Firm Licensing Required? 1

[roadapple]

I am guessing this is the proper forum for this question, but I am unsure.

In the state of Texas, the PE’s firm must be registered with the State as providing engineering services if the PE is practicing engineering.

I am a partner in a manufacturing company. We are going through the process of acquiring our ASME certification to U, U2, U3, and R stamps to manufacture pressure vessels. Since ASME VIII division 2 requires a PE to sign/stamp on the drawings – is this considered rendering engineering services?

I would assume no, because the work will be performed between private parties and not with the public or municipalities. I have a call in to the State to get an opinion, but I wondered if anyone out there knew the answer.

roadapple

 

[metengr]

Since ASME VIII division 2 requires a PE to sign/stamp on the drawings – is this considered rendering engineering services?

Two answers. The first is that with the ASME Section VIII, Division II re-write, the involvement of the PE has been discontinued as a requirement.

Second, if a PE is involved they need to be experienced in pressure vessel design, and yes, this is a service. The PE is reviewing and sealing the design calculations and drawings for the vessel owner. You don't need to have a PE in-house; you can pay for this service. Thus, this is practicing engineering (fee for service) and you must comply.

 

[vesselfab]

if, your engineer is performing engineering, yes he would have to be registered.

if your company is new to ASME, i would forget the div 2 & 3 stamp for a while. It's hard on a code start up to get everyone working correctly on div 1 without throwing div 2 on them.

 

[roadapple]

Thanks for the answers.

I am PE with the proper experience.

What about div 3? Does it require a PE?

roadapple

 

[jte]

Ok, I'll go out on a limb here and disagree in part with metengr when he states that the RPE requirement has been discontinued in the Div. 2 rewrite. My understanding of the intent was that the changes were made to include engineers in other countries with a similar authority to perform engineering services as is provided by the US and Canadian PE licensing process. The way I read VIII Div. 2 paragraphs 2.A.2.2 and 2.B.2.2 the engineer certifying the User's Design Spec and Manufacturer's Design Report have to either be a US or Canadian RPE or "...identify the location under which he has received the authority to perform engineering work." So, if an enginer has been granted the authority by his jurisdiction to perform engineering work that would be acceptable, and that makes the code more easily usable by folks outside the US/Canada. But I know of no engineers within the US/Canada who have been granted (in writing) the authority to perform engineering services by some city/county or other "authority" other than their state/province licensing board.

Section VIII Div. 3 has virtually identical requirements in KG-311.15 and KG=324.1.

jt

 

[roadapple]

Thanks jte

My insurance company told me the same thing. The requirement was not removed, but just modified so it could work outside the U.S. were the PE was not applicable title for what we would consider a licensed engineer.

I think a few people are confused by the question - in Texas a PE must naturally be registered, but the firm at which he works most be registered with the state as well if performing engineering services.

My question was stamping this type of coded work required that the firm be registered as offering engineering services? I recieved word from the state board and they said yes it is required. Another day, another fee to pay...

roadapple

 

[jte]

Glad to help. For what its worth, California has the same requirement that a firm offering engineering services register, and identify "the names of all of the Professional Engineers and/or Professional Land Surveyors who are in responsible charge of the professional services provided". (from

http://www.pels.ca.gov/licensees/or_form_info.shtml)

At least one officer of a corporation shall be a California PE or LS.

When I left a firm with hundreds of PE's which offered engineering services, I think I sent in a Disassociation form... No fees to pay, though.

jt

 

[metengr]

Yes, after re-reviewing Div 2, I agree with jte.

 

[JoeTank]

My response may not agree with those previously given, but it is my understanding that engineering design work that is incidental to manufacturing may be peformed by a non-licensed engineer. In years past, this was loosely referred to as the "industrial exemption" for an engineer. Pressure veseel design work performed by an employee of the manufacturer is therefore not requird to be a PE. This is a situation wherein the service is not being offered the the public. I am licensed in quite a few states and have not encounterd a single state that would require a certificate of authorization (to offer engineering services) for a manufacturing firm that is designing for purposes of product manufacture only. This is a US-based response. I believe that the situation is quite different in Canada. If anyone finds documentation that a firm must be licensed in such an instances, I would certainly like to hear more about it.

