If a registered Professional Engineer is also a state employee or state official doing engineering work as part of their job, does the NC engineering licensing board still have disciplinary jurisdiction over them?
Plain-English summary
Jerry T. Carter, the Executive Secretary of the NC State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, asked the AG whether the Board had jurisdiction over registered Professional Engineers (PEs) when those PEs were doing their work as state officials or state employees. Chief Deputy AG Andrew A. Vanore, Jr. and Special Deputy AG Grayson G. Kelley said yes.
The analysis starts with the basic statutory structure of NC engineering practice. N.C.G.S. § 89C-2 declares the practice of engineering subject to regulation for public safety and welfare reasons, and § 89C-3 defines what counts as "the practice of engineering." A person who wants to legally practice engineering in NC has to register with the Board.
Once registered, an engineer is subject to the Board's jurisdiction under N.C.G.S. § 89C-10. That jurisdiction includes the power to require renewal fee payments, review charges of misconduct against any PE, and enforce the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Board can discipline registered engineers for fraud, gross negligence, misconduct, professional incompetence, conviction of a felony or crime involving moral turpitude, or violation of the Board's Rules of Professional Conduct.
Carter raised the question whether the public-employee exemption in N.C.G.S. § 89C-25(7) might limit the Board's jurisdiction. That section says Chapter 89C does not prevent or affect "internal engineering activities performed by public employees related to inspection, maintenance, and service work such as construction, installation, servicing, and maintenance of streets, street lighting, traffic-control signals, police and fire alarm systems, water works, steam, electric and sewage treatment disposal plants."
The AG said this exemption misses the point. § 89C-25(7) is about who has to be registered to perform certain in-house engineering tasks. It exempts certain routine public-works activities from the registration requirement entirely. That is a different question from whether the Board's disciplinary authority reaches PEs who are registered. The exemption excuses certain public engineering work from the licensing umbrella; it does not give registered engineers a shield from Board oversight just because they happen to be performing licensed engineering work as state employees.
The conclusion: the Board has full disciplinary jurisdiction over state-employed registered PEs to the extent those PEs are performing duties that fall within "the practice of engineering" as defined by § 89C-3. The PE's identity as a state employee is irrelevant. A licensed engineer is a licensed engineer.
The opinion has practical bite. State agencies that employ registered PEs (NCDOT, DEQ, university physical plants, the various building authorities) cannot defend their engineers against Board complaints by arguing "but they were just doing their state job." If the engineer in question is registered and the work is the practice of engineering, the Board can investigate, charge, and discipline.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1998. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Chapter 89C has been amended multiple times since 1998. The specific subsections in the public-employee exemption (now organized slightly differently within § 89C-25) and the scope of the practice-of-engineering definition have been refined. Anyone facing a Board action today should pull current Chapter 89C and check for later cases and AG opinions on professional-licensing jurisdiction.
Common questions
Q: I'm a state agency engineer. Do I have to register as a PE?
A: That depends on what your job is. If your duties fall within "the practice of engineering" as defined by § 89C-3 (design, consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, design, or supervision of construction or operation involving engineering principles for the protection of life, health, or property), you generally need to be registered. If your duties fit the § 89C-25(7) exemption (routine inspection, maintenance, or service work on the listed kinds of public works), you may be doing exempt work that does not require registration. The exemption's scope is fact-specific.
Q: If I'm a state-employed PE and someone files a complaint with the Board, can the Board investigate?
A: Yes. The Board can investigate, hold hearings, and impose discipline including license suspension or revocation. Your state employment is not a defense.
Q: What if my agency directs me to do engineering work I think is improper?
A: This is exactly the scenario where the Board's jurisdiction over state-employed PEs matters. If you do the improper work and someone gets hurt or files a complaint, your PE license is at risk regardless of what your agency told you. The Board's Rules of Professional Conduct generally require the engineer to act in the public interest, sometimes against an employer's wishes. State-employed PEs who think they are being pressured to act improperly should document the situation and consider seeking advice from a licensing-board attorney before doing the work.
Q: Does this opinion apply to land surveyors as well?
A: The opinion is about engineers, since the Board's name is "State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors" and Chapter 89C covers both. The same statutory structure applies to land surveyors. The Board has jurisdiction over registered land surveyors performing licensed surveying work as state employees on the same logic.
Q: What kind of discipline can the Board impose?
A: Under § 89C-10 and the Board's rules, possible discipline ranges from a private letter of admonition to public reprimand to license suspension to license revocation. The Board can also assess fines and require additional education.
Q: If the work falls within the § 89C-25(7) exemption, does the Board still have jurisdiction?
A: The exemption excuses the unlicensed individual from needing a license to do the listed routine work. If a registered PE happens to do exempt-category work, the Board's jurisdiction over that PE is unaffected; the PE remains accountable to the Board for misconduct in any engineering work they do. The exemption is about who needs the license, not about who is subject to Board discipline once licensed.
