The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for his answers to Questions 34, 65, and 75 on the Fundamentals of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on the morning of April 15, 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 15, 2000, as part of his effort to obtain a license to practice as an engineer intern in the State of Florida, Petitioner sat for the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination (Examination). This was a national multiple-choice examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). The Examination was divided into two sessions: a morning session (AM Part), which tested "lower division subjects" (that is, "the first 90 semester credit hours . . . of engineering course work for a typical bachelor engineering degree program"), and an afternoon session (PM Part), which tested "upper division subjects" (that is, "the remainder of the engineering course work"). Questions on the AM Part were worth one raw point each. Questions on the PM Part were worth two raw points each. The NCEES provided candidates taking the Examination with a Fundamentals of Engineering, Discipline Specific, Reference Handbook (Reference Handbook) that they were allowed to refer to during the Examination. The Reference Handbook, as noted in its Foreword, "contain[ed] only reference formulas and tables; no example problems [we]re included." Petitioner received a total raw score of 104 on the Examination (54 for the AM Part and 50 for the PM Part). According to the NCEES's Score Conversion Table, a raw score of 104 converted to a score of 69. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 (or 107-109 raw points) was needed. Accordingly, Petitioner fell three raw points short of receiving a passing score. Petitioner has formally requested that the grading of his answers to Questions 34, 65, and 75 of the AM Part be reviewed. He received no credit for any of these answers. Had these answers been deemed correct (and he received one raw point for each answer), he would have passed the Examination (with a converted score of 70). Question 34 of the AM Part was a clear and unambiguous multiple-choice question that covered subject matter (integral calculus) with which Petitioner and the other candidates should have been familiar. There was only one correct answer to this question, and it was among the responses from which the candidates had to choose. Petitioner chose another answer that was clearly incorrect because it represented a particular solution or expression, and not the "general expression" (representing all solutions) called for by the question. He therefore appropriately received no credit for his answer. Questions 65 and 75 of the AM Part, like Question 34, were clear and unambiguous multiple choice questions that covered subject areas (centroids and thermodynamics, respectively) with which Petitioner and the other candidates should have been familiar. Each of these questions, again like Question 34, had only one correct answer that was listed among the choices from which the candidates had to choose. To answer each question correctly, the candidates had to use a formula that was set forth in the Reference Handbook (on page 21 in the case of Question 65 and on page 46 in the case of Question 75). Petitioner selected neither the correct answer to Question 65, nor the correct answer to Question 75, and therefore was not entitled to any credit for his answers to these questions.
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 Fundamentals of Engineering portion of the April 15, 2000, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 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 15th day of November, 2000.
The Issue Whether the Respondent is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of professions pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. The ECLB is charged with regulating the practice of electrical contracting pursuant to Section 489.507, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Rule 61G6-4.006, Florida Administrative Code, the ECLB has established a Probable Cause Panel to determine whether probable cause exists to believe that a violation of governing statutes has occurred. Mr. Borota is, and was at all times material to this matter, licensed as a Registered Electrical Specialty Contractor, having been issued license numbers ET 0000218 and ES 0000213. Mr. Borota is, and was at all times material to this matter, the licensed qualifier for his wholly owned Florida corporation, Communication Installation and Service Co., Inc. Subsection 489.517(3)(a), Florida Statutes, requires a licensee to provide proof of completing at least 14 classroom hours of continuing education courses during each biennium following issuance of the license. Rule 61G6-9.003(2), Florida Administrative Code, defines "course" as "any course, seminar or other program of instruction which has been approved by the board for the purpose of complying with the continuing education requirements for electrical and alarm contractors." Rule 61G6-9.004(1), Florida Administrative Code, requires that licensees provide proof of completion of at least 14 classroom hours of continuing education courses "approved by the board." Rule 61G6-9.005(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires course sponsors to register with the ECLB prior to submitting their courses to the board for approval. Rule 61G6- 9.005, Florida Administrative Code, provides that accredited universities and colleges which offer courses in the contracting areas specified in Part II of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, are deemed admitted as course sponsors. Rule 61G6-9.006(1), Florida Administrative Code, allows a registered course sponsor to submit to the ECLB an application for approval of a continuing education course, and provides that relevant courses offered by accredited universities and colleges are deemed approved. The ECLB regularly publishes a list of approved continuing education courses. Rule 61G6-9.002, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth criteria for continuing education. The following sets forth the relevant portions of the rule as it read during the period relevant to this case: The following programs of continuing education may be used to satisfy the continuing education requirement provided that the licensee complies with the terms set forth herein: Courses for credit which are business, technical or safety courses relevant to the electrical contracting industry and which require a passing grade taken at an accredited college, university, or community college. The licensee must furnish an official transcript and a notarized statement affirming classroom hours attended and the receipt of a passing grade. Noncredited courses conducted by an accredited institution of higher learning, official governmental agency, the military, or recognized national or state trade or civil organization provided the following conditions are met: the course must be business, technical or safety course relevant to the electrical contracting industry. the course must follow a written text, which must be submitted to the Board for approval on request. the instructor of the course must be a professional educator, certified electrical contractor or a similar authority in the field. The licensee must submit a notarized