×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

(OP)
The current law in the State of California denies certain PE disciplines the right to practice engineering.  The law separates PEs into two categories: Title Act and Practice Act.  Practice Act engineers have the legal right to practice engineering (i.e. stamp documents) and Title Act engineers have the legal right to adopt the title (i.e. Your Name, PE).
 
Per the Legislative Counsel Bureau's opinion #1101097 (expressed in bill analysis for SB692 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0651-0700/sb_692_cfa_20120105_141539_sen_comm.html ), according the current law as it is written,

Quote:

Counsel opined that  :  "Only a licensed civil engineer may be in responsible charge of designs, plans and specifications, and engineering reports for the fixed work components of an engineering project, as described in Sections 6731 and 6731.1 of the Business and Professions Code. However, a licensed professional engineer who is not a civil engineer may be in responsible charge of designs, plans and specifications, and engineering reports for the components of an engineering project that are not fixed works."

For many years, several different organizations have tried to reform the law.  These attempts have all been prevented by the Civil Engineers' lobbyists.  Even though it is true that civil engineers account for almost 2/3rds of the engineers in California, they should not have the exclusive right to practice engineering.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0651-0700/sb_692_cfa_20120105_141539_sen_comm.html
This table has been developed based on the information in the aforementioned web page.
193                        0.24% Agricultural
50,497                   64.05% Civil
1,954                     2.48% Chemical
1,416                     1.80% Controls systems
8,916                     11.31% Electrical
760                         0.96% Fire Protection
467                         0.59% Industrial
14,633                    18.56% Mechanical
78,836                     total engineers

I recommend any PE in California to contact their representative to support SB692 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html ).  I am a ChemE.  I studied very hard, just like all other engineers, to graduate, pass the EIT/FE and pass the PE exam.  My knowledge is just as valid as any other discipline for engineering.  Of course I will never be able to design a bridge like a CE, as a ChemE my knowledge is far superior than CEs in the design of chemical plants, oil refineries, etc.  I think that all PEs should have the same right to practice as Civil PEs.
 

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

I have lived and worked in California for nearly 32 years, but always as an employee of a large corporation and have never 'practiced' engineering as an individual.  I'm a Mechanical Engineer, but my license was issued by the State of Michigan when I was working there prior to moving to SoCal in 1980.  I've kept my Michigan license current (paying the renewal fee every two years) primarily so that I could continue to include the 'P.E.' on my business card (it affords a certain level of credibility when dealing with other engineers) and since I've never actually practiced engineering under my own name, this arrangement has never been questioned nor have I felt that it was misleading or inappropriate.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
UG/NX Museum:   http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

Can you please explain what your problem is with the quoted text?  Are you prevented from stamping construction plans for chemical refineries because you are not a civil engineer?

I wonder if perhaps their problem is with the definition of "fixed works."  My brother works for a mechanical engineering company that designs and manufactures industrial bread ovens.  They have a PE who stamps their plans, and I presume he's a ME.

 

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

Quote (beej67):


My brother works for a mechanical engineering company that designs and manufactures industrial bread ovens.

What company would that be?  I ask because before coming to SoCal in 1980, I worked 14 years for a large multi-national company which, among other things, "...designed and manufactured industrial bread ovens".  In fact, I worked in their American division that did just that, in R&D working on at times, new ideas for "industrial bread ovens".

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
UG/NX Museum:   http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

As a "Practice Act" California PE for over 35 years, I agree it's long overdue to let PEs perform in their own area of competence.

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

Quote:

beej67
Can you please explain what your problem is with the quoted text?  Are you prevented from stamping construction plans for chemical refineries because you are not a civil engineer?
Essentially he is. I routinely design/seal hazardous location documents. It isn't rocket science, but it isn't trivial either. Most Chem Es could pick it up easily. Most CEs could too, but probably aren't interested.

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

chemebabak,

   What is a "fixed work"?

   If a "fixed work" is a permanent structure like a building or a bridge, then your regulations should require a qualified person like a civil engineer.  

   Your quote allows other engineers to be in charge of things that are not "fixed works".

               JHG

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

(beej67) thanks for the link.  I thought this had a ring of familiarity to it...

BTW, in that 18+ month old thread, you never followed-up with confirmation that near the end that we were talking about the same company.  And I'm still interested in whether there was any history there which might have lead back to the place where I worked those 14 years (and who still owes me a pension I'm looking to start collecting on one of these days).

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
UG/NX Museum:   http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

I see why people want the other disciplines to be practice acts, but if you are an industrial engineer (for example) why would you want to allow someone to decide they're competent in civil engineering that has no experience?  They wouldnt have taken the additional state specific tests like the rest of the civils.  Ultimately we're responsible for declaring our own competency, but there is always going to be someone who thinks they're competent in more than one discipline.

