Awareness & education initiative
AMPP certification demonstrates competence. Licensure confers legal authority to practice. They are different instruments doing different work: no practice act surveyed here names AMPP or NACE certification as a route to authority to practice, and the statutes are silent on industry certification rather than accepting it.
What this is not about. This site concerns the design of cathodic protection and AC mitigation systems. It does not assert that CP testing, survey, monitoring, installation or the maintenance of existing systems requires a licensed engineer, and several states expressly say the opposite. If your work is field service rather than design, the exemptions section matters more than anything else here.
The CP industry built its credentialing system decades ago, at a time when corrosion control was not part of most engineering curricula. That system became a de facto substitute for licensure. It was never a legal one.
Cathodic protection controls corrosion on buried and submerged metal by driving the structure to a potential at which the corrosion reaction is suppressed. Designing a system means calculating the current required to do that — a function of the structure's surface area, the quality and expected degradation of its coating, and the polarization behavior of the metal in that soil — then designing an anode system capable of delivering it for a stated design life.
That work is quantitative throughout. Anode bed resistance-to-earth is calculated from soil resistivity, anode geometry, spacing and burial depth. Rectifier output is sized against total circuit resistance. Potential attenuation along a pipeline is a transmission-line problem. Interference from foreign structures and stray direct current has to be predicted and mitigated. The result is checked against published protection criteria, and federal regulation makes both the interference work and the criteria mandatory for regulated pipelines.
Interference. 49 CFR 192.473 obliges an operator whose system is subjected to stray currents to run a continuing program to minimize their detrimental effects. For onshore gas transmission it requires interference surveys, analysis of the cause, and a remedial plan once AC interference reaches 100 amperes per square meter.
Criteria, gas. 49 CFR 192.463(a) requires compliance with one or more of the applicable criteria in Appendix D to Part 192.
Criteria, hazardous liquid. 49 CFR 195.571 incorporates NACE SP0169 by reference — and an incorporation by reference freezes an edition. 49 CFR 195.3 incorporates NACE SP0169-2007, so it is that edition's paragraphs 6.2.2 through 6.2.5 and 6.3 that 195.571 points to. The standard has since been revised and the numbering moved: in the current NACE SP0169-2024, paragraph 6.2.1 carries the criteria for steel and cast iron, while 6.2.2, 6.2.3 and 6.2.4 are the criteria for aluminum, copper and stainless steel. Following the regulation's paragraph numbers into the current edition lands on the wrong metal.
Underneath the arithmetic is electrochemistry, and it constrains the design in both directions. The driving voltage available from a sacrificial anode comes from the galvanic relationship between anode and structure. Anode consumption rate and therefore system life follow from Faraday's law and the anode's measured efficiency. Measured potentials must be corrected for IR drop before they mean anything, and the polarization they represent is activation- and concentration-controlled behavior at the metal surface, not a fixed property. Soil chemistry moves the target: chlorides, sulfates, pH and sulfate-reducing bacteria all change what protection requires. Too little current leaves the structure corroding; too much accelerates cathodic disbondment of the coating and raises hydrogen damage as a failure mode of its own — a risk SP0169-2024 attaches not only to high-strength steel but to vintage piping with non-homogeneous metallurgy, hard spots and brittle welds, and for which it states there are no potential or current-density threshold limits to work to. Where induced AC is present the penalty is sharper still: NACE SP21424 paragraph 4.1 provides that AC corrosion requires the simultaneous co-existence of induced AC, excessive cathodic protection and small coating defects, so the CP level that would be merely wasteful on a quiet right of way becomes one of the three conditions for a corrosion mechanism on a shared one.
That is why no single discipline owns it. A CP design draws on chemical and metallurgical engineering for the corrosion mechanism, the coating system and the material's response including hydrogen damage, electrical engineering for the circuit and the rectifier, civil and geotechnical engineering for the soil regime, the earth return, the routing and the crossings, and mechanical engineering for the pipe itself, where stress and material selection meet. The deliverable is a drawing set, a specification, a calculation package and a report — the four items state practice acts name most often, and the same items the governing CP standard expects: SP0169-2024 heads its section 7.9 “Design Drawings and Specifications” and its section 8.2 “Construction Specifications.”
A pipeline sharing a corridor with high-voltage transmission lines is an unintentional secondary of a very large transformer. NACE SP0177 separates three coupling mechanisms. Induction, the magnetic field of the load current, acts continuously. Resistive coupling is primarily a fault condition: current discharged into the earth through a tower or substation ground raises the local earth potential, in the standard's words, “often to thousands of volts with respect to remote earth.” Capacitive coupling is chiefly a hazard to above-grade structures during construction, before a pipeline is lowered in and grounded.
They are not alternatives to one another, and a fault is not purely one of them. SP0177 states that coating stress voltages caused by inductive coupling near a short-circuit location “tend to reinforce those caused by resistive coupling; therefore, both factors must be considered,” and that the same is true for touch and step voltages. The two contributions act on different things — the conductive component on soil potential, the inductive component on the pipeline steel — and because the steel and the earth tend to opposite polarity, the standard puts the total coating stress voltage “on the same order as the sum of the magnitudes of the inductive and conductive components.” A fault case that models one mechanism and not the other understates the answer.