statement affirming the following: Number of classroom hours attended Sponsor of the course Location of the course Date of the course Name of the instructor and his credentials Benefit received from the course George Ayrish, program administrator for the ECLB, testified that Rule 61G6-9.002, Florida Administrative Code, allows a licensee to obtain credit for courses that are not on the approved list, provided the substantive criteria for continuing education courses are met and the notarized statement is filed. The ECLB conducts random audits of its licensees every two years. On January 27, 1997, the ECLB sent Mr. Borota a written notice that his license was undergoing such an audit for the period September 1, 1994, through August 31, 1996. The notice requested that Mr. Borota provide, among other items not relevant to this proceeding, certification that he had completed the required continuing education hours. Mr. Borota responded with certificates of attendance at three separate technical electrical contracting courses presented by equipment vendors: a "3M Hot Melt Fiber Optics Connectors" course offered by 3M Telecom Systems Division on June 25, 1995; a "Category 5" cabling installation course offered by The Siemon Company on December 5, 1995; and an "Installation Certification Program" offered by Ortronics Open System Architecture Networking Products on June 19, 1995. None of these courses were included in the ECLB’s list of approved continuing education courses. By letter dated March 18, 1997, the ECLB informed Mr. Borota that the courses submitted as evidence of continuing education must be "Board approved" and "completed within the audit period." Mr. Borota responded with a certificate indicating that he had completed "product application training" and was thus a certified installer for Superior Modular Products, Inc. The certificate was dated July 31, 1995. This course was not included in the ECLB’s list of approved continuing education courses. On August 18, 1997, Mr. Ayrish filed a Uniform Complaint Form alleging that Mr. Borota did not provide proof of continuing education as required by Rule 61G6-9.004(1), Florida Administrative Code. The complaint was forwarded to Kathy MacNeill, a senior consumer complaint analyst for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. By letter dated October 9, 1997, Ms. MacNeill advised Mr. Borota that a complaint had been filed against him. She enclosed a copy of Mr. Ayrish’s complaint. The letter requested that Mr. Borota submit a written response within 20 days. By letter dated October 13, 1997, Mr. Borota responded to Ms. MacNeill’s request. He wrote, in relevant part, that: Regarding the continuing education for ET 0000218 I did send the certificates of classes that I had taken during the audit time in question. All of the classes that I had taken covered communications cabling which is what our company does. Most of the classes that are held by the contractors schools that are recommended for low voltage systems licensing cover information on security systems cabling and we do not do that kind of work. Please advise if I need to send any additional information or what I will need to do to close this case. No further direct communication occurred between Mr. Borota and Ms. MacNeill. Mr. Borota testified that he attempted to phone the Department a few times after the exchange of letters, but that he never spoke to anyone. Ms. MacNeill prepared a written Investigative Report, dated November 6, 1997, stating an alleged violation of failure to provide proof of continuing education and forwarding the matter to the Department’s legal counsel "for whatever action is deemed appropriate." The Complaint and the audit file were placed on the docket for consideration by the Probable Cause Panel of the ECLB at a telephonic conference on March 20, 1998. On the same date, a Memorandum Of Finding was signed by the chairperson of the Probable Cause Panel, indicating probable cause was found. The Department issued an Administrative Complaint on March 23, 1998, alleging that Mr. Borota failed to submit proof in response to the audit of having complied with the continuing education requirements of Subsection 489.517(3), Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. Mr. Borota was served with the Administrative Complaint on March 30, 1998. On April 21, 1998, Mr. Borota timely filed his written Election Of Rights disputing the material facts set forth in the Complaint and demanding an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. On the same date, Mr. Borota also submitted an affidavit, substantially complying with Rule 61G6-9.002(2), Florida Administrative Code, attesting that he had attended 30 additional hours of continuing education courses during the audit period. These courses were professional seminars provided at the annual winter meeting of Building Industry Consulting Service International, Inc. (“BICSI”), a non-profit telecommunications technical association. The materials for the BICSI conferences show that the University of South Florida was a co-sponsor of the event. The BICSI seminars were not on the ECLB’s list of approved continuing education courses. On August 6, 1998, counsel for the Department filed a Motion For Final Order, arguing that there were no disputed issues of material fact in the case because none of the courses submitted by Mr. Borota were on the ECLB’s approved list of continuing education courses. The ECLB denied the Department’s motion and agreed to refer the Administrative Complaint to the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") for the conduct of a formal administrative hearing. The case was never forwarded to DOAH. The record does not disclose why the case remained at the ECLB for nearly two years following the ECLB’s denial of the Motion for Final Order. The Administrative Complaint was again considered by the Probable Cause Panel of the ECLB on May 23, 2000. On the same date, a Memorandum Of Finding was signed by the chairperson of the Probable Cause Panel that determined no probable cause was found and that the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed. Both meetings of the Probable Cause Panel were tape recorded. The tapes were of such poor quality that a certified transcript of the meetings could not be prepared by either an independent court reporter or the Department. Redacted tape copies and an uncertified transcript of the meetings were admitted into evidence by agreement of the parties. The transcript is sufficient to show that the March 20, 1998, Probable Cause Panel treated Mr. Borota’s case in a pro forma fashion, without discussion of the particulars of the investigation, prior to making a finding of probable cause to proceed against Mr. Borota. At the hearing in the instant case, the Department admitted that Mr. Borota was the prevailing party in the disciplinary proceeding because the Administrative Complaint was dismissed upon a finding of "no probable cause" at the May 23, 2000, Probable Cause Panel meeting. Mr. Borota testified that he was the sole owner and qualifying licensee of the corporation through which he practiced as a licensed electrical contractor, that his net worth was less than $2 million, and that he and the corporation employed fewer than 25 workers. The Department offered no evidence to dispute Mr. Borota’s testimony on these points.
