# use of PE in sig if Licensed in another state



## SPSUEngineer

Lets say a person is licensed in one state but works in another where they are not yet licensed. Is it lawful for that person to use PE after their name if they are not licensed in the state they are working in? Is it ethical?

I realize different states can have different rules on this. Just trying to get some opinions.


----------



## dastuff

Michael Miller said:


> Lets say a person is licensed in one state but works in another where they are not yet licensed. Is it lawful for that person to use PE after their name if they are not licensed in the state they are working in? Is it ethical?
> I realize different states can have different rules on this. Just trying to get some opinions.


I believe that I've heard it's dependent on the state. But if your office is located in one state (which you have a PE in) and you're doing work in another I don't think they can expect you to change your signature every time. And honestly, would you ever be able to track it?

Either way, i've never heard of anyone being held accountable for this. And I do have PE in my sig for all my emails...


----------



## MA_PE

> I realize different states can have different rules on this.


Yes they do, and you should pay attention to them. In some states it's illegal to practice engineering or offer engineering services if you're not licensed in that state. business cards or technical e-mails are construed as offering services and practicing engineering.

I would think putting PE after you name on a business card or e-mail where your business address is listed and you are NOT licensed in that state is a clear violation. One work around would be to add PE and specifically state the state where you have a license. For example PE (MA).

dastuff: you may want to check on people being held accountable. If I recall correctly TX is pretty active is pursuing people for this stuff within TX.


----------



## Dleg

I remember reading one of those ethics articles in the ASCE newsletter about this (or maybe NPSE....) I seem to recall the recommendation was to do something similar to what MA_PE suggested, and put a note below your signature that says which states you are licensed in. That way you can still sign as "PE", but avoid trouble with the state licensing board. Some boards, I hear (ahem...) are pretty ruthless in going after little violations like that.


----------



## Tark62

This issue came up for a colleague at a company where I once worked. They referred the matter to the company's legal counsel and E&amp;O insurance provider.

The next day, all of my colleague's business cards (with the out-of-state title) were confiscated and destroyed.

It was deemed a clear violation of state law to claim the title of "PE" if you were not licensed as a PE under the laws of that state. So the legal exposure to the company was deemed unacceptable. It apparently also threatened to void the E&amp;O coverage for any work by the individual in question.


----------



## SPSUEngineer

It seems to me even if its "legal" it may be unethical in the sense that many of your clients or peers are led to believe or would infer that you are a licensed engineer in the state where you reside and perform the vast majority of your work (and their project). Also the legal exposure is a good point as well. A good lawyer would definitely use that to their advantage in court.


----------



## JoeBoone82

I'm not even a PE yet, but this is pretty interesting. It doesnt seem like it would matter if you had PE after your name as long as you arent designing in that particular state. IMO if you are a PE, then you are a PE. To me, if you dont say which state you are licensed in, then the other party should not make assumptions. Look in the magazines/textbooks/emails/articles/etc from societies and other things... they all have PE after their names and it doesnt mean that they are practicing in my state because I received something from them. Well, I guess you can argue it either way. Like I said though, I'm not eligible to take the test yet, so I can not say too much. I did think the previous comment sounds smart and probably the safest route... having the state after your designation.


----------



## Vishal

It is our company policy to write the name of the state you are licensed in parentheses, if your 'home-office' is in a different state. This applies to email signatures and business cards. One you get your 'home-state' PE, you can chose to take the state out primarily because the business address is listed on the business card. However, you are encouraged to put the names of the states in the email signature as you may frequently interact with your colleagues/clients in different offices/states.

I know that Florida board is fanatical about this thing. I had once emailed the Board for some clarification on the endorsement application to transfer my PE from TX to FL. My signature read Mr. V, P.E. (TX). in response to my email,



> Good morning Mr. V:
> First, please remove PE from your name and title (yes, I understand you are a PE in Texas) until you are licensed in Florida.



