies in engineering at Auburn University. He studied at Auburn University through the spring of 2002. The courses taken by the Petitioner at Auburn University included the following, with the indicated number of semester credit hours: Advanced Structural Analysis 3 credit hours Advanced Stress Analysis 3 credit hours Structural Dynamics I 3 credit hours Finite Element Methods in Structural Mechanics 3 credit hours The course titled Finite Element Methods in Structural Mechanics is a higher mathematics class. The other three Auburn courses listed immediately above, if not pure mathematics courses, are certainly courses which involve the application of advanced principles of mathematics. To successfully complete such courses, a person would have to be well-grounded in higher mathematics. In the fall of 2002, the Petitioner transferred to the University of Florida where he continued his graduate studies in engineering. On December 20, 2003, the University of Florida awarded the Petitioner the degree of Master of Engineering with a major in Civil Engineering. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15- 20.007 the Petitioner submitted his educational credentials to an educational evaluator approved by the Board. The evaluator selected by the Petitioner was Josef Silny & Associates, Inc. (Silny). Following its evaluation of the Petitioner's educational credentials, Silny prepared a Report of Evaluation of Educational Credentials (Silny Report) dated June 15, 2005. The Silny Report reached the conclusion that the Petitioner's undergraduate education at Tongji University was not the equivalent of a degree in engineering earned from a program approved by ABET. Silny was of the view that the Petitioner's undergraduate course of study at Tongji University was not equivalent because his curriculum was deficient five semester credit hours in higher mathematics and basic sciences and was deficient one semester credit hour in humanities and social sciences.1 The conclusions reached in the Silny Report were based on an evaluation of the Petitioner's undergraduate course work at Tongji University from 1991 to 1995. The Silny Report did not take into consideration any of the courses taken by the Petitioner during his graduate studies at Tongji University from 1995 to 1998, during his graduate studies at Auburn University from 2000 to 2002, or during his graduate studies at the University of Florida from 2002 to 2003. During his undergraduate engineering studies at Tongji University, the Petitioner completed 36 semester hour credits of course work in the areas of higher mathematics and basic sciences. Silny is of the opinion that semester credit hours completed at Tongji University represent less study than semester credit hours completed at an accredited engineering school in a university in the United States of America. Specifically, Silny is of the opinion that semester credit hours completed at Tongji University are the equivalent of only 75 percent of semester credit hours earned in accredited engineering programs in the United States of America. Accordingly, when Silny evaluated the Petitioner's undergraduate education credentials, Silny multiplied the 36 semester credit hours the Petitioner had completed at Tongji University in the areas of higher mathematics and basic sciences by a factor of 0.75, and concluded that those 36 semester credit hours were equivalent to only 27 semester credit hours at an accredited engineering program in the United States of America.2 Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007 includes the following requirements regarding applicants with degrees from foreign institutions: Applicants having degrees from foreign institutions shall be required to document “substantial equivalency” to the 2002 ABET Accreditation Yearbook for Accreditation Cycle Ended September 30, 2002 engineering criteria. This document is hereby incorporated by reference. In order to document “substantial equivalency” to an ABET accredited engineering program, the applicant must demonstrate: 32 college credit hours of higher mathematics and basic sciences. The hours of mathematics must be beyond algebra and trigonometry and must emphasize mathematical concepts and principles rather than computation. Courses in probability and statistics, differential calculus, integral calculus, and differential equations are required. Additional courses may include linear algebra, numerical analysis, and advanced calculus. As for the hours in basic sciences, courses in general chemistry and calculus-based general physics are required, with at least a two semester (or equivalent) sequence of study in either area. Additional basic sciences courses may include life sciences (biology), earth sciences (geology), and advanced chemistry or physics. Computer skills and/or programming courses cannot be used to satisfy mathematics or basic science requirements. 16 college credit hours in humanities and social sciences. Examples of traditional courses in this area are philosophy, religion, history, literature, fine arts, sociology, psychology, political science, anthropology, economics, and no more than 6 credit hours of languages other than English or other than the applicant’s native language. Courses in technology and human affairs, history of technology, professional ethics and social responsibility are also acceptable. Courses such as accounting, industrial management, finance, personnel administration, engineering economics and military training are not acceptable. Courses which instill cultural values are acceptable, while routine exercises of personal craft are not. 48 college credit hours of engineering science and engineering design. Courses in this area have their roots in mathematics and basic sciences but carry knowledge further toward creative application. Examples of traditional engineering science courses are mechanics, thermodynamics, electrical and electronic circuits, materials science, transport phenomena, and computer science (other than computer programming skills). Courses in engineering design stress the establishment of objectives and criteria, synthesis, analysis, construction, testing, and evaluation. In order to promote breadth, at least one engineering course outside the major disciplinary area is required. In addition, evidence of attainment of appropriate laboratory experience, competency in English, and understanding of the ethical, social, economic and safety considerations of engineering practice must be presented. As for competency in English, transcripts of course work completed, course content syllabi, testimonials from employers, college level advanced placement tests, Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) scores of at least 550 in the paper- based version, or 213 in the computer-based version, will be accepted as satisfactory evidence.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued concluding that the Petitioner has met the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007, and is eligible to take the Fundamentals of Engineering examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 29th day of March, 2006.
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, Maria I. Galarza, is eligible to take the dental mannequin exam. The Board proposes to deny the Petitioner's application to take the exam on the grounds that the Petitioner's dental degree from the Universidad Central del Este in the Dominican Republic is not the equivalent of four academic years of dental education. The Petitioner contends her degree is equivalent and meets the criteria for taking the dental mannequin exam.