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 The issue for determination is whether John Morse is entitled to licensure as a geologist under the provisions of section 492.105, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact John G. Morse graduated from Ohio State University in 1966 with a B. S. degree in physics. He later attended the University of Arizona, and in 1976 was awarded a M. S. degree with a major in hydrology. Morse's degree was obtained from the University's College of Earth Sciences, which unlike many similar institutions, has a separate Department of Hydrology, focussing on fluids, and a Department of Geology, focussing on minerals. The courses which Morse presents for the educational requirements for a geologist license are as follows (all from the University of Arizona): Course Title Hours Physical Geology 3 Hydrology 3 Dynamics of Flow Systems of the Earth (A & B) 6 Hydrogeology 3 Geomathematics 3 Aquifer Mechanics 3 Advanced Topics in Hydrology 3 Advanced Topics in Hydrology 3 Analysis of Hydrologic Systems 3 30 All, with the possible exception of physical geology, were upper division courses and all were successfully completed by Morse. All of the courses, with the exception of physical geology and geomathematics, were offered in the Department of Hydrology. The hydrology courses, comprising Morse's primary area of concentration, involve the study of the movement of fluids through the earth, in the earth and on the surface of the earth. Since graduation, Morse has engaged in responsible, professional work related to hydrology and hydrogeology, including work in Carlsbad, New Mexico, related to nuclear waste storage. Since July 1988, he has been employed in Florida by Jammal and Associates, an engineering firm in Winter Park. As Senior Hydrogeologist he is responsible for directing and conducting geoenvironmental studies. Morse contends that most geologists in Florida are engaged in the area of water supply development and contamination assessment and that there is substantial overlap and cross-over between geologists and groundwater hydrologists. The Florida Legislature created the Board of Professional Geologists within the Department of Professional Regulation in 1987. Morse filed his application in May 1988, well within the one-year deadline for non-examination licensure. The Board denied his application on September 13, 1988, citing the provisions of subsection 492.105 (1)(d) 1. and 2., Florida Statutes. The application committee identified only two geology courses in Morse's academic transcript: physical geology and geomathematics, a 6-hour total. Dr. Anthony Randazzo is chair of the application committee. He is also a professor and chair of the University of Florida's Department of Geology, which department also includes courses in hydrology. Two applicants, other than Morse, with degrees in hydrology from the University of Arizona, were granted licensure as geologists because they had sufficient geology courses in addition to their hydrology courses. Hydrology is an important field related to geology but it is not the discipline itself. A hydrologist might be aware of the dynamics of flow systems, but a professional would need some knowledge of the nature of the rocks through which the fluid flows in order to seal work as a geologist. The University of Arizona makes a specific distinction between geology and hydrology. The University of Florida includes hydrogeology courses in its Geology Department curricula, but basic geology courses: physical geology, paleontology, field camp, minerology, and the like, are required for a degree in geology.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for licensure as a geologist in the State of Florida be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of May 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 8th day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Joaquin Fraxedas, Esquire Two South Orange Plaza Orlando, Florida 32801 Clark R. Jennings, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Kenneth D. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's education is "substantially equivalent" to an ABET accredited engineering degree as set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed an application for licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer with Respondent. Petitioner is a 1990 graduate of Ohio State University with a degree in engineering physics. Petitioner has taken and passed both parts of the NCEES (National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying) licensure examination. Petitioner has submitted documentation to Respondent evidencing more than four years of engineering experience. The ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) accredits programs in engineering physics. Upon the filing of Petitioner's Petition for Waiver or Variance, Respondent evaluated Petitioner's engineering program to determine substantial equivalency with the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007. Petitioner provided the materials needed by Respondent's Educational Advisory Committee ("EAC") to evaluate Petitioner's education on June 29, 2006. These materials included his Ohio State University ("OSU") transcript, course descriptions for 1988, and a program guide for the engineering physics program at Wright State University for the academic year 2004-2005. Petitioner's application was reviewed by the EAC pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007, on July 12, 2006. Upon recommendation of the EAC, Respondent denied Petitioner's application on the grounds that his education did not meet the requirements contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007, because Petitioner's education did not include the required number of semester credit hours in engineering science and engineering design. Two members of the EAC, who reviewed the education component of Petitioner's application, hold doctoral degrees in physics. Dr. Anderson, who testified at hearing, holds a Ph.D. in engineering education, as well as 10 to 12 years of experience in evaluating engineering education for Respondent. He has performed more than a thousand such evaluations. Engineering is the cumulative application of mathematics, physical sciences, and engineering sciences. Engineering takes the theory of science in each of these fields and puts it into application. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007 requires an applicant to demonstrate completion of courses in mathematics, basic sciences, engineering sciences, and engineering design. Petitioner's transcript did not demonstrate completion of a course in statistics, one of the Rule's mathematics requirements. The EAC, however, counted Petitioner's course of Physics 621, Statistical Physics I, described as "thermodynamics and statistical mathematics, applications to non-interacting classical and quantum systems," as meeting that requirement. Had this course not been deemed to meet the statistics requirement, Petitioner's application would have been deficient in the mathematics requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007. ABET accredits programs in engineering physics. The engineering physics program at OSU is not ABET accredited. Of the 17 engineering programs offered at OSU, 15 are ABET accredited. OSU's electrical engineering program is ABET accredited. Petitioner took 30-quarter credit hours from that program. Petitioner's transcript is reported in quarter credit hours. To convert quarter credit hours to semester credit hours, the quarter credit hours are multiplied by 2/3 (0.666). The only reason for denying Petitioner's licensure by endorsement, as stated in Respondent's June 20, 2005, letter, was that Petitioner's degree was not accredited by ABET. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007, entitled "Foreign Degrees," sets forth substantial equivalency to an ABET-accredited engineering program by listing the required number of credit hours in mathematics and basic sciences, engineering sciences and design, and humanities and social sciences. However, Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.006(2) prohibited the application of the foreign degree program to graduates of United States based non-ABET accredited programs. Petitioner successfully challenged Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.006(2). Following the successful rule challenge, Respondent reviewed Petitioner's transcripts according to the criteria contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007. By letter dated August 3, 2006, Petitioner's application was denied for being deficient by 17 hours in engineering science and design. Respondent's EAC prepared a worksheet it used to review Petitioner's transcripts. The worksheet was divided into four columns. The third column was marked "Engn Sci + Design 48" (Engineering Science and Design 48). The first three courses listed under this column were Engineering Graphics I, II, and III. Respondent had not listed these courses in response to an interrogatory, which asked for a listing of all courses in petitioner's transcript meeting the criteria for Engineering Science/Design. Dr. Anderson testified that the inclusion of the three graphics courses was