08-000724 Thomas P. Norris vs. Board Of Professional Engineers Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, July 28, 2008.

Summary: Applicant with engineering technology degree (not an engineering degree) was unable to qualify by endorsement.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

THOMAS P. NORRIS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 08-0724

)

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL )

ENGINEERS, )

) )

Respondent. )

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Upon due notice, a disputed-fact hearing was held in this

case on April 10, 2008, in Gainesville, Florida, before

Ella Jane P. Davis, a duly-assigned Administrative Law Judge of

the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Thomas P. Norris, pro se

7808 Southwest 99th Lane

Gainesville, Florida

For Respondent: Michael T. Flurry, Esquire

Office of the Attorney General

The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Petitioner meets the requirements of Section 471.015(3), Florida Statutes (2007), for licensure as a professional engineer by endorsement.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

In 2007, Petitioner applied for licensure as a professional

engineer in the State of Florida by endorsement. On January 14,

2008, Respondent, Board of Professional Engineers, served its

Notice of Denial of Petitioner's application. Petitioner timely

requested a disputed-fact hearing, and on or about February 13,

2008, the cause was referred to the Division of Administrative

Hearings.

A Notice of Hearing for April 10, 2008, together with an

Order of Pre-hearing Instructions, was entered on February 20,

2008.

At hearing, Petitioner testified on his own behalf.

Exhibits P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-5, P-6, and P-7 were admitted in

evidence. 1/ Respondent had one composite exhibit (R-1) admitted

in evidence. By stipulation, Petitioner was permitted to after-

file Exhibit P-8, 2/ and Respondent was permitted to after-file

Joint Exhibit A, 3/ each within 10 days of hearing. These

exhibits were, in fact, timely filed.

A Transcript was filed in due course, and each party timely

filed their respective Proposed Recommended Orders on May 9,

2008.

The parties' Pre-hearing Stipulation has been utilized in

the writing of this Recommended Order, but parts (including fact

stipulations) have been modified as to order, tense, and

grammar; for consistency; to conform to the after-filed

exhibits; 4/ and for clarity.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. Petitioner passed the National Council of Examiners for

Engineering and Surveying Examination Part I (NCEES)

Fundamentals of Engineering examination on April 11, 1987.

5. Petitioner passed the NCEES Principles and Practices

examination on October 27, 1995.

6. Petitioner received a professional engineering license

to practice in the Commonwealth (State) of Virginia on

January 30, 1996.

7. Petitioner received a professional engineering license

to practice in the State of Alabama on May 30, 2003.

8. Petitioner received a professional engineering license

to practice in the State of Texas in 2005.

9. Petitioner received a professional engineering license

to practice in the State of Wisconsin in 2005.

10. Petitioner applied for a Florida professional

engineering license by endorsement on July 12, 2007.

11. Petitioner has over four years' active engineering

experience, meeting the requirements set forth in Section

471.013(1)(a), Florida Statutes.

12. 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.

13. 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.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

14. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this cause,

pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes

(2007).

15. Chapters 455 and 471, Florida Statutes, regulate the

licensure and practice of engineering in Florida, along with

Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61G15.

16. The Florida Statutes quoted hereafter have been

unchanged at all times material. The parties stipulated that

the statutes from the other states wherein Petitioner has been

licensed be submitted as an after-filed exhibit, and that they

applied at all times material. The applicable regulations/rules

from Virginia were not provided by either Petitioner or

Respondent.

