Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Professional Licensure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would clarify 'successor engineer' rules, let experience-based candidates take FE exam later
Summary
House Bill 319 clarifies the successor-engineer definition and lets candidates who qualify by experience (15 years under a licensed engineer) take the Fundamentals of Engineering exam at any time, removing a timing restriction in current law. Supporters said the changes help experienced practitioners pursue licensure without lowering exam standards.
The committee heard House Bill 319, introduced by Representative Craig, which aims to refine parts of the engineering licensure law. The bill would clarify the definition and qualifications for a "successor engineer"—the engineer who takes over responsible charge of a project—and would permit candidates who qualify via experience (rather than a four‑year engineering degree) to take the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam outside the previously prescribed timeline.
Joe Jakubowski, who identified himself as the civil engineering council seat for the Delaware Association of Professional Engineers, explained that the first portion of the bill adjusts education- and experience-related language for successor engineers. The second portion updates the timeline for taking the FE exam so that experience-based candidates who do not have an accredited college degree may take the exam at a time that reflects their career path, rather than requiring the FE exam during or immediately after college.
Jakubowski said the proposal is intended to recognize alternative, verifiable career pathways (for example, 15 years of supervised experience) while preserving the examination requirements (FE and professional engineering exams). Committee members asked whether stakeholders had raised objections; the presenter said the association had solicited feedback through its newsletter and received limited pushback so far. There were no pre-registered public comments on HB319 during the hearing.
The hearing record shows presentation and discussion; no formal committee vote on HB319 was recorded at this session.
