S0706, the “Engineering Advancement and Public Safety Act,” amends South Carolina’s engineer licensure statute to create an additional pathway for becoming certified and licensed as a professional engineer based on experience rather than only formal engineering degrees. Under the bill, an applicant may qualify for engineer-in-training certification by showing eight years of progressive engineering experience after high school and passing the FE exam, even without meeting the degree-based education requirements. The bill also preserves the existing degree-based routes and requires applicants to pass a new Public Safety and Professional Ethics Examination before licensure.
For professional engineer licensure, the bill retains the current education-and-experience pathways but adds a new experience-based route for individuals who complete the Fundamentals of Engineering exam and then accumulate at least twelve years of progressive engineering experience, subject to board review and the other licensure requirements. The bill also clarifies how the Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Surveyors evaluates experience, including limits on counting pre-graduation experience, foreign experience, graduate study, land surveying, and university-level teaching. It takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
Impact
The bill would amend Section 40-22-220 of the South Carolina Code, expanding the statutory criteria the engineering board may use to certify engineer-in-training applicants and license professional engineers. Its main legal effect is to authorize licensure based on verified progressive engineering experience and national examinations, reducing the extent to which a formal engineering degree is required while keeping board oversight, character requirements, and exam standards in place. It would affect applicants seeking engineer-in-training certification, professional engineer licensure, and the Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Surveyors, which would continue to review qualifications and verify experience.
Sentiment
The bill’s stated purpose and structure suggest generally favorable sentiment toward expanding access to the profession while maintaining public safety safeguards. The findings in the bill emphasize fairness, workforce development, and opening opportunities for experienced workers who lack degrees, alongside stronger ethics and safety testing. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no additional evidence of opposition or support from the legislative process beyond the bill’s own framing.
Contention
The central point of contention is the shift away from a degree-centered licensure model toward one that recognizes experience as an alternative qualification. Supporters would likely view this as a way to remove barriers for skilled, nondegreed workers and address engineering workforce shortages, while critics may worry that loosening educational requirements could weaken professional standards or public protection. The bill attempts to address that concern by preserving board review, requiring FE and PE examinations, adding a Public Safety and Professional Ethics Examination, and limiting how experience may be counted.