A century ago, individuals could perform engineering work without providing proof of competency. This, of course, put people at great risk. In order to protect public safety, health, and welfare, the first engineering licensure law was enacted in Wyoming in 1907. Today, states regulate the practice of engineering to ensure public safety by granting only Professional Engineers (PEs) the authority to sign and seal engineering plans and to offer their services to the public. The PE is responsible not only for their work but also for the work of those they oversee.
Some government and private industry engineering positions are staffed by Professional Engineers. But, for many companies, the task of staffing projects with Professional Engineers is not required due to the “industrial exemption.”
In an industrial exemption, a Professional Engineer is not required to oversee a project and provide their seal of approval. Instead, the company assumes liability for the project. These exemptions are intended to apply to companies with internal processes and safeguards in place that provide supervisory oversight to all engineering projects. These engineering projects are thus able to circumvent state professional licensing laws. Because the company is assuming responsibility for the projects, the seal of the Professional Engineer is not required.
Many states allow industrial exemptions with certain stipulations.
- The engineer must be an “employee of a public utility, state agency, or manufacturing company.”
- The engineering work must be incidental to the products or non-engineering services of the engineer’s employer.
- The engineer must not be offering services to the general public.
The Enigma of Engineerings Industrial Exemption to Licensure: The Exception that Swallowed a Profession, published by the Liberty University School of Law, posits that the industrial exemption arose in the 1940s when leaders of public utilities and industrial firms launched a counterattack against the rise of state licensing laws. Instead of seeking a repeal of the licensing laws, these entities sought exemption of industry employees. Instead of the engineer taking responsibility for the plans, the firm took responsibility for their engineer’s work and was liable for any negligence.1
There are those that support industrial exemption. The industrial exemption policies exclude industrial employers from requirements to hire only engineers who hold professional licensure in the states in which they are employed. Companies that operate in several states point to the lack of uniformity in licensing laws and regulations among the states. Thus, they argue that the requirement of multiple licenses becomes an unnecessary burden to the engineers and companies.
Manufacturing in the United States has taken a hit over the years. Those that argue for industrial exemption assert that it would be a hindrance to create additional obstacles to job creation and mobility. They also assert that, especially within the manufacturing industry, it brings down industry competitiveness within the global marketplace. And, that properly insured entities have a vested interest in protecting the safety and welfare of their employees, facilities and the general public. Because, they argue, companies that receive exemption have certified that they have in place procedures and safeguards to comply with the laws. Some companies also emphasize that they offer additional in-house training.
Joseph Cramer, the past Director and former Head of Technical Programming for the American Industry of Chemical Engineers, argues that chemical engineers tend to be very mobile geographically and across industrial sections. In a 2014 press release, he noted, “While it might seem like a simple solution to just require all engineers to obtain and maintain a P.E. license in order to practice engineering, the current situation is very fractured with more than 50 licensing boards across the U.S., each with a different set of licensing rules and regulations that establish who can practice engineering and where.”2
Those that argue against industrial exemptions stress that the purpose of licensing engineers is to protect the public. The Professional Engineer should possess the education and experience to take personal responsibility over the design and safety of the project. Thus, providing a loophole that eliminates the requirement of a Professional Engineer overseeing the project leads to increased risk to the public. Exemptions place individuals and organizations performing engineering services outside of the licensing system and projects carried out are not subject to the same legal and ethical requirements.