The consequences reach both the pipe and the public. Alternating-current corrosion occurs at coating defects. Step and touch potentials present a shock hazard to anyone contacting an appurtenance — a test station, a valve, a riser. And the coating itself is a dielectric with a finite rating: SP0177 puts the breakdown voltage of a typical isolating joint in the range of 3 kV and notes that arcing can occur well below that without dielectric breakdown. The coating is a separate case, and a more telling one: SP0177 treats coating stress voltage in its own paragraph and gives no threshold number for it at all, stating instead that limiting it should be a mitigation objective. There is no table to look the answer up in.
Designing mitigation means modeling that coupling, then sizing gradient control mats, mitigation wire and decoupling devices so that induced voltage and body-current exposure stay within the limits the governing standards set. NACE SP21424-2018 addresses AC corrosion; NACE SP0177-2026 addresses mitigation of AC and lightning effects and treats personnel safety at length. Both are published by AMPP, which kept the NACE designations.
Inputs. SP0177 lists the factors that govern the induced potential, and they are the design inputs: separation distance, the length of exposure and the power line current magnitude, conductor arrangement and the degree to which the phase currents balance, the shield wire type, the coating resistance of the structure, the grounding already present on it, and soil resistivity as a function of depth. It also lists changes in the arrangement of the conductors, or in the separation distance, which is where the potential peaks appear. Coating resistance is the counterintuitive one — a well-coated modern pipeline picks up a higher induced voltage than an old, leaky one, so the better asset is the more hazardous.
Limits. Under fault conditions the step and touch potential limits are calculated by the methods of IEEE Std 80, against body weight, surface layer resistivity and fault clearing time. Under steady-state load SP0177 carries a 15 V rms criterion — but it introduces the subject by saying that safe limits “must be determined by qualified personnel based on anticipated exposure conditions,” warns that the current flowing below 15 V may still be dangerous, and provides that a lower touch voltage shall be considered where children may contact the structure. It is a starting point for a judgment, not a number to look up.
The two disciplines are not separable. NACE SP0177-2026 provides that a cathodic protection system design “should include an evaluation to estimate the level of AC potentials and currents under normal conditions, fault conditions, and lightning surges.” Fault and lightning evaluation sits inside CP system design in the governing standard's own recommendation.
It touches the same span of disciplines as CP design and adds power systems to it: electrical for the induction, the earthing and the fault case, civil for the corridor, the soil structure and the buried plant, chemical and metallurgical for the AC corrosion mechanism at coating defects, and mechanical where appurtenances and materials are involved.
It is not only a pre-construction exercise. Mitigation is designed before a pipeline is built in an existing corridor, and just as often retrofitted to pipe already in the ground — when a new transmission line is routed alongside it, or when an existing line is reconductored and its load current rises. The induced voltage on a pipeline that was compliant when installed can change because something happened on the other side of the right of way.
These failure modes reach the public. AC corrosion perforates the wall and releases product. Hazardous voltage appears at the points where a person actually makes contact with the pipeline — test stations, valve sites, risers, insulating joints and exposed appurtenances — which are frequently in road allowances, on farmland and in residential easements, and are not restricted to trained personnel.
State practice acts do not ask what a discipline is called. They ask whether a service requires the application of engineering principles and the interpretation of engineering data, and whether it bears on public welfare or the safeguarding of life, health and property.
CP and AC mitigation design meet both limbs on their face. They apply electrochemistry, electrical circuit theory and transmission-line theory; they consume measured field data — soil resistivity, structure-to-earth potentials, current requirement tests, conductor geometry — and interpret it; and the systems they produce exist to prevent product releases and shock hazards on high-consequence infrastructure. A failed design is not an inconvenience.
That is the argument in one paragraph. The rest of this page is the jurisdiction-level evidence for it, and the provisions that cut against it.
Voluntary certifications demonstrating knowledge and field experience. Recognized industry-wide, and genuinely evidence of competence.
No state licensure statute treats AMPP certification as a license to practice engineering.
Issued by a state board. Grants legal authority to practice engineering, including CP system design, AC mitigation design, and corrosion control engineering.
The credential a state practice act requires for engineering practice, subject to the exemptions and temporary-permit routes recorded per jurisdiction below.
The NCEES Model Law is a drafting template offered to state legislatures. It is not enacted as such anywhere and has no force of law in any jurisdiction. It is quoted here because most state definitions track its formulation, and none adopts it uniformly. The operative text is always the state's own practice act.
Practice of Engineering—The term “Practice of Engineering,” as used in this Act, shall mean any service or creative work requiring engineering education, training, and experience in the application of engineering principles and the interpretation of engineering data to engineering activities, including the engineering design of buildings, structures, products, machines, processes, and systems, that potentially impact the health, safety, and welfare of the public. The services may include, but not be limited to, providing planning, studies, designs, design coordination, drawings, specifications, and other technical submissions; teaching engineering design courses; commissioning of engineered systems; performing surveying that is incidental to the practice of engineering; and reviewing construction or other design products for the purposes of monitoring compliance with drawings and specifications related to engineered works.
