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
Findings Of Fact Respondent presented evidence from Petitioner's application which showed registration in Illinois on February 19, 1980. According to this application, she is not registered in any other state and does not hold an academic degree in architecture.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the petition be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1982 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick R. Brock, Esquire GARTNER AND PHILLIPS Suite 600 1325 San Marco Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Arthur C. Walberg, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herbert Coons, Jr. Executive Director Board of Architecture Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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
Findings Of Fact In October, 1973, the Petitioner filed an application for registration to practice architecture in the State of Florida with the Board. By letter dated November 21, 1973, the Board, through its Executive Secretary, denied the application stating that the Petitioner lacked the required degree (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Petitioner requested that his experience be reviewed to determine whether he had training fully equivalent to such a degree (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). By letter dated August 19, 1974 the Board notified the Petitioner that his educational background was insufficient, and that the application would be denied. Petitioner thereupon filed a Declaratory Judgment Action in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County, Florida. The court adjudged that the Board was required to consider not only the Petitioner's educational training, but his private study, on-the-job training and other practical experience. A copy of the court's Final Declaratory Judgment was received in evidence as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 12. Petitioner again appeared before the Board and offered evidence respecting his training and practical experience. See: Petitioner's Exhibits 5 and 6, Hearing Officer's Exhibit 8. On June 11, 1976, the Board entered its order finding the Petitioner to be not qualified and denying the application (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). Petitioner thereupon requested a hearing in accordance with Florida Statutes Section 120.57(1). Petitioner's application for licensure is an administrative adjudicatory proceeding which commenced prior to January 1, 1975. The parties have nonetheless stipulated that the provisions of Section 120.57(1) will hereafter govern the proceeding. The Petitioner received a Bachelor of Science degree from Chicago Technical College, Chicago, Illinois on December 17, 1954. Petitioner's course of study was architectural engineering. The Chicago Technical College was not, during the time that Petitioner attended it, and is not now on the approved list of schools and colleges of architecture adopted and published by the Board. The course of study pursued by the Petitioner at Chicago Technical College was not the same as a program in architecture. The program was a highly technical engineering program. The design studio which is perhaps the major facet of an architectural program was not present in the architectural engineering program pursued by the Petitioner. Following his graduation the Petitioner worked with other architects in the general practice of architecture. His longest periods of employment were with Cabanban and Wasserman, architects, where he worked for four years and eleven months from 1958 until 1963; and with Ohrnstein and Wasserman, with whom he was employed for four years and four months from 1966 through 1971. In each of these jobs the Petitioner performed the sort of work ordinarily performed by architects. A listing of the different projects in which the Petitioner performed design and supervisory functions is set out as a part of Hearing Officer's Exhibit 10. A wide variety of commercial buildings, apartment complexes, and private residences are included. Petitioner served as a partner in Cabanban and Wasserman, and in Ohrnstein and Wasserman. Augustine Cabanban and Earl Ohrnstein were both registered architects during the course of the partnerships. Cabanban and Ohrnstein each testified that the Petitioner performed the full range of architectural services during the course of the partnerships, and that his work was excellent. Architectural drawings submitted by the Petitioner to the Board demonstrate that the Petitioner did not achieve a high level of design proficiency from his work experience. The best drawings submitted demonstrated a level of competence of approximately a third year architecture student in a five year program. Other drawings demonstrated a lack of design competence, and were inadequate. During 1972, the Petitioner passed the standard examination offered by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards. Petitioner holds a current certificate issued by the National Council, and is registered to practice architecture in the State of Illinois. Schools or colleges of architecture approved by the Board have many common features, and the curricula offered at the schools are fairly consistent. Generally the programs and the curricula have remained consistent since approximately 1955 with minor variations, or changes of a technical sort. There is no real distinction between the sort of program which would have been approved in 1955, and the sort of program which would be approved today. Typically an approved program which operated on a quarter hour academic basis would require approximately 240 quarter hours for graduation. Approximately 75 quarter hours would be in architectural design culminating in a thesis. Approximately 60 quarter hours would be in general education subject matter, with between 30 to 35 hours in social science and humanities. The social science background is important because an architect must bring together all the factors which relate to the building environment, including social factors. The educational program followed by the Petitioner lacked the necessary design courses and social science courses which would be required in an approved architectural program. An architectural engineer is an engineer involved with buildings. The design courses in an architectural engineering program are set up to enable the engineer to work with an architect. Through on-the-job training the Petitioner received considerable design experience; however, drawings which he submitted to the Board did not evidence that he had achieved the level of design competence which would be required of a graduate of an approved architectural program. The fact that the Petitioner passed the National Council's test does not in itself establish that Petitioner reached the necessary level of competence. Petitioner did not offer evidence from which it could be concluded that his studies and experience would substitute for the social science background required of a graduate of an approved program. The Petitioner did not establish that he took social science courses, or engaged in individual study in the social sciences, or engaged in any other activities which would substitute for such an academic background.