To this I had to point her to the name of the state that I had included. The place where I work now and at my former company, your actual job title does not include "Engineer" if you work in one of the states like Florida as it is against the state law. I was called an Analyst.


----------



## IlPadrino

This is a topic that's been talked about a bit here... take a look at NCEES Record and Value of In-State PE, What is In-State PE worth? which references an NSPE article Ethical Behavior in Business Cards (sorry, it seems the article is no longer available to the non-member public - maybe someone can help!).

I also started a topic NSPE Board of Ethical Review, What is their jurisdiction and why do I care?

And you might find NSPE BER article USE OF P.E. DESIGNATION interesting, too.


----------



## dastuff

Haha, well then I guess I'll change my signature... Good to know.


----------



## IlPadrino

dastuff said:


> Haha, well then I guess I'll change my signature... Good to know.


Come on... where's the courage of your conviction?!?

For what it's worth, I have PE in my signature (no State specified) but I figure because I work for the Federal Government which has no State "jurisdiction" I'm probably OK. It would be hard for someone to argue that I'm advertising for engineering services that fall under the control of a state licensing board.

And no one has yet to tell me why I should care about the NSPE BER!


----------



## Tark62

> IMO if you are a PE, then you are a PE.


If you try submitting a plan or report to a state or local agency with an out-of-state stamp, you will discover very quickly that they don't see it that way. In fact, some states further distinguish PEs by discipline: for example, a California Mechanical PE has different stamping authority than a California Electrical PE. So the reality is that a PE is *not* necessarily a PE.



> To me, if you dont say which state you are licensed in, then the other party should not make assumptions.


That's unrealistic. Do you always check with state licensing boards every time you consult with a doctor, nurse, lawyer, CPA, pharmacist, etc.? Or do you just assume that these professionals have the proper qualifications? The reality is that if you use a professional title, then the general public will automatically assume that you are legally qualified to do so.



> Look in the magazines/textbooks/emails/articles/etc from societies and other things... they all have PE after their names and it doesnt mean that they are practicig in my state because I received something from them.


In practice, there are different standards for materials that are pitched at practicing engineers, as opposed to the general public. It is reasonable to assume, for example, that the readers of ASCE journals have a relatively sophisticated understanding of licensure issues, and are not likely to be misled by the generic use of the PE title.


----------



## Dleg

Vishal said:


> I know that Florida board is fanatical about this thing. I had once emailed the Board for some clarification on the endorsement application to transfer my PE from TX to FL. My signature read Mr. V, P.E. (TX). in response to my email,


My board is pretty much the same. Back before I was a PE, I was listed in my agency newsletter as "environmental engineer" in an article, and I received a cease and desist letter from the board just for that (they were wrong, too, which I pointed out - state employees are exempted from the licensing rules in our state)


----------



## dastuff

IlPadrino said:


> Come on... where's the courage of your conviction?!?


Let me try that again...

[emphasis]I guess i'll have to change my sig... Good to know[/emphasis]

Karate Chop!!!! Dance Fever! arty-smiley-048:

Out of curiosity what if you send an email to someone in your state but then they forward it out of state... Seems like this will become a can of worms.


----------



## IlPadrino

dastuff said:


> Out of curiosity what if you send an email to someone in your state but then they forward it out of state... Seems like this will become a can of worms.


In your signature block you should put at least the city/state of your employment - that would simplify things. Business cards almost always have an address, so you're covered there.

But maybe you're missing the point of this... it isn't about what others do (e.g. forwarding your e-mail), it's about what YOU represent that can run afoul of ethics and licensing board.


----------



## Road Guy

so everyone who has PE in your username here, you must put the state in parenthesis ld-025:

personally I think its kind of silly, if you have NAme, PE, address that covers it (only in my opinion) and if I see an email from John Smith, PE, (GA) (AL) (FL) (MN) (SC) etc...with more than 4 states listed I keep it and laugh at it 

Its one thing to have that on your email, but another thing to work in that state without getting the license transferred..


