×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's
3

Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

(OP)
This change was proposed some time ago in our State Professional Engineering Journal and now is being proposed as a revision  CR-102 to the Revised Code of Washington RCW 34.05.320

The purpose given for this change is to address applicants that are seeking licensure in Washington State that are currently licensed in Non-U.S. jurisdiction. License mobility for eligible Canadian Professional Engineers will be promoted with adoption of the new rule.

It is inoteworthy that an engineer can obtain licensure in Canada without writing the Fundamentals of Engineering or Professional Engineering test (but is required to write a morals and ethics test regarding Intelectual property etc.)

It is possible for graduates of American Schools to obtain licensure in Canada, and with this proposed change it would be possible for those graduates to obtain Washington State license and then other state licenses by comity.  

I have written objections to this apparent breach of standard to the State Board, but they are proceeding full speed ahead, eager to collect more license fees.  

My personal experience includes working for Canadian Engineering firms, working for Canadian customers and working in Canada (I obtained a BC license).  It is very clear to anyone remotely familiar to this work that the cultures are different including the expectation of professional duty. There are different engineering and construction laws in Canada governing these fields that do not exist in Washington State.  I am not commenting on which is better; however to ignore the difference could be dangerous to the public and catastrophic to engineering careers. It is very easy to imagine that foreign engineers will submit unrealistic proposals based on a different expectation of service.  

I predict that our State Board will learn the different expectations with time, and then subject Washington State Engineers to new corrective regulations, in the meantime how many projects will get mis-funded or lost?

At this time, there is no restriction on foreign engineers, other than to pass the same PE and FE test that in state engineers are required to pass.     

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

Where is your state engineering society?  Are they asleep?

This erosion of the engineering profession is not in the best interest of the public.

Please call the National Society of Professional Engineers and implore them to get involved in your state.

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

(OP)
I am not aware of our State's Engineering Society, however the Board of Registration that is proposing this change, does seem to be asleep to the consequences.

I believe that NSPE has long been negotiating IN FAVOR of this comity arrangement.  On the surface it seems honorable, to increase the supply of engineers (and possible enrolment in NSPE).

However; when differences in licensing requirements and jurisdictional laws governing PE behaviour are fully understood; this clearly is a revision that could harm the public while cancelling 10 years of engineering careers.  

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

If NSPE is in favor of something this ludicrous, they need their collective head examined.  I can't see any good to come of this.  We don't need an influx of engineers...there are already too many of them out of work.  Couple that with the outsourcing to overseas cheap engineering, and it makes one wonder why anyone would want to become a "Professional Engineer".

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

Electic - you have committed a sin of omission in your original post.  You state

Quote (Electic):

It is inoteworthy that an engineer can obtain licensure in Canada without writing the Fundamentals of Engineering or Professional Engineering test (but is required to write a morals and ethics test regarding Intelectual property etc.)
yet you do not mention that there are significant additional requirements for licensure in Canada.
You seem to hold the FE Exam as some magic talisman that wards off unworthy engineering practitioners.  Why?  What's so magical about this test?  Wouldn't a 4-year degree at an accredited (Note for all - Canada's universities are all accredited by a national organization that represents the interests of the Provincial Professional Associations) university mean more to the quality of an engineer than passing a test?

Regarding "foreign" applicants - and Americans coming to Canada would be considered foreign - there are rigorous standards that are applied to evaluate the quality of the education.  In the event that the eduction quality cannot be accurately verified, then confirmatory exams are imposed.  I know several engineers who had to take these confirmatory exams.  After going through that process, more than one of my friends who wrote them told me that they wished that they had just written the FE Exam.

Ron - why is this an "erosion"?

I don't think that this has anything to do with the quantity of engineers.  These are individual who are already engineers that are probably already competing for work on your turf, just like you can compete for work on their turf.  In my opinion, this is making sure that the engineers are all "in-the-fold" and can be dealt with, in the event of a problem or ethical issue, internal to the Professional Engineering community.  Dealing with "outsiders" requires significant and expensive use of the legal system, but dealing with "insiders" can be done "internally".