If the bill is passed, at least it puts more responsibility on the newer practice acts than before.

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

Hate to say this - but J Baker if you are using "PE" in SoCal but only licensed in MI - that could/might get you into trouble - believe it or not!!  Stupid - right??  Just heard of a few cases where this has happened.

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

As I've stated before, I'm not 'practicing' engineering under my name (I never have, even when I lived in Michigan I was an employee of a corporation).  My current position does not require that I be licensed nor do I perform any tasks which would ever require the signature/approval of an engineer.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
UG/NX Museum:   http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

I am registered in Florida, so this may be incorrect for CA or MI.

Not to pile on you, John, but if you're using P.E. and a CA address, I think you should either have a CA P.E. or an indication of where you are registered, such as P.E. (MI).

It may be overkill, but even though my office address is in Florida, I still have P.E.(FL) on my business card because I do a lot of out of state work and don't want to mislead anyone.  The work I do does not currently require a P.E.

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

JG is unbelievably correct.  More than one guy has gotten "dinged" by this.

I have even heard of expert testimony throw out of court JUST because the engineer didn't happen to be licensed in that state - but he was in like 30 others!!

I would strongly recommend that if you use PE - you either say licensed in CA (if you are) OR licensed in MI or NJ or whatever.

Just my thoughts.

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

From the California Professional Engineers Act:
(All underlines mine)

Quote:

6704. Defines who may use engineer titles
(a) In order to safeguard life, health, property, and public welfare, no person shall practice civil, electrical, or mechanical engineering unless appropriately licensed or specifically exempted from licensure under this chapter, and only persons licensed under this chapter shall be entitled to take and use the titles "consulting engineer," "professional engineer," or "registered engineer," or any combination of those titles or abbreviations thereof, and according to licensure with the board the engineering branch titles specified in Section 6732, or the authority titles specified in Sections 6736 and 6736.1, or the title "engineer-in-training."
(b) The provisions of this section shall not prevent the use of the title "consulting engineer" by a person who has qualified for and maintained exemption for using that title under the provisions of Section 6732.1, or by a person licensed as a photogrammetric surveyor.
6734.2. Practice of mechanical engineering
Any person practices mechanical engineering when he professes to be a mechanical engineer or is in responsible charge of mechanical engineering work.
You are "professing" to be a mechanical engineer simply by using the title.  

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

John -

Talked to my brother.  Lanham was bought by APV.  In the ensuing layoffs, some of the Lahnam engineers left and started BakeTech as a new operation.  APV in turn was bought by Turkington.  BakeTech apparently still does maintenance on some Lanham installations.  Bro says he's got a stack of Lanham info sitting on his desk right now.

Sounds like if you were looking to hire someone to fix an old Lanham install, you'd go to BakeTech, but if you're fishing for your pension you'd call Turkington.  That help you out?  

Merely relaying info, I really don't know anything about any of these firms.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

beej67, thanks for the update, that explains the DNA of Bake Tech.  Note that when APV bought Lanham they had already purchased the company I had worked for (I left several years before the takeover), which BTW has since been spun-off and reopened under the old name servicing and manufacturing at least a subset of their old line of commercial bakery equipment:

http://www.bakerperkinsgroup.com/

As for my pension, I have NO need to 'fish' for information as I get a letter each year explaining the status of the pension fund and information about where I need to go when I'm ready to start receiving my benefit payments.  My only issue (which I should contacting about in the near future) is whether they are going to FORCE me to take my pension this fall (I turn 65 in August), as is going to be the case with my old McDonald Douglas pension (now being administered by Boeing).  It has been growing in value since I was first eligible to take it (when I turned 55) and if I have the option to defer it past age 65, but only if it continues to increase in value, that's what I would like to do.  This is exactly what I'm planing on doing with my old EDS pension (which is now being administered by HP) as they allow an indefinite deferment while it continues to grow.

It's still going to feel odd some day, collecting 3 different pensions from 3 different companies, none of whom I technically ever worked for winky smile  And then there's company I work for now, which has no defined benefit pension plan, just a 401k, but at least they do match a portion of my salary each payday so I guess it's like having a 'company pension' after all.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
UG/NX Museum:   http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

How did this turn into a "pension" discussion??

BTW - it was McDonnell Douglas - 15 miles from where I live and I think it was "stupid" they sold out to Boeing!!

They bought us the Mercury and Gemini spacecraft plus such notables as the Phantom F-4, F15, etc, etc.