----------



## JoeBoone82

Road Guy said:


> personally I think its kind of silly, if you have NAme, PE, address that covers it (only in my opinion) and if I see an email from John Smith, PE, (GA) (AL) (FL) (MN) (SC) etc...with more than 4 states listed I keep it and laugh at it


I agree... I work with plenty who have licenses in MANY states... would look funny to see some of them with 20 states behind their name &amp; title.

It doesnt seem like an email would be that big of a deal if you have your address in the signature. It's not like your signing/stamping drawings or design calcs without designating the proper state.


----------



## Ritchie503

Good topic. Below I attached what happened here in Minnesota regarding this issues, it was in their Newsletter (Volume 13, Number 2), it is also available online at http://www.aelslagid.state.mn.us/

I know it is a bit lengthy, but good reading for those interested.

~Ritchie503



> In the Matter of Dennis Dunham, Professional Engineer, License #45627 On May 9, 2008, the Board issued a Stipulation and Order. Facts: Respondent has been licensed to practice Professional Engineering by the State of Michigan since 1991 to the present. Respondent was first licensed to practice Professional Engineering in the State of Minnesota on April 24, 2007. Before he became licensed to practice Professional Engineering in the State of Minnesota, Respondent held himself out as a Professional Engineer (PE) in a letter dated March 10, 2006. In that letter, the Respondent used the designation “P.E.” after his signature. The return address on the letterhead is 309 NE 9th Avenue, Grand Rapids, MN, 55744. A true and correct copy of the letter is on file in the Board office. Respondent states in a letter to the Board dated October 25, 2006 that he is licensed as a Professional Engineer in Michigan and that “It is my present intention to apply for P.E. licensure in Minnesota by comity.” The Board received his comity application for a Professional Engineering license on November 22, 2006. Respondent signed this letter using the title PE (MI 6201036546). A true and correct copy of Respondent’s October 25, 2006 letter is on file in the Board office. Respondent submitted a sales brochure(s), a typical marketing letter he uses, dated August 2005, with his letter to the Board dated October 25, 2006. Respondent held himself out as a Professional Engineer by using the designation “P.E.” after his name. The return address on the letterhead is 309 NE 9th Avenue, Grand Rapids, MN, 55744. A true and correct copy of Respondent’s August 2005 letter is on file in the Board office. Respondent submitted a business card to the Board with his letter dated October 25, 2006. Respondent used the designation “P.E.” after his name. Respondent held himself out as a Professional Engineer by using the designation “P.E.” after his name. The business address on the card is 309 NE 9th Avenue, Grand Rapids, MN, 55744. A true and correct copy of Respondent’s business card is on file in the Board office. Respondent submitted his resumé with his letter to the Board dated October 25, 2006. Respondent uses the designation “P.E.” after his name on his resumé. Respondent held himself out as a Professional Engineer by using the designation “P.E.” after his name. Respondent’s address on the resumé is 28 Snelling Ave, Duluth, MN, 55812. A true and correct copy of Respondent’s resumé is on file in the Board office.Disciplinary Action: The Board acknowledges that Respondent has voluntarily taken corrective action by applying for and receiving his Professional Engineering license in the State of Minnesota. In addition thereto, 10 Respondent agrees to the following stipulations: Respondent, in any advertisement or other publication which includes a Minnesota mailing address, may use the unqualified designation of Professional Engineer or “P.E.” after his name only so long as he remains licensed by the State of Minnesota as a Professional Engineer. If Respondent ceases to be licensed as a Professional Engineer in Minnesota, then in any advertisement or other publication which includes a Minnesota business address, Respondent may use the designation of Professional Engineer or “P.E.” only if either the phrase “Licensed only in Michigan” or the phrase “Not Licensed in Minnesota” is included in the advertisement or other publication next to that designation.