Findings Of Fact Facts stipulated to by all parties Petitioner sought approval of the Board to take the manual skills (mannequin) examination as an avenue toward being certified for licensure as a dentist in Florida with an application dated September 17, 1991. 1/ With her application, Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to establish that she graduated from high school in Puerto Rico; received a bachelor of arts degree from a college in Puerto Rico; graduated with a "titulo" or degree in dentistry from the Universidad Central del Este (UCE) in the Dominican Republic; has attained an age of more than 18 years; and had completed the National Dental Board Examination with passing scores within the ten years preceding her application. UCE is not a dental school accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of the American Dental Association or its successor agency or any other nationally recognized accrediting agency. UCE is a foreign dental school located in the Dominican Republic. It is a member of the Asociacion Latinoamericana de Facultades y Escuelas de Odontologia (ALAFO). Pursuant to statute and rules of the Board, Petitioner submitted her educational credentials to ECE for a determination as to whether she had completed the equivalent of five academic years of post secondary education including four years of dental education. The Board of Dentistry requires that all graduates of foreign dental schools have their degrees evaluated for equivalency to U.S. degrees by Educational Credential Evaluators, Inc. (hereafter ECE). ECE is headed by Dr. James Frey. ECE has evaluated numerous dental degrees for graduates of Universidad Central del Este. In August 1990 ECE changed its opinion of the degree. ECE believes its previous evaluations finding the degree equivalent are erroneous. The Petitioner attended the UCE dental program from September 1979 to September 30 ,1982. UCE awarded Petitioner credit for previously completed course work and did not require Petitioner to take or complete the following courses in UCE's dental curriculum: Mathematics (4 credits) Literature (9 credits) Philosophy (undetermined credits) Sociology (undetermined credits) Physics (8 credits) Biology (4 credits) UCE has a dental program consisting of three academic semesters per calendar year. Dr. Frey testified that a four year dental degree requires a minimum of 120 semester hour credits. He determined that Ms. Galarza achieved the equivalent of 101.5 semester hours of credit at Universidad Central del Este. Dr. Frey also determined that UCE granted her the equivalent of fourteen additional semester hours of credit for course work already taken at the University of Puerto Rico. The University of Florida has the only accredited dental program in the State of Florida. At the University of Florida, dental students attend courses for three academic semesters per calendar year and the dental curriculum lasts for 3.66 calendar years and a total of eleven semesters. The Board, based upon its review of the Petitioner's credentials and the report from ECE determined the Petitioner has not completed four academic years of post secondary dental education. The Petitioner disagrees with the Board's determination. Facts based on evidence submitted at hearing The dental mannequin examination is an examination given to graduates of dental schools that are not accredited by the American Dental Association. Successful completion of the dental mannequin examination is a statutory prerequisite to taking the licensure examination. The dental education program at UCE is planned as an eleven semester program and consists of approximately 63 courses, for which the university awards a total of approximately 230 credits. 2/ Eleven of the courses are described as being part of the "Curso Comina" the so-called "common courses." The eleven courses that comprise the so-called "common courses" are high school level pre-dentistry courses.3/ These pre-dentistry courses are planned as part of the first two semesters, but in actual practice are taken at random times during the program, sometimes as late as the last semester. The eleven courses that make up the so-called common courses" represent a total of approximately 39 credits 4/ as follows: Mathematics 011 (or 101) 4 Literature 011 (or 101) 5 Phylosophy [sic] 2 Sociology 2 Physics 011 (or 101) 4 Biology 4 Literature 102 4 Dom. Soc. History 2 Mathematics 012 (or 102) 4 General Chemistry 4 Physics 012 (or 102) 4 Total "common course" credits 39 The Universidad Central del Este awarded the Petitioner a total of approximately 233 credits, including the credits that were awarded for either successful completion of, or for exemption from, the so-called "common courses." When the credits for the so-called "common courses" (which as noted above are pre-dentistry courses) are subtracted from the total credits awarded, the Petitioner's transcript reflects a total of approximately 194 credits of dental education. One credit at the dental education program at UCE represents the equivalent of approximately one-half of a semester hour credit at a dental education program in the United States. Accordingly, the Petitioner's 194 credits of dental education at UCE are the equivalent of approximately 97 semester hours at a dental education program in the United States. 5/ A full four-year dental program in the United States consists of a minimum of 120 semester hours of credit, and usually consists of 128 semester hours of credit. The standard length of a semester in a United States dental education program consists of 15 or 16 teaching weeks. The standard length of a semester at the University of Florida dental program is 16 teaching weeks. The length of the typical semester at the Universidad Central del Este consists of 13 or 13.5 teaching weeks. The Petitioner completed all of her course work at UCE during a period of eight consecutive semesters. During her eighth semester the Petitioner began work on her thesis. During that same semester her transcript reflects that she was also taking at least eleven courses totaling 44 hours of credit. 6/ During her ninth semester at UCE, the Petitioner did not take any classes, but spent all of her time working on her thesis. Educational Credential Evaluators, Incorporated, is the only agency approved by the Board of Dentistry to review foreign educational credentials. No other agency has ever been denied approval by the Board. Although the Board's rules permit other organizations to be approved, no other entity has ever requested to be approved by the Board. Educational Credential Evaluators, Incorporated, provides an evaluation of credentials to determine the quantity of education obtained at a foreign school in terms of the United States educational system. At one time Educational Credential Evaluators, Incorporated, was of the opinion that the dental education program at the Universidad Central del Este was equivalent to four years of dental education in the United States. The educational credentials of one of the Petitioner's classmates who also graduated from the UCE dental program in 1982 were earlier evaluated by Educational Credential Evaluators, Incorporated, and determined to be equivalent to four years of dental education. In 1990, following receipt and review of additional information about the dental program at UCE, Educational Credential Evaluators, Incorporated, concluded that its prior opinion was incorrect. The additional information that formed the primary basis for the change of opinion was that UCE was regularly waiving the so-called "common courses" on the basis of students' prior high school work and that UCE semesters were comprised of only thirteen or thirteen and a half teaching weeks. Educational Credential Evaluators, Incorporated, is now of the opinion that the dental program at UCE is the equivalent of only 3.66 years of dental education. 7/ Upon review of the Petitioner's educational credentials from UCE, Educational Credential Evaluators, Incorporated, concluded that she had actually completed the equivalent of only three and one-quarter years of dental education. 