Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Carlos Martinez Mallen, is an applicant for licensure by endorsement to become a professional engineer in the State of Florida. He filed his application for licensure with the Florida Board of Professional Engineers (hereinafter "Board") in January 1988, relying on the facts that he was licensed in Spain approximately 25 years ago and has approximately 30 years of experience as a professional engineer. The Board subsequently determined that he could not be considered for licensure by endorsement. Petitioner has never taken a licensing examination in the United States which is substantially equivalent to the examination required for licensure by Section 471.013, Florida Statutes, and described in Chapter 21H, Florida Administrative Code. Further, Petitioner has never been licensed in any state or territory of the United States, although he does hold a license to practice engineering in Spain. On the other hand, Petitioner's engineering experience record shows that he has considerable experience in the practice of engineering which would meet the additional experience requirements of Section 471.013, Florida Statutes. The Board, having determined that Petitioner does not qualify for licensure by endorsement, performed an analysis of Petitioner's application to determine whether his degree from the University of Madrid was an engineering degree which might qualify him to sit for the 1icensure examination and to ascertain if Petitioner could obtain licensure by that alternative method. An analysis was made by the Board's Education Advisory Committee to determine whether the curriculum for Petitioner's degree from the University of Madrid met the requirements of Rule 21H-20.006, Florida Administrative Code. This analysis was specifically directed to determine whether Petitioner's curriculum conformed to the criteria for accrediting engineering programs set forth by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology, Inc., (hereinafter "ABET"). The analysis of Petitioner's degree shows that, when compared with ABET criteria, Petitioner's engineering education was deficient four semester hours in mathematics and included no courses in engineering design, sixteen semester hours of which are required by ABET criteria. Further, Petitioner's education included no computer application of engineering design programs, a mandated requirement by ABET standards. Petitioner has never taken any of these courses subsequent to receiving his degree in Spain. Petitioner's degree, rather than being an engineering degree, is the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in chemistry. Petitioner's degree is significantly deficient in required course areas, so that it does not meet the Board's criteria. Petitioner thus cannot be considered as an applicant for examination since in order to sit for the professional engineer examination in the State of Florida, one must have an engineering degree which meets standards acceptable to the Board. Finally, Petitioner's background was reviewed to determine whether he could be considered for licensure under a different provision for licensure by endorsement. Petitioner has never held a professional engineer registration or license from another State of the United States. The Board has never interpreted the word "state" found in the statutes and rules regulating the licensure of professional engineers in Florida to include foreign counties. Petitioner is not a graduate of the State University System. Petitioner did not notify the Department before July 1, 1984, that he was engaged in engineering work on July 1, 1981, and wished to take advantage of a temporary educational waiver. As a result of the Board's review of all avenues to licensure available to Petitioner, Petitioner's application was denied either to sit for the examination to become a professional engineer or to be licensed by endorsement, unless and until he meets the educational requirements to sit for the professional engineer examination.
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 endorsement and further finding that Petitioner's educational background does not meet the requirements necessary to take the examination to become licensed in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of March, 1990. 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 28th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-5973 Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 0.00, .10, .20, .30, .40, .50, 1.10, 1.20, 2.20, 3.10, 3.20, 3.40, 3.60, 4.10, 4.11, 4.13, 5.00, 5.30, 5.40, 5.41, 5.50, 5.51, 5.52, 6.00, 6.10, 6.20, 6.21, 6.22, 6.23, 6.24, 6.25, 6.26, 7.00, 7.40, and 7.50 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument or conclusions of law. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 1.21, 3.00, 4.00, 7.10, 7.20, 730, 7.41, 7.42, and 7.43 have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 1.22 and 2.10 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 3.30, 3.50, 3.70, 4.12, 4.20, 5.10, 5.11, and 5.20 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues involved in this proceeding. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-8 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Office of Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carlos Martinez Mallen 33C Venetian Way #66 Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rex Smith, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Samuel J. Pomeranz holds a "Rank 2" certificate issued by the Florida Department of Education. Petitioner Samuel J. Pomeranz obtained an advanced certificate in Educational Administration and Supervision in June 1970, from City College of New York. He obtained a Bachelor of Arts Degree in 1957 and a Master of Arts Degree in Education in 1959. Petitioner was licensed as a teacher in the State of New York and served as head of Curriculum Development in a senior high school in New York, New York. At the time of the hearing, he had not taught school in the State of Florida. Petitioner applied for a "Rank 1A" teaching certificate from the Respondent Department of Education Certification Section, but certification as "Rank 1A" was denied. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-4.049(1)(b) 1. requires that an applicant hold a "sixth year postmaster's level degree." Applicant received a certificate rather than a degree at the conclusion of his postmaster's work.
