Does a nonprofit research organization like Research Triangle Institute have to register with the NC Engineering Board before doing engineering work in the state?
Plain-English summary
Research Triangle Institute (RTI), a nonprofit, asked the NC Engineering and Land Surveying Licensing Board whether the registration requirement of G.S. 89C-24 applied to it. The first sentence of that statute reads: "A corporation or business firm may not engage in the practice of engineering or land surveying in this state unless it is registered with the Board and has paid the required registration fee."
Senior Deputy AG Reginald Watkins, Special Deputy AG Robert Crawford, and Assistant AG Richard Sowerby concluded that the statute does not distinguish between for-profit and nonprofit corporations. The trigger is whether the entity is engaged in the statutory "practice of engineering." If yes, register; if no, don't.
For RTI specifically, the opinion noted that RTI did both engineering research (which by itself would not constitute "practice of engineering") and certain paid contractual services that would qualify. Because of the contractual services, RTI was not exempt.
The general rule for universities and other research institutions: research and teaching alone are not "practice of engineering" under G.S. 89C-3(6), because they do not involve direct application of engineering skills to products, structures, or systems used by the public. So a university or research institute exclusively doing those activities was exempt. The moment it provided actual engineering services to outside clients, the exemption ended.
The opinion also flagged an open question about G.S. 89C-25(7), which exempts "research affiliates" from registration. The statute did not define that term, so the Board was urged to use its rulemaking authority to add specificity about which entities and circumstances the exemption reached.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1999. 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 1999, and the Board has adopted rules that may have addressed the "research affiliate" question the AG raised. Any nonprofit currently asking whether it must register should pull the current text of G.S. 89C-3, 89C-24, 89C-25, and the Board's rules in Title 21, Chapter 56 of the NC Administrative Code.
Common questions
Q: What counted as "practice of engineering" under the 1999 statute?
A: G.S. 89C-3(6) defined it as services or creative work requiring engineering education, training, and experience, applied to consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, and design of engineering works and systems; planning the use of land and water; engineering surveys; and the observation of construction for compliance with drawings and specifications. The definition reached private or public utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, work systems, projects, and industrial or consumer products, especially where life, health, or property was at stake.
Q: Why was research not "practice of engineering"?
A: The AG read the statutory definition as targeting the direct application of engineering skills to products, structures, or systems that are consumed or used by the public. Research and teaching are upstream of that. They generate knowledge or train future engineers, but they do not themselves deliver engineering services to a client.
Q: What was the line for a university with an engineering school?
A: If the school only taught engineering and did engineering research, it did not need to register. The moment a faculty member started providing actual engineering services to outside clients under the university's banner, the analysis changed and registration was required.
Q: What about RTI's situation?
A: RTI did "engineering research and also provides certain paid contractual services" that fell within the statute. Because of those contractual services, the AG concluded RTI was not exempt and had to register.
Q: What was the unresolved "research affiliate" question?
A: G.S. 89C-25(7) created an exemption for research affiliates, but the statute did not define what a "research affiliate" was. The AG recommended the Board use its rulemaking authority to define the term with more specificity so applicants could tell whether they qualified.
Q: Why did the for-profit/nonprofit distinction not matter?
A: G.S. 89C-24 said "corporation or business firm" without further qualification. The AG read those words to cover any corporation, including a nonprofit, that was engaged in the practice of engineering. The trigger was the activity, not the tax status.
Background and statutory framework
Chapter 89C, the Engineering and Land Surveying Licensing Act, creates the NC Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors and prohibits any corporation or business firm from practicing engineering or land surveying in NC unless registered with the Board.
In 1999, RTI (a major NC-based nonprofit research institute) asked whether the registration requirement reached it. RTI's argument, in essence, was that it was a research organization and a nonprofit, so the for-profit-sounding statutory language did not apply.
The AG rejected the legal-form argument but partially accepted the activity argument. Nonprofit status alone did not exempt. Research alone did exempt. The combination of research plus engineering services for clients did not exempt.