----------



## Tark62

It isn't just PEs that face this question. It affects state-licensed professionals in a wide variety of fields (e.g. CPAs, doctors, lawyers, etc). For example, the State Bar of Nevada has also addressed this issue:



> QUESTION - May an attorney who is licensed to practice law in States A and B but lives in Nevada, where the attorney is not licensed and does not practice law, have as his letter:
> John Doe
> 
> Attorney And Counselor At Law
> 
> 123 Any Street
> 
> Anyville, Nevada 89523
> 
> ADMITTED TO PRACTICE:
> 
> State A
> 
> State B
> 
> ANSWER - Not unless the letterhead is modified to disclose that the attorney is not licensed to practice in Nevada.


In other words, you *cannot* use the title of "attorney" in Nevada, based on out-of-state licenses -- even if you take the precaution of explicitly indicating the states where you are licensed. That's still not good enough: the State Bar says you have to go one step further, and also explicitly indicate that you are *not* licensed in Nevada.


----------



## Roy T.

MA_PE said:


> Yes they do, and you should pay attention to them. In some states it's illegal to practice engineering or offer engineering services if you're not licensed in that state. business cards or technical e-mails are construed as offering services and practicing engineering.
> I would think putting PE after you name on a business card or e-mail where your business address is listed and you are NOT licensed in that state is a clear violation. One work around would be to add PE and specifically state the state where you have a license. For example PE (MA).
> 
> dastuff: you may want to check on people being held accountable. If I recall correctly TX is pretty active is pursuing people for this stuff within TX.


That's incorrect. The Texas Attorney Generals office has issued advisory opinions, as well as other states, stating that any attempt by a state licensing board to restrict the use of the title "P.E." if a person is licensed as such in another state is a violation of FEDERAL antitrust laws and could subjugate the STATE LICENSING BOARD to CIVIL and CRIMINAL FEDERAL charges of RESTRAINT OF TRADE.

P.E. is a nationally recognized licensed, as are M.D. and CPA. Any attempt by a state board to prevent a duly licensed PE from another state to identify himself as such would open to board to FEDERAL ANTITRUST charges.

Remember - FEDERAL law trumps all state law - ANY state

Just for kicks - the Justice Department has already sued the NSPE in the past for restraint of trade for state laws that restrict competitive bidding. The FEDS are very keen on anything that smacks of commercial restraint.


----------



## Tark62

> The Texas Attorney Generals office has issued advisory opinions, as well as other states, stating that any attempt by a state licensing board to restrict the use of the title "P.E." if a person is licensed as such in another state is a violation of FEDERAL antitrust laws and could subjugate the STATE LICENSING BOARD to CIVIL and CRIMINAL FEDERAL charges of RESTRAINT OF TRADE.


I don't think this is analysis is correct either. Maybe you can post a link to the Texas opinion.

I'm no lawyer, but my understanding of the law is as follows:

(1) If you are legally licensed in State A, but reside in State B, then State B cannot prohibit you from stating that you have the title issued by State A. It is, after all, the truth.

(2) But State B *can* require that you specifically disclose that your license was issued by State A, and that that it is not valid for use in State B. Because this is also the truth.



> P.E. is a nationally recognized licensed, as are M.D. and CPA.


Sorry, but the PE and CPA titles are issued by individual states -- not on a national basis, and are only valid for use within that state. And the MD title is an academic degree -- not a license. Doctors are licensed on a state-by-state basis by medical boards.


----------



## mudpuppy

From the MI compiled laws:



> *OCCUPATIONAL CODE (EXCERPT)**Act 299 of 1980*
> 
> *339.2014 Prohibited conduct; penalties.*
> 
> Sec. 2014.
> 
> A person is subject to the penalties set forth in article 6 who commits 1 of the following:
> 
> (a) Uses the term "architect", "professional engineer", "land surveyor", "professional surveyor", or a similar term in connection with the person's name unless the person is licensed in the appropriate practice under this article.
> 
> (b ) Presents or attempts to use as the person's own the license or seal of another.
> 
> (c ) Attempts to use an expired, suspended, or revoked license.
> 
> (d) Uses the words "architecture", "professional engineering", "land surveying", "professional surveying", or a similar term in a firm name without authorization by the appropriate board.




