Use of PE title on reports in states where you are not licensed 4

[jwkilgore]

There are forum threads ad nauseum regarding use of a PE title on business cards and email signatures. This is a slightly different topic.

Question:
If the originator of a calculation or report is a PE in their home state, but not licensed in the state where the work is located, should they include "PE" after their printed name on a report signature sheet? A separate EOR also has their name, seal, and signature on the same sheet.

Background:
My company has a standard signature sheet where the originator, checker, and engineer of record have a printed name. Thanks to remote work, the first two normally add a graphical signature (not electronically locked) to the PDF. The EOR then either prints, wet signs, and scans the signature page; or else digitally certifies and locks the entire document. This sheet is the cover page for straight calculations, or the second page after a title page for more formal reports.

I'm usually the EOR so I have PE after my printed name. As I'm the final person, I verify licenses of the other two and only include PE if they are licensed in the state where the work is located.

Recently I was the originator on a calculation with another engineer in my office as the EOR. When I created the title sheet I omitted PE after my name and the checker's name because neither of us are registered in that state. But before the EOR locked it, he added PE back to both our names.

This started an internal discussion we have yet to resolve, so I thought to throw it to the internet.

 

[phamENG]

If you're going to include PE for work in a state where you do not hold a license and another engineer is overseeing your work and taking responsibility as the EOR, I think it should specify states where you are licensed. But I think you were correct - for the purposes of that project, you are not licensed and should not present yourself as such.

 

[jwkilgore]

@phamENG: The problem with a "licensed in" list that is I'm licensed in over a dozen states with a mix of PE and SE licenses. The checker on this project is a Ph.D. with his own extensive list of state licensures, and he's one of the ones who is justifiably proud of his titles and wants them shown. We discussed adding an asterisk after the PE with a note at the bottom of the page. Something along the line of "* Not licensed in [state]", but that's awkward at best and legally questionable at worst.

Again, my position is to simply omit "PE" in this situation. It's a site-specific report/calculation, not a generic business card or email sig that can go free and be seen anywhere. I posted here to either get backup on my position, or else have someone provide a valid justification for including "PE" that we haven't thought of.

I'm unofficially the highest ranking engineer in my group because I've been here the longest. I was the group manager until I bailed on that nonsense, but I still have some residual authority. So if I get the responses here that I'm expecting, I'll simply pull rank and get "omit PE title in states where not registered" added to our official documentation standards.

 

[phamENG]

I agree completely. That's why I said "If you're going to..." and then said I don't think you should.

 

[EnergyProfessional]

"But before the EOR locked it, he added PE back to both our names."

This is very wrong. You are responsible for your titles. Someone else should NOT add anything to your name.

You yourself ether omit the "PE" in a State you are not licensed. Or you add the information what State it is for.

 

[TigerGuy]

I seem to remember NSPE stating that a licensed PE in any state may include PE after their name, no matter the state in which the project is located. As a PE in state X, you are a PE. You just cannot "practice" engineering in states in which you are not licensed without a local PE overseeing the work.

 

[chris3eb]

I don't think you need to worry about listing every state you are licensed in - just use your home state. If you're licensed in the project state, list either PE or *State* PE - otherwise list TN PE

 

[GC_Hopi]

Here is the NSPE article that TigerGuy referenced.Link Sounds like it depends on the state but chris3eb has a reasonable approach or the asterisk approach is good.

 

[skeletron]

My gut/personal feeling is that:
You are not doing anything fundamentally wrong in the grand scheme of things.
You ought to be able to show that you are an Engineer, as you have completed Engineering work as part of the report.
The EOR adding back in your titles should have been accompanied by a conversation so everyone's on the same page.

I would add the home state where you complete the work behind the PE, but not add the other 11 state initials as they are inconsequential.

Obviously, there's probably different legal/licensing issues at play (that I'm happily ignoring), especially in the States.

 

[MotorCity]

In the eyes of the law, being licensed in a different state is the same as not being licensed at all. In either case, you do not have the credentials to practice in that particular state. So use PE or don't use PE after your name, but the work should still be sealed by someone who holds a license in that state. Whether you are licensed in that state or not, using PE after your name may give your client a boost of confidence that a technically qualified engineer worked on their project. I suspect the allowance of this practice varies by state.

 

[JStephen]

A ruling in Texas- note that they flipflopped on the issue, so it's not cut and dried.

https://pels.texas.gov/nm/pa10_responseletter.pdf

 

[jwkilgore]

@MotorCity: "Responsible charge" criteria were met. The checker and I were the subject-matter experts so we did the actual calculations for this specific task. The EOR licensed in the state was involved in the project from the start as the lead Project Engineer. He identified the need for the calculation, set the scope, and did the final review to verify what we did met his project criteria.

Also, your comment, "...give your client a boost of confidence...", plus comments by others and the links to official rulings are making me reconsider my position. Even Texas, the most hard-core of the "you ain't an engineer until we say you're an engineer" states, allows it!

I may work up a version of the signature sheet with an asterisk and a note similar to the one required by Texas to see how ugly it looks.

 

[alchemon]

On the one time this has came up for me, the regulating board initially was quite upset that I had presented myself as a (state) PE though I was not. Meaning, I said XYZ, PE on said proposal. I was able to avoid any real trouble as my cosigner was in fact a (state) PE.

That being said, the whole ordeal is not worth the hassle. I now put as asterisk next to my PE on all correspondence (even email) which lists below the relevant states for which I am licensed. I don't use the ugly "Texas method" from the ruling, as I am never involved on projects there.

The issue has not returned.

 

[GeoEnvGuy]

Working out of Canada, I agree with the approach of chris3eb, indicate you are a PE and inform them of your home state where the work was performed. In terms of liability when I work on a job in another province and indicate which province my home license is from that just allows any complainant to know which provincial board to contact. If they have an issue with the work they can still go after the engineer regardless of which province they reside in.

Of course in Canada all provinces consider any engineer licensed in any other province as approved when applied for, so I can become licensed in all the other provinces just by applying, paying the fees, and maintaining the various continuing education requirements.

 

[geotechguy1]

When I worked in Canada it was common-is for people to present themselves as 'Person Xy, P.Eng (AB, BC, SK, ON) if they were working on projects in multiple provinces. You need to be a P.Eng in the in the jurisdiction the project is (or the work needs to be reviewed by one).