ISA Logo

ISA Northern California Section

 

 

 

 
PE Licensing

California PE Licensing News

Los Angeles Section, PE Information Webpage

California's Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors

News regarding California SB246

NCEES PROPOSES NEW ENGINEERING LICENSING SCHEME
By Tom Stout, P.E.  
April 1, 2004

See “ACRONYMS” at the end of this article.

NCEES assembled a task force from its own members and major professional societies a few years ago to devise a new licensing scheme for engineers. The task force reported in mid-2003, and its proposal has been under consideration for almost a year. Further action, if any, will come at the NCEES Annual Meeting in August 2004.

The ELQTF proposal contains some changes in licensing tests and the titles conferred on successful test takers:

•   An engineer with an EAC/ABET-accredited four-year degree can call himself or herself a "Graduate Engineer."

•   A Graduate Engineer who passes the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam will be called an  "Associate Engineer" (formerly an Engineer-in-Training or Engineering Intern).

•   An Associate Engineer can take a PE technical exam in a branch of engineering any time after the FE exam. After passing and with four years of experience, he can take a "professional practice" exam covering business ethics, law, contracts, etc. to become a "Professional Engineer."

This proposal recognizes the reality that engineering graduates will be known as graduate engineers, provides a more dignified title to replace the former "EIT" or "Intern", allows more flexibility in scheduling the PE exam, and introduces an exam on business practices to help counter a common source of consumer complaints about consulting engineers. Holders of MS degrees would receive credit for one year of work experience; those with a PhD would receive a waiver of the FE exam and credit for two years work experience.

The path described above would replace the current path to a PE license. A program of continuing professional development (CPD) was recommended for PEs and REs. The report also noted that "post-licensure specialty certifications sponsored by professional societies may require additional education, examination and/or experience."

A more interesting and potentially controversial result of the ELQTF's work, however, is a proposed path for engineers working in industry -- people now largely exempt from the licensing laws in most states.

Under the ELQTF proposal, an engineer who passes the FE exam and goes into industry could sign up with a state licensing board after four years of experience, agree to observe its code of professional conduct, and become a "Registered Engineer."  He would receive limited practice privileges in his industrial position but could not provide services to the public. He could, if he desired, take a PE technical exam and the business practice exam at any time to qualify for an unlimited scope of activity.

This new path to licensing was designed to appeal to the majority of engineers who currently do not become licensed. IEEE is reported to back the proposal, although no poll of members has been taken. The reaction of other professional societies is unknown.

Personal Reaction: When I read the ELQTF report, I thought it was an interesting piece of work but did not do much to put licensing and certification of engineers on a rational basis.

My concerns, based on long involvement in both licensing and certification, are as follows:

•   BS degrees are awarded in 80-100 branches of engineering, according to ABET and ASEE publications.

•   There are now NCEES PE exams for 16 branches of engineering, 24 if depth modules in CE, EE and ME are counted as separate exams.

•   Testing practices for licensing purposes require exams to be job-related, i.e., cover knowledge and skills required in the daily work of practitioners (which demands a separate exam for each branch of engineering).

•   NCEES and NSPE both advocate licensing before certification.

Taken together, these conditions mean that there are engineers who cannot be licensed or certified; I have referred to this as a "Catch-22" situation. NCEES and NSPE have backed the medical model, where a doctor is first an "MD" and then a surgeon, pediatrician, etc. certified by one of 23 boards; this is not necessarily a good model for engineers in my opinion.

I have discussed my views in the NSPE Licensure and Qualifications for Practice Committee, as well as the CESB board. CESB is planning to conduct a meeting of engineering organizations to study this issue and arrive at a more rational approach to engineering licensing and certification. Stay tuned! When there is something to report, I'll let you know.

Information:  In the meantime, if you have comments or questions about the NCEES proposal or my "Catch-22", or want more information on licensing or certification, please contact me at 818-349-6738 or tomstoutpe@earthlink.net.

ACRONYMS

NCEES - National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying – a federation of licensing boards responsible for preparing and scoring engineering licensing exams

ELQTF - Engineering Licensure Qualifications Task Force -- organized by NCEES to develop a new approach to engineering licensing

ABET  - Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology -- body that visits, evaluates and accredits engineering programs in colleges and universities

CESB  - Council of Engineering and Scientific Specialty Boards -- body that accredits certification programs by engineering and engineering-related organizations

ASEE  - American Society for Engineering Education

NSPE  - National Society of Professional Engineers


UPDATE 2/1/2004
CALIFORNIA PE BOARD NEARING END OF LICENSING LAW REVIEW

Tom Stout, PE

Licensed engineers who have been following activities of the California PE Board will recall that it has been under “sunset review” for several years. Each year, some minor changes in the law or rules have been made, and the Board’s life has been extended for another year. The coming year is going to be the occasion for the biggest changes yet.

Changes to date have been stimulated by questions like: Why don’t you require written contracts? Why don’t you have a code of professional practice? Why don’t you have a “retired” status?  The biggest question was: Why do you have so many branches of engineering?

Rather than say, “We can’t change the way the engineering profession is organized by the national education and licensing systems,” the Board sponsored a study conducted by the Institute for Social Research at the California State University - Sacramento.  The study has been complete for over a year, and the Board has been struggling to decide which study recommendations to adopt. A task force appointed by the Board presented its ideas on implementation of the study results at a hearing on January 28.