8/ This conclusion did not allow any credit for courses that were waived by UCE based on courses taken by the Petitioner at the University of Puerto Rico. The Board of Dentistry has a Credentials Committee that evaluates all applications to take the dental licensure examination, the dental hygiene licensure examination and the dental mannequin examination. The Credentials Committee reviews the educational credentials of applicants who have graduated from foreign dental schools. In its evaluation of foreign credentials, the Board of Dentistry does not accept as part of the statutorily required dental education any credit for course work completed at an undergraduate institution. Since 1987, the Board of Dentistry has relied upon reports from Educational Credential Evaluators, Incorporated, along with its own review of dental school transcripts, licensure applications, and national board examination scores, to determine the eligibility of applicants to take the dental mannequin examination. The Board has always accepted the recommendation of Educational Credential Evaluators, Incorporated, as to the equivalency of dental education. Prior to 1990, the Board of Dentistry generally accepted a dental education from the Universidad Central del Este as meeting the requirement for dental education set forth in the statutes. In 1990, based upon a report from Educational Credential Evaluators, Incorporated, which tended to confirm some of the Board's suspicions regarding the dental program offered at UCE, the Board changed its position regarding the equivalency of a UCE dental education.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case concluding that the Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she has received the equivalent of four academic years of dental education, concluding that the Petitioner is not eligible to take the dental mannequin examination, and dismissing the petition in this case. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st of March, 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 31st day of March, 1992.
Findings Of Fact The Department excepts to a portion of the Hearing Officer's finding of fact #3 on the basis that it is not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The Hearing Officer finds that a degree in public affairs from Florida Atlantic University is known as a degree in public administration elsewhere. The Hearing Officer cites no record authority for this statement and it does not appear that any officials from Florida Atlantic University or any other post-secondary institutions testified as to what a public affairs degree could be known as at other institutions. Further, the documentary evidence does not support this finding by the Hearing Officer. Joint Exhibit 2 indicates that the Petitioner, Mr. Bingham, received a Bachelor of Arts degree with a major in Political Science from Florida Atlantic University. No where on the official sealed transcript does it indicate that Mr. Bingham received a degree in public affairs or public administration. The Department's exception to finding of fact 3 is accepted. The Department excepts to the Hearing Officer's finding of fact #4 on the basis that it is not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. For the reasons set forth in paragraph 1 above, the Department's exception to finding of fact 4 is accepted. The Department excepts to the Hearing Officer's finding of fact #9 on the basis that the Hearing Officer erroneously interpreted fire-related courses as a fire-related major study concentration area. The proper standard for reviewing Mr. Bingham's transcript is whether the major study concentration area is fire-related, not whether the Petitioner's major study concentration area includes courses that are job-related. "The intent of the statute and the rule is to require fire fighters to qualify themselves for the performance of their duties by taking fire science courses, not general courses which might be somewhat generally related to the fire fighting career." In the Matter of Jorge Du Quesne; Case No. 91-L-367AKL (Final Order entered November 22, 1991). The Department's exception to finding of fact 9 is accepted. The Department excepts to the Hearing Officer's finding of fact #11 on the basis that it is not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. For the reasons set forth in paragraphs 1 and 3 above, the Department's exception to finding of fact #11 is accepted. RULING ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Department excepts to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law #15 the reason being that the Hearing Officer uses an erroneous interpretation of the applicable Rules. It appears that in this conclusion of law the Hearing Officer is simply restating the provisions of Rule 4A-37.084(3) and (5), Florida Administrative Code. Although some what difficult to follow, it does not appear that the Hearing Officer has erroneously interpreted this Rule. The Department's exception to conclusion of law #15 is rejected. The Department excepts to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law #16, again the reason being that the Hearing Officer uses an erroneous interpretation of the applicable Rules and that the conclusion is not supported by competent substantial evidence. The Hearing Officer has based this conclusion of law solely on her theory that if the Petitioner had not changed his major and had attended a different school he might have had his major called something else that would be fire-related. The Hearing Officer does not have authority to arbitrarily change the Petitioner's major study concentration area, nor is there substantial competent evidence in the record to support such a change. The Department's exception to conclusion of law #16 is accepted. The Department excepts to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law #17 on the basis that it is not supported by substantial competent evidence. For the reasons set forth in paragraph 2 above, the Department's exception to conclusion of law #17 is accepted. The Department excepts to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law #18 on the basis that it is not supported by substantial competent evidence. For the reasons set forth in paragraph 2 above, the Department's exception to conclusion of law #18 is accepted. RULING ON EXCEPTIONS TO RULINGS ON FINDINGS SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT IN APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 1. To the extent not inconsistent with the rulings on exceptions to findings of fact contained herein, the Department's exceptions to the Hearing Officer's appendix to Recommended Order are accepted. RULING ON EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing rulings on the Department's exceptions to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer's recommendation that the Petitioner be accepted into the Firefighter's Supplemental Compensation Program is rejected and the appropriate disposition of this case is that Petitioner is denied participation said program. Upon careful consideration of the record, the submissions of the parties and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is ORDERED: The Findings of Fact of the Hearing Officer are adopted as the Department's Findings of Fact, with the exception of Findings of Fact #3, 4, 9 and 11. The Conclusions of Law of the Hearing Officer are adopted as the Department's Conclusions of Law with the exception of Conclusions of Law #16, 17, and 18, That the Hearing Officer's recommendation that Mr. Bingham's request for entry into the Firefighter's Supplemental Compensation Program be accepted is rejected and the appropriate disposition of this case is that Mr. Bingham's request is denied. ACCORDINGLY, the request for entry into the Firefighter's Supplemental Compensation Program submitted by WILLIAM L. BINGHAM is hereby DENIED. Any party to these proceedings adversely affected by this Order is entitled to seek review of this Order pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Review proceedings must be instituted by filing a petition or notice of appeal with the General Counsel, acting as the agency clerk, at 612 Larson Building, Tallahassee, Florida, and a copy of the same with the appropriate district court of appeal within thirty (30) days of rendition of this Order. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of May 1993. TOM GALLAGHER Treasurer and State Fire Marshal COPIES FURNISHED: HONORABLE LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 WILLIAM L. BINGHAM 11156 Northwest 35th Street Sunrise, Florida 33351 DANIEL T. GROSS, ESQUIRE Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting Petitioner's application for entry into the Firefighters' Supplemental Compensation Program at the bachelor's degree level. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 26th day of March, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6278 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3 and 5-8 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 4 has been rejected as being subordinate to the issue being determined herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, 9, 10, and 13 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 3-8 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issue being determined herein. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 11 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 12 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. William L. Bingham 11156 Northwest 35th Street Sunrise, Florida 33351 Daniel T. Gross, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his solutions to Problems 124 and 222 of the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on October 30, 1998, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On October 30, 1998, as part of his effort to obtain a Florida engineering license, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination (Examination). This is a national examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). Petitioner chose to be tested in civil engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 47 on the Examination. For the civil engineering specialization, a raw score of 47 converts to a score of 69. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested the NCEES to rescore his solutions to Problems 124, 125, and 222 on the Examination. At the time he made this request, Petitioner was aware that rescoring could result in the candidate's score being lowered (although he believed that, in his case, the outcome would be a higher, not a lower, score). Petitioner was wrong. The rescoring he requested resulted in his receiving a raw score of 43 (or a converted score of 65, 5 points less than he needed to pass the Examination). After being notified of the outcome of the rescoring, Petitioner requested the Florida Board of Professional Engineers to grant him a "formal administrative hearing" on the matter. Petitioner's request was granted. At hearing, Petitioner advised that he was challenging only the grading of his solutions to Problems 124 and 222 of the Examination, and that he was not pursuing his challenge to the score he had received for his solution to Problem 125. Problems 124 and 222 were worth ten (raw) points each. Problem 124 contained four subparts (or requirements). Petitioner received two (raw) points for his solution to Problem 124. Rescoring did not result in any change to this score. Due to mathematical errors that he made, Petitioner did not solve any of the subparts of Problem 124 correctly. Accordingly, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem, the highest (raw) score that he could have received for his solution to this problem was a two, which is the score he received. Problem 222 contained five subparts (or requirements). Petitioner originally received a (raw) score of six for his solution to Problem 222. Upon rescoring, his (raw) score was reduced to two. In attempting to solve Problem 222, Petitioner overestimated the lateral earth pressure due to his misunderstanding of the term "equivalent fluid pressure" used in the problem. In addition, in his solution to subpart (a), he did not properly specify the appropriate bar size and spacing. Giving Petitioner a (raw) score of two for his solution to Problem 222 was consistent with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received from the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the October 30, 1998, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 4th day of October, 1999.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Florida Administrative Rule 61G15-22.011(2) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Peter J. Singhofen is a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida. He is the President and sole stockholder of Petitioner Streamline. In the 1980’s, Mr. Singhofen had a need for and developed engineering software that specialized in stormwater management for the terrain found in Florida. The software had to be specific to Florida because the terrain in the state is different from the terrain in many other parts of the country, and the Florida Statutes and rules governing stormwater management are some of the most stringent in the country. The software that Mr. Singhofen developed uses the Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing model (ICPR). This system performs complex calculations utilized in stormwater management and planning. It was the first proprietary model to be formally reviewed and accepted as a nationally accepted hydraulic model. ICPR is also extensively used by local and state government agencies throughout Florida, both to review stormwater permit applications as well as for the development of stormwater management master plans. Some of the users of Petitioners’ software are the Southwest Florida Water Management District, Department of Environmental Protection, South Florida Water Management District, St. Johns Water Management District, and Department of Transportation. Indeed, ICPR may be the most popular program of its type in the State of Florida. Streamline sells the stormwater management software and offers training and technical support for the software it sells. Clearly Petitioners have a direct financial interest in the engineering software they developed and own. As part of its business, Streamline conducts eight-to- ten workshops each year. Many of the state and local agencies that use ICPR send their engineers to these training programs. These workshops take three days. The first two days consist of intense lectures supported by hands-on exercises on computers provided by Petitioners. On the third day participants perform a "real world" project, using aerial photographs and survey notes to work on the project. The evidence was clear that these workshops are not “shill” presentations that are tantamount to product promotions or advertisements. Florida Statutes require licensed professional engineers to obtain a minimum of four professional development hours in the licensees' area of practice each biennium, or two hours per year. The Board approved Streamline as a CE provider during the 2001-2003 and 2003-2005 bienniums. However, Streamline's application for approval for the 2005-2007 biennium was denied as a result of amendment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-22.011(2), effective August 8, 2005. The amendment to the Rule in question reads as follows: . . . The continuing education provider shall not have any financial or commercial interest, direct or indirect, in any technology that is the subject of the instruction. The denial, and thus the Rule, has the potential to affect Petitioners’ substantial interests in its product since their training can no longer qualify for CE credits for the engineers who need training and technical support in order to better use this complex software. The Notice of Rulemaking published in the Florida Administrative