a mistake. The hours for these three courses were not counted when determining how many hours Petitioner completed in his attempt to qualify for licensure by endorsement. He described engineering graphics as "a communications course, much like English would be." According to Dr. Anderson, the engineering academic community has never considered engineering graphics courses as engineering science; the EAC has not counted engineering graphics as engineering courses in the last 10 years; and the ABET explicitly states that engineering graphics is neither engineering science nor engineering design. Although initially listed as mathematics or basic science courses, the EAC counted three of Petitioner's physics courses as engineering science and design: Physics 555-Fields and Waves 1, Physics 656-Fields and Waves 2, and Physics 657- Fields and Waves 3. These 12-quarter hours were credited to Petitioner as engineering science and design courses, even though identified by OSU as physics courses. Dr. Anderson did not agree that these courses should have qualified as engineering science and design by the EAC. Neither the EAC nor Dr. Anderson determined that Petitioner's courses in quantum physics (Physics 531, 532, and 533) and in particles and waves (Physics 261, 262, and 263) constituted engineering and design courses. By Respondent's calculations, and counting the fields and waves physics courses, Petitioner demonstrated completion of 41-quarter credit hours, or 27.306 semester credit hours (applying the 0.666 factor). Petitioner takes issue with the EAC and Dr. Anderson's determination that certain courses in his OSU engineering physics curriculum should not be counted toward the requisite number of qualifying hours necessary for licensure. Petitioner relies upon the following language from the ABET accreditation yearbook: The engineering sciences have their roots in mathematics and basic sciences but carry knowledge further toward creative applications. Engineering design is the process of devising a system, component, or process to meet desired needs. It is a decision process (other iterative) in which the basic sciences and mathematics and engineering sciences are applied to convert resources optimally to meet a stated objective. Among the fundamental elements of the design process are the establishment of objectives and criteria, synthesis, analysis, construction, testing and evaluation. The engineering design component of a curriculum must include most of the following features: development of student creativity, use of open-ended problems, development and use of modern design theory and methodology, formulation of design problem statements and specifications, consideration of alternative solutions, feasibility considerations, production processes, concurrent engineering design, and detailed system descriptions. Further, it is essential to include a variety of realistic constraints, such as economic factors, safety, reliability, aesthetics, ethics and social impact. The course description for Engineering Graphics 141 includes "Methods of problem solving and algorithmic development, introduction to three-dimensional photographic and pictorial visualization and presentation." The course description for Engineering Graphics 142 includes "Graphic problem solving techniques, introduction to computer graphics display methods, developing of dimensioning and graphic skills." The course description for Engineering Graphics 143 includes "Intermediate interactive computer graphic techniques and graphic conventions, comprehensive engineering problem solving project." The definition of engineering science and design contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G-15.20.007 states that computer science, other than computer programming skills, constitutes engineering science. Dr. Anderson testified that means "computer science, not computer programming, or not how to use a computer." When asked during cross-examination if he learned how to use a CAD (computer-aided design) system in the graphics course, Petitioner replied, "No, it was not how to use a CAD system at all." OSU also offers a basic course entitled "General Engineering Graphics 110," described as "Graphic language of engineering and its application to the analysis, development, representation, and communication of engineering concepts." Additionally, two other courses, Graphic Presentation 121 and Graphic Presentation 122 are offered. The description of the courses taken by Petitioner in Engineering Graphics 141, 142, and 143 appear, from their descriptions, to be more akin to the ABET definition of engineering science and design than "a communication course, much like English would be." These courses included "methods of problem solving and algorithmic development," "graphic problem solving techniques," and "a comprehensive engineering problem solving project." Petitioner argued that the three advanced physics courses in particles and waves (Physics 261, 262, and 263), rejected by the EAC and Dr. Anderson, should also have counted as courses in engineering sciences. He testified that the subject matter of these courses directly relates to electrical engineering, since they cover wave theory, electromagnetics, Fourier analysis, interference with radio waves, FM and AM radio, and fiber optics. Particles and waves, he stated, also applies to mechanical engineering, since it deals with compression waves, sound waves, and vibrations. Finally, he claimed, it applies to structural engineering since it deals with torsion waves. Petitioner further testified that three additional advanced physics courses in quantum physics (Physics 531, 532, and 533), which were deemed not to be engineering courses by the EAC and Dr. Anderson, should have also been included as engineering sciences. These courses, he claimed, enhanced his ability to understand the principles behind electrical engineering. Specifically, Petitioner testified that he performed well in his highest level electrical engineering course, Electrical Engineering 631, because he had a full year's training in quantum physics, a fundamental of solid state electronics. Petitioner also completed courses listed as Physics 616 (Advanced Physics Lab) and Physics 621 (Statistical Physics). Petitioner testified about two of the projects he completed in that lab course. One was a four-wire measuring technique to measure the resistance of a high temperature superconductor. Practical applications of this include high temperature superconductors, electromagnetic rail systems, and superconductivity. The second experiment involved shooting an electron beam at a piece of barium to measure the energy it took before releasing its outer electron band, and measuring this as it came off onto a screen. This experiment had applications to television screens. The statistical physics course dealt with thermodynamics. This was an in-depth course into the science of gases and liquids, and the energy exchange between them. This constitutes the basic core course behind refrigeration. Petitioner provided examples of how his engineering physics degree has aided him in real world engineering problems, including his work on a generator that would sit in the open ocean and generate energy from the action of waves. His background in electromagnetics helped him to calculate the exact distance that sets of opposing magnetic plates had to be placed inside the generator. Another project involved a fuel cell system to be used in airports that would convert photovoltaic to hydrogen to electricity via a fuel cell. He took a concept design developed by others and turned it into a schematic design with real parts, and ensured that a working system could be produced. The ABET requirement in mathematics and basic sciences is 32 semester credit hours. Petitioner has completed 35- quarter credit hours of higher math, which equates to 23.3 semester credit hours. This constitutes a higher level of math than the average engineering program offers. Adding together Petitioner's 16-quarter hours of introductory physics and seminar, eight-quarter hours of chemistry, and five-quarter hours of geology, will produce a total of 29-quarter credit hours, or 19.3 semester credit hours. Petitioner thus has 42.6 semester credit hours in mathematics and basic sciences, which is 10.6 hours more than the ABET minimum in this area. The previous ABET criteria required 32 hours of engineering science and 16 hours of engineering design. The new criterion is 48 hours of engineering science and design. Dr. Anderson testified that under the new criterion, whether the evaluator believes an applicant has too little design education is no longer an issue, so long as the hours total 48. If the additional advanced physics courses taken by Petitioner in particles and waves (12-quarter credit hours), quantum physics (12-quarter credit hours), and advanced physics lab (four-quarter credit hours) are counted as engineering sciences, Petitioner would have an additional 28-quarter credit hours, or 18.65 semester credit hours in engineering science and design, thereby exceeding the purported deficiency of 17 semester credit hours. If the engineering graphics courses were also counted, Petitioner would have an additional six semester