Recommendation Affirm the Respondent's action in denying Petitioner's request for "Rank 1A" certificate. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of October, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: William L. Boyd, Esquire Post Office Box 5617 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Gene T. Sellers, Esquire State Board of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
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.
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether Respondent used a title that tended to indicate he was an active registered engineer in the State of Florida when he did not hold such registration; (2) whether Respondent violated an order previously issued by the Department; (3) and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Frank V. Burianek, earned a Master of Science Degree in Civil and Structural Engineering from the University of Bratislava. In 1967, when Respondent earned this degree, the University of Bratislava was located in Bratislava, Czechoslovakia. However, since that time, the country of Czechoslovakia was dissolved and divided to form two new countries. The country in which the City of Bratislava is now located is the Slovian Republic. Respondent has worked in the construction business for about 30 years. During this time, Respondent worked as an engineer in Africa and Europe. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent resided in Pinellas County, Florida. After moving to the area, Respondent made inquiries concerning how he could become a licensed or registered engineer in the State of Florida. After considering the matter, however, Respondent decided that he would not pursue applying for and obtaining a license to practice engineering in the State of Florida. Instead, Respondent chose to become a home inspector. In Florida, there is no requirement that individuals who work as home inspectors be licensed. Moreover, neither the home inspection business, nor its employees, are regulated by the State of Florida. According to a flyer distributed by Respondent, he began conducting home inspections in the Pinellas County area in 1992. The flyer stated in relevant part the following: Hi, my name is Frank Burianek. I am a Civil and Structural Engineer. I have thirty years experience in the construction industry. I have been successfully completing Home Inspections in this area since 1992. You might have used me before, seen my marketing, or heard how I saved your colleague's deal. I want to offer you and your colleagues the best service, but I need your professional opinion . . . your advice. And here is where I need your help. You have obviously used a number of inspectors in the past and you can help me be the best one. Don't worry. I have never killed a deal. On the contrary. As there are few inspectors eagerly killing some deals, I have been called on a number of occasions for Engineer's re-inspection. On October 27, 1998, a letter of complaint, which included a copy of Respondent's flyer, was filed with the Department. The letter of complaint, which appeared to be from the president of a company located in Spring Hill, Florida, that provided construction inspections consultation, indicated that Respondent did not list his license number on the flyer. The Department assigned the complaint described in paragraph 6 above as DBPR Case No. 98-21925. In a letter from the Department, Respondent was advised that a complaint had been filed alleging that Respondent "acted in the capacity of an ENGINEER without being duly licensed, a business that requires licensure in the State of Florida." The letter further stated that "this unlicensed practice is a criminal offense for which [Respondent] may be criminally prosecuted." The Department's investigation of DBPR Case No. 98-21925 included reviewing Department records and Respondent's flyer and written response to the Department, interviewing Respondent, and conferring with Department staff. During the course of the investigation, Respondent's flyer was reviewed by the contract administrator for the engineering board. After the contract administrator completed her review of the flyer, she wrote an e-mail to the Department's investigator regarding recommended changes that could be made to Respondent's flyer to correct the problem raised in the complaint. The e-mail, dated January 8, 1999, stated in part the following: I've read the flyer. Suggest to Mr. Burianek that he change the second sentence to the following: "I hold a Master Degree in Civil & Structural Engineering from University." If it is a foreign university, listing the city, state and or country might be helpful too! The way it is currently written implies or "tends to indicate" that he holds an active registration as a licensed engineer when he does not. The e-mail described in paragraph 10 was referred to in the Department's Investigative Report of DBPR Case No. 98-21925. According to the Investigative Report, the engineering board's contract administrator recommended that Respondent "change the second sentence on the flyer and add credentials." During the investigation of