NCEES Model Law §110.20 A.3 · August 2025 edition
Seven of the enumerated services are the deliverables of a cathodic protection engagement: planning, studies, designs, design coordination, drawings, specifications, and other technical submissions. A CP system on a transmission pipeline is a system that potentially impacts the health, safety, and welfare of the public.
The Model Law is not law anywhere, so do not stop there. The argument has to work on an enacted statute, and it does. Alabama's, in the legislature's own words:
Any professional 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 that includes any one or more of the following: … Consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, design and design coordination, or commissioning of engineering works, products, and systems.
Ala. Code § 34-11-1(13)a — enacted text, quoted from the board's published law
Note what the test actually is. It is not a list of covered disciplines and it never mentions corrosion; it is a standard about the nature of the service — work whose adequate performance requires engineering education, training and experience — followed by examples. All 55 enacted definitions are published verbatim on the full reference page so that this can be checked against the text rather than taken from a model document.
49 CFR 192.453 requires corrosion control procedures, including CP system design, to be carried out by or under the direction of a person qualified in pipeline corrosion control methods. It sets a qualification standard and does not address state licensure.
40 CFR 280.12, in the federal underground storage tank program, defines a corrosion expert as a person qualified by professional education and related practical experience to engage in the practice of corrosion control on buried or submerged metal piping and tanks, who is either “accredited or certified as being qualified by the National Association of Corrosion Engineers” or a registered professional engineer whose certification or licensing includes education and experience in that field. The disjunction is real, and it is stated here plainly: for that program, NACE accreditation stands in the alternative to a professional engineering license.
What the provision does not do is confer authority to practice engineering. It sets who is acceptable to a federal tank program. An agency writing eligibility criteria for its own program does not license engineers, and 40 CFR 280.12 contains no language displacing state law. A corrosion expert under that definition performing work that is the practice of engineering in a given state still answers to that state's practice act.
Those provisions tell a federal program whom it will accept for that program's purposes. A state practice act is a separate requirement imposed by a separate sovereign. Where the work is the practice of engineering under state law, the answer is qualification and a PE.
Of the 55 statutory definitions collected here, 53 expressly reach planning or plans and 31 reach specifications. Almost all of them reach design itself. CP design drawings and cathodic protection specifications sit inside that language directly. Those counts are computed from the definitions themselves, and all 55 are published verbatim under their citations on the full reference page, so the count can be checked against the text rather than taken on trust.
State the other side of that plainly, because it cuts against the argument: of the 55 definitions, 0 use the word calculations and 2 use the word reports. The word cathodic appears in none of them. A practice act that enumerated deliverables and omitted yours would be a problem for this page — but that is not how they are written. They define the practice by the nature of the service, as work requiring engineering education, training and experience, and then give examples. The question a board asks is whether the service is of that nature, not whether the statute happens to name the document type or the discipline. The same asymmetry runs both ways: no practice act surveyed names cathodic protection as covered work, and none names it as exempt work either.
41 jurisdictions were confirmed to regulate offering to practice as a distinct act. There, the offer is the regulated conduct whether or not any engineering is subsequently performed.
Retaining an unlicensed firm changes the owner's position in three specific ways.
This survey did not examine insurance policies and makes no claim about how common any wording is. The point is narrower and checkable by you: professional liability is written around a defined scope of covered professional services, that definition is often tied to the insured's licensed practice, and some forms carry an express exclusion for services rendered without a license the law required. Whether yours does is a question for your broker and the policy in front of you, and it is worth asking before a claim rather than during one. Where no policy responds, a judgment may be uncollectible regardless of its merit. Confirm that a consultant carries coverage, and that the policy covers the work as actually performed.
49 CFR 192.453 places the obligation on the operator. Retaining a consultant does not move it. Where a state requires a licensed seal on engineering plans, specifications or reports, a deliverable without one does not satisfy that requirement, and the owner carries the deficiency.
A licensee is subject to a state board's rules of professional conduct, sealing requirements and disciplinary authority, on a public record that outlasts the engagement. A certificant is not. AMPP maintains a code of ethics and an ethics committee; that process is internal to the association, and this survey located no public register of disciplinary actions comparable to a state board's. Certification places the holder under no state board's rules of professional conduct. State boards do have jurisdiction over unlicensed individuals for unlicensed practice.
A seal is not competence in cathodic protection. Corrosion control is a narrow specialty that most engineering programs do not teach, and a licensed engineer who seals a CP or AC mitigation design outside their area of competence is in breach of the same board's rules of professional conduct that licensure brought them under. Ask both questions, not one: is this person authorized to practice in this state, and have they done this particular work before. A design that is sealed and wrong helps nobody, and the industry credentials this page distinguishes from licensure are real evidence on the second question.
