National Society of Professional Engineers
September 2009 - Posts - PE Licensing

September 2009 - Posts

Transfer of Responsible Charge

At the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying in August, Ed Huston, P.E., a structural engineer from Washington state, made an interesting presentation regarding professional issues with respect to transfer of responsible charge. Below is a brief summary of the issue.

There are a number of circumstances where responsible charge needs to be transferred from one professional engineer to another. These circumstances might include the disability, death, or discharge of a PE during design or after a design is completed, or the adaptation of a standardized design to specific local project requirements. In these and other circumstances, a new PE (a “successor licensee”) needs to pick up the design, confirm it, complete it, and assume responsible charge. The review process needs to be thorough. If the review process is cursory, this can be inappropriate plan-stamping.

The NCEES Model Rules regarding transfer of responsible charge are clear and well-crafted (see Section 240.20 “Seals”, C7). The rules require that the successor licensee develop a complete design file with all criteria, calculations, code requirements, and changes to the work developed and/or confirmed. The drafting need not be re-done, but the documents must clearly reflect the successor licensee’s work.

Of the engineering jurisdictions in the U.S., 13 have state rules that mirror the Model Rule language, or strengthen it. Others have language that’s either less clear or less thorough, and 11 jurisdictions appear to have no language that allows for the transfer of responsible charge.

PEs who are in a situation requiring transfer of responsible charge should be mindful of both the PE licensing board rules of the jurisdiction in which the project is located and the appropriate procedures for assuming responsible charge as outlined in the Model Rules. In states where the language is weaker or absent, NSPE state societies might consider advocating with their state PE board for the adoption of these Model Rule requirements. Other engineering societies may be interested in collaborating with NSPE state societies in this advocacy. This is an important issue with respect to protecting public health, safety and welfare, and ensuring that the successor engineer has sufficient scope to be able to assume responsible charge appropriately.

PEs Serving in Elected Political Office? Consider It

Think about how many professional engineers who you know who serve in elected political office at the local, state or national level. For many of us, we might know one or two, or perhaps none. We’re busy doing engineering work, and besides, the political process couldn’t be further from an engineering thought process, right? Think again.

There are a number of common traits of PEs that would serve them well, and serve the public well, in service in elected political office, particularly at the local level. The knowledge of public works issues is an obvious benefit. The engineering thought process based on problem definition, alternatives and impact analysis, and implementation planning is another benefit. Much political discourse is shallower, and often based on a less than thorough understanding of both the problem and alternatives, and could benefit from a more deliberate process. And professional engineers are ethical by training, practice and nature; as ethical as any profession in general. Applying that ethical behavior to political service can be like a breath of fresh air. And we have an overriding commitment to preserving the public health, safety, and welfare. Public service in political office is a natural extension of that.

Serving in political office is not without its drawbacks. The process of running for office is likely contrary to the nature of most PEs – it’s seemingly self-serving to put out signs and distribute flyers. And who has time to go door to door to talk to people? But you can’t serve in political office if you don’t run for office, and the reaction of people in general to your background and interest in serving might surprise you.

In political office, you never can please everyone, and at times, even though you’re doing the right thing in the interest of the public, it may seem as if you are antagonizing one group after another. And newspapers can tarnish your reputation, through sensationalism or misunderstanding, even when you’re doing the right thing.

But engineers can provide a valuable public service in helping to shape public policy by serving in political office at all levels. Give it some thought. Serve on your local planning board, or your conservation commission. Run for city council or other elected office. Giving back to the public will come naturally for many professional engineers. It is what we do with our careers.

Regardless of your political persuasion, all can appreciate the longstanding mantra of the Kennedy family recently in the news: “from those to whom much has been given, much is expected”. Although the vast majority of PEs are in altogether a different context than the Kennedy clan in terms of that which has been given, the point remains valid to all.

There was a paper published last year by the American Society of Civil Engineers Journal of Leadership and Engineering Management about professional engineers serving in political office that is now gathering dust in engineering libraries everywhere. If you’re interested in reading more about PEs serving in political office, use this link.

National Mobility – Here and Now: Get a Council Record

Mobility in the engineering profession works better now than it ever has, by a wide margin. “Model Law Engineers” who maintain an active “Council Record” through the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying receive “expedited comity” in more than two-thirds of states. What are these things?

A “Model Law Engineer” is an engineer with qualifications meeting the provisions of the NCEES Model Law. This is an engineer possessing a baccalaureate degree in engineering from a program accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of ABET (the vast majority of programs). This engineer has also passed both the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) Examination and the Principles and Practice of Engineering (PE) Examination, demonstrated four years or more of progressive engineering experience, earned a PE license in at least one jurisdiction, and has a record free of disciplinary action. There are variations on that theme, with some modifications to the requirements for those with advanced degrees in addition to the B.S. degree from an ABET-EAC accredited program. The majority of PEs are likely to be determined to be Model Law Engineers.

A “Council Record” is a program offered by NCEES to accumulate and maintain PEs’ qualification records and to forward that information to PE boards upon request by the applicant. A PE applies for a Council Record and provides all of the information necessary to document the requisite qualifications, similar to the application procedure for licensure in a state. NCEES reviews the applicant’s qualifications, and determines whether or not the individual is a Model Law Engineer. Once a Council Record is obtained, the PE needs to update it each year with additional information.

“Expedited comity” works like a charm in many states. The applicant applies to a state for licensure, requests that NCEES forward the qualifications information to that state, and, in more than two-thirds of states, applicants can get a PE license within a couple weeks; in some states it takes as little as one to two days.

Keep in mind that in most states, if you are presenting a proposal or being included on a project team and designated as a PE, you need a PE license in that state. Turnaround times from RFP to proposals rarely if ever allow enough time to obtain a new license, a process that takes 45-120 days without expedited comity.

This program has taken off. The number of PEs who are obtaining and maintaining a Council Record is accelerating. There are currently over 21,600 PEs with a Council Record and this is growing by thousands every year. This is national mobility – here and now.

Some jurisdictions don’t yet offer expedited comity, some due to quirks in existing state statutes that don’t allow for the streamlined process. The NSPE Licensure and Qualifications for Practice Committee is focusing this year on working with NSPE state societies to see if we can get all states to provide expedited comity. It works – it’s in the interest of PE’s, it works well for PE Boards, and it’s in the interest of the public. A win-win-win.

So, if you think you may consider practicing engineering in other states in the future, go get a Council Record. Here’s the link: www.ncees.org/records/