17. An applicant for licensure carries the ultimate burden

of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, pursuant to

Section 120.57(1)(j), Florida Statutes, at each and every step

of the licensure proceedings, until final agency action has been

taken by the agency. Espinoza v. Department of Business and

Professional Regulation , 739 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1999);

Department of Banking and Finance Division of Securities and

Investor Protection v. Osborne Stern and Co. , 670 So. 2d 932

(Fla. 1996); Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co.,

Inc ., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). See also Astral

Liquors Inc., v. Department of Business Regulation, Division of

Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco , 432 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 3rd DCA

1983); Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative

Services , 348 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

18. Petitioner herein complains that the Board failed in a

statutory obligation to require and evaluate more than a single

criterion for licensure in each of the four states that issued

him an engineering license, in relationship to the multiple

statutory criteria of the State of Florida; failed to meet the

intent of Section 471.013, 5/ by not securing appropriate

documentation from Old Dominion University, which had issued his

Bachelor of Science in Engineering Technology degree, so as to

adopt rules for acceptance of a school or courses 6/ and to

determine if the criteria for Petitioner's out-of-state licenses

were substantially the same as the licensure criteria existing

in Florida at the time the other respective state licenses were

issued.

19. Every attempt has been made to address all of

Petitioner's concerns, either in the body of this Recommended

Order or in an endnote, but due to the agreement of the parties

to submit other States' statutes and the de novo nature of this

proceeding; the burden of proof herein; and the absence of any

rule challenge, Petitioner's concerns not addressed herein are

deemed irrelevant.

20. At all times material, Florida has provided two ways

to obtain an engineering license by endorsement. Section

471.015, Florida Statutes, provides:

(3) The board shall certify as qualified

for licensure by endorsement an applicant

who:

(a) Qualifies to take the fundamentals

examination and the principles and practice

examination as set forth in s. 471.013, has

passed a United States national, regional,

state, or territorial licensing examination

that is substantially equivalent to the

fundamentals examination and principles and

practice examination required by s. 471.013,

and has satisfied the experience

requirements set forth in s. 471.013; OR

(b) Holds a valid license to practice

engineering issued by another state or

territory of the United States if the

criteria for issuance of the license were

substantially the same as the licensure

criteria that existed in this state at the

time the license was issued. (Emphasis by

capitalization and underlining supplied.)

21. Subsection 471.015 (3)(a), Florida Statutes,

incorporates, by reference, the requirements set forth in

Subsection 471.013 (1)(a), Florida Statutes, for applicants to

meet in order to be licensed by endorsement:

(1)(a) A person shall be entitled to take

an examination for the purpose of

determining whether she or he is qualified

to practice in this state as an engineer if

the person is of good moral character and:

1. Is a graduate from an approved

engineering curriculum of 4 years or more in

a school, college, or university which has

been approved by the board and has a record

of 4 years of active engineering experience

of a character indicating competence to be

in responsible charge of engineering;

2. Is a graduate of an approved engineering

technology curriculum of 4 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, and has a record of 4 years of

active engineering experience of a character

indicating competence to be in responsible

charge of engineering; OR

3. Has, in lieu of such education and

experience requirements, 10 years or more of

active engineering work of a character

indicating that the applicant is competent

to be placed in responsible charge of

engineering. However, this subparagraph does

not apply unless such person notifies the

department before July 1, 1984, that she or

he was engaged in such work on July 1, 1981.

The board shall adopt rules providing for

the review and approval of schools or

colleges and the courses of study in

engineering in such schools and colleges.

The rules shall be based on the educational

requirements for engineering as defined in

s. 471.005. The board may adopt rules

providing for the acceptance of the approval

and accreditation of schools and courses of

study by a nationally accepted accreditation

organization. (Emphasis by capitalization

and underlining has been supplied.)

22. At least since February 3, 2005, Florida

Administrative Code Rule 61G15-21.001 has provided:

(1) The Florida Board of Engineers hereby

determines that a written examination shall

be given and passed prior to any applicant

receiving a license to practice as a

professional engineer, or as an engineer

intern in the State of Florida except as

provided in Section 471.015, F.S. The

examination shall be provided by the

National Council of Examiners for Engineers

and Surveyors (NCEES). The examination

consists of two parts, each of eight hours.

The engineer intern examination is defined

to be Part One of the written examination

provided by the NCEES. . . .