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

A PE is expected to practice within his/her area of competence. An engineer first licensed in BC and then Washington by comity would be expected to get competent in the Washington expectations of professional duty.

And anyone submitting unrealistic proposals will be weeded out in the market.   

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

TGS4...the engineering profession in the US gets continually eroded in that many more pseudo-engineering endeavors are being called "engineering" without appropriate consideration to licensure for the public good.  Further, as the requirements to become licensed in the US are reduced , it puts the public at risk for more technical failures than already occur.

It is often difficult to convince a non-engineer how faulty their logic might be, when their technical background does not support the ability to understand fully the technical  concept.  When such people are allowed to function in the stead of qualified engineers, it becomes downright dangerous in many respects.

No, the FE and PE are not the "be all, end all" for engineers, but the typical US process is fairly good at weeding out the lesser qualified individuals.   When you couple graduation from an accredited university, passing two reasonably rigorous examinations, and spending four years in an internship, the expectation closer approximates reality, with the result being a reasonably qualified individual who can then spend the remainder of his or her career learning all that needs to be learned as an engineer.  The foundation is good at that point.

I know many Canadian engineers (P.Eng.).  I was a partner with a respected Canadian engineering firm for 5 years.  Perhaps the educational vetting process for engineering in Canada is much better than in the US, thus the feeling that there is no need for further technical proficiency testing.  I also know that of the P.Eng.'s that I've worked with, I would certainly rank them at least equivalent to the engineers I know who have gone through the US process.  In short, the processes are different, but the result is similar.  I think the concern here is that you can't pick  pieces and parts of the two systems and expect the same result that you would get with either of them independently.

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

(OP)
TGS4- my office is located within 20 miles of the Canadian border and for the past  29 years I have observed engineers (and contractors) mispercieving the border as an opportunity to make a quick buck. The present licensing standard to require the FE exam, somehow separates the sincere individuals from those that are not sincere, and as a requirement of all resident engineers; I am at a loss as to why non-residents should be exempt.

Most engineering schools in the USA are ABET accredited and yet every State still requires a FE test for licensure. To forgoe this requirement is an errosion, as there are many degreed engineers that do not pass this test.  The test may or may not be a magic talisman, but it does qualify who is sincere.

The laws governing engineering practice are different between the Province of BC and Washington State; are you suggesting the Laws of Washington State now be modified to accomodate the engineering challenges that have occured in BC?  

Stevenal: "anyone submitting unrealistic proposals will be weeded out in the market" is a naive statement.  I have worked with many Canadian P.Eng's, including being employed by a Canadian company doing business in Wa State; in general it requires about five years to these individuals to climatize to the expectations of Washington State.  Why be licensed at all if this is arbitrary?  I predict the 'weeding out' process to require similar 5 years of potentially destructive time.

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

Guess I'm naive. If I received an unrealistic proposal, I would reject it and move to the next. No five years of weeding is required, they fail to get the work right away.  

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

(OP)
stevenal, I am glad you are not naive, however; I have yet to find a customer that would turn down an engineering proposal that included only 80% of the cost of delivering an adequately complete the job.  I say that from the perspective of a small consultant often completing jobs for a small percentage of what large firms have proposed. I have been consulting 21 years so perhaps that customer will still come in the future.

Back on topic, what incentive or advantage to the public will be gained when the Washington State Board exempts foreigner engineers from the PE test that is required of resident engineers?   If the Foreign Engineers are equal, writing the same test shouldn't be an encumbrance.  

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

Electic - is it comity that you have an issue with?  it's a case of, if you recognize my credentials, then I will recognize yours.  Undoubtedly, in this global economy, there are instances where there are differences in achieving the same standard, so some form of compromise is required.

What would have been the consequences to your business if, in applying for your P.Eng., the review board had said "graduate from an accredited Canadian university, and then we'll talk"?  Obviously that's not reasonable.