DBPR Case No. 98-21925, Respondent indicated that he was a civil and structural engineer because he had a master's degree in that field from the University of Bratislava. Respondent also indicated to the investigator that he was working as a home inspector and never intended that the flyer indicate he was licensed or registered as a professional engineer by the State of Florida. Based on the custom and practice in Europe, as a result of Respondent's obtaining a graduate degree in civil and structural engineering, his title was engineer. On January 13, 1999, the Department issued a Notice to Cease and Desist in DBPR Case No. 98-21925. The Notice to Cease and Desist, which ordered Respondent to "Cease and Desist from the unlicensed and illegal practice of Engineering," provided in relevant part the following: You are hereby notified that the following specifically described conduct constitutes the unlicensed practice of contracting by yourself: * * * Advertising in the capacity of an Engineer without being duly licensed. Company advertisement indicates that SUBJECT is holding himself as a Civil and Structural Engineer without being licensed. Subject is in violation of F.S. 471.031(1)(a). You are hereby advised that under Chapter 471.031 of the Florida Statutes, only persons or firms licensed by the Florida Engineering Board may hold himself or advertise as an Engineer. * * * You are hereby ORDERED to immediately CEASE AND DESIST from the unlicensed practice of Engineering in the State of Florida. You are further notified that under Section 455.228, Florida Statutes, a fine of up to $5000 may be imposed on any person engaging in the unlicensed practice of Engineering. On or about January 13, 1999, Respondent met with Department staff regarding his flyer. At that meeting, Department staff advised Respondent that although he had a master's degree in civil and structural engineering, because he was not licensed or registered as a professional engineer in the State of Florida, he could not simply refer to himself as an engineer. Rather, he also had to indicate that he had a degree in civil and structural engineering and the name and location of the university where he obtained the degree. The flyer, which was the basis for the complaint in DBPR Case No. 98-21925, had stated only that Respondent was a civil and structural engineer, but made no mention of his educational credentials. However, based on the information the Department gave to Respondent, he modified his initial flyer to include the fact that he had a master's degree with distinction from the University of Bratislava in Europe. Additionally, in the modified version of the flyer, Respondent deleted the reference to his being called to conduct an "Engineer's re-inspection." Rather, the revised flyer stated that Respondent had been called on a number of occasions for a "re-inspection." In the revised flyer, Respondent made the following two changes: I am a Civil and Structural Engineer (Master's Degree with distinction from University of Bratislava - Europe). * * * As there are few inspectors eagerly killing some deals, I have been called on number of occasions for a re-inspection. On or about January 13, 1999, Respondent provided the Department with an affidavit and a copy of the revised flyer. In the affidavit, Respondent stated that he did not intend to deceive the public and had changed the flyer pursuant to the Department's instructions and recommendations. The revised flyer was reviewed and approved by the Department. On January 24, 1999, after the Department reviewed Respondent's affidavit and revised flyer, it issued a Closing Order. The Closing Order found that probable cause existed to believe that Respondent violated Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, and noted that the Department had issued a Notice to Cease and Desist to him. Finally, the Closing Order stated that because "the unlicensed activity" had ceased, the case would be closed without further prosecution. On or about June 8, 2000, the Florida Engineers Management Corporation received a complaint against Respondent. Included with the letter of complaint was a letter dated October 23, 1996, that appeared to be from Respondent to someone for whom he had performed an inspection. This complaint was written on stationery with the letterhead of Advanced Building Inspections, Inc., St. Petersburg, Florida. The complaint referred to in paragraph 21 stated that the October 23, 1996, letter attached thereto was documentation of a "past structural inspection." The complaint further alleged that Respondent, whose name appeared on the letterhead of the October 23, 1996, letter and who appeared to have signed the letter, was not in the Department's computer. The implication was that Respondent was not a registered or professional engineer in the State of Florida. The Department took no action against Respondent as a result of the allegations in the June 8, 2000, complaint. However, during the course of the Department's investigation of that complaint, the Department requested that Respondent provide a copy of his current business stationery and business