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

Yea, I spotted the typo as soon as I hit the 'accept' button sad

When you say 15 miles, I assume we're talking St. Louis, not Long Beach?  But speaking of Long Beach, don't forget the C-17, MD-80, MD-11 and if you go back far enough the DC-3/C-47 (but then that was when they were still in Burbank).

OH, and sorry about the wandering OT.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
UG/NX Museum:   http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

Yep - St. Louis.  They did most of their fighter plane work here.  And now Boeing still does.

Ever see what they called a "Viking" take off.  Pilots would take an F-15 down the runway and when hit about 200 mph - pull it straight up!!!  Got to about 30,000 ft in less than two minutes.

Local air traffic control loved it - because they were out their hair and GONE!!!

Something to watch - let me tell you!!!!

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

Yes, I've seen it a couple of times.  I understand, back when McAir was making regular deliveries to the Navy and Air Force, that the locals all knew what the schedule was and they would camp-out at the end of the runway when the weather was nice to watch the 'show'.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
UG/NX Museum:   http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

Chemebabak,
If you have the education, training and experience to perform civil engineering, why don't you take the test and become a licensed civil engineer in California? Or, are there specific tasks associated with chemical engineering that the current law prevents you from performing? If yes, I would like to know what these are so I may have a better understanding of the deficiencies in the current laws.

I am a licensed civil engineer in California. So, I understand the requirements, authority and responsibilities for California civil engineers. However, I do not understand why a chemical engineer should have the authority to design a bridge, perform a geotechnical investigation, and perform electrical engineering. Is this an ethical or political issue where you feel the professional engineer should decide when they are qualified without government regulation and oversight?

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

Again - I am not a lawyer.  But MOST states say that if you have the training and/or experience then you are entitled to sign off on said projects if you want to accept the responsibility.  As a Structural (not in CA) - I have signed off on simple plumbing and electrical plans.  Am I breaking the law - no - I have experience in both. Would I sign off on the plumbing or electrical for a 10 story hi-rise - NO WAY!!!

Also tend to stay away from Nuclear and Chemical!!!

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

I don't know exactly what it says on the official license certificate issued by California, but on the one from Michigan, which I have on prominent display in my office (as I was told you were expected to do when I was issued my original certificate), there is no mention whatsoever of the Engineering 'discipline' under which the license was issued.  It simply states:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULARTORY AFFAIRS


BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
LICENSE

And far as I can recall, when I took both my EIT and Professional Exams, there was no specific scope or discipline either asked for or offered.  The EIT test appeared to be the same for everyone, being of a general nature, and in the Professional exam, we were offered a broad range of problems across many different engineering disciplines with the only requirement being that you could solve NO more than TWO problems in any one discipline.  Being a Mechanical Engineer I soon discovered that if you carefully reviewed each section, that you could always find at least ONE problem that was completely within in the skill set of a 'Mechanical' Engineer to solve.  I suspect that this held true for other disciplines as well; EE's finding purely electrical problems, CE's finding structural problems, ChemE's finding chemical problems, etc.

So if all one had to offer was your state-issued documents (at least in the case of Michigan) there is NO way that one could say whether that person was deemed qualified in any one engineering discipline.

I even went back and checked the large, formal (suitable for framing and hanging on your 'ego wall') document that was sent to me shortly after I was issued my first license certificate, and again, there's no mention of any sort of limitation to a single discipline nor area of engineering, despite being much more wordy than the semiannually issued offical licensing certificate.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
UG/NX Museum:   http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

(OP)
Engineers,

Some of the comments in this thread have implied that civil is the only branch that should be allowed to engineer "fixed works".  The examples of fixed works given in this thread were bridges and buildings.  Of course, civil engineers are most qualified to design bridges.  However, because "fixed works" implies a sense of permanency, there are other examples that should only be stamped by the other branches which are currently title acts.  

Agricultural - farms - Civil engineers are not qualified to determine the fertilizer requirements, water requirements, etc.
Chemical - chemical or refinery processes - Civil engineers are not qualified to determine what are the equipment sizes, design conditions, raw materials, finished products, etc.
Control systems - Civil engineers are not qualified to determine how processes should be controlled, PLC or DCS design, etc.
Fire protection - civil engineeers are not qualified to design a fire protection system.
Industrial - I do not know what industrial engineers do, but I know that civil engineers are not qualified to do it.
Metallurgical - civil engineers are not qualified to determine metallurgical compatibility with different chemicals, etc.
Nuclear and Petroleum - explanation is not necessary.
Traffic - although most traffic engineers are by education civil engineers, NCEES recognizes their skills and knowledge as separate from civil engineering.

