Relative to the definition of professional engineer.
HB 435 amends New Hampshire’s professional engineering law to narrow the statutory definition of the “practice of engineering.” Under current law, engineering includes professional services or creative work involving advanced knowledge of mathematics and physical sciences in areas such as consultation, planning, design, and oversight where public welfare, life, health, or property are at stake. The bill adds an explicit exclusion stating that this definition does not include professional services or creative work performed in the fields of information technology, information security, electronics, digital systems, or computing.
In practical terms, the bill is aimed at clarifying that work in these technology-related fields is not regulated as the practice of engineering for licensing purposes under RSA 310-A. The change would affect the scope of authority of the state’s professional engineer licensing framework and could reduce uncertainty for workers and employers in IT, cybersecurity, software, digital systems, and related technical fields. The act would take effect 60 days after passage.
HB 435 would amend RSA 310-A:2, III, the statute defining the “practice of engineering,” by carving out specific technology-related fields from the professional engineer licensing regime. This would limit the reach of state professional engineering regulation over information technology, information security, electronics, digital systems, and computing, while leaving the rest of the engineering definition intact. The bill could affect licensing enforcement, professional title use, and the boundary between engineering and technology occupations.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears neutral to supportive in tone. The bill is framed as a clarification measure rather than a major policy shift, suggesting an intent to resolve ambiguity and align the statute with modern technology occupations. No opposition or recorded controversy is available in the supplied context.
The main point of contention, if any, would likely be the boundary between traditional engineering and technology-related work. Supporters would view the bill as preventing overbroad application of engineering licensure to IT, cybersecurity, and computing professionals, while critics might worry that the exclusion could create gray areas for electronics, digital systems, or other technical work that overlaps with engineering practice. No specific opposing arguments, committee concerns, or vote splits were provided in the available record.