The Issue The issue is whether Rules 21H-21.002(1) and 21H-21.004(1) are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Ronnie F. Taylor, of Post Office Box 697, Cedar Key, Florida, is employed by the engineering firm of Ingley, Campbell, Moses and Associates of Gainesville, Florida, which engages in mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineering. Taylor has been with this engineering firm for four years and is currently a vice president in charge of production of electrical engineering documents. Prior to this employment, Taylor spent 14 years as an electrical engineer with the engineering firm of Reynolds, Smith and Hill of Jacksonville, Florida. When Taylor left Reynolds, Smith and Hill, he was the senior design engineer. Taylor served in the military as an electrician. Upon completing military service in 1967, Taylor entered Florida Junior College. He received an Associate of Science degree in Electrical Engineering Technology in 1970 from that institution. Following that degree, Taylor began employment with Reynolds, Smith and Hill, where his responsibilities included the design of electrical projects for commercial buildings, including writing specifications, making cost estimates and producing a finished product. Taylor has spent his entire career in electrical engineering and has no experience with other specialties of engineering. He has extensive experience in electrical engineering having designed and completed numerous large commercial projects. However, because Taylor is not a licensed professional engineer, a licensed professional engineer must oversee all projects during the course of design and completion and must sign and seal all completed work. Taylor is not a licensed professional engineer because he has failed to pass the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) portion of the engineering examination. He has failed in fourteen attempts to pass the FE exam. Taylor did pass the Principles and Practices (P & P) portion of the exam in 1982. Licensure requirements specify that both sections must be passed prior to licensure. Taylor became qualified to take the engineering exam in 1977 pursuant to Section 471.21(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1977), which permitted an applicant to take the exam with "a specific record of 10 years or more of active practice in engineering work of a character indicating that the applicant is competent to be placed in responsible charge of such work." This so-called 10 year cycle permitted an applicant to qualify for the exam without the otherwise required 4- year college degree and 4 additional years of experience. In 1979, Section 471.013, Florida Statutes, was enacted, allowing persons in the final year of engineering school to take the FE exam to qualify as an engineer intern. This provision has been in effect since 1979. The FE exam, as required by Rule 21H-21.002(1), which is challenged here, includes questions on the subjects of mathematics, mathematical modeling of engineering systems, nucleonics and wave phenomena, chemistry, statistics, dynamics, mechanics of materials, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics/heat transfer, computer programming, electrical circuits, statics, structure of matter, engineering mechanics, electronics and electrical machinery. While Taylor scored highly on the subjects relating to electrical engineering, he had difficulty with other areas of the exam. The course work completed by Taylor in 1970 did not include some of these areas with which Taylor had difficulty. Taylor has had no course work in computer programming, thermodynamics, statistics, nucleonics and wave phenomena. The subjects tested in the FE exam are updated in order to test applicants on the most current information and knowledge of engineering fundamentals. Herbert A. Ingley is a licensed professional engineer and holds a Bachelors degree in Chemical Engineering, a Masters degree in Mechanical Engineering, and a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering with a minor in Environmental-Mathematics. He taught full time on the faculty of the University of Florida in Mechanical Engineering for 11 years. In his opinion, it is more difficult for applicants to pass the FE exam the further they are from their formal education and, therefore, applicants in the 10 year cycle have more difficulty passing the exam. According to Ingley, the requirement that persons such as Taylor wait 10 years before taking the FE exam is not logical. However, Ingley also opined that it is important for a professional engineer to have a fundamental knowledge of engineering and that there is a need to test the fundamental basics of engineering for each person who is going to become a licensed professional engineer. George Edward Rabb is a licensed professional engineer, having been licensed in 1965. He was grandfathered and therefore only had to pass the P & P exam. The FE exam was waived based on specific portions of statute and rule which waived the FE exam for persons with