Check this before changing anything. Most states carry an exemption for work performed by an operator's own employees on the operator's own property, and the survey recorded an exemption of one of four named kinds in 37 jurisdictions. Texas has gone further in published advisory opinions, treating an operator's own staff as exempt and their engineers as not required to seal. If you run in-house corrosion staff, your exposure may be materially smaller than this page's headline suggests — and over-complying costs money for nothing. Look up your jurisdiction, read the exemption by citation, and take advice on whether it reaches your facts before you restructure anything.
Everything the survey established for one jurisdiction, in one place: the practice act, the firm obligation, penalty exposure, exemptions, the board's complaint route, and what was left unresolved. The complete side-by-side tables are on the full reference page.
Complaint routes are published so that a reader can find their own board's process. Nothing here is legal advice, the authors are not attorneys, and this site takes no position on whether any particular firm or individual has violated any provision. Whether your identity is disclosed to the person or firm you name is governed by the statute of the jurisdiction you file in; read that entry before you file.
Unlicensed engineering practice is not only a licensing problem. Three distinct bodies of law can reach the same conduct, and they operate independently of one another.
Every one of the 55 practice acts collected here makes unlicensed practice a violation. Sanctions run from administrative fines and cease-and-desist orders through to criminal charges. 50 jurisdictions were confirmed to carry criminal penalties. Most grade unlicensed practice as a misdemeanor. The heaviest exposure recorded is West Virginia's, where a first offense is a misdemeanor and a second or subsequent offense is a felony carrying ten to twenty years — a repeat-offense provision, not the penalty for being caught once.
5 were established as carrying no criminal penalty: the sanction there is civil or administrative. Both answers are recorded per jurisdiction in the lookup above.
49 U.S.C. §60118(a)(1) requires a person owning or operating a pipeline facility to “comply with applicable safety standards prescribed under this chapter.” 49 CFR 192.453 is such a standard.
49 U.S.C. §60123(a) provides that a person “knowingly and willfully violating section… 60118(a)… or a regulation prescribed or order issued under this chapter shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.”
This exposure attaches to the operator and does not depend on any state practice act.
Where a failure causes injury or death, state criminal negligence and manslaughter doctrines may reach those who knowingly entrusted safety-critical engineering to people not authorized to perform it.
The threshold is high and deliberately so. Prosecutors must generally show awareness of the risk and a gross deviation from reasonable conduct, not ordinary negligence. Outcomes are intensely fact-specific and vary by state.
This site does not attempt to state the law of any jurisdiction on this point. If it is a live question for you, it is a question for your counsel and not for a website.
Penalty provisions are summarized from the cited statutes and are not legal advice. The authors are not attorneys. Whether any provision reaches a given set of facts is a question for counsel admitted in that jurisdiction.
Every exemption the survey recorded is published, including the ones that cut against the argument on this page.
This site concerns the design of cathodic protection and AC mitigation systems. It does not assert that CP testing, survey, monitoring, installation or the maintenance of existing systems requires a licensed engineer, and several states expressly say the opposite.
Virginia's definition ends by excluding “the service or maintenance of existing electrical or mechanical systems.” Washington's excludes “the work ordinarily performed by persons who operate or maintain machinery or equipment.” Where your work is field service rather than design, those provisions matter more than anything else on this page.
15 of the 53 jurisdictions with a recorded exemption carry one the survey found to reach third-party consultants, not merely an operator's own employees. California is the clearest: BPC 6747(b) extends the industrial exemption beyond the corporation's staff. If you are an outside consultant relying on an exemption, that subsection is the one to read. Read the opening words of 6747(a) with it, because they cut the other way: the exemption applies “except for those provisions that apply to civil engineers and civil engineering.” A California exemption argument has to survive that carve-out as well as satisfy subsection (b).
The maintenance exclusions above are real, and the boundary is genuinely difficult. It is not drawn by what the equipment is, how old it is, or whether a work order calls the job a repair. It is drawn by what the task requires you to produce.
Restoring a designed condition is maintenance. Establishing one is design. The practical test is whether the work forces a new number that somebody else will then rely on. Concretely, in this discipline:
The reason the test lands there is that the practice acts define practice by the nature of the service, not by the age of the asset. Where the task is answered by a procedure, a manufacturer's instruction or a like-for-like replacement, it is the work of a qualified technician and several states say so expressly. Where it is answered by an engineering judgment — sizing, predicting, and committing to a result that someone else will build to and the public will rely on — it is the application of engineering principles, and that is the language the statutes use.
The strongest counter-argument, stated properly. Several of these exclusions are written as occupational tests rather than task tests. Washington excludes “the work ordinarily performed by persons who operate or maintain machinery or equipment,” and Delaware and Georgia use similar language. Read as an occupational test, that describes a career corrosion technician's whole working life, and it is a serious answer rather than a loophole. The reply available to this page is a narrow one: the exclusions are written around operating and maintaining equipment, and a cathodic protection design is not the operation of equipment — it is the specification of a system that equipment will then be built to.