credit hours. Dr. Anderson testified that Petitioner's physics courses in quantum mechanics and particles and waves should not be counted as engineering courses because they tend to be more theoretical than engineering courses. These courses, he believes, are more theory related to the basic science of physics than they are practically related to engineering. Dr. Anderson states that these courses are lacking in the design element of engineering, and he believes that Petitioner's course of study lacks a sufficient design component, even though the revised requirements for licensure do not differentiate between engineering science and engineering design. Dr. Anderson believes that there is now a design element even in the early engineering courses which helps explain why the strict design courses are no longer required as part of the 48 hours of engineering courses necessary for licensure. The Wright State University program in engineering physics recognizes an advanced physics course as an engineering science. Respondent previously admitted, in response to Requests for Admissions in DOAH Case No. 05-2033RX, that Petitioner's transcripts documented more than the minimum number of credit hours in each of the subject areas listed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007. Respondent's response in that case designated that it was made "for purpose of this rule challenge proceeding." Dr. Anderson is clearly an individual with a lifetime of experience in the profession of engineering. However, Petitioner's testimony concerning the substance of the advanced physics courses he completed was more thorough than the generalized description of engineering courses given by Dr. Anderson. On balance, Petitioner's justification for receiving credit for the physics courses he undertook to receive his degree in engineering physics was more persuasive than Dr. Anderson's.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order approving the application of D. Gregory Ruck for licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th of February, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin A. Bayó, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 11189 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3189 Lee Ann Gustafson, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Paul J. Martin, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Patrick Creehan, Esquire Chief Prosecuting Attorney Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's request for license by endorsement as a professional engineer should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, James R. Eason (Petitioner), is the pavement management coordinator for the Hernando County Public Works Department. He is a registered professional engineer in the State of Georgia, having received Professional Engineering Registration Number 17320 in 1988. In March 1997, Petitioner filed an application with Respondent, Board of Professional Engineers (Board), seeking licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer in this state. On July 1, 1997, the Board issued its preliminary decision in the form of a letter advising Petitioner that his application had been denied. As grounds, the Board stated that Petitioner had received a raw score of 67 with five points awarded for Veterans Preference on the Principles and Practice portion of the examination. The letter further explained that a raw score of 70 or above was required in order for his score on the Georgia examination to be recognized in the State of Florida and that "Chapter 471, F.S. does not provide for awarding of points for Veterans Preference." The denial of the application prompted Petitioner to bring this action. Petitioner is a graduate of, and holds a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from, the Georgia Institute of Technology. He has a record of four years active engineering experience of a character indicating competence to be in responsible charge of engineering. The parties have also stipulated he is of good moral character, and he has never been under investigation in another state for any act which would constitute a violation of Chapters 455 or 471, Florida Statutes. Petitioner passed the Fundamentals portion of the professional engineering examination administered in 1973 by the State of Georgia. He obtained a score of more than 70. In April 1988, Petitioner took the Principles and Practice portion of the examination. A grade of 70 was required to pass the Georgia examination. Petitioner received a grade of 67 on the initial scoring of the Principles and Practice portion of the examination, plus a five-point Veterans Preference credit, for a total grade of 72. The Veterans Preference credit is provided by Georgia law to all candidates who are members or former members of the Armed Forces of the United States and meet certain service requirements. In Petitioner's case, he had served eight years on active duty as a member of the United States Naval Reserve, and he was honorably discharged as a Lieutenant on July 3, 1969, upon expiration of his active duty commitment. At least ninety days of his active duty military service was during wartime or at a time when military personnel were committed by the President of the United States. The examination administered by the State of Georgia in April 1988 was a national examination published by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, and it was identical to the examination administered by the State of Florida at that time. Florida, like Georgia, requires a grade of 70 to pass the examination, but it does not provide a Veterans Credit for service to candidates who are members or former members of the Armed Forces of the United States. Therefore, in the State of Georgia, a veteran can pass the examination with a raw score as low as 65. To this extent, the two examinations are not substantially equivalent. Among other things, Petitioner pointed out at hearing that he needed only three points to achieve a passing grade on the Principles and Practice portion of the examination. Therefore, he concluded that the awarding of that amount of extra points for being a veteran amounted to only a single standard deviation, and thus the extra points were immaterial in relation to the overall score. However, the Board does not construe this three-point deficiency as being "immaterial," and had Petitioner received the same score in Florida, he would not have passed the examination.
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 Petitioner's request for licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer. DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of November 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph M. Mason, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 1090 Brooksville, Florida 34605-1900 Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to be licensed by endorsement as a professional engineer in the State of Florida, pursuant to Section 471.015, Florida Statutes (1989).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Gerardo A. Marquez is an applicant for licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer. By letter dated May 30, 1990, Petitioner was informed by the Board that his education did not meet the criteria for licensure by examination under Section 471.013(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes, because the engineering program he completed was not accredited by the Accrediation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). Petitioner is a graduate of the Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico, with a degree in civil engineering. This program is not accredited by ABET. Section 471.013(1)(a)2, Florida Statutes, provides that graduates of an approved engineering technology curriculum of four years or more in a school, college or university within the state university system, having been enrolled or having graduated prior to July 1, 1979, shall be entitled to take an examination to determine if he is qualified to practice as an engineer. Petitioner does not qualify pursuant to this provision. Petitioner was enrolled for one semester in 1977 at the University of Puerto Rico in the engineering program. This first semester consisted of basic general studies such as humanities, English, biology and math. Petitioner resumed his college education in the summer of 1980 at the Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico. Petitioner testified that the criteria for licensure in Puerto Rico was "substantially identical" to the criteria in Florida at the time of his licensure since Puerto Rico requires that the University granting the degree be approved by the Middle States Association of Colleges as well as the Commission of Higher Education of Puerto Rico. ABET is the sole agency in the United States to accredit engineering programs. ABET does not accredit schools, but only specific programs. Since 1981 when Chapter 471 underwent sunset review, Florida has required an ABET approved degree, and the Board has considered that any state that has the same experience and examination requirements as Florida, but does not require an ABET approved engineering degree, is not substantially equivalent to Florida under the statute.