fifteen years experience. The waiver was only available to persons qualifying prior to November, 1970. According to Rabb, an engineer needs to have a working knowledge of fundamentals and to understand the general concepts of engineering. Robert D. Kersten, who has been the Dean of the Department of Engineering at the University of Florida for 20 years, has a Bachelors degree in Mathematics and Chemistry, a Masters degree in Civil Engineering, and a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering, Water Resource/Hydrologic Engineering. Dean Kersten has served in numerous capacities with both state and national professional associations involved in accreditation of engineers and served on the Board of Professional Engineers in Florida and on the National Council of Engineering Examiners. The FE exam is prepared by the National Council of Engineering Examiners and is designed to cover the fundamental areas essential to the basic practice of engineering. The FE exam tests both the common body of knowledge that is essential to practice in the profession and the ability to apply that knowledge. According to Dean Kersten the FE exam tests items which should be within an engineer's basic knowledge and which are necessary to communication between engineers in a design team approach to project design. Dean Kersten acknowledges that the FE exam is more difficult for applicants who lack a degree or who have been out of the academic area for a period of time, but opines that those factors do not excuse an applicant from mastering and retaining the basic fundamentals important to the practice. In fact, the FE exam is designed so that 70 percent of the applicants with-the 4- year college educational background pass the exam. Only 40 percent of the applicants in the 10 year cycle pass the exam.
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner successfully completed the answers posed on the April, 1987 professional engineer's examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the April, 1987 professional engineering examination and was advised that he failed the principles and practice portion of the examine. His raw score was 45 points and the parties stipulated that he needed a minimum raw score of 48 points to pass the examination. In his request for hearing, Petitioner challenged questions 120, 123 and 420. However, during the hearing, he only presented testimony and challenged question 420. Question 420 is worth 10 points and is set forth in its entirety in Petitioner's Exhibit Number 1. For reasons of test security, the exhibit has been sealed. Question 420 requires the examinee to explore the area regarding "braced excavations" and explores the principles involved in such excavations. Question 420 requires the examinee to calculate the safety factor for a braced excavation including the depth of excavation which would cause failure by "bottom heaving". Petitioner, in calculating the safety factor, made a mathematical error when he incorporated the B-prime value calculation which was inserted into the equation in making his calculations. Question 420 does not direct the applicant to apply the calculations to either a square excavation or to a rectangular excavation. Petitioner assumed the shape of the excavation to be square and calculated the factor of safety according to that assumption. In assuming the square excavation, Petitioner did not make the more conservative calculation that will be required in making the safety factor calculation for a rectangular excavation. In this regard, an examination of Petitioner's work sheet indicates that he referenced the correct calculation on his work sheet but the calculation was not transferred to or utilized in the equation. Respondent utilizes the standard scoring plan outline, which is more commonly known as the Items Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) which is used by the scorers in grading the exam. The ISSP provides a scoring breakdown for each question so that certain uniform criteria are met by all applicants. For example, four points are given for a correct solution on a specific question regardless of the scorer. This criteria is supplied by the person or persons who prepared the exam. The criteria indicates "in problem-specific terms, the types of deficiencies that would lead to scoring at each of the eleven (0-10) points on the scale". The ISSP awards six points on question 420 when the applicants meets the following standards: "all categories satisfied, applicant demonstrate minimally adequate knowledge in all relevant aspect of the item." ISSP awards seven points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standard: "all categories satisfied, obtains solution, but chooses less than optimum approach. Solution is awkward but reasonable". The ISSP awards eight points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standards: "all categories satisfied. Errors attributable to misread tables or calculating devices. Errors would be corrected by routine checking. Results reasonable, though