This is a line, not a wall, and jobs sit on both sides of it in a single day. A crew that measures, adjusts and reports is not practicing engineering. The same crew that concludes the rectifier is undersized and specifies a replacement has crossed over. Where a specific scope falls between those readings is a question for your counsel and your board, and this page does not pretend the question is settled.
The survey recorded an exemption of one of four named kinds — industrial, public-utility, in-house-employee or interstate-commerce — in 37 jurisdictions, and an exemption of some other kind in a further 16. The remaining 2 have no exemption provision recorded at all, which is a gap in the survey and not a finding that none exists. None of the 130 provisions recorded is specific to cathodic protection.
They differ in a way that decides cases. Some relocate the requirement, exempting an operator's own staff while still requiring the work to sit under a PE in responsible charge. In 43 of the 53 jurisdictions with a recorded exemption, the survey found an exemption carrying no such requirement. The burden of establishing an exemption rests on the party claiming it.
All 130 recorded provisions are listed on the full reference page. 110 are published with their statutory text; 20 are cited only, because the text was not transcribed, and are marked as such where they appear.
Texas is the only board whose published advisory opinions this survey found to touch the question directly. Boards that publish no opinion index, and boards whose index the survey did not reach, are not covered by that statement. 9 are reproduced below, favorable and adverse alike, from an index of 75. They are guidance rather than binding law, and the board can revoke them — it revoked Policy Advisory 37 in 2015.
Policy Advisory 25 was asked the question this site answers — what portions of corrosion protection system design require a professional engineer — and declined to answer it categorically, concluding that the question is answered by the existing statute and that determinations “would need to be considered on a case by case basis.” It is published here because it is the most on-point document that exists, not because it helps.
Policy Advisory 35 goes further against: the board held that a Texas licensed professional engineer is not required to design an oil well production casing string, resting on the private-entity exemption. Its reach is confined to work done by or for the operating entity itself; it does not extend to an outside consulting firm.
Question presented.
Question: “Issue a formal Policy Advisory Opinion regarding the ‘Industrial Exemption’ sections as they apply to consulting companies performing work from their own offices for ‘Industrial’ Clients. There is a prevalent interpretation in South Texas that engineering companies do not need to use PE’s nor seal work for ‘Industrial’ clients”.
Board response.
Response: This section of the TEPA allows full time employees and other personnel under the direct control of a private entity to perform engineering services exclusively for the private entity without the requirement to be licensed as professional engineers. For the context of the question above, a “consulting company” is required to be a Texas registered engineering firm and the “industrial client” is a client of that engineering firm. In answer to the requestor’s question, any engineering work provided by consulting companies for projects located in Texas and provided to an industrial client of the engineering firm must: 1) Be performed by a Texas licensed professional engineer (§ 1001.004) and; 2) The final version of that work must be sealed, signed, and dated by a Texas licensed professional engineer (§137.33). The phrase “other personnel under the direct supervision and control of the business entity” in §1001.057(a) is intended to allow the practice of private entities to hire workers (i.e. contract employees typically on site) from external sources to perform work exclusively for the private entity. These contract employees, who are not required to hold a Texas P.E. license, are under the full supervisory control of the private entity, but their salaries and benefits are provided by the external source. Professional staffing companies that provide contract workers do not need to be registered as Texas engineering firms since they are only providing contract workers and not offering engineering services.
EAOR #34 (Policy Advisory Opinion 34) · May 21, 2014 (document footer reads 'Version Date 5-21-14')
What it does not support.
Question presented.
Background: A policy advisory opinion request was originally submitted to the Policy Advisory Committee (Committee) asking if the Texas Board of Professional Engineers (TBPE) allowed the use of a National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) certified specialist to design corrosion protection systems for water storage tanks and pipelines as is allowed in the design of corrosion protection systems for petroleum and gas pipelines. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is the state agency charged with regulating the design, operation and maintenance of public water drinking systems. Their chapter 290 rules require that professional engineers submit water system design plans and for those plans to follow the design recommendations of the American Water Works Association (AWWA). TCEQ rules and the AWWA guidelines require that the engineer incorporate corrosion protection into the water system design. The original request would require the Committee to consider if TCEQ would accept design plans submitted by a NACE certified person for corrosion protection systems on a public water system, which is outside of the jurisdiction of the Committee. The Committee requested a re-statement of the policy advisory request to address only the engineering issues associated with corrosion protection systems. The revised request is, "What portions of corrosion protection system design require a professional engineer?"
Board response.
Analysis: It is common industry practice for engineers to hire corrosion protection consultants to submit proposals for corrosion protection systems. These consultants range from manufacturer representatives (not licensed engineers) to engineering firms that perform the system design. Ultimately, the water system design engineer would select the appropriate proposal and incorporate the corrosion protection system into the overall water distribution system design. If the engineer chose a system provided by a manufacturer, it would be the engineer’s responsibility to verify that the system is suitable and works with the overall design of the water system. An engineered system would be incorporated in the water system design with the responsibilities noted on the design drawings. The diverse nature of water system designs and possible solutions to corrosion issues would prevent the Committee from developing Board guidelines or stating exactly when an engineer would be required to design all corrosion protection systems. It is the position of the Committee that the question is answered by the existing statute and specific determinations of the engineering aspects of corrosion design would need to be considered on a case by case basis.
