|
California PE Licensing News
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/
rev: 10/2/05 GJG
|
