03-002891 William Lantrip vs. Construction Industry Licensing Board Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, December 15, 2003.

Summary: Petitioner is not entitled to licensure by endorsement because the licensure examination that he took in Georgia was not substantially equivalent to the examination given in Florida.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

WILLIAM LANTRIP, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 03 - 2891

)

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING )

BOARD, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Purs uant to notice, a formal hearing was conducted in this

case on October 17, 2003, in Largo, Florida, before Carolyn S.

Holifield, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: William Lantrip, pro se

927 Lakewood Drive

Dunedin, Florida 34698 - 7218

For Respondent: Barbara Rockhill Edwards, Esquire

Department of Legal Affairs

The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1050

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Peti tioner is entitled to licensure by endorsement,

pursuant to Section 489.115, Florida Statutes (2003).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On or about April 4, 2003, Petitioner, William Lantrip

(Petitioner), applied to Respondent, Construction Industry

Licensing Boa rd (Board), for licensure as a certified plumber in

the State of Florida. At that time, because Petitioner was

licensed as a plumber in Georgia, he applied for licensure by

endorsement pursuant to Section 489.115, Florida Statutes

(2003). By Notice of In tent to Deny (Notice) dated June 25,

2003, the Board denied Petitioner's application. According to

the Notice, the application was denied because the Board

determined that the licensure examination Petitioner took in

Georgia was not substantially equivale nt to the licensure

examination administered in Florida.

Petitioner challenged the denial and timely requested a

formal hearing. On August 7, 2003, the matter was referred to

the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of an

Administrative Law Judge to conduct the hearing and prepare a

recommended order. By notice issued August 28, 2003, the matter

was set for hearing and was conducted, as noted above.

At the final hearing, Petitioner testified in his own

behalf but called no other witnesses. Petitioner's Exhibits 1,

2, and 3 were received into evidence. Respondent presented the

testimony of two witnesses: 1) Stephen Allen, a psychometrician

with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation;

and 2) Timothy Vaccaro, executive direc tor of the Board.

Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2 were received into evidence.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the time for filing proposed

recommended orders was set for ten days from the date the

Transcript was filed.

A Transcript of the proceeding wa s filed on October 22,

2003. Both parties filed Proposed Recommended Orders, which

have been duly considered in the preparation of this Recommended

Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On or about April 4, 2003, Petitioner applied for a

certified plumbing contra ctor's license by endorsement.

2. Applicants who seek a licensure by endorsement must

have passed an examination that is substantially equivalent to

the examination given in Florida or hold a license in another

state or territory of the United States whe re the criteria for

issuance of the license is substantially equivalent to Florida's

criteria.

3. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner

was licensed or certified as a plumber in Georgia, Alabama, and

Tennessee. For the purpose of his appl ication for licensure by

endorsement, Petitioner submitted information to the Board

regarding the examination he took in Georgia. Petitioner was

not precluded from submitting information regarding the

examinations he took in Alabama and Tennessee. Howeve r,

Petitioner submitted the information regarding the examination

he took in Georgia because it was the one he had taken most

recently.

4. Georgia gives three different plumbing examinations and

issues three different plumbing licenses. One examination is

for a journeyman's license. Another examination is for a

Class I restricted plumbing license. Still, another examination

is given for a Class II unrestricted plumbing license.

5. In order to obtain his plumbing license in Georgia,

Petitioner succe ssfully completed the Class I Restricted Georgia

Examination (Georgia Examination).

6. Florida issues only one certified plumbing contractor's

license and that license is the equivalent of Georgia's Class II

unrestricted plumbing license. To meet the exa mination

requirement for licensure as a plumber in Florida, an applicant

must successfully complete the Certification Examination for

Plumbing Contractors (Florida Examination or Certification

Examination for Plumbing Contractors).

7. Stephen Allen, a ps ychometrician employed by the

Department of Business and Professional Regulation, evaluated

the Georgia Examination to determine if it were substantially

equivalent to the Florida Examination. In determining whether

the Georgia Examination and the Florida Examination were

substantially equivalent, Mr. Allen considered and compared the

material covered; the emphasis placed on various topics; the

actual content of the examinations; the general characteristics

of the examination; the number of questions; the amount of time

allowed to complete the examination; the weight given to various

areas or categories of the examinations; and the method of

measuring knowledge in the various content areas.

8. Based on a comprehensive review and analysis of the

Georgia Ex amination and the Florida Examination, Mr. Allen

properly determined that the Georgia Examination was not

substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination.

9. The area in which the examinations are significantly

different is the isometric area or cate gory. First, the

relative weight on the isometric area of the examinations varies

greatly. On the Florida Examination, the weight given to the

isometric area is 31 percent. On the Georgia Examination, the

weight given to the isometric area is, at most, only 6 percent.

Second, the knowledge of isometrics is measured differently on

the examinations. The Florida Examination requires that the

candidate demonstrate knowledge of isometrics by having the

candidate draw five different isometric drawings, whic h show the

room's plumbing based on the fixtures to be installed. The five

drawings are graded on legibility, orientation, flow, angles,

piping, labeling, and vents. The Georgia Examination is a

multiple choice examination and measures knowledge of isome trics

by the candidate's selecting the correct answer from four

possible answers.

10. The Georgia Examination successfully completed by

Petitioner to obtain his master plumber's restricted license is

not substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination .

11. Petitioner is ineligible for licensure by endorsement

because the examination he took in Georgia is not substantially

equivalent to the Florida Examination.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

12. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the p arties to and the subject matter of this

proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida

Statutes (2003).

13. Section 489.115(2), Florida Statutes (2003),

authorizes the Board to issue a certificate of registration to

applicants who submit app lications, the appropriate fee, and

otherwise meet the provisions of the section under which they

seek licensure.

14. In this case, Petitioner seeks to obtain a plumber's

license in Florida pursuant to Section 489.115(3), Florida

Statutes (2003). That pr ovision authorizes an applicant, who

meets the requirements in that provisions contained therein, to

obtain a license by endorsement.

15. Section 489.115(3), Florida Statutes (2003), states

(3) The board shall certify as qualified

for certification b y endorsement any

applicant who:

(a) Meets the requirements for

certification as set forth in this section;

has passed a national, regional, state, or

United States territorial licensing

examination that is substantially equivalent

to the examination required by this part;

and has satisfied the requirements set forth

in s. 489.111;

(b) Holds a valid license to practice

contracting issued by another state or

territory of the United States, if the

criteria for issuance of such license were

substanti ally equivalent to Florida's

current certification criteria; or

(c) Holds a valid, current license to

practice contracting issued by another state

or territory of the United States, if the

state or territory has entered into a

reciprocal agreement wit h the board for the

recognition of contractor licenses issued in

that state, based on criteria for the

issuance of such licenses that are

substantially equivalent to the criteria for

certification in this state.

16. Petitioner holds a valid plumber's li cense in Georgia

and seeks to qualify for certification as a plumber under

Section 489.115(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), which authorizes

certification by endorsement, if the applicant has passed a

regional, state, or United States territorial licensing

examination that is substantially equivalent to the Florida

Examination.

17. As the applicant for licensure by endorsement or the

party asserting the affirmative of the issue, Petitioner has the

burden of proof. See Department of Banking and Finance,

Div ision of Security and Investor Protection v. Osborne Stern

and Co. , 670 So. 2d 932, 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); and Florida

Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co. , 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla.

1st DCA 1981).

18. Petitioner has failed to meet his burden.

19. Sec tion 489.108, Florida Statutes (2003), grants to

the Board rulemaking authority to implement the provisions of

Chapter 489, Florida Statutes (2003).

20. With regard to the examinations required as a

condition of licensure, Section 455.217(1)(b), Florida Statutes

(2003), requires that the Board "shall by rule specify the

general areas of competency to be covered on the examination,

the relative weight to be assigned in grading each area tested,

the score necessary to achieve a passing grade . . . ."

21. Pu rsuant to its rulemaking authority, the Board has

promulgated Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4 - 16.001(12)

which provides in relevant part:

(12) Certification Examination for

Plumbing Contractors. The certification

examination shall consist of two tests.

(a) Test one shall consist of questions

relating to the business and financial

management of a contracting firm. The

content areas to be covered and the

approximate weights to be assigned to

said areas are set forth in subsection

61G4 - 16.001(2 0), F.A.C.