not correct". The ISSP awards nine points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standard: "all categories satisfied, correct solution but excessively conservative in choice of working values; or presentation lacking in completeness of equations, diagrams, orderly steps in solution, etc." The ISSP criteria for awarding nine points as to question 420 clearly requires that the Petitioner calculate the correct solution without mathematical errors. The Petitioner's answer was not correct regardless of the assumption as to the shape of the excavation since he made a mathematical error. The ISSP criteria for awarding eight points as to question 420 allows Petitioner to calculate the answer with mathematical errors with the requirements that the results are reasonable. Petitioner made a mathematical error although his result was reasonable. His answer fits the criteria for the award of eight points in conformity with the ISSP criteria. Petitioner received six points for his answer to question 420 whereas he is entitled to an award of eight points.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent enter a Final Order determining that Petitioner failed the principles and practice portion of the April, 1987 engineering examination. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Glen E. Wichinsky, Esquire 900 Glades Road, 5th Floor Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Michael A. Mone', Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers 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
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Michael Reggia meets the Florida licensure requirements for a professional engineer in the field of manufacturing engineering. The issue is specifically whether the practice and principles portion of the licensing exam was valid. Procedural Matters At the final hearing, Petitioner, Michael Reggia testified in his own behalf and presented the testimony of manufacturing engineer, Howard Bender. Petitioner's exhibits #1 and #2, letters from Martin Marietta Aerospace and Harris Corporation, were rejected as hearsay. Exhibit #3, selected pages from Fundamentals of Engineering, published by the National Council of Engineering Examiners, was admitted without objection. Respondent presented two witnesses: Cass Hurc, P.E. (by deposition, by agreement of the parties) and Allen Rex Smith, Executive Director of the Board of Professional Engineers. Respondent initially submitted four exhibits: #1 and #4 were admitted without objection, #2(a) and #2(b), were admitted over Petitioner's objection, and #3 was withdrawn. The parties requested and were given 20 days to submit post-hearing briefs and proposed orders. On September 15, 1986, Petitioner filed his arguments and summary of she testimony and evidence. Nothing was filed by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Michael Reggia resides in Titusville and works at the Kennedy Space Center. He is licensed in the state of California as a professional engineer and has practiced in the field of manufacturing engineering. California, like Florida, does not license an individual in a particular discipline of engineering but requires that an individual select an area in which he or she will be tested. Mr. Reggia took the professional engineering license exam in Florida in October 1985. For part two of the examination, Professional Practice and Principles, he chose to be tested in his field of manufacturing engineering. He achieved a score of 64.4; in order to pass, a score of 70 is required. The examination given in Florida is a national examination produced by the National Council of Engineering Examiners (NCEE) for certification or licensure throughout the United States. The October 1985 exam was developed based upon an extensive survey study initiated by NCEE in 1979. A report of that study was published in March 1981 as "A Task Analysis of Licensed Engineers". (Respondent's exhibit #4) The primary purpose of the study was to aid NCEE in developing"... fair, meaningful, uniform, and objective standards with which to measure minimum competency for professional licensure." (exhibit #4, page E1) In drafting an exam the NCEE relies on the societies representing various engineering disciplines to submit examination problems for consideration. The Society of Manufacturing Engineers, through its professional registration committee, provides that service on behalf of the manufacturing engineers. The October 1985 examination for manufacturing engineers did not include questions relating to electrical engineering, which is Mr. Reggia's sub- area of emphasis in the area of manufacturing engineering. Since manufacturing engineering includes overlap into the basic engineering disciplines, Mr. Reggia contends the exam was one-sided and invalid as he felt it concentrated on tool designing and mechanical engineering. Some industries, particularly the aerospace industries now include a substantial number of electrical engineers on their staff. Engineering is an evolving discipline