On the other hand, if, as your mentioned in your original post, locals (Washingtonians) could be able to do an end-run around the FE Exam.  In my opinion, that's a bad consequence for everyone, and the boards should put a stop to that.

BTW, because the laws of every State/Province are different, I wholeheartedly support writing a laws/ethics exam in order to receive your P.E./P.Eng.  Am I correct that this is the PE Exam you speak of?

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

(OP)
TGS4: Some of my jargon is a bit mixed as the terms have changed since I wrote what was then called an EIT exam and PE exam.   Now the EIT exam is called the "fundamentals of engineering" or FE, to be in alignment with NCEES testing standards. That covers much of what is supposed to be learned in college, is typically written near when a student graduates, and in my opinion was more comprehensive than typical college class tests. When I wrote it, there were several highly regarded 'Straight A" students that did not pass the test.  

The PE test consists of technical problems and may only be written after accumulating four years of professional experience. Documenting the experience can be a challenge if one works where there are not many licensed engineers.  There are many engineering jobs that do not require a PE license in Washington State, often within larger organizations where work will be reviewed by others or where another PE will over see the work and take responsability.  I thought that passing the PE test demonstrated a broad understanding, and was some assurance to the public that the licensee was capable of taking responsability.  Some of this sounds a little pompous or exclusionary, but for the most part it has worked, I've been told that was the heritage of this system and I live by it.  

I have written the BC ethics exam and there may now be such requirement added to Washington State licensees.

I am not opposed to comity, but the requirements should be the same or very similar from the different jurisdictions.   BC construction law and cultural expectations are different than what exists in Washington State; we do not have stat decs, the requirement for PE's is not promoted by our state board and some of the methods of putting liens on construction for professional payment are different.  It is difficult to speak of this inequity as both jurisdictions are assuming the other side matches their expectations. That has not been my experience.

It is easy to visualize Washington State imposing more laws on PE's and performance to match the foreign engineers, and possibly losing comity with other states that do not agree with their exemption from testing for foreign engineers.     

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

Electic - thanks for your opinions.  It is good to hear from the folks "in the trenches" rather than just the rhetoric from the officials.

One advantage (and yes, I see it as an advantage) is that there is no such thing as an industrial exemption in Canada for licensure.  If you practice engineering, and call yourself an engineer, then you have to be licensed.  Full stop.  There are features in our monthly Professional Association magazine that describe the work that the Association does to keep non-practicing "engineers" out.

BTW, have you checked out what Texas has for comity with Canadian jurisdictions?  I have started to check that out, as it would be an advantage for me to be registered in Texas...

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

(OP)
TGS4: within Washington state there is also a state law requiring anyone practicing engineering to be licensed, or to be working under a licensed engineer. That has little practical effect on employment at large industries like Boeing or the power companies, as generally there is someone on board with a license.  

That law has a large effect on small consultants like myself; and that is where I believe the protections are intended, offering service to the public.  But at times the law can be toothless, in that the State Board will allow electricians or anyone else to do 'design work' providing they do not use the word 'engineering'.  There has been no effort to define engineering.

I believe that Texas stands alone and does not offer much by comity or through subscription to NCEES.  I would expect that if you are a licensed engineer in Canada, that you would need to document your experience according to Texas requirements, and then write the EIT and PE tests in Texas.  The tests may be written in succession and not require 4 years apart. This opinion is based on rumors and what the other states have required, and should be verified by checking the Texas website.    

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

TGS4, not quite accurate.  Ontario has both an industrial exemption clause and a C of A process which allows one P.Eng. to take responsibility for an essentially unlimited number of non-engineers or non-licensed folks.  The IE is narrowly written and basically unenforced, to the point that only 20-25% of eng grads here bother to go on to licensure.  I haven't read the BC or Alberta Acts so don't know their status for sure.

