Over 100 years ago, in 1907, the State of Wyoming passed the first engineering licensing law in the United States. This law mandated registration for engineers and surveyors as a way to better protect the public's health, safety and welfare from unqualified designers.¹ This law was the foundation for the engineering licensure process in the United States.

Almost 75 years later, the Fire Protection Professional Engineering Exam was offered for the first time in the United States in October 1981 by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). NCEES is a national nonprofit organization composed of engineering and surveying licensing boards representing all states and territories in the United States. Before 1981, the fire protection exam was offered by several states but not at a national level. Currently, this exam is offered in 46 states and the District of Columbia.

article continues below UL/ULC listed DecoShield systems provide you with lightweight, attractive, affordable modular cover/support systems for sprinkler piping, hydronics, plumbing, cable, and conduit. DecoShield products are manufactured using an engineered resin of a Class I/A material meeting most model code requirements, and are clean, paintable, easy to install, tamper-resistant, durable, and economical. The DecoShield cover will not dent, crack, rust, or corrode. As an alternative to constructed soffits and suspended ceilings, the DecoShield systems can be installed without disturbing asbestos ceilings, and can be easily installed in occupied premises. We also offer assistance with design, installation, and anchoring problems. For more information, visit www.decoshield.com

As the engineering profession begins the next century of professional licensure, there are some important questions currently being debated by engineers and licensing boards that will impact those who practice engineering:

• Do engineers need more education than a Bachelor of Science (BS) degree in engineering before becoming a licensed Professional Engineer (P.E.)?
• Should continuing professional competency be required for all licensed engineers?
• Should graduating engineering students be permitted to take the P.E. exam without practical engineering experience?
• Will programs that offer specialty certification after becoming a P.E. improve public safety?
• Should college engineering professors be licensed engineers?
• How do engineers who practice in countries that do not offer licensure programs have the opportunity to obtain a professional credential?

ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS TO BECOME A P.E.
In the United States, although the requirements for licensure may differ between states, becoming a licensed P.E. is generally a four-step process:

• Graduation from an accredited BS engineering program.
• Passing the Fundamentals of Engineering exam (FE).
• Obtaining four years of work experience.
• Passing the Principles and Practice of Engineering exam.

This change to the model law will not take effect until January 1, 2015.

Although this may seem to be in the far distant future, this requirement will impact newly enrolled engineering students. For example, if a new engineering student starts a BS degree program in 2007, they will graduate in 2011.With four more years of experience, he or she can sit for the P.E. exam in 2015.³

Moreover, this change may impact the profession of fire protection engineering.⁴ Presently, because the demand for fire protection engineers is much higher than the supply, employers are finding it difficult to recruit qualified engineers. In 2015, this offset in demand will only increase as fewer professional engineers will be entering the marketplace as a result of the additional educational requirements. Consequently, the fire protection engineering profession must prepare for this change.

One way the profession can prepare is to promote graduate-level distance learning programs in fire protection engineering. These distance learning programs are becoming increasing popular as a way for engineers of all disciplines to enter the fire protection engineering profession. Because all engineering graduates who are on the path towards licensure will be required to take additional courses, the new requirements combined with the distance learning programs will be a good opportunity to recruit more engineers into fire protection.

So why will engineering interns be required to take 30 additional credit hours of coursework before they can sit for the P.E. exam? First, there is a belief that "engineering education is falling behind other professions in preparing students for practice."⁵ As shown in Figure 1, at the start of the 20th century, the educational requirement to become an engineer (four years) exceeded or was equal to all other professions, including doctors, lawyers, accountants and architects. In spite of this, the current educational requirements for these same professions exceed the requirements for engineering.

But more importantly, as shown in Figure 2, since the early 1900s, there has been a steady decline in the number of credit hours that are required to complete a BS degree in engineering. Before 1925, the average number of credit hours required for graduation was roughly 150. Now, it is about 128. Part of this decline is the result of individual states competing with each other to reduce the cost and the time needed to obtain a college degree. At the same time, colleges and universities have increased the requirements for non technical subjects in an attempt to provide a more well-rounded graduate.This has resulted in a decrease in required upper-level technical course credit hours. Furthermore, according to the National Academy of Engineering, "scientific and engineering knowledge presently doubles every10 years. This geometric growth rate has been reflected in an accelerating rate of technology introduction and adoption."⁶ Given this predicted fast rate of technological change combined with a decrease in educational requirements, it will be difficult for the current generation of graduating engineering students to be prepared to work in this fast-changing world without additional upper-level technical coursework.

CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCY
Currently, about 30 jurisdictions in the United States have continuing professional competency (CPC) requirements for licensed engineers.⁷ The fact that many jurisdictions do not currently have CPC requirements demonstrates the diversity of opinions on this issue.

Those in favor of CPC requirements believe it improves the quality of professional practice and is a good way to protect public safety from incompetent engineers. Others think CPC increases the status of the engineering profession.⁸ Additionally, the NCEES endorses the establishment of CPC requirements for licensed professional engineers.⁹

On the other hand, many say there is no evidence that shows CPC programs provide any public benefits, so the benefits of CPC do not exceed the time and money expended. At the same time, others feel the existing licensure process without CPC does an adequate job in protecting the public's health, safety and welfare.

Besides all of the perceived costs and benefits, the variability in CPC requirements presents a record keeping challenge for engineers who are licensed in multiple jurisdictions. In most cases, jurisdictions require a licensed professional engineer to obtain 15 Professional Development Hours (PDHs) per year. A PDH is a contact hour of instruction or presentation. This criterion is often expressed as a biennial or triennial requirement. Although the requirements vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, usually the required PDHs may be earned through the completion of a combination of college courses, continuing education courses, distance-education courses, presenting technical presentations, teaching, authoring published papers or obtaining a patent. Specific requirements for individual jurisdictions can be found at www.ncees.org/rcep/cpc.php. Besides all of these variables, the lack of a uniformed reporting system between the states is another reason why engineers who are licensed in multiple jurisdictions find CPC difficult.

To simplify the CPC process, the NCEES started the Registered Continuing Education Providers Program (RCEPP). The RCEPP was developed as a means to a) promote quality and consistency in engineering continuing education; b) recognize and monitor providers against established criteria; and, c) provide a single source for licensee education record keeping.¹⁰ The Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE) is an approved provider in the RCEPP program. All of the SFPE seminars and the Introduction to Fire Risk Assessment Web-based course are approved courses. Currently, not all states that have CPC requirements participate in the RCEPP program. However, as more jurisdictions participate in the RCEPP program, engineers who are licensed in multiple jurisdictions should find it easier to navigate the CPC process.

TAKING THE P.E. EXAM WITHOUT EXPERIENCE
Allowing candidates to take the P.E.exam without having any engineering experience is an idea that is being widely discussed. In this approach, the candidate can take the P.E. exam right out of college if he or she graduated from an accredited engineering program and passed the FE exam.

Because this approach offers more flexibility for candidates, many think more students would be encouraged to enter the licensure process. Others believe it would be easier for a graduate to pass the exam as opposed to taking it four years after graduation.

Conversely, since the P.E. exam is designed to test practice-related applications, those opposed to this idea believe four years of engineering experience is needed for a candidate to pass the exam. It is also thought that if someone passes the PE exam right out of college, becoming recognized through comity in states that require the traditional approach may be difficult.¹¹

In 2005, the State of Nevada started to allow candidates to take the P.E.exam without having any experience. After the first three exam cycles have been administered, there are some interesting results. For example, the pass rate for first-time examinees in all engineering disciplines with less than four years of experience is 54%. For first-time examinees with four or more years of experience, the pass rate is 48%.¹² However, the results for the fire protection exam are different. For first-time examinees with less than four years of experience, the pass rate is 17%. For first-time examinees with four or more years of experience, it is 33%.¹² Although these data may indicate the fire protection engineering exam does a better job in testing practical knowledge, since only a small sample of candidates (21) took this exam in Nevada over this period, these results are inconclusive. Moreover, although the data from Nevada may shed some light on this argument, "it will probably take another two years before there's enough data to identify trends."¹²

CERTIFICATION AFTER BECOMING A P.E.
As opposed to licensure, which is mandated by law and administered by state licensing boards, certification is voluntary and administered by technical and professional not-for-profit organizations. Although certification started in the ophthalmology profession in 1911 as a way for licensed physicians to distinguish their unique qualifications in the care of eyes, it wasn't until 1955 that sanitary engineers who were generally trained as civil engineers started a certification program for engineers. Presently, there about 70 organizations that provide certification programs for engineering and engineering-related specialties, and for engineering technicians.¹³