Recommendation Based on 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 under Section 471.015, Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 14th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5778 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner did not file proposed findings of fact. Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1 - 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Suite LL04, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Gerardo A. Marquez Reef Tower Apartment 16B Isla Verde, Puerto Rico 00913 Rex Smith Board of Professional Engineers Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth Easley General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a duly-licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida having been issued License No. PE0035663. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged, in pertinent part, with interpreting, enforcing, and regulating concerning the licensure and professional practice standards for professional engineers in the State of Florida embodied in Chapter 471, Florida Statutes. The Respondent practices engineering as Dr. S.K. Nayak & Associates, Regulatory, Environmental and Civil Engineering Consultants. That engineering firm is not licensed as a professional engineering firm in the State of Florida. On September 20, 1988, the permit to the JNC by the Department for its domestic waste-water treatment and disposal system expired. Thereafter, on June 16, 1989, an application to operate such a system was submitted to the Department by Mr. Cordes on behalf of the JNC. The Respondent was the professional engineer of record depicted on that application. On or about July 14, 1989, the Department issued a notice of permit denial concerning that application and cited six deficiencies as the basis for the denial. The notice of permit denial identified the JNC's reclaimed water distribution system as not being designed in accordance with sound engineering principles and practices, as delineated in Rule 17-6.070(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and the design as not being provided in the manner required by Rule 17-610.414, Florida Administrative Code. The permit applicant was thus advised by the notice of permit denial that some modifications for the water distribution and storage system would have to be undertaken and completed in order for permitting to be effected. Thereafter, on or about January 30, 1990, the Respondent submitted a design statement for a reclaimed water disposal system to the Department. The design must conform to certain criteria enunciated in Chapter 17-610, Florida Administrative Code. The design for such a system must be accompanied with an engineering report to document geohydrological conditions at the site and to document that a ground water mounding analysis has been performed for the percolation pond systems, in order to verify that the systems will perform satisfactorily under the pertinent provisions of Chapter 17-610, Florida Administrative Code. The Department considered the design submitted by the Respondent to constitute the necessary design for the application for a new operating permit for the JNC. Expert witness Bryant Marshall's testimony establishes clearly that the creation of the design and its submittal to the Department constitutes a specific type of engineering practice and moreover that that sort of design requires a specific type of geotechnical and geohydrological engineering experience. Upon reviewing the design statement submitted by the Respondent, the Department advised Mr. Cordes of numerous items of incompleteness which would need to be addressed before an evaluation of the proposal, including design, could be performed. Mr. Cordes was informed of this by letter from the Department of February 23, 1990, which was copied to the Respondent. See, Exhibit B in evidence. Upon reviewing the design submitted, the Department determined that, because of the limited data and analyses and absence of calculations in that design document, that the Respondent had not demonstrated that he was qualified to perform such geotechnical and hydrogeological engineering, with pertinent calculations and depictions as was required for a project such as that proposed, nor had that type of required engineering work been done. Ultimately, therefore, it filed a complaint against the licensure of the Respondent with the Petitioner licensing agency. On April 9, 1990, the Respondent submitted a signed and sealed withdrawal of the design statement previously submitted to the Department. The Respondent contends that he never intended that the design statement originally submitted should constitute the final "as built" design for the water reclamation facility involved. Rather, he contends that it was intended by the Department, by himself, and by his client to be merely a preliminary or suggested design solely for purposes of negotiation concerning the permit denial and an attempt to work out a satisfactory arrangement with the Department in terms of the Department's conditions and requirements for design and construction, so that the proposed facility could be permitted. The Respondent contends that that was not the practice of engineering but, rather, submittal of a preliminary design statement which he claims the Department required of him. He thus submitted the design statement with the full understanding that it was not intended by him, or by the Department for that matter, to be a feasible final proposal or design and knowing that it was not up to standard or intended to be and knowing that it did not comply with certain applicable rules and regulations, he did not sign or seal it. Mr. Marshall, the expert witness put forward by the Petitioner, opined that the submission of substandard work, merely because another party has requested it for negotiating purposes, or for whatever reason, still is not acceptable practice for a licensed professional engineer. Merely because one is of the intent and opinion that submittal of the work will not be the final work product, by which the facility in question is to be built, is no excuse for not complying with proper standards of professional engineering practice. The Respondent's soil and ground water data was shown by Mr. Marshall to be inadequate because it did not provide for the necessary calculations which could indicate whether the performance of the system will actually meet the design criteria, given the geotechnical soil and hydrogeological conditions prevailing at the site, which were not adequately allowed for by their entry into proper calculations which should have been performed by the Respondent. The Respondent's professional history moreover does not reflect adequate geotechnical or hydrogeological experience and training necessary for a project such as the JNC at issue. It has been established by Mr. Marshall's testimony, which is adopted, that standards of practice were not followed because an appropriate subsurface exploration geotechnical investigation, laboratory soil testing, engineering analysis, and ground water mounding analysis was not performed. Even if the Respondent had adequate training in geotechnical and hydrogeological engineering, he promulgated a deficient engineering document in terms of this design, regardless of whether or not it was signed or sealed, because it constituted the practice of professional engineering and yet he failed to perform and to indicate on his design that the geotechnical and hydrogeological investigations required for such work had been performed. The document was based only on a review of available published information regarding surficial and sub-surficial soil conditions. No test borings were done in accordance with standard practice. The percolation testing performed by the Respondent was shown by Mr. Marshall to be inadequate under the circumstances of the project for which design was being considered. The proper geotechnical exploration, in keeping with standard engineering practice, would require the use of soil test borings to depths of 20 to 30 or perhaps 40 feet below ground surface. This would be necessary to properly characterize the aquifer and subsurface conditions and to evaluate the properties of the soil within that zone to determine what the actual hydraulic characteristics of the subsurface profiles would