Seems pretty clear to me. I guess if you want to try to take it to federal court with the argument that it somehow restricts INTERSTATE commerce (the only kind of commerce the federal gov't has authority to regulate), I guess you can. But I just don't see the argument here.


----------



## mattsffrd

my question is, if the PE test is the same for every state, why does it even matter? also, how hard is it to transfer a license? do you have to re-take the test in your new state?


----------



## IlPadrino

mattsffrd said:


> my question is, if the PE test is the same for every state, why does it even matter? also, how hard is it to transfer a license? do you have to re-take the test in your new state?


Simply put, licensing is a state issue and all states have education, experience, and examination requirements - so just because you've passed the exam (it's the same for all states) doesn't mean a specific state board is satisfied with the education and experience. Comity applications are essentially complete applications and no retest is necessary.


----------



## kevo_55

opcorn:


----------



## Tark62

IlPadrino said:


> Simply put, licensing is a state issue and all states have education, experience, and examination requirements - so just because you've passed the exam (it's the same for all states) doesn't mean a specific state board is satisfied with the education and experience. Comity applications are essentially complete applications and no retest is necessary.


States have different requirements for education. Some strictly require ABET engineering degrees, some accept related science or technology degrees, some don't require a college degree at all. Alaska won't license any PE candidate until they have taken and passed an approved college-level course on Arctic Engineering.

States have different requirements for experience. Some require more years than others. Some require experience under PEs, others don't. Some require discipline-specific experience, others don't. Some require more references than others.

Finally, passing PE exam results do *not* necessarily transfer between states (although in practice they usually do). In theory, there are a number of issues that can prevent a passing PE exam result from State A from being honored in State B, for example:

1. NCEES offers many different PE exams, but states don't necessarily use them all. For example, NCEES offers a "Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering" PE exam, which you can pass for PE licensure in New York. But that doesn't mean you automatically qualify for PE comity in Arizona -- where that exam is not used.

2. States can offer their own PE exams, in addition to those offered by NCEES. For example, Oregon and Washington offer their own "Forest Engineering" exams, which you can pass for PE licensure there. But that doesn't mean you automatically qualify for PE comity in the District of Columbia, which only uses NCEES exams.

3. States can require supplements to NCEES exams. For example, California and Guam use the NCEES Civil PE exam, like all other jurisdictions. But they won't license any Civil PE candidate, even if they have already passed the NCEES Civil PE exam, until they have also passed a supplemental exam on seismic issues.

4. States can reject PE exam results -- even passing results -- if they were taken before meeting appropriate experience requirements. For example, suppose you qualify for the PE exam with 4 years of experience in State A, and pass it. Now you want comity in State B, which requires 6 years of experience. State B may reject the State A result, because it was obtained too "early", and make you retake the exam after you get 6 years of experience.


----------



## mattsffrd

huh, interesting stuff...looks like i'm staying in Maine for the rest of my life, because i sure as hell aint taking this PE test again lol


----------



## JoeBoone82

mattsffrd said:


> huh, interesting stuff...looks like i'm staying in Maine for the rest of my life, because i sure as hell aint taking this PE test again lol


I'm not 100% sure about Maine, but you could probably still get your PE from several states without having to take the exam again.


----------



## IlPadrino

JoeBoone82 said:


> I'm not 100% sure about Maine, but you could probably still get your PE from several states without having to take the exam again.


Yeah... not likely to be a problem assuming you're in a major discipline - don't let Tark62 scare you off. Assuming you're really a Civil, the only problems would be California (extra Seismic and Surveying exams) and Alaska (extra Seismic) as I recall. Licensing by comity in the Northeast isn't too much a problem. And comity applications are likely to get easier if NCEES Records become the "standard".


----------



## Tark62

> don't let Tark62 scare you off


I'm not trying to scare anyone off. As I stated above: *in practice, PE exam results normally *do* transfer between states.* This is particularly true for the major PE exam disciplines (Civil, Mechanical, Electrical, Chemical), which are used universally in all jurisdictions.