Weekly listed the authority for the Rule as Section 471.017(3), Florida Statutes. Section 471.017(3), Florida Statutes, grants the Board rulemaking authority and requires that the CE rules be consistent with the guidelines of the National Council of Examiners for engineering and Surveying (NCEES) for multijurisdictional licensees. The Notice of Rule Development published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, as well as the Notice of Rulemaking, stated the purpose and effect of the Rule was to include a prohibition of conflict of interest as an added requirement for Board approval of CE providers. The same reason was provided in the Additional Statement to the Secretary of State under the Statement of Facts and Circumstances Justifying Proposed Rule. However, there was no discussion or finding by the Board prior to engaging in rulemaking that a CE provider who taught about technology over which he or she had a commercial interest would be engaging in a conflict of interest. In fact, the NCEES guidelines do not contain such a prohibition. According to the Board’s Director, the statement that the purpose and effect of the Rule was to avoid a conflict of interest was "erroneous" and that "it was erroneous three times if it was published three times." Indeed, other than minor references in various minutes of Board meetings, there was very little official Board discussion about the Rule prior to its adoption. The evidence on the rationale behind the Rule showed that there was general concern by the Board over prohibiting “shill” CE courses that were nothing more than product promotions or advertisements. The fact that the published purpose of the Rule was erroneous is a material failure to follow the rulemaking process since notice to the public of the Rule’s purpose is an important aspect of rulemaking. Notably, the Board does not directly approve individual courses. It approves CE providers. Under the Rule the courses must be offered or sponsored by an approved CE provider. NCEES model rules do recognize that a governmental authority may approve CE providers. In Appendix C, the guidelines indicate that provider approval be contingent upon the provider permitting a Board to attend courses and review course material to determine whether the course meets the standards of the Board. In the process of applying for CE provider status, the Board requires the applicant to provide course descriptions, syllabuses, and a list of courses intended to be provided. Section 456.025(7), Florida Statutes, mandates that: [e]ach board . . . shall establish, by rule, a fee not to exceed $250 for anyone seeking approval to provide continuing education courses or programs and shall establish by rule a biennial renewal fee not to exceed $250 for the renewal of providership of such courses. The fees collected from continuing education providers shall be used for the purposes of reviewing course provider applications, monitoring the integrity of the courses provided, covering legal expenses incurred as a result of not granting or renewing a providership, and developing and maintaining an electronic continuing education tracking system. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-22.011 provides that: The Board retains the right to audit and/or monitor courses [61G15-22.011(7)], which the guidelines require the provider to permit; The Board retains the right to review course materials [61G15-22.011(7)], which the guidelines require the provider to supply; The provider must provide a description of the type of courses or seminars the provider expects to conduct [61G15- 22.011(3)(a)] and a sample of intended course materials [61G15-22.011(3)(d) and the course curriculum [61G15-22.011(3)(f)], which the guidelines require a provider to supply; The provider must demonstrate the education and/or experience necessary to instruct engineers in the conduct of their practice [61G15-22.011(2)], which reflects the guideline requirement that providers ensure instructors are qualified; The provider must list anticipated locations to conduct the course [61G15- 22.011(3)(3)], which the guidelines require the provider to supply after the course is presented. Based upon information an applicant has provided, the Board has in the past denied applications for CE providers proposing to offer "shill" courses. Additionally, an existing rule of the Board, as well as NCEES guidelines, specifically provides that equipment demonstrations or trade show displays do not qualify as continuing education activities. See Fla. Admin. R. 61G15- 22.005. The evidence was not clear on how denial of CE provider status, because the provider had a financial interest in the technology which is the subject of a CE course, would prohibit “shill” courses without limiting otherwise legitimate CE courses such as the one here. Indeed, the most logical person to present a course on the software at issue here would be Petitioners, since they are the developers of the software. The NCEES guidelines at Section 2 set forth model rules for continuing professional competency. NCEES guideline 2B4 defines course/activity as any qualifying course or activity with a clear purpose and objective that will maintain, improve, or expand the skills and knowledge relevant to the licensee's field of practice. Rule 61G15- 22.002(5) defines course/activity as any qualifying course or activity with a clear purpose and objective that will maintain, improve or expand the skills and knowledge relevant to the licensee's area of practice. Clearly, Petitioners’ workshops meet these definitions. NCEES guideline 2C sets forth the ways licensees can earn the necessary CE credit through patenting inventions, active participation as an officer in professional or technical societies, authoring published papers, articles, books or accepted licensing exam items, teaching or instructing college courses or continuing education courses, completion of college courses, CE courses, correspondence, televised, videotaped and other short courses or tutorials, seminars, in-house courses, attendance at workshops, professional and technical presentations made at meetings, conventions or conferences. Similarly, Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-22.003, sets forth qualifying activities for the area of practice requirements and generally lists the same types of activities as the NCEES guidelines. Petitioners’ course specifically falls within both the NCEES guidelines and the Board’s rules defining qualifying activities for CE credit. Thus, the Board’s amendment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-22.011 results in a qualifying activity being excluded from such recognition, and thereby is inconsistent with NCEES guidelines. Such inconsistency is outside of the Board’s rulemaking authority and the amendment to Florida Administrative Rule 61G15-22.011(2) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for her solution to Problem 120 on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on April 14, 2000, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On April 14, 2000, as part of her effort to obtain a Florida engineering license, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination (Examination). This is a national examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). Petitioner chose to be tested in civil engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 46 on the Examination. For the civil engineering specialization, a raw score of 46 converts to a score of 68. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested that her solution to Problem 120 on the Examination be rescored. Petitioner's written request was referred to the NCEES. The NCEES's rescoring of Petitioner's solution to Problem 120 resulted in her receiving no additional points. The Board received the NCEES's rescoring results on or about December 5, 2000. After receiving a letter from Petitioner (dated December 14, 2000) requesting a "formal hearing," the Board referred the matter to the Division. Problem 120 was worth ten raw points. Petitioner received six raw points for her solution to Problem 120. In her solution to Problem 120, Petitioner failed to properly take into consideration the height of the water table, did not compute the factor of safety for load-bearing capacity in the manner required, and made an arithmetic mistake. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES's scoring plan for this problem, the highest raw score that she could have received for her solution to this problem was a six, which is the score she received. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": The examinee made three errors. The solution approved by the Civil Engineering Exam committee called for a correction in requirement (a) for the mid height water table. The examinee ignored this correction. A two point grade reduction is called for. The examinee made a numerical error in evaluating the bearing capacity equation. This error called for a one point grade reduction. In evaluating the factor of safety the examinee added an erroneous load factor. A two point grade reduction is called for. With a total of five grade points lost a final grade of six is called for. SCORER'S RECOMMENDATION: Recommended score = six There has been no showing that the rescorer's analysis was in any way flawed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score she received from the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the April 14, 2000, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 16th day of April, 2001.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's education is "substantially equivalent" to an ABET accredited engineering degree as set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed an application for licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer with Respondent. Petitioner is a 1990 graduate of Ohio State University with a degree in engineering physics. Petitioner has taken and passed both parts of the NCEES (National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying) licensure examination. Petitioner has submitted documentation to Respondent evidencing more than four years of engineering experience. The ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) accredits programs in engineering physics. Upon the filing of Petitioner's Petition for Waiver or Variance, Respondent evaluated Petitioner's engineering program to determine substantial equivalency with the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007. Petitioner provided the materials needed by Respondent's Educational Advisory Committee ("EAC") to evaluate Petitioner's education on June 29, 2006. These materials included his Ohio State University ("OSU") transcript, course descriptions for 1988, and a program guide for the engineering physics program at Wright State University for the academic year 2004-2005. Petitioner's application was reviewed by the EAC pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007, on July 12, 2006. Upon recommendation of the EAC, Respondent denied Petitioner's application on the grounds that his education did not meet the requirements contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007, because Petitioner's education did not include the required number of semester credit hours in engineering science and engineering design. Two members of the EAC, who reviewed the education component of Petitioner's application, hold doctoral degrees in physics. Dr. Anderson, who testified at hearing, holds a Ph.D. in engineering education, as well as 10 to 12 years of experience in evaluating engineering education for Respondent. He has performed more than a thousand such evaluations. Engineering is the cumulative application of mathematics, physical sciences, and engineering sciences. Engineering takes the theory of science in each of these fields and puts it into application. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007 requires an applicant to demonstrate completion of courses in mathematics, basic sciences, engineering sciences, and engineering design. Petitioner's transcript did not demonstrate completion of a course in statistics, one of the Rule's mathematics requirements. The EAC, however, counted Petitioner's course of Physics 621, Statistical Physics I, described as "thermodynamics and statistical mathematics, applications to non-interacting classical and quantum systems," as meeting that requirement. Had this course not been deemed to meet the statistics requirement, Petitioner's application would have been deficient in the mathematics requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007. ABET accredits programs in engineering physics. The engineering physics program at OSU is not ABET accredited. Of the 17 engineering programs offered at OSU, 15 are ABET accredited. OSU's electrical engineering program is ABET accredited. Petitioner took 30-quarter credit hours from that program. Petitioner's transcript is reported in quarter credit hours. To convert quarter credit hours to semester credit hours, the quarter credit hours are multiplied by 2/3 (0.666). The only reason for denying Petitioner's licensure by endorsement, as stated in Respondent's June 20, 2005, letter, was that Petitioner's degree was not accredited by ABET. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007, entitled "Foreign Degrees," sets forth substantial equivalency to an ABET-accredited engineering program by listing the required number of credit hours in mathematics and basic sciences, engineering sciences and design, and humanities and social sciences. However, Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.006(2) prohibited the application of the foreign degree program to graduates of United States based non-ABET accredited programs. Petitioner successfully challenged Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.006(2). Following the successful rule challenge, Respondent reviewed Petitioner's transcripts according to the criteria contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007. By letter dated August 3, 2006, Petitioner's application was denied for being deficient by 17 hours in engineering science and design. Respondent's EAC prepared a worksheet it used to review Petitioner's transcripts. The worksheet was divided into four columns. The third column was marked "Engn Sci + Design 48" (Engineering Science and Design 48). The first three courses listed under this column were Engineering Graphics I, II, and III. Respondent had not listed these courses in response to an interrogatory, which asked for a listing of all courses in petitioner's transcript meeting the criteria for Engineering Science/Design. Dr. Anderson testified that the inclusion of the three graphics courses was a mistake. The hours for these three courses were not counted when determining how many hours Petitioner completed in his attempt to qualify for licensure by endorsement. He described engineering graphics as "a communications course, much like English would be." According to Dr. Anderson, the engineering academic community has never considered engineering graphics courses as engineering science; the EAC has not counted engineering graphics as engineering courses in the last 10 years; and the ABET explicitly states that engineering graphics is neither engineering science nor engineering design. Although initially listed as mathematics or basic science courses, the EAC counted three of Petitioner's physics courses as engineering science and design: Physics 555-Fields and Waves 1, Physics 656-Fields and Waves 2, and Physics 657- Fields and Waves 3. These 12-quarter hours were credited to Petitioner as engineering science and design courses, even though identified by OSU as physics courses. Dr. Anderson did not agree that these courses should have qualified as engineering science and design by the