be. It would then be necessary to perform laboratory permeability testing on the soil samples from the various depths so as to properly characterize the aquifer performance or predicted aquifer performance for the entire depth zone to those significant depths. Just the top 18 or 20 inches of soil is not an adequate investigation. Further, the Respondent provided no documentation for his conclusions regarding established ground water movement, established surface water flow, and confirmed ground water table elevations. According to Mr. Marshall, it is safe to assume that surface water flow might be to the southeast given the site's topography and the fact that the ground slopes downward toward the southeast and generally toward the east, as well. However, the Respondent provided no documentation of any test borings or other site-specific geotechnical investigation work done to verify anything about the direction of ground water flow nor the ground water table elevation. Apparently the Respondent relied upon general information contained in a soil survey of Jefferson County but did not do site-specific investigatory work, in keeping with standard engineering practice, which would allow him to make those types of conclusions in a legitimate fashion. Mr. Marshall thus opined and established that the submission of the work by the Respondent was substandard work and that it is not justifiable engineering practice to submit such substandard engineering work, even if it is done at the request of another party with an understanding between the engineer and the other party and the client that this work is merely to be a preliminary design for purposes of negotiation between the regulator and the client. It is also no excuse for such substandard engineering practice that the Respondent submitted it without it being signed or sealed in his capacity as an engineer. The lack of the signing or sealing does not render it immune from having to comport with standard, acceptable engineering practice. Accordingly, it has been demonstrated that the Respondent was negligent in the practice of engineering in these particulars, with regard to his participation and design concerning the JNC project. Because the Respondent intended that this be a preliminary submittal, solely for the purposes of negotiation between himself, his client, and the regulatory agency and did not intend that it be a final design to be built in an attempt to comply with regulatory requirements, he has not been shown to have intentionally committed misconduct in the practice of engineering.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board of Professional Engineers finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, to the extent that he is guilty of negligence in the practice of engineering and that he be issued a reprimand and that his licensure be placed in probationary status for a period of one year with reasonable terms to be decided by the Board, including the requirement of continuing professional education in the area of compliance with appropriate professional practice standards. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-7994 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-23. Accepted, to the extent they are consistent with the findings of fact of the Hearing Officer and otherwise as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as not being entirely in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence; to some extent, irrelevant; and to some extent, as being legal conclusions and not proposed findings of fact. Rejected, as not being entirely in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence, as constituting an incorrect conclusion of law, and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 4-5. Rejected, as not in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence in its entirety, as constituting argument rather than a proposed finding of fact, and being an incorrect conclusion of law. 6. Rejected, as not in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence in its entirety, as constituting argument rather than a proposed finding of fact, as being an incorrect conclusion of law, and to some extent, irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony Cammarata, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Shrinivas K. Nayak 3512 Shirley Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack McRay, Esq. General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0755
The Issue Whether Petitioner meets the requirements of Section 471.015(3), Florida Statutes (2007), for licensure as a professional engineer by endorsement.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner attended Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, from fall of 1983, to May 16, 1987. He graduated May 16, 1987, with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering Technology, with a major in Mechanical Engineering Technology. There is no affirmative evidence that Old Dominion University's curriculum demonstrates a deficient level of competence necessary to practice engineering in the State of Florida in the capacity of a Professional Engineer to protect public health and safety. There is no affirmative evidence of conditions unique to the State of Florida that warrant a level of competence beyond that demonstrated by Petitioner's Degree in Engineering Technology. Petitioner passed the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying Examination Part I (NCEES) Fundamentals of Engineering examination on April 11, 1987. Petitioner passed the NCEES Principles and Practices examination on October 27, 1995. Petitioner received a professional engineering license to practice in the Commonwealth (State) of Virginia on January 30, 1996. Petitioner received a professional engineering license to practice in the State of Alabama on May 30, 2003. Petitioner received a professional engineering license to practice in the State of Texas in 2005. Petitioner received a professional engineering license to practice in the State of Wisconsin in 2005. Petitioner applied for a Florida professional engineering license by endorsement on July 12, 2007. Petitioner has over four years' active engineering experience, meeting the requirements set forth in Section 471.013(1)(a), Florida Statutes. There is no evidence that the Florida Board of Professional Engineers requested supplemental information beyond that required by the Respondent's Application for Licensure by Endorsement, but Petitioner had every opportunity to present evidence in the present de novo proceeding. The Notice of Denial issued by the Florida Board of Professional Engineers on January 14, 2008, reads, in pertinent part: The Applicant does not satisfy the Education requirements of Chapter [sic] 471.015 that incorporates by reference Chapter [sic] 471.013 Florida Statutes. Your application failed to meet requirements of Section 471.013 (1) (a) F.S. Under this provision of the law, you must evidence a degree from an EAC/ABET accredited engineering program. You hold a Bachelor of Science in Engineering Technology Degree from Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia. The Applicant does not have a Board approved degree.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a professional engineer by endorsement. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 28th day of July, 2008.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be awarded additional credit for his answer to question number 290, and thereby be given a passing grade on the Professional Engineer examination administered on October 25, 1996, in Orlando.