I believe that civil engineering is a very valuable branch.  I would only want a civil to design a bridge for me to drive on.  However, I would not want a civil engineer to design a farm from which I get my food; a chemical process that could explode; a control system for that chemical process or, even more deadly than that, a nuclear process; a fire protection system for these dangerous processes; etc.  All of these engineers should be afforded equal right to practice in the State of California and all other states.
 

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

chemebabak,

   I am the one who questioned the term "fixed works".  It sounded to me like something a civil engineer would work on.  We need to understand the definition of the term.  In legislation, this may be very precise.

               JHG

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

I remember the time a nose cone engineer wanted me to teach him concrete over the telephone.  I advised him to take a course in an early bird program at Santa Clara where one of my S.E. friends was teach a concrete course.

Even though I know a little bit about metallurgy and mechanical engineering, I obtain the services of consultants in these disciplines on my projects.  But I wouldn't let them design a bridge for me or even a frame house.

And the nose cone guy, well he got annoyed when we insisted on a soil report for the foundations for extensive solar arrays that his company was designing in Arizona.  We didn't get anymore projects from his company.

Of course, the foundation engineer has to have the correct license in his discipline.  And one is not really smart if he/she doesn't get a soil report in California with all the litigation.

Hope you guys that want to practice in California are well versed in our new green code.

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

I am registered in California.
I certainly hope we don't have too many civil engineers designing bridges, I would prefer it be a structural engineer, and it usually is. As for irrigation (water requirements for farms) - there is no such thing as an irrigation engineer, this is done almost entirely by civil engineers. Regarding fire protection, most public water systems which form an integral (if not essential) part of the fire protection system are designed by civils. need I go on?

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

Most of the engineers who have designed bridges in California have been very good civil engineers.  At one time the State of California had one of the best bridge departments in the world - until Jerry Brown came along.

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

cvg,
A structural engineer is a civil engineer.

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

hokie66, I'm assuming you know this but in the State of California a Structural Engineer is in fact licensed as a civil engineer, but a civil engineer is not necessarily licensed as a structural engineer.

In California (and other states), a Structural Engineer is a civil engineer who has obtained the title of "Structural Engineer", requires additional experience / exams.

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

That's fine, but structural engineering is still a subset of civil engineering.

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

Structural engineering may be a subset of civil engineering but you still have to take another 16 hours exam a few years after you obtain your civil license in California.

And bridge problems were not on the exam when I took my exam although I had already designed a number of bridges.

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

agreed, it can be called a subset but in fact it is a specialty and most civil engineers cannot claim to be structural engineers (by law).  

from 2010 California Rules

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ACT
(Business and Professions Code §§ 6700 – 6799)
6736. Title of structural engineer
No person shall use the title, "structural engineer," or any combination of these words or abbreviations thereof, unless he or she is a licensed civil engineer in this state and unless he or she has been found qualified as a structural engineer according to the rules and regulations established for structural engineers by the board.

6763. Structural, soil, soils, geotechnical authority
Application for authority to use the title "structural engineer," "soil engineer," "soils engineer," or "geotechnical engineer" shall be made to the board on forms prescribed by it and shall be accompanied by the application fee fixed by this chapter.
An applicant for authority to use the title "structural engineer," "soil engineer," "soils engineer," or "geotechnical engineer" who has passed the examination prescribed by the board, or an applicant for authority to use the title "soil engineer," "soils engineer," or "geotechnical engineer" whose application is submitted prior to July 1, 1986, and who has otherwise demonstrated that he or she is qualified, shall have a certificate of authority issued to him or her.
For purposes of this chapter, an authority to use the title "structural engineer," "soil engineer," "soils engineer," or "geotechnical engineer" is an identification of competence and
2010 Professional Engineers Act 25
specialization in a subspecialty of civil engineering and necessitates education or experience in addition to that required for registration as a civil engineer.

6763.1. Structural Engineer examination requirements
An applicant to use the title "structural engineer" shall have successfully passed a written examination that incorporates a national examination for structural engineering by a nationally recognized entity approved by the board, if available, and a supplemental California specific examination. The California specific examination shall test the applicant's knowledge of state laws, rules, and regulations, and of seismicity and structural engineering unique to practice in this state. The board shall use the national examination on or before December 31, 2004.

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

Venn diagram arguments aside, did anyone ever figure out what their definition of 'fixed works' is?

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

This seems relevant to the discussion.  I saw a link to this web site through the recent AIChE Smartbrief.  It seems like there is some movement regarding reforms of current CA law, which I do not agree with.  I'm a ChemE (registered P.E.) in both WI and MN.   

RE: State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee

beej67 has it right...that term is the one causing the problem and even in the section referenced by cvg, it is not defined, just inferred.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources