Industrial exemption thread765-164422 3

[4Mengineering]

Hello out there. There has been much talk both in favour of, and against the so called industrial exemptions. I know such laws exist in all states with exception of for Mississippi, but can only seem to find the Californian one. Are there any engineers of lawyers in this forum who can direct me to the Missouri and Massachusetts equivalents of the Californian Senate Act that defined their industrial exemption parameters? Thanks

 

[JStephen]

Missouri is here:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C300-399/3270000191.HTM

327.191....provided that section 327.181 shall not be construed to prevent the practice of engineering by the following persons...
(2) Any person who is a regular full-time employee of a person or any former employee under contract to a person, who performs professional engineering work for such employer if and only if all such work and service so performed is done solely in connection with a facility owned or wholly operated by the employer and occupied or maintained by the employer of the employee performing such work or service;
(3) Any person engaged in engineering who is a full-time, regular employee of a person engaged in manufacturing operations and which engineering so performed by such person relates to the manufacture, sale or installation of the products of such person;

This was hard to find, because I didn't see it linked directly from the Rules page. I didn't find the law requiring licensing for Massachusetts. Generally, you'd need to find the law that says "Thou Shalt Be Licensed" and it will have the exemptions, too.

 

[4Mengineering]

Dear Jstephen, I can’t thank you enough. I have been searching for this information for ages. If you are ever in Italy let me know, you surely have earned a grand dinner.

 

[TDAA]

done solely in connection with a facility owned or wholly operated by the employer and occupied or maintained by the employer of the employee

Asking from the standpoint of someone that does not work in non-exempt: What happens when that facility is sold to a different company?

The facility will now have a different "public" working in it, and would not technically meet this definition.

 

[csd72]

JStephen,

Is it saying that if you design a one off and need a consultant then it needs to be designed by a professional engineer, but if you make 1000 of them and sell them as a product you are okay not to use a PE?

Seems a bit illogical to me.

csd

 

[steve1]

Massachusetts is here:

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ocamodu...pl_boards_en_professionalpract_note&csid=Eoca

(g) the performance of engineering work or services by employees of a corporation engaged in manufacturing, research or development operations, which work or services are performed in connection with the research or development activities of, or the manufacture, sale, installation, maintenance, repair or service of the products of, such corporation, or of its parents, affiliates or subsidiaries, provided, that such research or development activities which are not related to the manufacture, sale, installation, maintenance, repair or service of products of such corporation, or of its parents, affiliates or subsidiaries are not primarily in connection with the construction of fixed works which are to be made available for use by the general public;

 

[4Mengineering]

Geez… the steves of the engineering world of both varieties (with v and ph) come to the rescue! Same offer to you clearly. Should you ever come to Italy plan on a grand dinner.. thanks ever so much

 

[rbcoulter]

CSD72 - Good point. If you build one item (like a bridge) you would need a PE to design it. If you build a thousand things (ladders, for example), a PE is not needed. This is the way the exemption is stated in most states. Even in the states where there is no industrial exemption, it has never been enforced to the best of my knowledge. Does anyone know where a state board (in a no industrial exemption state) has issued an enforcement order against a industry?

 

[JAE]

4Mengineering - I didn't provide the great info that the two steves did, but I just got back from Italy Wednesday from a 2 week visit. Quite the country. We thoroughly enjoyed it. Lot's of "grand dinners" there that were great.

 

[JStephen]

Note that it's not the quantity of widgets that determines the exemption- you can do one-off designs under that exemption.

 

[GregLocock]

Isn't the difference, essentially, prototyping?

If I can build a prototype and test it then I do not have to design to a design code, I can design to a test condition.

I can't test a bridge to its limits, so I would have to design using pre-defined safety factors and component loads.

I can test a car to its limits, so I don't need safety factors as such, just make sure it passes the test.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[EricatNordic]

Where in any regulations governing corporate product development are companies required to test thier prototypes for safety or suitability for a purpose?

This may exist somewhere officially, but I've never seen it before. Or is the obligation to be dilligent in testing supposed to come entirely from competitive pressure from consumers?

-Eric

 

[btrueblood]

"...is the obligation to be dilligent in testing supposed to come entirely from competitive pressure from consumers?"

That, and trial lawyers.

 

[GregLocock]

Well, in cars we have a whole stack of defined tests. Similarly electrical goods. In Braitain for many years the BSI kitemark was a stamp that showed that whatever the gear was it had passed appropriate tests (you can be a bit cycnical about that). Aircraft have to pass FAA tests.



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[dcasto]

There are lots of products out there that have engineers seals, uniform testing standards applied, ISO documentation, ect. Yet the US courts a lawyers still extract millions out companies (exempt or nonexempt) forwhen someone miss uses the product.

I think I'll get a law degree and an insurance licence, design a product as a PE, abuse the product and get a hang nail, then sue myself for 100 million dollars and retire somewhere.

 

[4Mengineering]

Holy cow, is eng-tips forum grand. Further proof that (as my pal Mat Service mechanical engineer at Wymann would say) engineers are the “most powerful mortals on the planet”…. Ok .. ,ok… maybe not the most powerful but surely some of the most sensible.

dcasto (Chemical) I could not agree with you more, and as for where to retire, why clearly you should follow JAE (Structural)’s lead and move to Italy.

I guess what it all boils down to is a question of liability .. if a company is willing to take on the risks of something done wrong (or as dcasto (Chemical) wisely points out we must also include the risks of something being used in an improper manner, in this the age where no one is willing to be responsible for their own actions) then no licence is required .. on your own, without a licence no INSURANCE company would insure you.

Is this a fair summary of the responses so far?

 

[IRstuff]

It goes both ways. A traditional rule was to consider what a reasonable person would do to a product. There are many precedents in law for this principle.

However, clearly, there are plenty of idjits to go around, and to not consider whether these idjits are going to abuse or misuse your product is simple insanity, particularly as there are an equal number of sharks trolling for such clients.

TTFN

FAQ731-376