In 2006, SFPE surveyed the fire protection engineering profession by asking them their feelings about the need for a specialty certification program in fire protection. The proposed certification program was intended for practicing fire protection engineers who already have a P.E. registration. The purpose of this program would be to effectively measure an individual's capability to perform a specific task.For example, possible practice areas of certification could have included:

• Sprinkler System Design
• Fire Alarm System Design
• Special Hazard System Design
• Computer Fire Modeling
• Structural Fire Protection
• Performance-Based Design

REQUIRING ENGINEERING PROFESSORS TO BE P.E.s
At one time, many engineering professors were licensed. Unfortunately, the number of licensed engineering professors has decreased. Because many of the deans and college administrators do not see the value of having licensed engineering faculty members, "trying to force faculty members to be licensed is difficult if not impossible."¹⁴

If engineering faculty members are not licensed, who will encourage students to get on the path towards engineering licensure? That is why many state engineering boards are considering waiving the FE exam if a person has a Ph.D. from an accredited engineering program. This should encourage engineering faculty to become licensed.

Because fire protection engineering plays a critical role in protecting society's health, safety and welfare, engineering licensure is essential in the profession of fire protection engineering. The 2005 SFPE membership survey reveals that almost 64% of all practicing fire protection engineers are licensed.¹⁵ This is much higher than the national average in the United States of 33%.¹⁶ Since fire protection engineering is critical to public safety, department heads at universities that offer fire protection programs should encourage faculty members to become licensed.

OFFERING THE P.E. EXAM OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
In October 2006, the FE exam was offered in Japan trough the Japan PE/FE Examiners Council.¹⁷ The Principles and Practice of Engineering Exams were offered in October 2007. To take these exams in Japan, the examinee must be native to Japan.

This offering in Japan will be a significant opportunity for fire protection engineers in Japan to have an engineering credential. Additionally, if this program is successful in Japan, it could open the door for exam administrations in other countries. SFPE will work to promote the NCEES exams with the Society's membership in Japan and other countries when they are offered.

After 100 years of engineering licensure in the United States, the licensing system has done an outstanding service in protecting the public from unqualified designers. The same holds true in the fire protection engineering profession. As engineering licensure enters the next 100 years, this process will only become stronger. As a result, the public's health, safety and welfare will benefit.

Chris Jelenewicz is with the Society of Fire Protection Engineers.

References:

1. Browne, B., Licensure Exchange. National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. Clemson, SC, October 2006.
2. "New Language for Model Law," Licensure Exchange. National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. Clemson, SC, April 2006.
3. Report of the Committee on Uniform Procedures and Legislative Guidelines, NCEES Annual Meeting, 2006.
4. Jelenewicz, C., "Working to Solve the Fire Protection Engineering Deficit." Fire Protection Engineering, Summer 2006, pp. 24-32.
5. Baker, C.V., and Harclerode, H.C., "Strengthening the Education Leg of Licensure." Licensure Exchange. National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. Clemson, SC, April 2006.
6. "Educating the Engineer of 2020. Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century." The National Academy of Engineering. Washington, DC, 2005.
7. Report of Continuing Professional Competency Task Group. NCEES Annual Meeting, 2006.
8. Siegel, D., "When Hitting the Books Is Voluntary." PE Magazine, July 2006.
9. Position Statement 10 - Continuing Professional Competency, National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, 2006.
10. Registered Continuing Education Providers Program Web site. Found at: www.rcep.net/rcep/?CFID=2538388&CFTOKEN=99389438, accessed July 2007.
11. "Are New Graduates Ready for the PE Exam? Nevada Says ‘Yes.'" Engineering Times, November 2005.
12. "Nevada Tests New Approach to PE Exam." PE Magazine, May 2007.
13. Engineering Certification Task Force of the Council of Engineering and Scientific Specialty Boards. Integrating Certification & Licensing for Engineers and Related Specialists, 2006.
14. Nelson, J., and Price, B., "The Future of Professional Engineering Licensure." PE Magazine, June 2007.
15. Novatny, E., "2005 Profile of the Fire Protection Engineer." Society of Fire Protection Engineers. Bethesda, MD, 2006.
16. McGuirt, D., "The Professional Engineering Century." PE Magazine, June 2007.
17. "Japan Ready for October 2006 Exam Administration." Licensure Exchange National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. Clemson, SC, June 2006.