and manufacturing engineering has undergone changes with new technologies in recent years. One way of addressing the diversity and changes in the field is to provide a two-book exam that would offer the applicant a wider variety of problems from which he or she could select. This has been recommended to the NCEE by the Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Another approach, and the one utilized by the NCEE, is to conduct periodic surveys to determine the tasks which engineers are actually performing and the level of judgement required to perform the tasks effectively. It would be impossible, and perhaps inappropriate to develop an exam that would test each individual only on his or her particular expertise. In the area of manufacturing engineering the exams developed by NCEE are passed by 65- 75 percent of the candidates, a rate which is comparable to that of the mechanical engineers for their exam. Seven out of ten applicants passed the same exam which Mr. Reggia took in October 1985.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has not completed an approved engineering curriculum. From 1955 through 1958, he was enrolled in an engineering program at the University of Florida. He received an associate in arts degree. During 1961 he was enrolled for three semesters in an engineering program. Petitioner's other educational experiences have not been in the field of engineering. Since the Petitioner did not complete the requirements for a degree program, it is appropriate that his educational experience be viewed as engineering work experience in order to determine his eligibility to take the examination for licensure as a professional engineer. Since he has completed only the earlier stages of an engineering program, it is not appropriate that his years of educational background be credited directly as years of work experience. It is appropriate, however, that he be considered as having had one year of engineering work experience as an engineer based upon his total educational background. From 1964 until 1970, Petitioner worked for the Department of of Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering at the University of Florida. He was in charge of field experiments considering littoral drift on the east coast of Florida. He assisted in setting up programs for beach erosion control. Petitioner was in charge of conducting various experiments to observe beach erosion, to locate sources of offshore sand for use in erosion prevention, and in developing models to establish techniques for stabilizing sand movements. Some of the work he performed was clearly engineering work, but a significant portion of it would more properly be classified as surveying work. The Petitioner was directly supervised by James A. Purpura, who was a professional engineer. Unfortunately, Mr. Purpura is deceased. Only three-quarters of a year of the experience that the Petitioner had with the Department of Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering has been verified by a registered professional engineer as engineering experience. In view of the fact that significant portions of the Petitioner's work from 1964 to 1970 was not engineering work, and the fact that his work cannot be verified as engineering work, it is not appropriate that he be credited with more than three-fourths year of engineering work experience for this period. From 1970 until 1972, Petitioner was employed with Global Oceanic, Inc. Petitioner testified that during this period he designed a submersible dredge; was involved in restoration of beach property in the Bahamas; and designed and constructed a marina, a water desalination plant, various seawalls, and roads. Petitioner testified that he was employed as field engineer during this period. Petitioner presented no verification from a registered professional engineer as to the nature of his work experience with Global Oceanic, Inc. He testified that his director-supervisor, who was a professional engineer, died. From 1972 until 1973, Petitioner was employed with his own company, McGill and Associates. His work during this period was to complete activities with Global Oceanic, Inc., after his employer died. Petitioner testified that his work with McGill and Associates was as a field engineer. Again, however, there has been no verification of his work experience by a registered professional engineer. In view of the fact that the Petitioner's experience wit Global Oceanic, Inc., and with McGill and Associates from 1972 until 1973 has not been verified by a professional engineer as engineering work experience, it is not appropriate that the Petitioner be credited with experience by the Board of Engineers. From 1973 until 1975, Petitioner was employed by Kunde and Associates, an engineering firm. During this period, he oversaw various construction projects, and monitored them to assure that they were being constructed in accordance with engineering specifications. He served as a field engineer, directly responsible for various dredging and road building projects. Petitioner's work experience while at Kunde and Associates has been verified by a professional engineer as engineering work experience, and there does not appear to be any dispute that he should be credited with two years of engineering work experience for this period. Since 1975, the Petitioner has worked with his own company, McGill and Associates. He has been in the business of designing and constructing swimming pools and whirlpool spas. He has spent a fair amount of his time engaged in the original design of whirlpools. He has also participated in designing swimming pools, but in order to receive construction permits, registered engineers have had to evaluate and approve his designs. A considerable amount of the work that Petitioner has performed since 1975 has been engineering work; however, limited engineering know-how is required in swimming pool and whirlpool design and construction. Only approximately one year of non-repetitive engineering experience can appropriately be credited to such activities. Crediting Petitioner with one year of engineering work experience resulting from his educational background, three-fourths year of engineering work experience with the Department of Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering at the University of Florida, two years of engineering work experience with Kunde and Associates, and one year of engineering work experience with McGill and Associates, the Petitioner has four and three-fourths years of valid engineering work experience.
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.
Findings Of Fact Douglas H. Gunter is a 34-year-old applicant for the unlimited electrical contractor's examination. He attended Gulf High School in New Port Richey, Florida, and took classes at Austin Community College in Austin, Texas. His college classes included courses in Business Math, Principles of Management, Principles of Microeconomics, Mathematics of Finance, Principles of Accounting I, Principles of Accounting II, and Individual Income Tax. He earned a total of 21 semester hours in the Austin Community College system. From 1972 to 1975 Mr. Gunter worked as a residential electrician. From 1975 through 1979 he was enlisted in the U.S. Navy. He completed the Navy electronics and basic electricity school, and the aviation electrician's mate school and an aviation electrician organizational maintenance course. From October 1976 through July 1979, he was assigned to the electrical instrument branch of a Naval maintenance department, where he was responsible for performing scheduled and unscheduled maintenance on U.S. Navy aircraft as an aircraft electrician. After leaving the Navy he managed all phases of his family's plumbing business, George Gunter Plumbing, Inc., which is State-certified plumbing contractor #CFC040002, from 1979 to 1983. His management duties included estimating, payroll, handling workers' compensation insurance, taxes and the ordering of supplies for jobs in both residential and commercial plumbing. Mr. Gunter possesses an electrical contractors' license in Palm Beach County, #V-16057, where he has been active as an electrical contractor for approximately three months. He also holds an electrical contractors license in Pasco County which he received in 1984, #3277, but which became inactive soon thereafter. It was briefly reactivated last year. Mr. Gunter has been engaged in electrical work for a number of companies from 1985 through the present. These included such things as the installation of a Switch Gear Computer system and energy management system in a 20,000 square foot office building in Austin, Texas; installation of panel boards and outside lighting and fire alarm system in a restaurant/office complex in Boca Raton, Florida; installation of kitchen equipment, a laundry and boiler room and controls for lighting in a Marriott Hotel; electrical work in a restaurant in Coral Springs, Florida; in a shopping center in Plantation, Florida; at an oil lube center in Margate, Florida; and a commercial jewelry store in Hollywood, Florida. The Board is satisfied that Mr. Gunter has adequate technical or field experience as an electrician (Tr. 28). The denial letter from the Board focused on whether Mr. Gunter had three years of responsible management experience or six years comprehensive, specialized training, education or experience associated with an electrical contracting business.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered by the Electrical Contractors Licensing Board denying the application of Douglas H. Gunter to sit for the examination as an unlimited electrical contractor. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of December, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 18th day of December, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas H. Gunter 600 East River Drive Margate, Florida 33063 Clark R. Jennings, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Electrical Contractors Licensing Board 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
