Legislation & Regulations
ASCE TEXAS SECTION SUPPORTS COMPROMISE LANGUAGE IN S.B. 277
The Texas
State House of Representatives is considering legislation that would relax the definition
of engineer.
Senate Bill 277, which was voted out of the Texas Senate this week, was amended to include
compromise language on the use of the term engineer. This bill is now in the Texas House
of Representatives.
House Bill 1789, which remains in the Texas House of Representatives, has been amended to
undermine the Engineering Practice Act.
The Engineering Practice Act (EPA) currently requires accountability from most persons who
call themselves “engineers” in public. This is the best way to insure that the
public safety and welfare is protected anytime engineering services are performed. The
electronics and aerospace industries are asking the Texas Legislature to leave this
accountability in their hands; in essence to turn over the public trust to them. The EPA
has long served the people of Texas and changes to the act should be measured with regard
to the public’s health, safety and welfare.
Action Requested
Please email
or call your State Representatives IMMEDIATELY at the state capitol to support SB 277 and
oppose HB 1789 as currently drafted.
To find your Texas State Representative and Senator, visit ASCE's Internet Advocacy
Website at http://www.asce.org/advocacy.html and login
using your ASCE member number as the 'Username' and your last name as the 'Password'.
Click on your state elected officials in the right hand column to view their telephone
numbers.
Background
The Texas
Board of Professional Engineers underwent Sunset Review in 2001 and the resulting staff
report recommended continuation of the agency with some changes in functions and
operations. The Sunset staff made no recommendations as to use of the “engineer”
title by employees of industry-exempt employers. (The industry exemption in the Texas
Engineering Practice Act allows certain employees to use the “engineer” title in
relation to their work duties as long as the employees do not hold themselves out to the
public as “engineers.”)
Legislation in the Texas House and Senate seeks to expand the group of individuals who may
use the term “engineer” is at the center of the debate right now in Austin. This
debate between high tech sector and the licensed engineers got started with a decision
that was handed down by Attorney General John Cornyn in July of 2002. The decision
affirmed a similar interpretation made in the mid-80’s that stated that the only
people who could use the term “engineer” were those who have studied engineering
and passed a licensure exam. With the boom of the high tech industry, a new workforce of
individuals have laid claim to the title “engineer”. Computer programmers claim
that what they do on a daily basis constitutes engineering and that they are really
“engineers”. Current Texas law does not allow them to use this title. H.B. 1789
would have significantly relaxed the terms by which a person could use the title
“engineer” until it was amended on April 3, 2003.
In the House, amendments were added to the bill before it was favorably voted out of the
House Committee on Licensing and Administrative Procedures. The first amendment is a
compromise on the “engineer title” controversy that has been agreed to by almost
all parties. The second amendment is extraordinarily broad and undermines the intent of
the entire Engineering Practice Act. It also undercuts the ability of cities and state
agencies to protect their infrastructure and to protect public health and safety.
The amendment states the following:
No agency or political subdivision of this state may impose upon a person who is exempt
from the licensing requirements of this chapter an obligation:
(1) to employ, pay for, or reimburse the agency or political subdivision for the
supervision, inspection, or engineering services of a licensed engineer; or
(2) to obtain the seal of a licensed engineer upon any plan, design, specification, report
or inspection.
The second amendment was apparently pushed by phone companies attempting to overturn a
growing number of local ordinances that require companies who make street cuts for buried
cable to adequately repair the damage they do to city streets. These ordinances commonly
require the company to provide engineering plans for the repair in order to ensure that
the repairs are adequate and safe and will not have to be replaced at the city’s
expense in six months.
The amendment goes much too far. It provides that if a company has an exemption from
licensure for actions on its own property or products, it cannot be required by any city
or state agency to obtain an engineer’s seal on any plan, design, or report –
even one related to a project off its property that materially affects public safety.
Arguably, it affects not only the ability of cities to regulate their public streets, but
also affects the regulatory programs the TCEQ, the Railroad Commission and other agencies.
Texas Senate Bill 277, which passed the Texas Senate on April 23rd, contains the
compromise language on the engineer definition that ASCE supports. It does NOT contain the
offensive amendment attached to H.B. 1789 and therefore S.B. 277 is supported by ASCE.
ASCE Position
The American
Society of Civil Engineers, representing more than 8,000 members in Texas, supports the
compromise reached in S.B. 277 and continues to oppose provisions in H.B. 1789 which we
feel would greatly weaken the Professional Engineer license.
ASCE believes that the following standards are the only basis on which any title or
designation should include the term "engineer".
* Graduation from an accredited engineering program with a degree in engineering;
* Registration as a professional engineer or engineer-in-training under a state
engineering registration law; or,
* An official ruling designating an individual or a group in an engineering capacity as
meeting the definition of "Professional Engineer" under the Taft-Hartley Act or
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Only persons in one of these categories should be designated by an appropriate title
"engineer" or "professional engineer". This policy shall not be
construed to prohibit using the word "engineering" as a modifier in titles such
as "engineering assistant", "engineering aide" and "engineering
technologist" where the title clearly implies that the duties of the position are not
those of professional engineer. (ASCE Policy Statement 433, Use of the Term
“Engineer,” 1999)
Talking Points
For S.B. 277:
ASCE strongly urges the Texas House of Representatives to pass S.B. 277.
For H.B. 1789:
* ASCE is strongly opposed to the second amendment added to H.B. 1789.
* This amendment is overly broad and undermines the intent of the entire Engineering
Practice Act.
* The amendment is detrimental to public safety by restricting city or state agencies from
requiring an engineer’s seal on any plan, design and report.
When calling your legislators
Identify
yourself as an engineer and a constituent.
Briefly explain that you oppose H.B. 1789 and support S.B. 277 and give your reasons.
Ask if the legislator has a position on the issue.
If the legislator already opposes the bills, thank him/her for supporting engineers.
If the legislator is undecided, ask him/her to consider supporting S.B. 277 and opposing
H.B. 1789.
If the legislator favors H.B. 1789, politely ask him/her to reconsider his/her support and
explain that this is an important issue for you.
When writing to your legislator
Fax or email your
letter to your legislator in the interest of time. Use ASCE’s e-advocacy site to
email your letter in 6 easy clicks – www.asce.org/advocacy.html
Identify yourself as an engineer and a constituent.
Explain that you oppose H.B. 1789 and S.B. 277 and list your reasons.
Ask your legislator to let you know his/her position on these bills.
Please notify ASCE's Government Relations office of any contacts you make by emailing govwash@asce.org.
[top]
Dallas ASCE