If a Professional Engineer were in place, the risk to their reputation and career would insist that they pay very close attention to the details of the project. Industries where a Professional Engineer is extremely important involve those projects that directly and drastically impact the public and the environment, including deep-water oil and gas drilling, nuclear power generation, pharmaceuticals and bioengineered food. In the May 2011 issue of Professional Engineering Magazine, Executive Director of the National Society of Professional Engineers, Larry Johnson, stated: “If PEs were required by state and federal government to sign and seal documents, I submit they’d be much more careful about approving designs, much more protective of the public, and much less likely to be pressured by the economic needs of their employers.”3
The National Society of Professional Engineers has been vocal about the application of industrial applications. The entity is adamant about their policy, stating, “all engineers who are in responsible charge of the practice of engineering as defined in the NCEES Model Law and Rules in a manner that potentially impacts the public health, safety, and welfare should be required by all state statutes to be licensed professional engineers. NSPE recommends the phasing out of existing industrial exemptions in state licensing laws.”4 The NSPE has worked with a number of organizations to insist that projects are staffed by Professional Engineers. In response, the EPA issued two rules that require a PE: a PE must be the final rule on emissions related to municipal solid waste landfills, as well as the insistence that a PE be involved with all oil and gas sector projects. The NSPE also worked with the House of Natural Resources Committee to require a provision that insists a PE prepares and seals documents related to cleanup of abandoned mines.
The debate continues about industrial exemptions. With powerful organizations on both sides, it remains unclear about what the future holds for industrial exemptions.
1Spinden, Paul M., “The Enigma of Engineering’s Industrial Exemption to Licensure: The Exception that Swallowed A Profession” (2015). Faculty Publications and Presentations. Paper 72. http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lusol_fac_pubs/72
2AICHE Affirms Strong Support. https://www.aiche.org/about/press/releases/05-07-2014/aiche-affirms-strong-support-both-licensure-and-industrial-exemption
3Industrial Exemption or Exclusion? https://www.nspe.org/resources/pe-magazine/may-2011/industrial-exemption-or-exclusion
4NSPE Makes Progress Campaign Against Exemption https://www.nspe.org/resources/blogs/nspe-blog/nspe-makes-progress-campaign-against-exemptions
Do you have any comments on this interesting subject? Add them in the comments section below.
FIRST OF ALL, the industrial exemption should be simplified to, a licensed professional engineer, duly licensed in any of the 50 states or any American Territories that have a Professional Licensure System. I am a Licensed Engineer in Texas. My license is good in Texas. I am a Licensed Airline Transport Pilot and Certificated flight instructor – I am allowed to engage in air commerce and flight instruction BOTH in the United States AND any country that is signatory to ICAO (virtually all of them). So, there should be two types of licensure – one for the State which is what we have now, and one for ‘general, industrial application’ which covers chemical plants, manufacturing firms, etc. THERE SHOULD ALSO be a requirement for Federal Projects to have licensed engineer in all major projects. THERE WERE 2 SHUTTLE CRASHES, both of them can be traced to people who were NOT licensed, but pliable enough to cave to political pressure.
The jobs are in industry. I have had my P. E. license, earned in industry for over 30 years. I cannot imagine having the amount of experience I have gained sitting in a consulting engineering firm office. But if every engineer in industry has to enter the job with a P. E. License, where are they getting the training to do profitable practical work? In consulting firms they will learn how to generate paper. Industry is where engineers get the training and experience to know what really works.
“But if every engineer in industry has to enter the job with a P. E. License, where are they getting the training to do profitable practical work?”
Respectfully Steve, they will join the industry as an EIT or an engineering graduate (passing their EIT in time) and with appropriate experience, take their P.E. and become licensed. Industry is where engineers get the training, that is why all states require training and experience along with the education.
As someone who took his EIT 8 years out of school, and a year later took his P.E. exam, it is entirely possible.
In order to get a PE license one must work under the supervision of a PE and that PE must sign off that the applicate has done so for the required amount of time. At an industrial company with no PE’s this becomes quite impossible. I am a PE who worked at an industrial company. At least one person with an engineering education quit so he could work at a registered firm under a PE of his discipline as ours were different. I left the company partly because the non-PE engineers running the company often implied that designs I was certifying were “too conservative” compared to what they would have done. I would say no problem, get someone else to stamp the design. They often neglected to provide me with critical information for total lift weights so I included margins for that unknown weight in my designs.
