SE, SECB, and the like!

I'd like to take this opportunity to respond to some of the comments. First, SECB certification and SE licensure are two separate processes. SECB is intended to certify PE's and SE's who have comprehensive structural engineering education and experience in structural engineering in the interest of safeguarding the health, safety and welfare of the public. The SECB certificate is not a license to practice structural engineering, it is just a name recognition or roster designation if you like to call it that way. The SE license, on the other hand, is the privilege given by a jurisdiction to fully practice the discipline of structural engineering and is granted to individuals who demonstrate minimum competence through education, experience, and examination. As of today, only 11 jurisdictions offer SE licensure in one way or another.
Second, licensing SE's goes fas ar back as 1915 when Illinois enacted the first SE licensing act. Multi-level licensure means that an individual must be a PE in order to be an SE. Only Illinois and Hawaii do not require candidates to be PE's in order to be SE's since they have full practice SE acts (Washington state also has a full practice SE act, but I am not sure if they still ask their candidates to be PE's before they become SE's or if they dropped the requirement). The idea of "separating" SE's from PE's comes from the fact that civil engineering is a broad field that covers many disciplines, including structural, but the depth and complexity required for practicing structural engineering is not addressed in the civil PE exam, which is why a separate exam has been developed to properly cover with reasonable depth the issues required for a licensed structural engineer to become minimally competent.
This may not answer all your inquiries but is a good start.

SE reciprocity...

I'm going to throw these questions at you (for discussion's sake):
1. Could you please tell about your experience as an SE (registered in another US jurisdiction) seeking reciprocal SE registration in California (or any other jurisdiction that administers state-run examinations in addition to the NCEES-run exams)? How hard was it?
2. Do you believe that states should eliminate state-run examinations all together and adopt only the ones written and administered by NCEES as the sole SE registration exam? One end result could be that SE's may have an easier time getting reciprocal registration in these states that would otherwise be difficult. But, do you believe that this may jeopardize the HSW of the public, or to the contrary?
Like to hear your opinions...

Welcome

Welcome to the Blog for the Licensing Committee of NCSEA. I am the current chair of the committee and hope that this forum provides you information on what we are trying to achieve. We are looking forward to comments on the various issues surrounding separate licensing of structural engineers. As a committee we will attempt to keep you up to date on our progress and the most current information on what the various states are doing. Currently there are 10 states that have some form of licensing for stuctural engineers that sets them apart from other engineering disciplines. Three states have title designations, five have partial practice designations and two have full practice designation. Look for the article in the April 2008 issue of Structure magazine for complete definitions of these various designation. The committee will be publishing articles on a regular basis to help you better understand the issues, the importance of separate licensing and how to pursue it in your state. Visit the Licensing Committee web page at the NCSEA web site for recent articles and further information on this topic. Susie

text of the amended bill

The text of the amended bill as of 02/26 is posted at http://le.utah.gov/~2008/bills/sbillamd/sb0200.htm. It looks like the legislature (1) added various height and area thresholds for "significant structures", (2) added a "grandfathering" provision waiving the requirement for three years of PE experience prior to SE licensure, and (3) deleted a requirement that "grandfathered" SE's formally attest to their competence to practice structural engineering.

-- Jon S.

Congrats!

On behalf of NCSEA CONGRATULATIONS!!! Is it still dependent on signature by the governor? Could you send me a copy of the revised bill?

-- Ed H.

Utah Senate Bill 200

As of about 2:35pm Monday, March 3, 2008 Utah Senate Bill 200 which incorporated language for a partial practice act passed its final reading in the State Legislature and will become law on January 1, 2009. In 12 months the SEAU did what everyone said couldn't be done. We paid the price for our victory, learned valuable lessons, and made some concessions and back room deals - but in the end the bill passed. We crossed our Rubicon boldly making no apologies and taking no prisoners. The SEAU roared loudly and showed that we had spines, claws and fangs - and that we weren't afraid to use them. I've made some dear friends and a few eternal enemies. For now, at least, I'm pleased with the outcome.

The Bill isn't everything we'd hoped for because of some of the concession we had to make, but for now I'm delighted to have structural engineering licensing matter in our state.

It is not 100% official all that is needed is the governor's signature.

-- BarryArnoldSESECB

SE Licensure

Hello. Just a test entry! I look forward to continue this discussion and to invite more people to blog with us.