card. On or about October 25, 2000, Respondent provided to the Department the documents it had requested as a part of its investigation of the June 2000 complaint filed against Respondent. In addition to sending the requested documents to the Department, Respondent also sent a letter which stated that the Department had advised him some time ago to "include the city/place of my university with my qualification." In referring to his letterhead and business card, Respondent wrote, "As you can see, I have complied with this request, whenever, I refer to my engineering degree." Finally, Respondent stated that his business cards were printed about eight years ago and that because he does not use them often, "instead of wasting the old ones and printing new ones," he had added the requested information by hand. The address, telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail address were inscribed on the letterhead of the stationery provided to the Department by Respondent. Also, inscribed on the letterhead just above this information was the following: Frank V. Burianek, MSC, MBA Civil and Structural Engineer (Bratislava) As requested, Respondent also provided the Department with one of his business cards. In the center of the business card, in all capital letters and in bold print was "HOME INSPECTION." In the lower left corner of the business card was the following: Frank Burianek MSC, MBA Civil and Structural Engineer (Bratislava) Respondent's name, educational degrees earned, and "Civil and Structural Engineer," were inscribed on Respondent's business card. "(Bratislava)" was hand-written just below the words, "Civil and Structural Engineer." Bratislava is the name of the university where Respondent earned his Master of Science Degree and the name of the city where the university is located. Because the name and location of the university were the same, rather than writing, "Bratislava, Bratislava," Respondent wrote only "Bratislava." Respondent had seen business cards of other individuals that had only included the name of the university where they had earned their degrees. Based on this and the Department's prior instructions, Respondent believed that the addition of "Bratislava" to his letterhead and business cards was acceptable, particularly in view of the fact that the name of the university and the city where it is located are identical. In the lower right-hand corner of the business card, Respondent's telephone number, including the area code of "813", was inscribed. On the business card, Respondent had crossed out the "813" area code and had written above it the new area code of "727." In the January 13, 1999, meeting with Department staff, Respondent was specifically advised how his flyer should be modified so as to avoid the perception that he was a professional engineer, licensed by the State of Florida. Based on Respondent's understanding of the Department's instructions given at that meeting and its approval of his revised flyer, Respondent reasonably believed that he could use the title, "Civil and Structural Engineer" because he had earned a degree in that area, if he included his educational credentials. In light of the Department's instructions and recommendations, Respondent revised the flyer. In that revised version, Respondent stated, "I am a Civil and Structural Engineer (Master's Degree with distinction, from University of Bratislava - Europe)." The Department approved this revised version of the flyer. The instructions and suggestions that the Department staff gave to Respondent in January 1999 specifically addressed the flyer that was the subject of the complaint filed in DBPR Case No. 98-21925. However, Respondent reasonably assumed that the substance of those instructions and/or recommendations should apply to his other business documents and advertisements. The language on Respondent's letterhead and business card complies with the instructions and recommendations given to him by the Department on or about January 13, 1999, and do not tend to indicate that Respondent is a registered engineer in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, enter a final order that dismisses Counts One, Two, Three, and Four of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank V. Burianek Post Office Box 4563 Seminole, Florida 33775 David K. Minacci, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Natalie A. Lowe, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Doug Sunshine, Vice President for Legal Affairs Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