Exceptions do exist, for the reasons outlined above, but they are relatively uncommon. The biggest issues are primarily in the western states, which are most likely to have non-NCEES PE exams and supplemental PE exams.


----------



## mattsffrd

i've heard that in 2015 they're going to start requiring post-graduate schooling (30 or 60 hours or something) to take the PE, would that affect somebody who wants to transfer after that (assuming they could have before)? since they no longer meet minimum requirements for originally sitting for the exam?


----------



## jrsc

Tark62 is starting to remind me of YKW but he hasn't gotten too rude yet.


----------



## Tark62

> i've heard that in 2015 they're going to start requiring post-graduate schooling (30 or 60 hours or something) to take the PE, would that affect somebody who wants to transfer after that (assuming they could have before)? since they no longer meet minimum requirements for originally sitting for the exam


NCEES has recommended that state boards increase the minimum educational requirements for licensure to the MS (or equivalent), effective in 2020 (it was 2015, but they pushed it back). However, this is currently only an NCEES recommendation, not a law.

The NCEES recommendation doesn't mean anything, *unless* state boards decide to adopt it as law. To my knowledge, no state has actually done this yet. So there is no way to know exactly how the NCEES recommendation might be implemented by state boards in the future. State boards might be willing to "grandfather" comity PE applicants who were licensed under the current rules. Or they might not.



> Tark62 is starting to remind me of YKW but he hasn't gotten too rude yet


I could probably be more entertaining, but it's not my style


----------



## mudpuppy

mattsffrd said:


> i've heard that in 2015 they're going to start requiring post-graduate schooling (30 or 60 hours or something) to take the PE, would that affect somebody who wants to transfer after that (assuming they could have before)? since they no longer meet minimum requirements for originally sitting for the exam?


I don't have time to grab the quote right now, but I think Michigan says comity applications require the applicant to meet the requirements in MI at the time the original license was granted in the other state. So even if they implemented the BS + 30 rule, if you had a PE in another state before that you would be good to go in MI.


----------



## Roy T.

Beleive what you want - but I'm telling you... ALL states receive FEDERAL money for all sorts of public works projects. Not to get too political but state sovereinty is less and less every day. I can tell you (I have my sources) that the FEDS are looking very closely at state engineering licensing boards in light of new infrastructure money and anything that smacks of un-competitive or overly restrictive behavior on the part of states (such as undue burdens licensing trades and professions) will result in a loss of MONEY.

People can claim states are sovereign until they are blue in the face bu the fact remains - most states are BROKE and are wholly dependent on the feds for infrastructure money. The FEDS are going to have a BIG say in just how restrictive states can get in licensing engineers.

Why do you think every states in the country has a 21-yr drinking age? along with a whole host of other FEDERALLY mandated laws that on the surface have NOTHING to do with INTERSTATE commerce.

Comity will be much easier in the future. The Feds will require it - I know this for fact (a little birdie in DC whispered it too me). this is a good thing.


----------



## Roy T.

Tark62 said:


> I don't think this is analysis is correct either. Maybe you can post a link to the Texas opinion.
> I'm no lawyer, but my understanding of the law is as follows:
> 
> (1) If you are legally licensed in State A, but reside in State B, then State B cannot prohibit you from stating that you have the title issued by State A. It is, after all, the truth.
> 
> (2) But State B *can* require that you specifically disclose that your license was issued by State A, and that that it is not valid for use in State B. Because this is also the truth.
> 
> Sorry, but the PE and CPA titles are issued by individual states -- not on a national basis, and are only valid for use within that state. And the MD title is an academic degree -- not a license. Doctors are licensed on a state-by-state basis by medical boards.


I'd look for the Feds to take over direct licensing of CPA's too in light of the banking fiasco. A CPA and an MD can use that title legally in any state in the country, as can a JD on their business cards and states can't say boo. Also, MD is a professional designation and doctors are licensed federally by the DEA to proscribe certain drugs already.

