Senate EDA hears sharp opposition to proposal carving out IT, electronics from professional-engineer rules

A Senate committee hearing on House Bill 435 on Wednesday drew lengthy testimony from licensed engineers and trade groups who said the bill’s broad carve-out could undermine public safety and create legal uncertainty.

Representative Carol Maguire, cosponsor and chair of House EDA in the House, introduced the bill as a clarification that “software engineering … does not necessarily require a professional engineer’s seal” in many applications and that the statute should not treat software the same as traditional licensed engineering work. “This exempts from the definition of professional engineer… basically software engineering, which is not covered by the exams for professional engineer,” Maguire said.

Supporters framed HB 435 as a housekeeping change to reflect modern practice. “The software itself does not necessarily require a professional engineer’s result,” Maguire said. But witnesses representing engineering organizations opposed the language as written.

Chris Malevey, a licensed professional engineer and a director of the American Council of Engineering Companies of New Hampshire, told the committee: “Although the language change may seem insubstantial, we are concerned that it could potentially diminish safeguards in the practice of professional engineering.” He said there are licensure pathways and exams for computer and electronics engineering and that professionals in those fields can be, and are, licensed.

Chuck Gregory, president of the New Hampshire Society of Professional Engineers, echoed that concern and warned the proposal would “create unintended consequences.” “As drafted, the bill excludes ‘any professional service or creative work performed in the fields of information technology, information security, electronics, digital systems, or computing,’” Gregory said. “Each of the fields listed includes areas of practice that are currently and appropriately within the scope of Professional Engineering licensure.”

Committee members asked detailed questions about how engineering licensure works, when a practitioner is permitted to sign and seal plans, and whether current licensing practice already covers work cited by the opponents. Senators pressed both sides about whether a carve-out would put New Hampshire out of alignment with national licensing norms and whether the change would remove accountability for work that affects public health and safety.

Representative McFarland, one of the bill’s sponsors, said he sought clarity and that his intent was not to reduce safeguards for projects that clearly affect public safety. “This is not about some level of education, some level of achievement,” McFarland said. He said conversations with professional organizations had not produced agreed alternative language.

After testimony and questions, the committee did not advance the bill and placed it on hold for further work.

The hearing illustrated a persistent tension as state licensing law confronts newer fields such as information security and software design: industry groups and some sponsors seek clearer, narrower statutes, while licensure boards and professional societies emphasize the role of licensing where systems have public-safety implications.

Looking ahead, committee members signaled interest in refining statutory language or adding specific clarifying provisions rather than adopting the broad exclusion in HB 435 as written. No formal vote on the bill occurred during the hearing.