FE Electrical Ethics Practice Problems

Answer: C) Report the matter to the licensing board and cooperate with its inquiry

The Model Rules on pp. 4-5 of the Handbook make the reporting duty explicit. Rule 240.15 A.8 states that licensees who have knowledge or reason to believe that any person or firm has violated the rules or laws applying to the practice of engineering shall report it to the board, may report it to appropriate legal authorities, and shall cooperate with the board as requested. The colleague's conduct is a violation on two counts: Rule 240.15 B.2 forbids affixing a seal to documents dealing with subject matter in which the licensee lacks competence, and the Model Law's grounds for discipline on pp. 9-10 list providing services outside the licensee's areas of competence. The obligation is therefore to report to the board; the rule uses shall, not may, for that step. Nothing prevents the engineer from also speaking to the colleague, and in practice a word may stop the practice sooner, but a private conversation does not discharge the duty the rule imposes, and silence would make the engineer party to the continuing risk to the public that improperly sealed designs create. The duty exists because licensure is self-regulating: the board can only act on what licensees bring to it.

Confront the colleague privately and insist that the sealing stop may be a decent first step, but the rule requires the report to the board whatever the colleague says.

Take no action, since the colleague's practice is not the engineer's responsibility is itself a breach of Rule A.8.

Resign from the firm to avoid any association with the misconduct removes the engineer without protecting the public or informing the board.

Answer: D) The employer, to whom the agreement assigns the rights to inventions made on the job

The Handbook's Patents section on p. 12 describes a patent as the grant of a property right to the inventor. A property right can be transferred, and that is what an assignment-of-inventions clause does: the engineer agrees in advance that inventions made within the scope of employment, or with the employer's resources, are assigned to the employer. The engineer remains the inventor, and is named as such on the application, since inventorship is a matter of fact that no contract can change, but the ownership of the patent, the right to exclude others and to license the invention, belongs to the company. Without such a clause the position is less clear-cut: an employee hired to invent may still owe the invention to the employer, while an invention made with company resources but outside the job may give the employer only a licence, and many states limit assignment clauses to inventions related to the employer's business. The clause removes those questions, which is why it is standard in engineering employment contracts, and an engineer who wants to keep rights to outside work should read it before signing. The Patent and Trademark Office examines patentability and records assignments; it does not decide who owns what.

The engineer alone, as the inventor named on the application confuses inventorship, which stays with the engineer, with ownership, which the clause transfers.

The engineer and the employer, sharing the rights equally as co-owners has no basis once the rights are assigned.

The Patent and Trademark Office, which decides ownership between them when it grants the patent misstates the office's role.

Answer: A) A designated radiation safety officer, personnel dosimetry and periodic surveys around the X-ray room

Radiation protection, listed under Safety in the exam specification on p. 481 of the Handbook, follows the hazard and risk framework of the Safety chapter's Safety and Prevention on p. 14: the hazard of ionizing radiation is inherent in the source, and the risk is controlled by limiting exposure, which the Handbook expresses as risk equals hazard times exposure. A 300 kVp radiographic unit produces penetrating X-rays whenever it is energized, so the regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the agreement states and OSHA require a documented program rather than any single precaution. Its required elements are a designated radiation safety officer responsible for the program, personnel dosimetry so that every exposed worker's dose is measured and kept within limits, periodic radiation surveys of the areas around the room to confirm that the shielding performs as designed and that dose rates outside are below the public limits, written operating and emergency procedures, and inspection and maintenance of the unit and its interlocks. Posting, calibration and protective clothing appear within the program, but none of them satisfies it alone: a sign does not measure dose, calibration concerns image quality more than protection, and aprons are for people who must be near the beam, not for a workforce that shielding and access control keep away from it.

A radiation warning sign on the door of the X-ray room, which by itself satisfies the rules is one posting requirement among many.

Annual calibration of the X-ray unit by its manufacturer, with no other measure required by the rules maintains the equipment without monitoring the people.

Lead aprons for every worker in the facility, whatever their distance from the X-ray unit or the beam is neither required nor useful for workers whom shielding already protects.

Answer: B) Decline to approve it and put the specific safety concerns to management in writing

Two of the public-obligation rules on p. 4 of the Handbook settle the first step. Rule 240.15 A.2 says licensees shall sign and seal only those documents that conform to accepted engineering standards and safeguard the public, so approving a design the engineer believes non-compliant is not open to the engineer at all. Rule A.3 then says that when their professional judgment is overruled where the public is endangered, licensees shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate. The sequence is built into that rule: the employer is notified first, which means declining the approval and stating the specific concerns in writing so that management has a clear record and the chance to correct the design; outside authorities come into play if the employer persists. Written notice matters because it fixes what the engineer knew and said, protects the engineer if the matter is later disputed, and often resolves the problem, since managers rarely insist once the code deficiency is set out plainly. Public disclosure is the last resort, not the first, and resignation neither corrects the design nor discharges the duty to notify.

Approve the design, since management holds final authority over engineering decisions violates Rule A.2 outright; authority over the business does not extend to the seal.

Contact a newspaper immediately so that the public learns of the safety problem skips the notification to the employer that Rule A.3 requires and forfeits the chance to fix the design quietly.

Resign from the position at once to avoid any personal liability for the installation leaves the unsafe design in place and the duty unmet.

Answer: A) Report it to the contracting officer or inspector general, outside the company, through the channels cleared for the project

The Model Rules on pp. 4-5 of the Handbook point outward once the employer has been told. Rule 240.15 A.3 requires licensees whose judgment is overruled where the public is endangered to notify their employer and such other authority as may be appropriate; Rule A.7 forbids practicing with any firm known to be engaged in fraudulent practices; and Rule A.8 requires reporting violations to the board and permits reporting to appropriate legal authorities. Falsified acceptance tests on a radar system endanger the people who will rely on it, and the internal channels have failed, so the appropriate authority is the customer's own oversight, the contracting officer or the inspector general, reached through the channels that the clearance allows. That path satisfies the ethical duty without breaking the law: classified information may be disclosed to officials cleared to receive it, and federal statutes protect contractor employees who report fraud that way. The non-disclosure agreement cannot lawfully bind the engineer to conceal fraud from the government it is being practiced on, but it does bind the engineer not to take the details to anyone uncleared. The board should be informed as well if licensees are involved.

Give the information to a journalist so that the public becomes aware of what the company falsified discloses classified material unlawfully and is not what Rule A.3's other authority means.

Take no further action, since the internal reporting channels have all been used and the matter now belongs to the company's management abandons the duty to the public when the employer has failed.

Resign from the company so as to avoid personal liability, and leave the matter with the company's management removes the engineer from the fraud without stopping it.