Joe Tank

 

[roadapple]

JoeTank

I would agree with you in principle as I thought the same thing. However, the state board told me just the opposite.

Currently, I design stuff day in and day out under the exemption. The API standard doesn't require a PE to stamp off on anything (at least the one we are under).

The difference might be if an individual (engineering, PE or otherwise) can design a vessel for use inside their plant - such as a refinery - with no problem. However, if I, as a manufacturer, selling vessels that require a PE stamp is breaking the veil of the "industrial exemption". I would surmise that a div.1 vessel where PE sign-off is not required would be the same as we operate above.

I don't agree with the state's decision, but as a "sheaple" find it easier to comply with the fee than to fight it out with the board.

roadapple

 

[JoeTank]

I think your PE State Board is wrong. When in doubt they always indicate registration is required. Why don't you ask them to cite the specific clause of the regulation that supports their position.

Joe Tank

 

[roadapple]

I can't find it in the rules and regs. So, I am going to call some U3 shops and ask them myself.

I will report back.

roadapple

 

[unclesyd]

You have got me wandering about our situation. We hold both a U and R stamp at the PNS site and design nearly all the Pressure Vessels for this site and three other sites in two other states. We also fabricate quite a few of the smaller vessels for other sites. None of our designs for any of this equipment is/was signed by a PE even at times when we had around 10 PE on site. We have the same insurance coverage for all sites.
Prior to the design work originating here the company had a Central Engineering Department in Missouri that designed for the whole Corporation. I can't recall the ever seeing a PE stamp on any of their designs. Being in a non code state we fabricated a lot of equipment without the stamp, didn't have on at the time. This approach was used until 1985. They were some stamps on designs by outside groups, but not all.
For the past several years I don't believe they have mechanical engineer with a PE certificate on site although they have chemical, civil, and electrical PEs.

This thread has got me curious so Monday I'll have to make a few phone calls.

 

[jte]

Just to try to clarify a bit... I think there are three questions being discussed here:
1) Does ASME VIII require a PE (or equivalent):
Div. 1) No.
Div. 2) Yes.
Div. 3) Yes.

2) Does a company offering engineering services for hire require a PE on their staff:
Still being debated on this thread, and likely to vary by state / internationally. Need to distinguish between having a PE on staff and actually stamping calc's and drawings.

3) Does a company performing engineering services within its own realm (i.e. engineering division designing a vessel for use by the same company's manufacturing division) require a PE on their staff?
My take: No.

jt

 

[JoeTank]

jte,
Good summary. Although still being debated here, I am confident that the answer is a very lou "yes".

Joe Tank

 

[roadapple]

Thanks for the responses.

I spent the better part of a day trying to find the answer calling all the div 2 shops I could find. In every case where I could get an answer the shop was using third party engineering services. So, I could not find an answer.

The insurance carrier (handling the accreditation) said they had never heard of such a requirement.

I called a PE at a prestigous research company that holds the various stamps (U, U2, U3). He said he could understand my logic but his opinion the work would fall under the practice of engineering and therefore would require firm registration.

My insurance company (that handles our GL and other mundane items) said that firm registration would not affect our premium.

Rather than waste any more time on the issue the $150 dollar registration fee was getting cheaper by the minute. So, I registered my company.

I really thought this was an easy question.

roadapple

 

[StressGuy]

Roadapple, while you probably ended up doing the expedient thing, I also think the state probably gave you bad info. I think you're right in saying that the engineering work you are doing is incidental to the manufacture of a product for sale (pressure vessels).

I think it's akin to cars. As I understand it, nothing gets PE stamped in the car business as that engineering work is considered incidental to the production of the car. Are Ford and GM registered as engineering firms in Michigan?

Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas

"All the world is a Spring"

All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.

 

[EdStainless]

The Firm registration issue is a state by state one. The last time that I looked only about 1/3 of the states had such a requirement.
jte, love your summary.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Plymouth Tube