07-005804 Rahul Parab vs. Board Of Professional Engineers Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, April 14, 2008.

Summary: Petitioner did not prove he was eligible to take the second part of the professional engineer examination.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

RAHUL PARAB, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 07-5804

)

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL )

ENGINEERS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A formal hearing was conducted in this case on February 11,

2008, by video teleconference between Tallahassee, Florida, and

Jacksonville, Florida, before Suzanne F. Hood, Administrative

Law Judge with the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Rahul Parab, pro se

496 Monet Avenue

Ponte Vedra, Florida 32081

For Respondent: Michael T. Flury, Esquire

Office of the Attorney General

The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Petitioner is eligible to take the Principles and Practices Examination for licensure as a professional engineer.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated August 1, 2007, Respondent Board of

Professional Engineers (Respondent) advised Petitioner Rahul

Rarab (Petitioner) that his application to take the Principles

and Practices Examination was denied based on a determination of

educational deficiencies.

On August 29, 2007, Petitioner filed a request for an

administrative hearing to challenge Respondent's decision.

Respondent referred Petitioner's request to the Division of

Administrative Hearings on August 29, 2007.

On January 8, 2008, the undersigned issued a Notice of

Hearing. The notice scheduled the hearing for February 11,

2008, by video teleconference.

During the hearing, Petitioner testified on his own behalf

and presented the testimony of one additional witness.

Petitioner offered two exhibits (P1 and P2) that were accepted

as evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of one witness

and offered one exhibit (R1) that was accepted as evidence. The

parties offered one joint exhibit (JE1) that was accepted as

evidence.

The parties filed the Transcript on March 10, 2008.

Respondent filed a Proposed Recommended Order on March 20, 2008.

As of the date of issuance of this Recommended Order, Petitioner

had not filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In 1994, Petitioner passed the Secondary School

Certificate Examination (a ten-year academic course) in India.

Petitioner passed this high school course of study with classes

in the core subjects of English, Sanskrit, Hindi, Mathematics,

Science, and Social Sciences.

2. In 1996, Petitioner passed the Higher Secondary School

Certificate Examination in India. For this two-year high school

course of study, Petitioner completed classes in English,

Mathematics and Statistics, Physics, Chemistry, and

Comprehensive Science.

3. Petitioner completed his undergraduate degree in

December 2001. He graduated from the Sardar Patel College of

Engineering (SPCE), an affiliate of the University of Mumbai in

Mumbai, India, with a Bachelor of Engineering Degree (Civil).

4. The SPCE is accredited by the National Board of

Accreditation of the All India Council for Technical Education

(NBA-AICTE). At the time of Petitioner's graduation, the SPCE

was not accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission

of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc.

(ABET).

5. For 75 years, ABET has accredited college and

university programs in the United States in the following areas:

(a) applied science; (b) computing; (c) engineering; and

(d) technology. It is a federation of 28 professional and

technical societies representing these fields. ABET accredits

approximately 2,700 programs at over 550 colleges and

universities nationwide.

6. In April 2003, Petitioner passed the Engineer Intern

Examination. Petitioner passed this eight-hour written

examination in Ohio. In May 2003, Petitioner earned a Master of

Science in Civil Engineering at the University of Toledo,

Toledo, Ohio.

7. Petitioner worked for a design engineer located in

Vicksburg, Mississippi, from July 2003 to April 2004. Since

May 2004, Petitioner has worked for an engineering firm located

in Jacksonville, Florida.

8. The Washington Accord, signed in 1989, is an

international agreement among bodies responsible for accrediting

engineering degree programs. It recognizes the substantial

equivalency of programs accredited by signatories and recommends

that graduates of programs accredited by any signatory be

recognized by the other signatories as having met the academic

requirements for entry to the practice of engineering.

9. ABET, as a signatory of the Washington Accord,

recognizes the substantial equivalency of foreign academic

programs accredited by other signatory members; it does not

accredit them. Further, ABET only recommends that graduates of

programs from the signatories be recognized as substantially

equivalent.

10. Respondent does not follow the recommendations of ABET

regarding the substantial equivalency of foreign academic

programs in part because ABET and the other signatories of the

Washington Accord recognize engineering technology degrees.

Respondent has statutory authority to recognize engineering

technology degrees only if the applicant was enrolled in a state

university system prior to July 1, 1979. See § 471.013(1)(a)2.,

Fla. Stat.

11. In 2007, the Washington Accord members granted

provisional membership status to the NBA-AICTE. As a

provisional member, the NBA-AICTE must demonstrate that the

accreditation system for which it has responsibility, appears to

be conceptually similar to those of the other signatories of the

Washington Accord. By conferring provisional status, the

signatories have indicated that they consider the provisional

signatory to have the potential capability to reach full

signatory status; however, the awarding of provisional status

does not in any way imply a guarantee of the granting of full

signatory status.

12. April 2007, Petitioner applied to take the Principles

and Practices Examination for licensure as a professional

engineer. He specifically sought to be recognized as a civil

engineer with proficiency in water resources.

13. In order to show substantial equivalency pursuant to

Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007(1), Petitioner had

his engineering degree from SPCE evaluated by Joseph Silny and

Associates, Inc. (Silny). Respondent has approved Silny to

conduct the substantial equivalency evaluations required by

Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007(3).