(2) Applicants for licensure by examination

must be graduates of a Board-approved

engineering program as defined in Rule

61G15-20.001, F.A.C. Acceptance into the

engineering intern examination, either in

Florida or elsewhere, does not indicate

automatic acceptance for the professional

engineers examination, nor does it exempt

said applicant from meeting the criteria set

forth in Chapter 471, F.S. and Chapter

61G15, F.A.C. (Emphasis by underlining

supplied.)

23. At least as early as April 9, 2007, Florida

Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.001 provided, in pertinent

part:

As used hereinafter in this chapter the

following words or phrases shall be defined

as follows:

* * *

(2) 'Board approved engineering

programs' shall mean:

(a) Engineering programs accredited by

the Engineering Accreditation Commission of

the Accreditation Board for Engineering and

Technology, Inc. (EAC/ABET). (Emphasis

supplied.)

24. To reiterate some of the parties' stipulations in the

legal context of conclusions of law, it is concluded that: The

parties have stipulated that Section 471.015(3)(b) is a "stand-

alone" basis to certify that the Petitioner is qualified for

licensure by endorsement; that Section 471.015(2), which

references educational requirements of Section 471.015(3) does

not pertain to licensure by endorsement and has no relationship

with any other basis; and that Section 471.015(3)(a), which does

reference educational requirements of Section 471.013, and does

pertain to licensure by endorsement, is unrelated to Section

471.015(3)(b).

25. Herein, Respondent Board does not dispute that

Petitioner has passed the national examination (the NCEES),

recognized in Florida Administrative Code Rule 65G15-21.001, or

that he has met the years of experience requirements for

licensure by endorsement. Only the educational requirements are

at issue.

26. Therefore, let us look at Section 471.013(1)(a) which

provides that Petitioner must demonstrate EITHER graduation from

"an approved engineering curriculum" of four years or more in an

approved school, college or university, and four years of active

engineering experience, OR he must demonstrate graduation from

"an approved engineering technology curriculum" of four years or

more of a university within the State University System,

enrolled or graduated before July 1, 1979, and four years active

engineering experience, OR he must demonstrate 10 years of

experience (without any college curriculum requirement),

provided that the applicant without the college curriculum

requirement notified the Board by July 1, 1984, that he was

engaged in such engineering work on July 1, 1981.

27. This Petitioner has not demonstrated graduation from

an engineering curriculum, i.e. a four-year engineering degree.

Therefore, he does not meet the first series of necessary

qualifications under Section 471.013(1)(a)1.

28. This Petitioner has not demonstrated graduation from

an engineering technology curriculum, i.e. a four-year or more

engineering technology degree, from "a university within the

State University System having been enrolled or graduated prior

to July 1, 1979." Therefore, he does not meet the second series

of necessary qualifications under Section 471.013(1)(a)2.

29. This Petitioner did not demonstrate that he had 10

years of experience encompassing July 1, 1981, of which he

notified the Board by July 1, 1984. Therefore, he does not meet

the third series of necessary qualifications under Section

471.013(1)(a)3.

30. It is undisputed that Petitioner received a four-year

engineering technology curriculum and has an engineering

technology degree from Old Dominion University in Norfolk,

Virginia, where he attended for four years, from fall 1983

through graduation, May 16, 1987. Respondent Board is

apparently not disputing that Old Dominion has an engineering

curriculum, which is EAC/ABET approved. However, based upon

Petitioner's having an engineering technology degree, Section

471.013(1)(a)2. would be applicable, and Petitioner's degree

fails to meet all the criteria listed in this statutory

provision. Petitioner was not enrolled in, and had not

graduated from, such a program prior to July 1, 1979. Further,

Petitioner's engineering technology degree is not an engineering

technology degree from a curriculum in the State University

System of Florida; it is from Virginia.

31. The court in Rotunno v. Board of Professional

Engineers , 946 So. 2d 51, 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), held, as a

matter of law, that the phrase, "the State University System" in

Section 471.013(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes, is defined as the

Florida State University System. Therefore, Petitioner's degree

does not meet the education requirements in Section

471.013(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes, so it cannot meet the

requirements of Section 471.013(1)(a), which are incorporated by

reference into Section 471.015(3)(a).

32. The fact that Petitioner's degree is in engineering

technology, and not in engineering, also means that he fails to

meet the requirements of Section 471.015(3)(b), Florida

Statutes. That subsection and paragraph provide:

(3) The board shall certify as qualified

for licensure by endorsement an applicant

who:

* * *

(b) Holds a valid license to practice

engineering issued by another state or

territory of the United States, if the

criteria for issuance of the license were

substantially the same as the licensure

criteria that existed in this state at the

time the license was issued.

33. In other words, in order to qualify in Florida, under

Section 471.015(3)(b), Petitioner had to show that the criteria

for licensure in at least one of the other states where he holds

licenses were "substantially the same" as in Florida at the time

he was issued those out-of-state licenses, and he has not.

34. In Eason v. Department of Business and Professional

Regulation , 732 So. 2d 1136, 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), there was

testimony as to how the Board of Professional Engineers

interpreted the term, "substantially the same" in Section

471.015(3), Florida Statutes, as that term related to the

examination requirements for applicants by endorsement. We do

not have similar expert evidence herein, but even in the absence

of such testimony, the case may be relied upon. Therein, the

court affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's determination that

the Board's interpretation of the term "substantially the same"

to mean that to qualify, the out-of-state examination must be

"equal to the Florida examination in all material respects" was

not clearly erroneous and fell within the range of possible

interpretations. Id. citing Board of Medical Examiners v.

Durrani , 455 So. 2d 515, 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

35. Applying Eason to the instant situation, the term

"substantially the same" in Section 471.015(3)(b) means that

Petitioner must show that the criteria for licensure in at least

one of the states where he has previously been licensed were

equal in all material respects to Florida's criteria for

licensure at the time he received that out-of-state license.

36. Petitioner herein has characterized the Board as

considering/comparing only a single criterion. He has perhaps

misunderstood some of the language employed in the denial

notice. As presented at hearing, this case involves Florida's

statutory criteria for licensure relevant to educational

criteria, which cannot be said to be immaterial. This case does

not offer an issue of whether or not Old Dominion was, or was

not, EAC/ABET qualified or whether the courses listed on

Petitioner's transcript, showing he graduated with a "Bachelor

of Science Degree in Engineering Technology , with a Major in

Mechanical Engineering Technology ," equate in some way to an

"engineering," rather than to an "engineering technology,"

curriculum/degree. Indeed, there is no expert evidence herein

to make such an assessment, even if it were relevant. Nor is it

necessary to compare Florida's requirement of four years of

engineering experience to the number of post-graduate years

Petitioner had to work in engineering for each other respective

State's licensure by endorsement. If that were so, Florida, at

four years, rather than six or eight years for some of the other

States, clearly requires fewer years. This case also is not

affected by whether or not Petitioner passed the NCEES. It was

stipulated that he did. These concepts simply are not

controlling herein.

37. The criteria for licensure in Florida are enumerated

under Florida Statutes Section 471.013. See § 471.015(2) Fla.

Stat. The language employed in Section 471.013(1)(a), including

the restrictions on engineering technology degrees, was exactly

the same at the time Petitioner received each of his licenses in

Virginia, Alabama, Texas and Wisconsin, and Petitioner's

engineering technology degree fails to meet the requirements of

Section 471.013(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Thus, another state's

licensure criteria that would accept Petitioner's engineering

technology degree, which is excluded in Florida's statute, would

vary in a material respect from Florida's licensing criteria,

and therefore, those other states' licensing criteria would not

be "substantially the same" or "equal in all material respects"

to Florida's criteria for licensure.

38. Moving on to a comparison, state-by-state, Petitioner

holds an engineering license from the State of Alabama. The

relevant provision of the Code of Alabama Section 34-11-4 at the

time he received his license in Alabama, states in pertinent

part:

(1) Professional Engineer. The following

shall be considered as minimum evidence

satisfactory to the board that the applicant

is qualified for licensure as a professional

engineer:

a. Graduation and experience plus

examination.

* * *

3. Graduation in an approved engineering

technology or related science curriculum

plus eight years experience. -- Before

December 31, 2005, and not thereafter, a

graduate of an approved engineering

technology curriculum of four years or more

from a school or college approved by the

board or a graduate of a related science

curriculum . . . .

39. Alabama's statutory requirement is different in a

material respect from Florida's provision, in that the Alabama

statute continued to accept engineering technology degrees

through 2005, whereas Florida did not accept any engineering

technology degree unless its recipient had been enrolled in the

engineering technology degree program as of July 1, 1979, at the

latest. Further, under Alabama's statute, there are no

restrictions on where the applicant received his or her

engineering technology degree, whereas Florida accepts

engineering technology degrees only from "the Florida State

University System," received in the relevant time frame, for

which the proper timely notice was given. One of Petitioner's

demonstrative exhibits even notes this difference. See §

471.013(1)(a)2 Fla. Stat.

40. Petitioner holds a Texas engineering license. The

relevant portions of Texas' educational licensure provisions are

as follows: Texas Occupational Code, Section 1001.302 (2005),

provides, in pertinent part:

(a) An applicant for a license under this

chapter must submit evidence satisfactory to

the board showing at least that the

applicant has:

(1) graduated from:

* * *

(B) an engineering or related science

curriculum at a recognized institution of

higher education, other than a curriculum

approved by the board under Paragraph (A).

41. Twenty-two Texas Administrative Code Section 133.31,

defines the type of programs acceptable under Texas Occupational

Code Subsection (B), as follows:

(a) Applicants for a license shall have

graduated from at least one of the following

degree programs or degree program

combinations listed in this section:

* * *

(2) Other programs under §1001.302(a)(1)(B)

of the Act. The following degrees are

acceptable to the board for meeting the

educational requirements of

§1001.302(a)(1)(B) of the Act.

(A) A bachelor degree from an engineering

technology program that is accredited by the

Technology Accreditation Commission of the

Accreditation Board of Engineering and

Technology (TAC/ABET) as published in the

2002 ABET Accreditation Yearbook or as

published in the yearbook applicable to a

previous year in which the applicant

graduated; [7/]

* * *

42. It is a material difference between the two statutes

that Texas' educational criteria as related to engineering

technology degrees do not have any restrictions on where or when

the degree was received, while Florida has the restriction to

Florida institutions as stated supra .

43. Petitioner holds a Wisconsin license. Wisconsin does

not license professional engineers on the basis of engineering

technology degrees, so the analysis could end there with an

unfavorable result for Petitioner. However, Wisconsin grants

"registration" to an engineer without an engineering degree,

based only on the requirement of having an acceptable amount of

experience and passing the approved examination, as set forth in

Subparagraphs 443.04(1)(b) and (c) (2005), Wisconsin Statutes,

and Wisconsin Administrative Code A-E 4.05(2) and (3) (2004).

Without affirmative evidence that Petitioner qualified in

Wisconsin this way, this criteria need not be examined.

However, assuming arguendo , but not ruling, that Petitioner did

qualify in Wisconsin under this provision, then he would have to

have shown the Wisconsin licensing authority that he was placed

in responsible charge (under supervision of a professional

engineer) and had eight years' experience, pursuant to Section

443.04(1)(b), Wisconsin Statutes. If he had 12 years of

experience, pursuant to Section 443.04(1)(c), Wisconsin

Statutes, he would not have had to be placed under responsible

charge.

44. Even so, Section 471.013(1)(a)3., Florida Statutes,

also contains a provision allowing for licensure through

experience only. In order to invoke this provision of Florida

law, an applicant would have had to notify the Board before

July 1, 1984, that he or she was engaged in engineering work on

July 1, 1981. Therefore, this Florida provision based on

experience alone is not the same in every material respect as

Wisconsin's statute based on experience alone, wherein Wisconsin

allows applicants currently to be licensed through experience

only.