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Professional Engineers (Board) was the state agency responsible for the examination and licensing of professional engineers in Florida. With the cooperation and assistance of the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES), the Board conducts periodic examinations to test the qualifications of candidates for certification as professional engineers in this state. Such an examination was conducted in Orlando, Florida on October 25, 1996. Petitioner was a candidate at that examination. A minimum score for passing was 70. Petitioner received an overall score of 69. One of the questions posed to the candidates at that examination was question number 290, dealing with the design of a control system, which required the candidate to determine values for two parameters in such a fashion that the closed loop specifications stated as, "with K =20 the unit step response be a damped oscillation with a 10% overshoot and with a damped natural frequency of 15 rad/s" were met. In the answer to this question, the engineer has to arrive at parameters to give the desired step response within the stated percentages. According to Dr. Antonio Arroyo, an assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Florida and an expert in electrical engineering, this subject matter is taught in a standard undergraduate controls course which is required in engineering schools nation-wide. The question in issue is a classic controls problem. The candidate is to reduce the diagram displayed in the examination question and give a closed loop description. Given that, the solution proceeds by taking the percentage of error and using it to back- track and arrive at the requested parameters, step by step. The examination is an open book examination. Because of the many formulae used in engineering, the candidate is permitted to use printed resources to assist in the solving of the problems. This formula involved in this problem is standard. Only the parameters cited in the test problem are different. In his answer to the question Petitioner cited to the page in his reference material where the solution is to be found, and he used the appropriate formula. In doing so, he could take the numbers presented in the problem and apply them to the standard problem solution contained in the reference book he had with him. It is a "plug and chug" situation wherein the candidate inserts the problem numbers into the given formula and makes the calculations. In order to take advantage of this opportunity, however, the candidate must decide how to use the information given. In this case, the problem involved a damped frequency of 15 hz and the candidate was required to calculate an undamped frequency. The Petitioner did not show that calculation in his solution, and it appears to Dr. Arroyo he missed the fact of the difference between the two frequencies. In Petitioner's solution, he listed what he saw as the data given, and though at no place did the problem show "Omega d", Petitioner put down "Omega d" but used "Omega n". In the expert opinion of Dr. Arroyo, an engineer should, at least, check his calculations. Examiners will give credit to a candidate if the candidate shows the appropriate knowledge of the concepts involved in the problem. In the instant case, Petitioner's answer to question 290 far exceeded the allowable 10% overshoot. His answer for "a" was 0.895, whereas the correct answer was 1.099. Whereas the allowable ten percent difference was .110, Petitioner’s overshoot was .204. His answer for "b" was 11.25, whereas the correct answer was 17.3. Whereas the allowable ten percent difference here was 1.73, Petitioner’s overshoot was 6.05. To Dr. Arroyo, this shows a concept error rather than a calculation error In substance, Petitioner utilized the correct formulae, but used incorrect data, and the use of the wrong data is sufficient to indicate his ignorance of the appropriate concepts. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Garrett, who did not see the problem utilized in the examination and relied on information provided by Petitioner, concluded that Petitioner’s margin of error was within the 10% limitation. Here, notwithstanding the opinion to the contrary of Dr. Garrett, Petitioner's solution missed the authorized overshoot by a significant amount, far more than the allowable 10%. He should have known something was wrong when this happened and should have looked to see what he did wrong. In the opinion of Dr. Arroyo, the Petitioner did not adequately evaluate the problem consistent with acceptable engineering standards since the final product of his calculations did not meet the specifications of the problem. This is the purpose behind the professional certification process, and Petitioner should have recognized that his answer did not meet the required specifications. Petitioner received a score of six out of a possible ten for his solution to question 290. Dr. Arroyo is satisfied that the scoring plan of the NCEES for this problem is fair and he supports it. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Garrett, a professional engineer and long-time professor of electrical engineering at the University of South Florida, disagrees. In his evaluation of the problem and the grading process used here, Dr. Garrett notes that problem 290 consisted of five parts, for each of which two points could be awarded. Petitioner correctly answered the first three parts and received a grade of six points. He missed part four, and part five was to use the results of parts three and four, with the proper equations, to determine the two answers required. Since Petitioner used the proper equations to figure his answer to part five, even though he did not get a correct answer to part four, which resulted in his numeric answer to part five being incorrect, Dr. Garrett is of the opinion that he should have received an additional two points for applying the proper formula in part five. Review of the scoring plan developed for this problem indicates that Petitioner met all the qualifications for award of six points, but he did not recognize the relationship of damped as opposed to undamped. He used incorrect data to arrive at "a" and "b" in that he did not identify the relationship between natural frequency and damped frequency. This is a basic problem of control systems which an undergraduate should be able to solve correctly. It is basic electrical engineering knowledge and not beyond that expected of an electrical engineer with a bachelor's degree in the field. Had Petitioner utilized the formula he used with the proper data, he would have been awarded credit for a correct answer even if his calculations were incorrect. Here, however, while Petitioner utilized the correct formula, he applied it to incorrect data, and it is this use of incorrect data which makes an award of a higher score inappropriate. The professional engineers’ examination is designed to test the individual's familiarity with engineering concepts and his ability to cast the problem into those concepts to solve the problem. Petitioner contends that his understanding of the concepts involved was correct and, therefore, even though he used the wrong figures, he should received credit for a correct answer or, at most, only 2 rather than 4 points should have been deducted. Though Petitioner utilized the correct formula for his solution to question 290, he applied the wrong values in the use of the formula. This indicates a lack of understanding of the concepts involved, and even though Petitioner used the proper formula, that formula came from the book he was permitted to use for the examination. He cannot be given full credit for copying the formula from the book. Had he used the correct values in his solution to the problem, he would have been given appropriate credit even if his calculations were wrong. After being notified of his unsuccessful exam results, Petitioner requested that his answer to question number 290 be resubmitted to NCEES for re-scoring, and this was done. By memorandum in response, dated July 10, 1997, the NCEES scorer concluded: The error in using undamped natural frequency for damped natural frequency in the examinee's solution is a major error. Whether the examinee did not recognize the function was in fact the undamped natural frequency, as given in the problem statement, or whether it was an oversight, it is still a major error since the outcome is significantly affected. The scorer, whose knowledge of the identity of the candidate was limited to a number only, recommended a score of "six" for Petitioner answer to this problem. There was no change from the initial scoring.
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 Petitioner additional credit for his answer to question number 290 on the principles and practice portion of the electrical engineering examination administered for the Board of Professional Engineers on October 25 and 26, 1996. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Bahman Behzadi Post Office Box 290931 Tampa, Florida 33687 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