This is the beginning of the end of the states licensing of professions - heard it here first. The FEDS are taking over, anyone want to put money on this --- Tark?


----------



## Tark62

> I'd look for the Feds to take over direct licensing of CPA's too in light of the banking fiasco. A CPA and an MD can use that title legally in any state in the country, as can a JD on their business cards and states can't say boo.


You can use an out-of-state legally and states can't say boo -- *if* you clearly indicate that it is an out-of-state title.

Otherwise, the states can nail you. See post 19 above, for example, to link to Nevada's current policy on out-of-state JDs. This policy flatly denies out-of-state JDs in Nevada the right to use that title, *unless* they clearly indicate that the title was issued out-of-state and that it is not valid for use in Nevada.

The US Constitution does not give the Federal government any power to license professions, so this power is delegated to the states by default. This could change, but only by a Constitutional amendment -- which would have to be approved by the states. I don't see it happening.

I grant that there is one exception: The Feds can and do license professionals if they deal exclusively with federally regulated issues. For example, attorneys are normally licensed at the State level, but patent attorneys are licensed by the US Patent and Trademark Office (a federal agency) because patent law is exclusively federal. However, this exception is not broad enough to cover general professional licensing, since most professionals are governed by state laws and regulations.


----------



## Tark62

> [i can tell you (I have my sources) ... I know this for fact (a little birdie in DC whispered it too me)


OK. Please provide a link to your sources, preferably with a .gov domain. Does the little birdie have a web page?


----------



## Roy T.

Tark62 said:


> You can use an out-of-state legally and states can't say boo -- *if* you clearly indicate that it is an out-of-state title.
> Otherwise, the states can nail you. See post 19 above, for example, to link to Nevada's current policy on out-of-state JDs. This policy flatly denies out-of-state JDs in Nevada the right to use that title, *unless* they clearly indicate that the title was issued out-of-state and that it is not valid for use in Nevada.
> 
> The US Constitution does not give the Federal government any power to license professions, so this power is delegated to the states by default. This could change, but only by a Constitutional amendment -- which would have to be approved by the states. I don't see it happening.
> 
> I grant that there is one exception: The Feds can and do license professionals if they deal exclusively with federally regulated issues. For example, attorneys are normally licensed at the State level, but patent attorneys are licensed by the US Patent and Trademark Office (a federal agency) because patent law is exclusively federal. However, this exception is not broad enough to cover general professional licensing, since most professionals are governed by state laws and regulations.



"The US Constitution does not give the Federal government any power to license professions, so this power is delegated to the states by default. This could change, but only by a Constitutional amendment -- which would have to be approved by the states. I don't see it happening. "

Tark - please don't take this the wrong way but that is a profoundly naiive statement. The Federal Government has been dictating to the states the minutia of governance for 200 years - well outside of what the constitution allows for. Everything from clean air to labor laws to minimum wage to minimum drinking age to education - my GOD the list is endless. There is no such thing as "states rights" any more.

The Consitution also says that only Congress has the power to declare war... think about that one for a while.

You sound very young.


----------



## IlPadrino

Tark62 said:


> The US Constitution does not give the Federal government any power to license professions, so this power is delegated to the states by default. This could change, but only by a Constitutional amendment -- which would have to be approved by the states. I don't see it happening.


Tark62,

I hate to encourage him, but I think he's right when he says this is a naive perspective. I'd think it easy for the federal government to require federal funds to be spent under the supervision of a federally-licensed engineer. Or they could go the speed limit route and pass a law (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_...e_United_States

And while I am almost always against a larger federal government, there'd be lots of good argument for federally licensing engineers. After all, there might have been a New Yorker on the I-35 bridge when it collapsed.


----------



## benbo

I guess I don't understand. Are both Roy T. and IlPadrino saying that a person licensed in any state can legally practice engineering in any other state without applying for comity? Or are they saying that is what could happen if the feds decided to take jurisdiction?