This bright-line distinction maps onto a broader doctrine in NC professional-licensing law: licensure obligations attach to the work, not to the entity's organizational form. A church running a daycare needs childcare licensure even though the church is nonprofit; a nonprofit hospital needs hospital licensure; and here, a nonprofit doing engineering work for clients needed engineering registration.
Citations
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 89C-3(6) (definition of "practice of engineering")
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 89C-24 (registration requirement for corporations and business firms)
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 89C-25(7) ("research affiliate" exemption)
Source
Original opinion text
RE: Advisory Opinion — Registration of Non-profit Firms under Chapter 89C of the North Carolina General Statutes
Dear Mr. Carter:
This will respond to your letter in which you asked several questions regarding the applicability of the registration requirement in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 89C-24 of the Engineering and Land Surveying Licensing Act to non-profit corporations. It is our understanding that these questions arise from an inquiry made by Research Triangle Institute, a non-profit corporation, as to whether RTI is required to be registered under G.S. § 89C-24.
As you know, the first sentence of G.S. § 89C-24 provides that: "A corporation or business firm may not engage in the practice of engineering or land surveying in this state unless it is registered with the Board and has paid the required registration fee." In addition, G.S. § 89C-3(6) defines the "practice of engineering" as:
Any service or creative work, the adequate performance of which requires engineering education, training, and experience, in the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences to such services or creative work as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, and design of engineering works and systems, planning the use of land and water, engineering surveys, and the observation of construction for the purposes of assuring compliance with drawings and specifications, including the consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, and design for either private or public use, in connection with any utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, work systems, projects, and industrial or consumer products or equipment of a mechanical electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic or thermal nature insofar as they involve safeguarding life, health or property, and including such other professional services as may be necessary to the planning, progress and completion of any engineering services.
Since G.S. § 89C-24 makes no distinction between business and non-profit corporations, we conclude that the registration requirement therein would apply to any corporation, including a non-profit corporation, if the corporation is engaged in the practice of engineering as defined by the statute. With respect to RTI, it is our understanding from talking to David Tuttle, in-house counsel for the Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors, that RTI does engineering research and also provides certain paid contractual services which would appear to fall within the definition of "practice of engineering" as set out in G.S. § 89C-3. It is therefore our opinion that if RTI is in fact engaged in the practice of engineering as defined by the statute, then it would not be exempt from the registration requirement of G.S. § 89C-24.
With respect to other types of non-profit corporations, including universities, we believe that the applicability of G.S. § 89C-24 would again depend on whether the organization is engaged in the practice of engineering. In our opinion, research and teaching activities do not come within the statutory definition of "practice of engineering" because they do not involve the direct application of engineering skills to products, structures or systems which are consumed or used by the public. Thus, a university or research institution which only engages in teaching or research, would be exempt from the registration requirement of G.S. § 89C-24. However, if any such university or institution also provides actual engineering services as defined by G.S. § 89C-3(6), then it would be required to register with the Board.
You also inquired as to the circumstances under which a "research affiliate" may be exempted under G.S. § 89C-25(7) from the registration requirements of Chapter 89C. It appears that this question may have been prompted by RTI's assertion that it may be exempted under the statute in certain circumstances because of its affiliation with various organizations in the performance of research and development work. As you know, the statutes do not define the term "research affiliate", and it may therefore be unclear in some instances whether the term applies to a particular entity or organization. However, considering the Board's rulemaking authority under Chapter 89, the Board should adopt appropriate rules which would define the term with more specificity and designate those circumstances under which the statutory exemption would apply.
We trust this advisory opinion will be helpful in answering your questions. If you would like to discuss this matter further, please call Richard Sowerby at 733-3316.
Sincerely,
Reginald L. Watkins
Senior Deputy Attorney General
Civil Division
Robert O. Crawford, III
Special Deputy Attorney General
Transportation Section
Richard G. Sowerby
Assistant Attorney General
Transportation Section
RGS:lw