State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee 1

[chemebabak]

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,

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.

 

[JohnRBaker]

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.

 

[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?

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

 

[JohnRBaker]

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.

 

[beej67]

We've been down this road before, John.

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=279257

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rbalex]

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.

 

[rbalex]

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.

 

[drawoh]

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

 

[JohnRBaker]

(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.

 

[BridgeEI]

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.

 

[MiketheEngineer]

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.

 

[JohnRBaker]

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.

 

[jgailla]

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.

 

[MiketheEngineer]

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.

 

[rbalex]

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

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.

 

[beej67]

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

 

[JohnRBaker]

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 ;-) 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.

 

[MiketheEngineer]

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.

 

[JohnRBaker]

Yea, I spotted the typo as soon as I hit the 'accept' button :-(

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.

 

[MiketheEngineer]

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!!!!