(b) Test two shall consist of questions

relating to general knowledge of the

plumbing trade. The content areas to be

covered and the approximate weights to be

assigned to said areas shall be as follows:

1. 20% Drainage;

2. 20% Water Distribution;

3. 15% Natural Gas Piping;

4. 20% Medical Gas Piping;

5. 10% Industrial Piping;

6. 5% Swimming Pools, Wells and

Irrigation;

7. 5% Solar;

8. 5% Fire Protection; and

9. Test two shall include, but shall not

be limit ed to, five plumbing isometric

drawings. The content of the drawings shall

conform to the content areas listed in 1.

through 8. above. Each of the isometric

drawings is worth up to a maximum of 10

points. Based on the criteria listed below,

each drawing will be independently evaluated

by three graders. At least two of the

graders must agree that a criterion is

correct in order for that criterion to be

graded as correct and points to be awarded.

If one or more criterion is determined to be

incorrect by at least two of the graders,

points will not be awarded for that

criterion. The awarded points for all

criteria will be summed and converted to a

10 point scale to determine the score for

each drawing. The following are the

criteria and points used by th e graders to

evaluate each of the five isometric

drawings.

a. Legibility. Drawing is clear and

readable. Drawing is sufficient in size.

Lines and labels are distinguishable.

(8 points)

b. Orientation. All fixtures are shown

in the correct locat ion relative to each

other. (20 points)

c. Flow. Direction of flow is shown when

going from vertical to horizontal. The

direction of flow must be indicated even if

the direction is implied for all waste lines

and all fixture connections. Direction of

flow is not required for vent lines. (12

points)

d. Angles. Isometric drawing uses 30 - 60 -

90 degree angles. All angles used on the

drawing are displayed at the appropriate

orientation. (8 points)

e. Piping. All pipes, fittings, traps,

clean - ou ts, and similar portions of the

piping structure are included on the

drawing. All piping is shown exactly as on

the drawing (regardless of specific code

requirements). The piping must display the

correct elevation in reference to the floor

plan. (20 poin ts)

f. Labeling. All fixtures are labeled

according to the legend provided in the

examination instructions. (4 points)

g. Vents. All vents are properly

indicated. (16 points)

h. Fixtures. All fixtures shown on the

floor plan are appropriate ly indicated on

the isometric drawing. (12 points)

(Emphasis supplied.)

22. According to Florida Administrative Code

Rule 61G4 - 16.001(12)(b)9. quoted above, the Certification

Examination for Plumbing Contractors shall consist of five

plumbing isome tric drawings, which shall conform to content

areas listed in Subsections 1 through 8 of the Rule. The

criteria for grading the isometric drawings are listed in

Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4 - 16.001(12)(b)9.a.

through h.

23. The evidence establish ed and is undisputed that

Petitioner is licensed as a plumber in Georgia. However,

Petitioner failed to establish that the Georgia Examination,

which he successfully completed, is substantially equivalent to

the Florida Examination. Contrary to the asser tion of

Petitioner , the evidence established that the Georgia

Examination is not substantially equivalent to the Florida

Examination.

24. The evidence established that the Georgia Examination

and the Florida Examination vary significantly with regard to

t he method of determining a candidate's knowledge of isometrics

and the weight given to that section.

25. Having failed to establish that the Georgia

Examination, which he successfully completed, is substantially

equivalent to the Florida Examination, Petit ioner does not

qualify for certification by endorsement pursuant to

Section 489.115(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2003). Moreover,

Petitioner failed to establish that he is eligible for licensure

by endorsement pursuant to Section 489.115(3)(b) or (c), Florida

Statutes.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board

enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for

licensure by endorsement.

DONE AND ENTE RED this 15th day of December, 2003, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florid a 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 December, 2003.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Barbara Rockhill Edwards, Esquire

Depa rtment of Legal Affairs

The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1050

William Lantrip

927 Lakewood Drive

Dunedin, Florida 34698 - 7218

Timothy Vaccaro, Executive Director

Construction Industry Licensing Board

Department of Business and

Pr ofessional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0792

Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2202

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXC EPTIONS

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.