Subject: NSPE: Industrial Exemption of PEs and Impacts (MY NEW UNDERSTANDING)
IEEE USA and IEEE SSIT: (PLEASE FORWARD A COPY TO YOUR APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE)
I am apologizing here for feeling I fully understood the “Industrial Exemption” when offering my prior views of some issues needing investigated. Here is where I was corrected to believe now (where I am incorrect or there is another interpretation, please share it/them) after studying NSPE’s view on the “Industrial Exemption(1):
First, as I understand this, the long standing name, “ Industrial Exemption” misleads the reader. It does not exempt the Industry but rather it exempts the Engineers employed by the Exempted Industry from having to be licensed to approve designs and plans.
Second, in exchange for this relief, the Industry assumes the liability responsibility, not the Engineer, for errors or unsafe product designs. (This was what Industry bargained for to get relieved from having to employ licensed PEs to lead their design work).
Third, the Exempted Industry is responsible to have in place the needed practices, experienced engineers and approval processes to protect the public and assumes any liability for faulty designs MCC and not the engineer.
Fourth, if an employed engineer is a PE, or is required to or chooses to becomes a PE, is or assigned and placed in “Responsible Charge” of designs performed for the industry, then the PE would assume TBD percent of the liability resulting from a design fault, along with the employer for its share or all liability, and the employer should have provided “Product Liability Insurance” to cover the PE in Responsible Charge.
Fifth, for the case of the Fourth case above, then the STATE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, would have enforcement powers over the PE licensed by them in that State.
Sixth, where a PE is employed by an exempted industry and placed in Responsible Charge of design work, and withholds his/her PE Seal of Approval to not approve an unsafe design, but then is pressured or threatened to be disciplined or fired under the “at-will” employment law, for that withholding, the PE’s SBPE (State PE Board) “should” be a resource the threatened PE can turn to for legal “Ethical Support” to protect the public.
Seventh, if situation Sixth is not afforded the threatened PE for protecting the public, then the PE should have the legal right to withhold his/her PE SEAL OF APPROVAL and if fired for doing so to bring suit against the employer for “Wrongful Discharge” like was done in 1975 by the three (3) IEEE Bay Area Rapid Transit, BART engineers, as supported by IEEE in its Friend of the Court legal brief(2).
The above principles are what I now believe to be correct.
REFERENCES
**************
(1). NSPE and the “Industry Exemption of PEs”
https://peimpact.com/pe-industrial-exemption/
(2). IEEE’s Legal Amicus Curiae brief in the 1975 BART case
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ielx7/6457541/6498823/06498825.pdf?tp=&arnumber=6498825&isnumber=6498823&ref=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8=
Walter L Elden, P.E. (Ret),
IEEE & SSIT Life Senior Member
https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-institute/ieee-member-news/a-passionate-proponent-of-professional-ethics-for-engineers
w.elden@ieee.org, IEEE Region 3
386-763-1135 H, 386-882-6398 C
When you get a masters degree, you have all the proper training for the PE license test. No Experience required. Experience also doesnt teach you the Engineering fundamentals involved in building a bridge, for example. It would be inappropriate to learn the principles of bridge design during the design of an actual bridge.
I invite authoritative comments on the view that when a PE practicing in a Responsible Charge position in an exempted industry, is pressured by the employer to not insist on actions to protect the public, and even has one’s employment threatened, what should or can or will the cognizant State PE Board do to defend that legal practice of engineering of the affected PE?
This is an issue of great importance; but in my extensive search have found no evidence that State PE Boards believe they are empowered by law to perform such defense of a threatened PE in responsible charge or to bring an “action to correct” against the offending employer.
Now to say that the burden to defend such a threatened PE, acting responsibly to protect the public, falls on the shoulders of the PE by getting a lawyer at one’s own expense to defend the PE, but not the PE Board.
I do not believe the latter would be what the State intended to be the PE Board’s solution for its role to protect the public; IMHO.
WALTER L. Elden, PE (Ret), IEEE LIFE SENIOR MEMBER, Region 3, Past NSPE/FES Member
w.elden@ieee.org
Editor, IEEE Concerned Ethics Volunteers, CEV