California Engineering Statute Needs Fixing
California has a convoluted engineering statute that needs fixing. For many years, reasonable legislative initiatives proposed by the PE board, legislators, and other interests have failed due, in large part, to testimony and political influence from factions within the engineering profession in California with interests in maintaining the status quo.
California has a unique engineering licensure system. There are three “practice act” disciplines: civil, mechanical, and electrical. These disciplines are authorized to practice engineering, and their practice is regulated by the California Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists. Civil, mechanical, and electrical engineers can be held accountable for their professional misconduct, and their authority to practice can be suspended or revoked. There are also nine “title act” disciplines: agricultural, chemical, control systems, fire protection, industrial, metallurgical, nuclear, petroleum, and traffic engineering. In these disciplines, the state regulates the use of the title, but not the practice. In the case of misconduct, the board can revoke continued use of the title but cannot preclude continued practice. Title act engineers who commit professional misconduct can continue practicing as long as they do not continue using the title. The engineers from these disciplines often cannot stamp documents, although many local agencies require them to do so. Many fire protection and nuclear engineers, for example, are also licensed as mechanical engineers, but many of the title act engineers are not also licensed in either civil, mechanical, or electrical engineering. To make matters even more complicated, there are two “title authority acts,” for structural and geotechnical engineers, indicating proficiency in those specialties at a higher level than is required for civil engineering licensure.
The plot has thickened. A recent ruling has indicated that any “fixed work” constructed in California—essentially anything not on wheels or that doesn’t fly or float—must be designed by a licensed civil engineer. In the past, the regulated work of any of the title act engineers has needed to be under the responsible charge of a licensed civil, mechanical, or electrical engineer. That is now clarified, and required to be under the responsible charge of a civil engineer. Despite the fact that the California statute requires that licensed civil engineers practice only within their areas of competence, some civil engineers in California have testified to the effect that these provisions require them to practice outside of their areas of competence, and to stamp the work of engineers of other disciplines, which would constitute professional misconduct. Convoluted. And very confusing. This system may have made some manner of political sense when it was adopted many years ago, but it doesn’t make practical sense now. No other states have licensure systems like this.
A bill currently before the California legislature (SB 692) would convert the title acts to practice acts, requiring all professional engineers to practice within their area of competence and allowing the inherent overlap among disciplines that is common in all other states, and that is now allowed in California only for civil engineers. Fixing this is in the public interest and will enhance the protection of the public health and safety. And it is consistent with the manner in which engineering is regulated in every other U.S. jurisdiction. The benefits are as follows:
- California will be able to regulate the professional practice of all the engineering disciplines. It cannot currently. That doesn’t make any sense, and it is not in the public interest.
- Civil engineers will not feel that they are required by law to assume responsible charge and stamp documents for engineering disciplines outside their area of practice and/or competence.
- Engineers with education and experience in the title act disciplines will be able to practice, and to take responsibility for work within their area of expertise.
As an added benefit, fixing this legislation would result in far less confusion, among engineers and the public. It must be very difficult for all concerned in California to understand who can and cannot do what. In other states, it is far simpler. Professional engineers practice within their areas of competence.
Like civil engineers, California title act engineers generally are educated in engineering programs accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of ABET. Like civil engineers, California title act engineers are rigorously examined through the Fundamentals of Engineering Exam and the Principles and Practice of Engineering Exam, issued by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. In all other states, duly qualified engineers of the disciplines that are California title act disciplines are qualified to practice as professional engineers and are regulated as such.
Legislation to fix this dysfunctional licensure system has been opposed for years by the California Professional Engineers in Government (a public employees’ union of Cal Trans and other public agency employees) and the American Council of Engineering Companies, California, and in recent testimony by a lobbyist representing California members of the American Society of Civil Engineers. They made an attempt to explain their opposition at a recent state senate hearing, which can be viewed on YouTube here.
Some of the opposition testimony is disturbingly misleading and directly contradicted by correct testimony from a group of engineering deans. Much of the opposition, for years, has stemmed from the one time grandfathering of a small number of title act engineers without a PE exam requirement in the 1970s when some of these title act disciplines were initially established. Those small numbers of engineers are now predominantly in their 70s and 80s, and many are not practicing. At this point in time, this issue appears to be a ruse.
It is time for professional engineers in California, and those who retain the services of professional engineers, to speak out and encourage that the licensure system be fixed. Doing so is clearly in the interest of protecting public health and safety in California.
This item has been reviewed and edited by L. Robert Smith, P.E., F.NSPE; Bernard R. Berson, P.E., P.L.S., F.NSPE; and Ken Discenza, P.E., president, California Society of Professional Engineers.
The author is a Fellow of NSPE and ACEC, a Distinguished Member of ASCE, a Board Certified Environmental Engineer, the Chair of the NSPE Licensure and Qualifications for Practice Committee, and a member of the ABET Board of Directors. The opinions expressed herein are his own and do not reflect the views of any of these organizations.