45. Petitioner received an engineering license in Virginia

in 1996. Respondent Board after-filed an exhibit that provided

the Virginia statute applicable at the time Petitioner received

his Virginia license, but Virginia's equivalent of the Florida

Administrative Code applicable at that time was not provided by

Respondent. Petitioner was notified of this, and Petitioner did

not file the applicable Virginia regulations, either.

46. The Virginia statute presented merely gives Virginia's

Board the authority to promulgate professional qualifications

for applicants. See Virginia Code Annotated Section 54.1-404.

It does not state what the professional qualifications are/were.

Therefore, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Virginia's

criteria for licensure were substantially the same as those in

Florida at the same time he received his Virginia license.

Moreover, because Petitioner was licensed in Virginia with an

engineering technology degree which is not acceptable in

Florida, Petitioner cannot prevail, anyway.

47. Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order argues that

the Florida Board had an obligation to search out all

similarities of the other States' laws, and that because

Respondent Board did not provide the Virginia regulations for

comparison, Petitioner should prevail herein. This is

fallacious reasoning based upon a misunderstanding of the burden

of proof. 8/ The burden is on Petitioner to demonstrate his

eligibility for licensure. See Espinoza v. Department of

Business and Professional Regulation, and all cases cited in

Conclusion of Law 17, supra.

48. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner is not eligible for

licensure by endorsement because he has an engineering

technology degree not accepted under Section 471.015(3)(a),

incorporating by reference Section 471.013(1)(a), Florida

Statutes, and is not eligible under Section 471.015(3)(b),

because the criteria for licensure in the states where he has

licenses were not substantially the same as those of Florida at

the time he received those licenses.

49. Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement

should be denied.

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

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 28th day of July, 2008.

ENDNOTES

1/ The Table of Contents of the Transcript is misleading, as is

Petitioner's pre-numbering system, which for Exhibit P-6 is

broken down into 06.1--06.8. Exhibits P-2, and P-3, were

admitted at TR-38. Ultimately, the whole of Exhibit P-6, was

admitted at TR-28 and at TR-38-41. Many of these exhibits are

demonstrative and/or cumulative, rather than evidentiary.

2/ This exhibit clarifies that Petitioner was licensed in

Alabama in 2003, not 1993, as per the parties' Joint Pre-hearing

Stipulation.

3/ This composite after-filed exhibit, sometimes referred to as

R-2 or RE-2, represents such other states' statutes and/or

regulations (rules) as could be procured by Respondent and were

stipulated as evidentiary by both parties. Respondent was not

able to procure the Virginia regulations/rules for the

appropriate time frame. See Conclusions of Law.

4/ For instance, the parties stipulated that Petitioner's

Alabama P.E. license was issued in 1993, when, in fact, it had

been issued in 2003.

5/ Petitioner specifically refers to an "unnumbered first

paragraph," of Section 471.013, which he did not quote, but see

all Conclusions of Law, particularly Conclusion of Law 21,

quoting Section 471.013.

6/ One thrust of Petitioner's concern seems to be that he

believes there are no Florida rules accepting accreditation of a

college or university by the Engineering Accreditation

Commission of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and

Technology (EAC/ABET). In fact, at least since April 9, 2007,

Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G5-20.001 has accepted

" engineering programs accredited by the EAC/ABET". (Emphasis

supplied.) See Conclusion of Law 23.

7/ It is noted that neither party has discussed whether TAC and

EAC are substantially similar, but it is probable that they are

not. See Endnote 6, and Conclusion of Law 23.

8/ See Endnote 3, referring to Joint Exhibit A a/k/a the

Agency's after-filed Exhibit R-2 or RE-2, and Conclusion of Law

45.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Thomas P. Norris

7808 Southwest 99th Lane

Gainesville, Florida

Michael T. Flurry, 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

Ned Luczynski, General Counsel

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the final order in this case.