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

Counsel for North Carolina's engineering and land surveying licensing board asked whether the registration requirement in G.S. § 89C-24 applied to nonprofit corporations, including Research Triangle Institute (RTI). The Attorney General said nonprofit status alone does not create an exemption. The statute applies to a corporation that is actually engaged in the practice of engineering as the statute defines it.

The opinion reports that RTI performed engineering research and, according to the Board's counsel, provided paid contractual services that would appear to fall within the statutory definition. It did not make a final factual finding about those services. Its conclusion was conditional: if RTI was in fact practicing engineering, it would not be exempt from registration under G.S. § 89C-24.

Research and teaching alone were different. The opinion says those activities do not directly apply engineering skills to products, structures, or systems used by the public, so an institution doing only research or teaching would be exempt. If it also provided actual engineering services as defined in G.S. § 89C-3(6), registration would be required.

The opinion left another question for the Board. G.S. § 89C-25(7) referred to a "research affiliate" exemption without defining the term. The Attorney General recommended that the Board adopt rules defining the term and specifying when that exemption would apply.

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.

For a current registration question, check the present statute and the Board's applicable rules.

Common questions

Q: Does being a nonprofit by itself excuse an organization from engineering registration?
A: No. The opinion says G.S. § 89C-24 makes no distinction between business and nonprofit corporations. Whether the organization practices engineering is the key question.

Q: Did the Attorney General decide that RTI had to register?
A: No final factual finding was made. The opinion says RTI's paid contractual services would appear to meet the definition, but registration would be required only if RTI was in fact engaged in engineering practice as defined by statute.

Q: Would a university doing only engineering teaching and research need to register?
A: The opinion says those activities alone are outside the statutory definition. If the institution also provides actual engineering services covered by G.S. § 89C-3(6), the answer changes.

Q: How did the opinion resolve the "research affiliate" exemption?
A: It said the statutory term was undefined and recommended that the Board use rulemaking to clarify its scope. It did not decide whether RTI qualified for the exemption.

Background and statutory framework

G.S. § 89C-24 prohibited a corporation or business firm from practicing engineering or land surveying in the state without Board registration and payment of the required fee. G.S. § 89C-3(6) supplied the definition of engineering practice. The Attorney General applied those provisions to nonprofit organizations and distinguished teaching or research alone from actual engineering services. It treated RTI's factual status as a condition requiring determination, not as an established violation.

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

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/registration-of-non-profit-firms/

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

#22799