Primary recommendations by ISR-CSUS include:

•   Remove all prohibitions on overlaps between engineering disciplines.

•   Allow all regulated disciplines to exercise “responsible charge” of projects when qualified by education and experience     

•   Eliminate “title” protection and offer “practice” protection to all regulated disciplines.

To understand the last proposal, engineers should understand that civil, electrical and mechanical engineering are the only branches in California to be practice regulated, i.e., you cannot practice in these disciplines unless you are licensed.  All of the others enjoy only a restricted title, i.e., to use a title such as Control System Engineer, you must be licensed, but others can work in the same field by using a different title.

Reactions vary in the engineering community to these proposals.

•   Engineers are arguing whether removing the existing restrictions on overlaps should be total or should somehow be phrased to allow “incidental overlaps” or limit practice to “supplemental overlaps.”  Some may want to draft actual definitions of overlapping areas; others are willing to rely on the ethical or statutory injunction to “work only in your areas of expertise.”

•   Permission to assume responsible charge of a project is now generally limited to engineers in the practice-regulated branches, although there is no good reason for this constraint, especially for small projects.

•   Converting all branches to a “practice” status is being resisted, mostly by civil engineers, whose scope of practice is now defined in a very broad way. The dispute is widely seen as a “turf” matter, with the eventual decision to depend on who can best influence the legislature.

At a hearing in December, the Board Task Force advanced the idea that it would be necessary to drop all of the current “title” branches and require them to reapply individually for recognition as “practice” branches.  This idea is based on Section 9148.4 of the California Business & Professions Code, which requires that “legislation creating a new category of licensed professional” must comply with an elaborate “sunrise” process, described in multiple pages of text. Opinions differ on whether this section applies to existing licensees whose nature or scope of practice is being changed.  Representatives of the title-branch societies are resisting this idea, which requires a lot of effort, on the grounds of already having “been there and done that” when they were first recognized.

ISA belongs to the California Legislative Council of Professional Engineers (CLCPE), an organization of several engineering societies with an interest in legislation.  CLCPE employs a part-time lobbyist who expects to be very busy with these issues in the coming legislative session.

If you would like to assist in this effort by testifying at hearings, supplying data or anecdotal evidence to bolster the CSE effort, or supporting the work in other ways, please contact me at phone & fax: 818-349-6738 or tomstoutpe@earthlink.net


UPDATE January 13, 2003
by Stephan Gaertner

The Sunset Review of the California Professional Engineering Act initiated by  the influential civil engineers with of the aim the eliminating the "Practice Act Disciplines" has backfired on them.  Since we (ISA District 11)  joined the CSLPE (California Legislative Council of Professional Engineers) , a lot of things have happened.  

The DCA (Department of Consumer Affairs), on behalf of the California Board of Professional Engineers, has ordered an independent study from the ISR (Institute for Social Research) on the scope of each engineering discipline. The ISR just has submitted its " Final Report to the Legislation".

The report has 33 pages, so here are just a few highlights. Based on thorough research on the number and types of engineers in the workforce, their qualification requirements and expertise, the ISR  recommends that the distinction between practice an title acts should be abolished since engineers practicing in any branch must be competent in their field. The privilege of the civil engineers to be entitled to practicing in any related discipline (overlap), whereas other can not, is not justifiable.

Overlap is a reality in any engineering practice.  For example a chemical engineer may be knowledgeable in pumps, piping, and vessel design which is mechanical engineering.  Also, no other state makes the distinction between title and practice acts. (My foot note: This title act thing was a compromise at a time when the new disciplines such as Chemical, CSE, etc., engineers pressed for recognition around 1972).

This ISR report is only a recommendation.  We will see how the legislature will act on it.  You may want to read Table 9.9  "Items rated important on the Control Systems Engineering Occupation Analysis", a listing of all CSE activities based on a detailed survey.  And thanks to Tom Stout, who has compiled  a large volume on the scope of CSE (with statistics) for the ISR study.

 


UPDATE October 26, 2002

I attended a meeting of the CLCPE (California Legislative Council for Professional Engineers) in Sacramento on 10/26/02, with Tom Stout and substituting for Bob Webb. ISA district 11 has become a member of CLCPE.

Of interest to ISA is the Sunset Review process by the Board of Professional Engineers.  Lobbyist Don Reiser reported that  DCA (Department of Consumer Affairs) has ordered an independent study on this topic, to which each discipline had some input.  It seems there is no danger that he CS discipline would be eliminated. Rather, overlaps would be allowed, so that a CS PE can design a UPS without being questioned if he is competent in electrical engineering, as long as he is competent to do the work. And if you put a North arrow on a plan, you would not be accused of practicing civil engineering.

The Board is working on a Code of Conduct defining incompetence, negligence and responsible charge.

It was stated that Louisiana has eliminated Practice Acts – they have a system of generic type licensure (as have 42 other states), although you can obtain specific (i.e. CS) licenses there. Find more on this at www.lapels.com.

Our PE license fee will go up to $150 for a two year renewal.  The initial license will cost $275.

Jack Nawrocki of IEEE informed me that their Computer Society is creating a certification program (by IEEE rather than the State Board) called CERTIFIED SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS (CSDP). This is part of an effort to establish software engineering as a discipline.

For more information about the PE exam see: http://www.ncees.org/

Go to Feedback Form

 

 

rev: 10/2/05 GJG