I have no idea, actually. I just always assumed that if you wanted to practice engineering in another state you needed a license from that state. If not, a lot of companies and people are wasting a lot of money.

I'm not planning on entering this debate, I just want clarification on what the debate i am watching is about.

opcorn:


----------



## IlPadrino

benbo said:


> I guess I don't understand. Are both Roy T. and IlPadrino saying that a person licensed in any state can legally practice engineering in any other state without applying for comity? Or are they saying that is what could happen if the feds decided to take jurisdiction?


All I'm saying is I could imagine the argument for a federally-regulated professional engineering license process... though I'm usually on the fence about whether it would be a good idea. Implementation could happen either with a federally issued license or through a reciprocity agreement like used for driver licenses. But, to answer specifically, I certainly agree a person licensed in one state cannot practice engineering in another state without receiving a license in the other state (by comity).

In case anyone forgot this is an "old topic", take a read:

http://engineerboards.com/index.php?showtopic=7999

http://engineerboards.com/index.php?showtopic=6121


----------



## Tark62

> The Federal Government has been dictating to the states the minutia of governance for 200 years - well outside of what the constitution allows for. Everything from clean air to labor laws to minimum wage to minimum drinking age to education - my GOD the list is endless. There is no such thing as "states rights" any more.


OK, so after 200 years, how many Federally-licensed professions can you name? Is this list "endless"?

Doesn't seem that way. Granted, there are a few such professions, as acknowledged above, in areas of exclusively federal jurisdiction. Examples could include patent attorneys (licensed by USPTO), airline pilots (FAA), seamen (USCG), enrolled agents (IRS).

But that doesn't seem like much to show for 200 years of Federal interference.



> I'd think it easy for the federal government to require federal funds to be spent under the supervision of a federally-licensed engineer. Or they could go the speed limit route and pass a law.


Yes, they could probably do that. But that wouldn't make state licensing obsolete -- it would simply add yet another jurisdiction for licensing. You would need a special Federal license to work on Federal projects -- just as attorneys need a special Federal license to work on patent law issues. But you would still need a state license to address non-Federal issues -- just as patent attorneys are typically members of the State Bar as well as the Patent Bar.


----------



## kevo_55

opcorn:


----------



## IlPadrino

Tark62 said:


> Yes, they could probably do that. But that wouldn't make state licensing obsolete -- it would simply add yet another jurisdiction for licensing. You would need a special Federal license to work on Federal projects -- just as attorneys need a special Federal license to work on patent law issues. But you would still need a state license to address non-Federal issues -- just as patent attorneys are typically members of the State Bar as well as the Patent Bar.


Sure... and once there's a federal standard, reciprocity (vice application by comity) becomes much more likely. Consider the Commercial Driver's License... while the federal government didn't create it's own license, it DID institute minimum standards (read http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration-licensing/cdl/cdl.htm for some details).

What do you think about the article here?

With the NCEES Model Law and NCEES records, perhaps the only significant "value added" by state boards is disciplinary oversight?

It would seem the AMA has thought about reciprocity, too... this contains the following



> The AMA opposes national legislation which would mandate licensing reciprocity by all state licensing authorities. (Res. 42, A-88; Reaffirmed: Sunset Report, I-98)


----------



## mudpuppy

Interesting thoughts. As it stands right now I believe there is a _de facto_, if not explicit (in some states) exemption from licensure for engineers in industry under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution--i.e. Michigan cannot say all cars made in MI (not that we make cars any more) have to be designed by PEs, because those cars may be sold in other states and in doing so MI would be restricting interstate commerce. IMO, this limits the state's power to regulate engineering to activities that can be specifically tied wholly to that state, such as consulting services and infrastructure/structural projects.

The biggest impetus I see for a federal-level license is to capture the (huge) industrial/manufacturing segment of the engineering field. But I'm sure the manufacturers would fight tooth and nail against it, so I doubt it will ever happen.


----------