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.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his responses to question numbers 21 and 24 of the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination administered in April 1998.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the April 24, 1998 professional engineering licensing examination with an emphasis in civil engineering. A score of 70 is required to pass the test. Petitioner obtained a score of 69. In order to achieve a score of 70, Petitioner needs a raw score of 48. Therefore, Petitioner is in need of at least one additional raw score point. Petitioner is challenging question numbers 21 and 24. They are both multiple-choice questions and worth one point each. Exhibit 10 contains a diagram for the candidate's use in answering question numbers 21 and 24. Question 21 requires the examinee to calculate the percentage of wooded land on the diagram. The diagram contains a rectangle labeled "woodlot," and within the rectangle are three non-contiguous areas marked with schematics of trees. The Petitioner reduced the percentage of wooded area to conform to the portion of the area labeled "woodlot" marked with schematics of trees. In regard to question number 21, the Petitioner asserts that as a matter of convention, by failing to put the trees everywhere in the wooded lot, one may assume that there are trees only where there is a schematic of the trees. The Petitioner's challenge was rejected on the basis that the scorer opined that it is standard practice that drawings are only partially filled with details, and the most reasonable interpretation of the site plan drawings is that the woodlot fills the entire area enclosed by the rectangle. John Howath, a professional engineer, testified regarding accepted conventions in engineering drawings. In Howath's opinion the drawing on the examination used inconsistent methodologies and was confusing regarding whether all of the area designated by the label or "call out" of woodlot was in fact wooded. Both the Petitioner and Mr. Howath referred to drawings in the Civil Engineering Reference Manual which showed areas on drawings totally covered with visual indications of a particular material or condition. Peter Sushinsky, a professional engineer, testified as an expert for the Respondent. Mr. Sushinsky acknowledged the Petitioner's exhibits; however, Mr. Sushinsky noted that these were only a few examples of drawings that are available. Mr. Sushinsky referenced construction drawings he had seen in his practice with partial "cross-hatching" just like the diagram on the examination. In sum, Mr. Sushinsky's experience was that diagram might be totally or partially "cross-hatched." In Mr. Sushinsky's opinion it was not a bad diagram, only subject to a different interpretation by a minor group. Question number 24 asked the candidate to calculate the weir peak discharge from the catchment area using the rational formula. The Petitioner asserts the question is misleading and should read, "What is the peak discharge from the watershed?" The Petitioner bases his assertion on the ground that the "rational formula" is used to compute discharge from a watershed not a weir, as mandated by the question. The scorer did not address the Petitioner's concerns. The scorer stated, "It is clear from the item statement that the weir equation is not to be used." However, the questions ask the candidate to compute the weir discharge. Jennifer Jacobs, a professor of engineering, testified regarding the rationale formula that it was used to calculate watershed discharge and not weir discharge. All experts agreed that the rational formula is not used to compute weir discharge. The experts all agree that the question was confusing because the rational formula is not used to calculate the discharge from a weir. The Respondent's expert justifies the answer deemed correct on the basis that if one uses the rational formula and computes the watershed discharge, one of the answers provided is close to the result. The Respondent's expert calculated the watershed discharge as 230.6 cubic feet per second (cfs). The answer deemed correct was 232 cfs. The expert stated the weir attenuates flow. If the weir attenuates flow one would expect an answer less than 230.6 cfs., not an answer equal to or greater than 230.6 cfs. The amount of attenuation is based upon the physical features of the impoundment area and the mouth of the weir. Weir Attenuation varies. The only answers smaller than 230.6 are 200 or 32. Is the 232 cfs. answer wrong because it does not allow for attenuation by the weir? How much did the weir attenuate the flow? Under these facts, the question is capricious. The Respondent argues that the Petitioner didn't follow instructions while acknowledging that the "correct" answer is not the answer to the question that was asked.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent enter a final order awarding Petitioner two raw points and a passing score on the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 20th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark W. Nelson 720 Northwest 31st Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dennis Barton, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his solutions to three problems on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on October 29, 1999, 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 29, 1999, 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 mechanical engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 47 on the Examination. For the mechanical 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 (in writing, by letter dated March 13, 2000) that his solutions to