EAOR0025 (Policy Advisory Opinion 25) · February 25, 2010
What it does not support.
Question presented.
'We have a client that installed production casing into an oil and gas well located in Texas. The client selected which casing and connections to use for the production string based on the connection manufacturer's specifications and physical properties for its patented connections. The casing was a standard grade of casing with published API physical properties, which physical properties were also published by the connection manufacturer. Was the client required to have a Texas P.E. design the production casing string (not the component parts) under the Texas Board of Professional Engineers Rules Concerning the Practice of Engineering and Professional Engineering Licensure and the Texas Engineering Practice Act, Tex. Occ. Code Section 1001.001, et seq., specifically including Sections 1001.002-003, 1001.301, 1001.403, 1001.405, 1001.501-502, 1001.552, Board Rule 137.31-33, and Board Rule 139.35?'
Board response.
'After reviewing the question and sections of the Texas Engineering Practice Act and Board Rules cited in the above letter, it has been determined that licensure exemption in Sections 1001.057 (a) and (d) is most relevant in providing an answer. Based on Sections 1001.057 (a) and (d) of the Texas Engineering Practice Act: A Texas licensed professional engineer is not required to design the production casing string as described in the question above.'
Policy Advisory 35 (EAOR #35) · May 23, 2013 (Board met in open, public session and approved the response that day)
Bearing on cathodic protection. This is the strongest adverse authority of those reproduced here, but its damage is confined to in-house work. It confirms that Sec. 1001.057(d) treats oil and gas production and transportation as the operator's own 'product', so an operator's own employees get the exemption. It does not reach an outside CP consultant, because Sec. 1001.051 limits every Subchapter B exemption to 'a person who does not offer to the public to perform engineering services,' and because EAOR 46 and EAOR 52 say expressly that a hired outside entity does not qualify.
What it does not support.
Question presented.
From the opinion: 'The Texas Board of Professional Engineers has been asked to determine the engineering content of Water Tank Rehabilitation (WTR) projects, both public and private.' From the Board's index summary of the request: 'P.E. in tank evaluation/repair business requested P.A. defining engineering aspects of tank recoating and repair. Stated issues include lead containment, removal of metal structure during shot-blasting and structural repairs of corrosion damage.'
Board response.
'The Board has determined pursuant to the Texas Administrative Code, Title 22, Part 6, Chapter 131, Subchapter G, that all aspects of WTR are engineering and require the services of a Texas licensed professional engineer unless specifically exempted under the Texas Occupations Code, Chapter 1001, also known as the Texas Engineering Practice Act (Act).' The enumerated WTR activities include '1) Removing interior or exterior coating.' and '5) Coating specification. Note that the coating specified by the engineer for surface protection may subsequently receive an additional coating that will be applied for aesthetics (logos, town names, artwork, etc.) without the involvement of a licensed professional engineer.' On private facilities: 'Water tank rehabilitation (WTR) or construction projects that take place at facilities that are privately owned are required to be designed by licensed professional engineers.'
Policy Advisory 4 · Approved by the Policy Advisory Opinion Committee November 29, 2004; approved by the Texas Board of Professional Engineers and closed January 26, 2005
Bearing on cathodic protection. Useful by analogy only. It establishes that specifying surface protection on a steel water structure is engineering, and that this holds on privately owned facilities. It says nothing about cathodic protection, nothing about consultants, and nothing about firm registration or sealing.
What it does not support.
Question presented.
Scenario: 'A Parent Company X has several companies A, B, C, & D. Company A has a business engineering firm license in Texas, and other foreign companies B, C & D don't have a business engineering license in Texas. Companies B, C, & D aren't listed as subsidiary and/or branch offices on the Texas firm registration of Company A and are all independent and separate business entities under the overall parent company X.' Question 1: 'May companies B, C, & D offer or provide any consulting engineering services for company A in Texas if they aren't a subsidiary/branch offices of licensed company A?' Question 3: 'Is company A required to have a regular full-time licensed professional engineer employee licensed in Texas, perform or directly supervise all of the engineering for a project in Texas (i.e.; during the bidding process, conceptual-preliminary engineering and final engineering)?' Question 5: 'Do companies B, C & D who aren't listed as subsidiary and/or branch offices on the Texas firm registration of company A and are all independent and separate business entities under the overall parent company X required to have separate business engineering licenses to offer or provide engineering services in Texas?'
Board response.