EAC. Neither the EAC nor Dr. Anderson determined that Petitioner's courses in quantum physics (Physics 531, 532, and 533) and in particles and waves (Physics 261, 262, and 263) constituted engineering and design courses. By Respondent's calculations, and counting the fields and waves physics courses, Petitioner demonstrated completion of 41-quarter credit hours, or 27.306 semester credit hours (applying the 0.666 factor). Petitioner takes issue with the EAC and Dr. Anderson's determination that certain courses in his OSU engineering physics curriculum should not be counted toward the requisite number of qualifying hours necessary for licensure. Petitioner relies upon the following language from the ABET accreditation yearbook: The engineering sciences have their roots in mathematics and basic sciences but carry knowledge further toward creative applications. Engineering design is the process of devising a system, component, or process to meet desired needs. It is a decision process (other iterative) in which the basic sciences and mathematics and engineering sciences are applied to convert resources optimally to meet a stated objective. Among the fundamental elements of the design process are the establishment of objectives and criteria, synthesis, analysis, construction, testing and evaluation. The engineering design component of a curriculum must include most of the following features: development of student creativity, use of open-ended problems, development and use of modern design theory and methodology, formulation of design problem statements and specifications, consideration of alternative solutions, feasibility considerations, production processes, concurrent engineering design, and detailed system descriptions. Further, it is essential to include a variety of realistic constraints, such as economic factors, safety, reliability, aesthetics, ethics and social impact. The course description for Engineering Graphics 141 includes "Methods of problem solving and algorithmic development, introduction to three-dimensional photographic and pictorial visualization and presentation." The course description for Engineering Graphics 142 includes "Graphic problem solving techniques, introduction to computer graphics display methods, developing of dimensioning and graphic skills." The course description for Engineering Graphics 143 includes "Intermediate interactive computer graphic techniques and graphic conventions, comprehensive engineering problem solving project." The definition of engineering science and design contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G-15.20.007 states that computer science, other than computer programming skills, constitutes engineering science. Dr. Anderson testified that means "computer science, not computer programming, or not how to use a computer." When asked during cross-examination if he learned how to use a CAD (computer-aided design) system in the graphics course, Petitioner replied, "No, it was not how to use a CAD system at all." OSU also offers a basic course entitled "General Engineering Graphics 110," described as "Graphic language of engineering and its application to the analysis, development, representation, and communication of engineering concepts." Additionally, two other courses, Graphic Presentation 121 and Graphic Presentation 122 are offered. The description of the courses taken by Petitioner in Engineering Graphics 141, 142, and 143 appear, from their descriptions, to be more akin to the ABET definition of engineering science and design than "a communication course, much like English would be." These courses included "methods of problem solving and algorithmic development," "graphic problem solving techniques," and "a comprehensive engineering problem solving project." Petitioner argued that the three advanced physics courses in particles and waves (Physics 261, 262, and 263), rejected by the EAC and Dr. Anderson, should also have counted as courses in engineering sciences. He testified that the subject matter of these courses directly relates to electrical engineering, since they cover wave theory, electromagnetics, Fourier analysis, interference with radio waves, FM and AM radio, and fiber optics. Particles and waves, he stated, also applies to mechanical engineering, since it deals with compression waves, sound waves, and vibrations. Finally, he claimed, it applies to structural engineering since it deals with torsion waves. Petitioner further testified that three additional advanced physics courses in quantum physics (Physics 531, 532, and 533), which were deemed not to be engineering courses by the EAC and Dr. Anderson, should have also been included as engineering sciences. These courses, he claimed, enhanced his ability to understand the principles behind electrical engineering. Specifically, Petitioner testified that he performed well in his highest level electrical engineering course, Electrical Engineering 631, because he had a full year's training in quantum physics, a fundamental of solid state electronics. Petitioner also completed courses listed as Physics 616 (Advanced Physics Lab) and Physics 621 (Statistical Physics). Petitioner testified about two of the projects he completed in that lab course. One was a four-wire measuring technique to measure the resistance of a high temperature superconductor. Practical applications of this include high temperature superconductors, electromagnetic rail systems, and superconductivity. The second experiment involved shooting an electron beam at a piece of barium to measure the energy it took before releasing its outer electron band, and measuring this as it came off onto a screen. This experiment had applications to television screens. The statistical physics course dealt with thermodynamics. This was an in-depth course into the science of gases and liquids, and the energy exchange between them. This constitutes the basic core course behind refrigeration. Petitioner provided examples of how his engineering physics degree has aided him in real world engineering problems, including his work on a generator that would sit in the open ocean and generate energy from the action of waves. His background in electromagnetics helped him to calculate the exact distance that sets of opposing magnetic plates had to be placed inside the generator. Another project involved a fuel cell system to be used in airports that would convert photovoltaic to hydrogen to electricity via a fuel cell. He took a concept design developed by others and turned it into a schematic design with real parts, and ensured that a working system could be produced. The ABET requirement in mathematics and basic sciences is 32 semester credit hours. Petitioner has completed 35- quarter credit hours of higher math, which equates to 23.3 semester credit hours. This constitutes a higher level of math than the average engineering program offers. Adding together Petitioner's 16-quarter hours of introductory physics and seminar, eight-quarter hours of chemistry, and five-quarter hours of geology, will produce a total of 29-quarter credit hours, or 19.3 semester credit hours. Petitioner thus has 42.6 semester credit hours in mathematics and basic sciences, which is 10.6 hours more than the ABET minimum in this area. The previous ABET criteria required 32 hours of engineering science and 16 hours of engineering design. The new criterion is 48 hours of engineering science and design. Dr. Anderson testified that under the new criterion, whether the evaluator believes an applicant has too little design education is no longer an issue, so long as the hours total 48. If the additional advanced physics courses taken by Petitioner in particles and waves (12-quarter credit hours), quantum physics (12-quarter credit hours), and advanced physics lab (four-quarter credit hours) are counted as engineering sciences, Petitioner would have an additional 28-quarter credit hours, or 18.65 semester