Problems 141, 144, and 147 on the Examination be rescored. Petitioner's written request was made to the Board's "Legal Section," which forwarded it to the NCEES. The NCEES's rescoring of Petitioner's solutions to Problems 141, 144, and 147 resulted in his receiving no additional points. The Board received the NCEES's rescoring results on or about April 25, 1999. After receiving a letter from Petitioner (dated May 3, 2000) requesting a "formal hearing," the Board referred the matter to the Division. Problems 141, 144, and 147 were worth ten raw points each. Petitioner received four raw points for his solution to Problem 141. In his solution to Problem 141, Petitioner failed to take into consideration bending stresses and loads. Therefore, 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 four, which is the score he received. Petitioner received a raw score of two for his solution to Problem 144. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": A correct solution [to this problem] must include an energy balance on the open feedwater heater to determine the fraction of flow through turbine T1 that is extracted and taken to the open feedwater heater. a correct equation for determining the specific work developed by the two turbines on the basis of one pound entering turbine T1. The equation the examinee has written assumes the same flow through both turbines. determination of the mass rate of flow (m1) at the inlet to turbine T1. This is determined by dividing the net power by the specific net work. determining the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator and reheater. finally, dividing the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator by the heating value times 0.75 with the appropriate conversion factors. The examinee has used the new power (200 MW or 200 x 105)as the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator and reheater. This is incorrect. The scoring plan states 2 RUDIMENTARY KNOWLEDGE . . . OR-(3) determines tons/day = Wnet/7650, Wnet = (h1 - h2) + (h3 - h4) This is what the examinee has done. Based on the scoring plan and the above analysis, a score of 2 is recommended. There has been no showing that the foregoing "analysis" was in any way flawed or that application of the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem should have resulted in Petitioner receiving a raw score higher than two for his solution to Problem 144. Petitioner received a raw score of four for his solution to Problem 147. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": The examinee used an incorrect temperature difference in [his] calculation of the heat transferred by convection and radiation from the outer surface of the pipe. Most of the examinee's work for requirement (b) was not needed. In doing that unnecessary work, however, [he] made two significant errors: 1. [He] evaluated a radiation exchange between the steam inside the pipe and the environment surrounding the pipe. The pipe shields the environment surrounding the pipe from the steam. 2. The examinee's equation "Total heat Loss = Conductive + Radiation" is not satisfactory. In attempting to evaluate the heat transfer from the insul[a]ted pipe, [he] assumed that the outer surface heat transfer coefficient was very high; 3.0 is not high. The examinee made no attempt to evaluate the payback period for the insulation. There has been no showing that the foregoing analysis was in any way flawed. For the errors made by Petitioner in his solution to Problem 147, a 50% "grade reduction" was warranted pursuant to the "error analysis" portion of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem. 1/ The remaining portions of the scoring plan for Problem 147 provided as follows: 10: Essentially complete and correct solution. May have one or two minor math, data, or chart reading errors. . . . Grade of 8: A grade of 8 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 10% and 50%. A Grade of 6: A grade of 6 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 30% and 50%. Grade of 4: 2/ A grade of 4 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 50% and 70%. Grade of 2: A grade of 2 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 70% and 90%. Grade of Zero: Nothing presented that warrants a grade of at least 10%. It is unclear from a reading of the NCEES scoring plan for Problem 147 whether a grade reduction of 50% should result in a raw score of four or six. The plan is ambiguous in this regard. While it may be reasonable to interpret the plan as requiring that a raw score of six be given where there is a grade reduction of 50%, the plan is also reasonably susceptible to the interpretation that a 50% grade reduction should result in a raw score of four, the score Petitioner received for his solution to Problem 147. It therefore cannot be said that the scoring of his solution to this problem was inconsistent with the problem's scoring plan, as reasonably construed.
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 29, 1999, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 2000, 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 13th day of October, 2000.