Background and statutory framework
NC's engineering licensing scheme has roots going back decades, with the central purpose of "safeguard[ing] life, health, and property, and to promote the public welfare" (§ 89C-2). The Board enforces standards of practice for engineers and land surveyors and is the gatekeeper for entry into the profession.
Chapter 89C has the typical structure of an occupational-licensing statute: a registration requirement, a definition of practice that triggers the requirement, exemptions for certain activities, a Board with rulemaking and disciplinary authority, and procedures for hearings on alleged violations.
The § 89C-25 exemptions are themselves the product of negotiation about who should be required to hold a license. Subsection (7) was carved out partly because public agencies historically performed in-house engineering work using employees who may not have been licensed (especially in routine maintenance contexts), and the legislature did not want to require all such employees to register. The exemption is narrow: it covers inspection, maintenance, and service work on streets, lighting, signals, alarm systems, and certain public utility operations. It does not cover the design phase, complex project engineering, or work outside the listed categories.
The opinion's significance is that it distinguishes two different questions:
- Coverage question ("Does this person need to be registered to do this work?"). Answered by reading § 89C-25 and the § 89C-3 definition together.
- Jurisdiction question ("Does the Board have authority over this registered PE?"). Answered by § 89C-10, which gives the Board jurisdiction over all registered PEs regardless of the context of their work.
Confusing those two questions is the kind of error the opinion forestalls. A state agency cannot rescue an under-performing PE-employee by pointing to § 89C-25(7); even if the exempt-work argument were available, it would not affect the Board's authority over the registered PE.
Citations
- N.C.G.S. § 89C-2 (legislative declaration that engineering practice is subject to regulation to safeguard life, health, property, and the public welfare)
- N.C.G.S. § 89C-3 (defines "practice of engineering")
- N.C.G.S. § 89C-10 (Board jurisdiction over registered PEs; renewal fees; review of charges; enforcement of Rules of Professional Conduct; discipline for fraud, gross negligence, misconduct, professional incompetence, certain criminal convictions, and rules violations)
- N.C.G.S. § 89C-25(7) (exemption from registration requirement for internal engineering activities performed by public employees in inspection, maintenance, and service work on listed types of public works)
Source
- Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/state-board-of-registration-for-professional-engineers-and-land-surveyors/
Original opinion text
February 11, 1998
Mr. Jerry T. Carter, Executive Secretary
North Carolina State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors
3620 Six Forks Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Re: Advisory Opinion — State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors; Jurisdiction over Public Employees; N.C.G.S. Chapter 89C
Dear Mr. Carter:
In your letter dated January 14, 1998 you have asked our opinion regarding the jurisdiction of the North Carolina State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors ("Board") over a registered Professional Engineer performing assigned duties as a state official or employee.
N.C.G.S. § 89C-2 declares the practice of engineering to be subject to regulation in order to safeguard life, health, and property, and to promote the public welfare. As such, it is unlawful for any person to practice or offer to practice engineering in North Carolina without being duly registered by the Board. A person who has been duly registered and licensed becomes a Professional Engineer authorized to engage in the "practice of engineering" as that term is defined by N.C.G.S. § 89C-3.
Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 89C-10 the Board is vested with certain jurisdiction over all persons registered as Professional Engineers. This jurisdiction includes the power to require the payment of registration renewal fees; review charges against any Professional Engineer, and; enforce rules of professional conduct. The Board may also impose disciplinary measures against any registered engineer found guilty of fraud, gross negligence or misconduct, professional incompetence, a felony or crime involving moral turpitude, or violation of the Board's Rules of Professional Conduct. In our view, the Board's jurisdiction in matters of this nature is unaffected by a Professional Engineer's status as a public official or employee performing assigned job responsibilities which constitute the "practice of engineering."
In your letter you suggest that an exemption within N.C.G.S. § 89C-25(7) may be a factor in our analysis. The provision states that Chapter 89C shall not be construed to prevent or affect internal engineering activities performed by public employees related to inspection, maintenance, and service work such as construction, installation, servicing, and maintenance of streets, street lighting, traffic-control signals, police and fire alarm systems, water works, steam, electric and sewage treatment disposal plants. This exemption is not germane to our conclusion regarding the Board's jurisdiction over registered Professional Engineers. The exclusion of certain types of engineering activities from the requirement that a registered Professional Engineer be utilized does not restrict the Board's jurisdiction over registered Professional Engineers where the practice of engineering is involved in the performance of their professional responsibilities.
It is therefore our opinion that the Board is vested with jurisdiction over state officials and employees, who are registered Professional Engineers, in the performance of their assigned duties to the extent that those duties fall within the practice of engineering.
Andrew A. Vanore, Jr.
Chief Deputy Attorney General
Grayson G. Kelley
Special Deputy Attorney General