Opening: 'After discussion, the Board determined that the hypothetical scenarios presented may require a case by case analysis depending on the specific circumstances. Nonetheless, the Board determined they are generally answered by the Texas Engineering Practice Act (Act), Board Rules (Rules), and Policy Advisory Opinions that define the registration requirements for an entity to practice engineering and the firm registration procedures.' Answer 1: 'This question is addressed in the Act Sec. 1001.405 (a) and (b). If the entity is not registered with the Board, it may not practice engineering. If companies B, C, & D were considered branches or subsidiaries of A, then they could be listed with the current firm registration requirements for Company A (Rule 135.3 (b)(4)) and the practice of engineering would be permitted.' Answer 3: 'This question is addressed in the Act (Sec. 1001.002 (2) and 1001.405 (e)(3)). Assuming Company A is not exempt per the Act Sec. 1001.051 - 1001.066, and the activity is considered the practice of engineering (Sec. 1001.003), then the engineer is required to be licensed in the State of Texas. The Act states the engineering services provided by a company must be personally performed or directly supervised by a professional engineer that is a regular full time employee of the company.' Answer 5: 'This question is answered by the Rules. If company B, C or D practice engineering in Texas then they need to be registered themselves or as a listed branch/subsidiary of a licensed firm or supervised by a firm and engineer that is licensed and registered with the Board (135.3 (b)(4) and 137.73 (a)(5)).'
Policy Advisory 41 (EAOR 41) · Board met in public session February 16, 2017; response letter dated February 17, 2017
Bearing on cathodic protection. Directly on point for the firm-credential argument, in both directions. It confirms that an entity practicing engineering in Texas must be registered, and that corporate affiliation with a registered firm is not enough. But it also states two lawful alternatives — listing as a branch/subsidiary on a registered firm's registration, and working under the direct supervision of a registered firm — so 'a firm offering CP design generally needs its own firm credential' should be stated as 'must be registered, or listed on, or directly supervised by, a registered firm.'
What it does not support.
Question presented.
'In the engineering and design of petrochemical facilities there are several drawings, specifications, and documents that contribute to the design of the piping systems. Many are produced by the Piping Engineers and Designers, however, some are created by the Process Engineers. 1. Process and Instrument Diagrams 2. Line List 3. Piping Material Specifications 4. Piping Stress Analysis Specification 5. Pipe Stress Analysis Reports 6. Piping Isometric Drawings Which of these documents should be sealed by a Professional Engineer?'
Board response.
'If a full-time employee of a petrochemical company, including piping or process engineers, works exclusively on that company's property or products and meets the other conditions in Sec. 1001.057, he or she could create any of the six listed documents without a license. If the company hired an outside entity or consultant, the exemption would not be applicable and any of those documents that constitute engineering, would be required to be done by a licensed Texas Professional Engineer.' 'It should also be noted that in accordance with Section 1001.401(d) of the Act shown below, if a licensed Texas professional engineer works for a private entity as described above and his or her engineering work is covered by Section 1001.057, that engineering work is not required to be sealed.' Conclusion: 'No new Policy Advisory Opinion will be developed for this request.'
Policy Advisory 46 (EAOR 46) · Board met in public session May 17, 2018; response letter dated May 17, 2018 (request dated March 25, 2018)
Bearing on cathodic protection. Second-strongest pro-site authority of those reproduced here.
What it does not support.
Question presented.
'Does the Texas Engineering Practice Act apply to engineering projects, specifically those associated with oil and gas exploration or production, performed within the State of Texas, for Texas based clients, if the project is to be used offshore in federal waters, which are not specifically in another state or in another country?'
Board response.
'Per Section 1001.401(b) of the Act, a seal is not required if the project is to be constructed or used in another state or country. While federal waters are technically not another state or country, they are also not part of the State of Texas. As such, projects to be used in federal waters, which fall outside of the State of Texas, would not require an engineer's seal.' 'Note, this response only applies to federal waters, outside of the jurisdiction of the State of Texas, as specified in the request. If the project were to be used in the territorial waters of the State of Texas, as defined by the Natural Resources Code, Chapter 11, an engineer's seal would be required unless eligible for an exemption as discussed in Subchapter B of the Act.' Conclusion: 'No new Policy Advisory Opinion will be developed for this request.'
Policy Advisory 47 (EAOR 47) · Board met in public session August 23, 2018; response letter dated August 23, 2018 (request dated June 26, 2018)
Bearing on cathodic protection. Mixed.
What it does not support.
Question presented.
'Can the owner of a petrochemical company building a facility in Texas waive the sealing requirement for engineering documents, prepared by an engineering company, to be used to build that facility?'
Board response.
'The Act does not contemplate waivers to sealing requirements, but does discuss exemptions under Subchapter B. An outside entity or consultant, hired by a petrochemical company to provide engineering services to the petrochemical company, would not qualify for any of the exemptions detailed in Subchapter B of the Act. Therefore, the individual providing the engineering services on behalf of the entity or consultant would need to be a licensed professional engineer and the outside entity or consultant would need to be a registered firm.' 'Therefore, a third-party engineer preparing engineering plans for a client or owner, including a petrochemical company, must seal the plans. It is not permissible for any client or owner to waive the sealing requirements for engineering documents and failure to seal engineering documents is a violation of the Act.' Conclusion: 'No new Policy Advisory Opinion will be developed for this request.'