14. Silny's evaluation showed that Petitioner's degree

from SPCE lacked 13.59 semester credit hours of math and basic

sciences, and 16 semester credit hours of humanities and social

sciences. Silny concluded that Petitioner’s SPCE degree failed

to meet the substantial equivalency requirements rule

requirements.

15. Petitioner submitted his transcript from the

University of Toledo to Respondent for further evaluation.

After reviewing the transcript, Respondent gave Petitioner

credit for coursework in Numerical Analysis I and Numerical

Analysis II, totaling six semester credit hours toward the math

and basic science requirements. The credit reduced Petitioner's

academic deficiency to 7.59 semester credit hours in math and

basic science.

16. During the hearing, Petitioner submitted transcripts

and his secondary school certificates as evidence of coursework

prior to his Bachelor of Science degree at SPCE. This

coursework is not acceptable to meet the substantial equivalency

rule requirements because they are college preparatory classes

taken in high school for which Petitioner received no college

credit.

17. Many of Petitioner's high school courses cover

subjects also taken in his undergraduate program, such as

physics, chemistry, math, and statistics. Petitioner has

already received credit for these courses that cannot be counted

twice.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

18. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this case

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

(2007).

19. Petitioner has the burden of proving by a

preponderance of the evidence that he is eligible to take the

Principles and Practices Examination for licensure as a

professional engineer. See Dept. of Banking and Finance, Div.

of Securities and Investor Protection v. Osborne Sterne and

Company , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Espinoza v. Dept. of

Business and Professional Regulation , 739 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 3rd

DCA 1999); Fla. Dept. of Trans. v. J.W.C. Co., Inc. , 396 So. 2d

778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); and Balino v. Dept. of Health and

Rehabilitative Services , 348 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1077).

20. Chapters 455 and 471, Florida Statutes (2007),

regulate the licensure and practice of engineering. As to

prerequisites for examination, Section 471.013(1), Florida

Statutes (2007), states as follows in pertinent part:

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

take an examination for the purpose of

determining whether he or she 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 of 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 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, and has a

record of four years of active engineering

experience of a character indicating

competence to be in responsible charge of

engineering . . .

21. The required examination is a national examination

provided by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and

Surveyors (NCEES) and consists of two parts. See Fla. Admin. C.

Rule 61G15-21.001 . Petitioner has passed Part I of the

examination in Ohio. He now seeks certification to take Part II

of the examination.

22. Respondent's approved engineering program is defined

in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.001(2) as an

engineering program accredited by ABET. If the engineering

program is not ABET accredited, it must be substantially

equivalent as provided in Florida Administrative Code Rule

61G15-20.007, which states as follows in relevant part:

61G15-20.007 Demonstration of

Substantial Equivalency.

(1) Applicants having engineering

degrees from programs that are not

accredited by [ABET] must demonstrate:

(a) 32 college credit hours of higher

mathematics and basic sciences.

1. The hours of mathematics must be

beyond algebra and trigonometry and must

emphasize mathematical concepts and

principles rather than computation. Courses

in probability and statistics, differential

calculus, integral calculus, and

differential equations are required.

Additional courses may include linear

algebra, numerical analysis, and advanced

calculus.

2. The hours in basic sciences, must

include courses in general chemistry and

calculus-based general physics, with at

least a two semester (or equivalent)

sequence of study in either area.

Additional basic sciences courses may

include life sciences (biology), earth

sciences (geology), and advanced chemistry

or physics. Computer skills and/or

programming courses cannot be used to

satisfy mathematic or basic science

requirements.

(b) 16 college credit hours in

humanities and social sciences. Examples of

traditional courses in this area are

philosophy, religion, history, literature,

fine arts, sociology, psychology, political

science, anthropology, economics,

professional ethics, social responsibility

and no more than 6 credit hours of languages

other than English or other than the

applicant's native language. Courses such

as accounting, industrial management,

finance, personnel administration,

engineering economics and military training

are not acceptable. Courses which instill

cultural values are acceptable, while

routine exercises of personal craft are not.

23. In this case, Petitioner has not met his burden of

showing that he is qualified to take the Principles and

Practices Examination. He lacks 7.59 semester credit hours in

math and basic science. He also lacks 16 semester credit hours

in humanities and social science.

24. Petitioner's high school coursework cannot be counted

for substantial equivalency. Even if Respondent could grant

Petitioner credit for his high school classes, many of them

would be eliminated because Petitioner took the same courses at

SPCE. In any event, the record contains no evidence as to the

amount of college credit Petitioner might receive for his high

school classes.

25. SPCE is accredited by NBA-AICTE, which has provisional

membership in the Washington Accord. However, Respondent does

not recognize the Washington Accord and does not follow ABET's

"recommendations" regarding foreign engineering programs.

Instead, Respondent recognizes programs "accredited" by ABET or

the substantial equivalency thereof as set forth in Florida

Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED:

That Respondent enters a final order denying Petitioner's

application to take the second part of the professional engineer

examination.

DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2008, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

SUZANNE F. HOOD

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 14th day of April, 2008.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Rahul Parab

496 Monet Avenue

Ponte Vedra, Florida 32081

Michael T. Flury, Esquire

Office of the Attorney General

The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer

Office of the General Counsel

Department of Business

and Professional Regulation

Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Paul J. Martin, Executive Director

Patrick Creehan, Esquire

Board of Professional Engineers

Department of Business

and Professional Regulation

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.