credit hours in engineering science and design, thereby exceeding the purported deficiency of 17 semester credit hours. If the engineering graphics courses were also counted, Petitioner would have an additional six semester credit hours. Dr. Anderson testified that Petitioner's physics courses in quantum mechanics and particles and waves should not be counted as engineering courses because they tend to be more theoretical than engineering courses. These courses, he believes, are more theory related to the basic science of physics than they are practically related to engineering. Dr. Anderson states that these courses are lacking in the design element of engineering, and he believes that Petitioner's course of study lacks a sufficient design component, even though the revised requirements for licensure do not differentiate between engineering science and engineering design. Dr. Anderson believes that there is now a design element even in the early engineering courses which helps explain why the strict design courses are no longer required as part of the 48 hours of engineering courses necessary for licensure. The Wright State University program in engineering physics recognizes an advanced physics course as an engineering science. Respondent previously admitted, in response to Requests for Admissions in DOAH Case No. 05-2033RX, that Petitioner's transcripts documented more than the minimum number of credit hours in each of the subject areas listed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007. Respondent's response in that case designated that it was made "for purpose of this rule challenge proceeding." Dr. Anderson is clearly an individual with a lifetime of experience in the profession of engineering. However, Petitioner's testimony concerning the substance of the advanced physics courses he completed was more thorough than the generalized description of engineering courses given by Dr. Anderson. On balance, Petitioner's justification for receiving credit for the physics courses he undertook to receive his degree in engineering physics was more persuasive than Dr. Anderson's.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order approving the application of D. Gregory Ruck for licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 5th of February, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin A. Bayó, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 11189 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3189 Lee Ann Gustafson, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Paul J. Martin, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Patrick Creehan, Esquire Chief Prosecuting Attorney Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for the Principles and Practice Examination has met the requirements set forth in Subsection 471.013(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.002(1)(b).
Findings Of Fact On or about April 27, 2006, Petitioner filed an application (Application) with the Board seeking to take the Principles and Practice Examination for professional engineers. Petitioner is not licensed in any other state as a professional engineer. Petitioner is a resident of Florida, who is of good moral character, and completed his bachelor's degree in electrical engineering from Ohio State University in December 1999. On August 5, 2006, Petitioner was awarded the degree of Master's of Science in Electrical Engineering from UCF. Petitioner is seeking to take the Florida Professional Engineering Examination in the area of electrical engineering. Section 7 of the Application for the Licensure by Examination directs the Applicant to do the following: List, in order, all employment experience. A minimum of four years experience must be evidenced at time of submitting your application. All engineering experience after graduation or prior to graduation shall be verified by professional or practicing engineers. Non- engineering experience or periods of unemployment shall be listed, but is not required to be verified. List employment beginning with earliest experience. Refer to attached copy of Rule 61G15-20.002. Column # 1 of Section 7 directs the Applicant to identify the Experience Number. Column # 2 of Section 7 directs the Applicant to list Dates of Employment, Month, Day, and Year. Column # 3 of Section 7 directs the Applicant to list Title of Position, Names and complete address of the firm and immediate supervisor. Column # 4 of Section 7 directs the Applicant to list Total Time in # of Months in Professional (Engineering Related) and Non-Professional (Non-Engineering Related) work. Column # 5 of Section 7 directs the Applicant to provide the following: Details pertaining to nature of work. Distinguish clearly between professional and non- professional duties and responsibilities. For each employment, describe explicitly, but concisely, the work you did and one engineering decision you were required to make. Attach exhibits as necessary. Refer to definitions in Section 471.005, Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G15, Florida Administrative Code, when defining work, see attached copy of rule. All experience, whether or not engineering, shall be accounted for on this application. (Emphasis in Original) Petitioner listed four separate professional experiences under Section 7. From August 1, 1995, to March 1, 2000, Petitioner served as a research assistant in the Electroscience Laboratory at the Ohio State University, while studying for his degree in electrical engineering. Petitioner assisted Ph.D. researchers to investigate electrical phenomena built electrical research devices, in a laboratory setting. From March 1, 2000, to March 1, 2001, Petitioner was employed as an electrical engineer for Weldon Technologies in Columbus, Ohio, where he worked on design, construction and manufacture of electrical systems for integration onto mobile devices. Petitioner worked on designs for digital systems, multiplying systems, vehicle systems, mobile vehicle response systems, emergency vehicles, and airplane/aerospace powered supply designs. From March 1, 2001, to December 1, 2001, Petitioner was employed as an electrical engineer for National Technical Systems in Foxborough, Massachusetts, where he worked to design, construct and perform electrical testing for domestic and international certification requirements and compliance verification. From December 1, 2001, to the present, Petitioner has been employed as an electrical engineer for the Harris Corporation in Palm Bay, Florida, where he works to design and analyze electrical systems for performance and qualification verification on aircraft, mobile vehicles, and space communication systems. Although staff had recommended that Petitioner's application be approved, Petitioner understood that the Board had to hear and approve the application. Petitioner completed the application form himself and felt that he had fulfilled all of the requirements set forth in the Application, including those contained in Column 5 of Section 7. Although Petitioner testified as to the details of the nature of the work he did at each of his employments after graduation, Petitioner failed to describe explicitly the work he did as required in Section 7, Column 5. Petitioner was required to describe explicitly, but concisely, one engineering decision he was required to make during the course of his employment. Petitioner failed to do so on his application or at the formal hearing. Petitioner has failed to show that he has met the requirements, set for in the Florida Statutes and in the Florida Administrative Code Rules, that he is entitled to sit for the Principles and Practice Examination for Professional Engineers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order denying the application of Petitioner, Larry Freeman, for application for the Principles and Practice Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 23rd day of February, 2007.