Policy Advisory 52 (EAOR 52) · Board met in public session November 14, 2019; response letter dated November 15, 2019 (request dated July 29, 2019)
Bearing on cathodic protection. The strongest single authority in the set for the site's position. A CP or AC-mitigation consultant retained by an industrial or pipeline client in Texas must be a registered firm, the work must be done by a licensed PE, the documents must be sealed, and the client cannot waive that.
What it does not support.
Question presented.
'Does the exemption for Employees of Certain Utilities or Affiliates contained in the Texas Engineering Practice Act preclude a utility company from having to sign and seal engineering plans if sealed plans are requested by a public transportation agency?'
Board response.
'Section 1001.058 of the Act exempts certain employees of utilities from the need to be licensed. However, based on the Board's understanding of the request, the issue at hand is not directly related to Section 1001.058 of the Act, rather the negotiation of agreements between local jurisdictions and utility companies.' 'The Board does not have jurisdiction or authority over the content or format of agreements between jurisdictions responsible for Right of Way, Corridor, and Easement management and utility companies and does not involve itself in contract negotiations to which it is not a party. Based on the Board's understanding that an easement or lease is not already in place, it is the Board's opinion that a political subdivision, such as METRO, can include conditions in a lease as long as they are not less restrictive than the requirements in the Act or Board rules. As such, if METRO wishes to include a requirement of signed and sealed engineering plans in its agreement, this requirement would not conflict with the Act.' Conclusion: 'No new Policy Advisory Opinion will be developed for this request. The Board is basing its response on the details of this specific scenario, as detailed by the requestor and this response is only applicable to this request. This response shall not be expanded or applied to any other fact patterns.'
Policy Advisory 55 (EAOR 55) · Board met in public session May 27, 2021 and approved the response; response letter dated June 24, 2021 (request dated September 16, 2020). Draft published for a 30-day comment period in the Texas Register in March 2021; one supporting comment received.
Bearing on cathodic protection. Weaker than its title implies.
What it does not support.
Advisory opinions are guidance, not law. The board's complete index of policy advisory opinions is published by the Texas Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors.
The arguments actually made against this position, and what the statutes say about them.
“NACE and AMPP have certified CP people for decades. That is the standard.”
Industry acceptance does not override a state practice act. Certification demonstrates competence; it does not confer legal authority. A master electrician holds a state license and still cannot practice electrical engineering on the strength of it. A voluntary industry certification is a further step removed: it is not issued by the state at all.
“Federal rules only require a qualified person.”
They do, and that is a federal qualification standard. A state practice act is a separate requirement imposed by a separate sovereign. Meeting one does not satisfy the other.
“Nobody has ever been prosecuted for CP design without a PE.”
Enforcement is complaint-driven, and this survey found no body of CP-specific enforcement actions in the jurisdictions it examined. The absence of prosecution is evidence about complaint volume, not about what the statutes say.
“CP does not affect public safety the way structural engineering does.”
A failed CP system on a high-consequence pipeline causes corrosion failures and product releases. AC-induced corrosion at coating defects is a recognized transmission-pipeline failure mechanism and has its own standard, NACE SP21424, which sets numerical AC current density criteria for it. PHMSA regulates these systems because they bear on safety, and 49 CFR 192.473 requires a remedial plan once AC interference reaches 100 amperes per square meter.
“There are not enough PEs who understand CP.”
A real workforce problem, and a real constraint on scheduling and cost. It is not a legal exemption, and a practice act does not bend to the supply of people qualified under it. An owner who cannot find a licensed engineer for the work has a procurement problem to solve, not a requirement to waive.
“My designs work. Forty years, hundreds of systems, no failures.”
That record is worth something real, and nothing here disputes it. It is also not what a practice act regulates. These statutes govern authority to perform the work, not the quality of any particular output, and they are indifferent to a good outcome in the same way they are indifferent to a lucky one — a board asks whether the person was authorized, not whether the system held. That is a genuinely unsatisfying answer to a practitioner with a clean record, and it is still the answer. The competence a long record demonstrates is an argument for licensing that practitioner, not for exempting them.
“This is licensed engineers protecting their turf.”
Say the obvious part first: this site is published by a licensed engineer who competes for this work, and that is stated on it rather than buried. Weigh it accordingly. What that interest cannot change is the text of 55 practice acts, which is why every assertion here is published beside the provision it rests on, including the 130 exemptions that cut the other way. Practice acts were not written for corrosion or against it; the same requirements apply to every other engineering discipline, and none of them were drafted with this industry in mind.
“What about American Samoa?”
It is the one US jurisdiction with no engineering practice act and no engineering board, so it is excluded from the comparison rather than shown as a row of blanks. Established against the American Samoa Code Annotated Title 31, the 2023 Administrative Code, and the NCEES member-board directory, none of which contains an engineering licensure provision or board. A continuing-education vendor publishes contact details for an “American Samoa Board of Engineers”; the code, the regulations and the NCEES roster contain no such board. Absence of a provision does not disprove the listing, but nothing located corroborates it.