Canadian eng regulators approve university programs rather than making every applicant write a fundamentals exam prior to licensure.  If you didn't graduate from an approved Canadian program, you may get degree equivalency (if your uni and program are well known)or you may be required to write between one and ten 3-hour fundamentals exams.  In Ontario, about 70% of the foreign-trained engineers applying for licensure are given equivalency without writing any fundamentals exams.  All write the Profeesional Practice (ethics and law) exam which also functions as a de-facto test of written English aptitude.  As long as the experience AND mentorship/internship (Canadian experience under a P.Eng.)requirements remain in place, I'm personally OK with this system of granting licenses.

I'd like to see our Act better enforced against the unlicensed and non-engineers, though, but we engineers are too cheap to pay for it.  And too many of our engineering leaders profit directly from the status quo.

Comity with other jurisdictions is by negotiation.  There is no single Canadian license and no single American license because neither states nor provinces all agree, so comity/reciprocity agreements  ACROSS national borders is pleasantly surprising when it's possible.   

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

Electic,

Boeing is exempt from the Washington State Board of Registration under the industrial exemption. Whether or not we have PEs on staff (we do), the engineering that goes into airplanes is not subject to the Washington State laws on engineering. It's all in support of our own products.

Cedar Bluff Engineering
http://cedarbluffengineering.webs.com

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

(OP)
moltenmetal: thanks for the facts. I have no issue with the technical abilities of the Canadian Engineers I have worked amongst, and also I have no issue with the way they complete work to the cultural expectations within their areas.  Most American Engineering Schools are recognized by most Canadian provincial boards, that was something I checked carefully as I expected to work in Canada, that is where I was born.

The grey areas are:  what does the public and governing agencies expect in terms of job completion and thoroughness. I have been told that some Canadian jurisdictions require a listing of design professionals on all non-single family residential building permits; a practice that sometimes leads to 'rubber stamping'.  I  completed a few projects for a Canadian consultant and the expectation was that if the design worked on a previous project, I didn't need to re-calculate that. The effect of these cultural expectations, was that professional engineering fees on these projects would be but a fraction of the expectation in Washington State.

By the way, Washington State has been working with NSPE for the past 10 years to accomplish what is now about to happen; in the interest of 'globalization'. Neither the Washington State Board, or NSPE is able to show how this globalization will benefit the public.  Globalization includes engineers from far eastern countries that have little vested interest in our society and are willing to work for $15 per day. That sounds like a good reason to quit NSPE.

 

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

(OP)
photoengineer: Thanks for the comment. I previously worked at the power company where also, PE licensing was a non-issue.

This does affect independent consultants greatly.   

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

(OP)
Update on this proposed rule change.

We have made this known to about 50 engineers locally and without exception they are opposed to granting Comity to Foreign engineers that have not passed the PE test. This 100% result is opposite to the State Board's claim that the rule change is supported by a survey. In fact that State Board's survey failed to state the foreign engineers were untested.

There has been considerable comments rendered to our state Board. Traditionally these would be collected by the Executive Director, however, this fellow wittingly or not has a tradition of smoothing out the comments for the Board. He would not identify which comments from a hearing were given by foreign spokespeople, instead reporting that "support and opposition was approximately equal".

Due to lack of confidence in the process, we asked permission to speak at a general Board meeting. Upon hearing our comments the State Board has tabled the matter for a couple of months and will vote on the rule change in September.  

Since then we have determined conclusively that ABET accreditation (USA) is acceptable for Canadian Licensure, so the Board's claim that Canadian education is more rigorous (mirrored by some on this forum) is baseless.  This was previously known to some who have applied for licenses in both jurisdictions, ignored by the Board, and now verified (again).  It seems downright silly that our Board Executive Director would quote in the Seattle Times that foreign experience and education were more rigorous that domestic: what schools was he thinking about?

There has been a lot of double and inconsistent talk from our State Board, including that this will be used only in isolated cases of esteemed engineers (that is not in the wording), that it is heavily supported by survey (52% of 3000 members in a State with over 20,000 engineers is not heavy support, especially on a compromised survey) and that this will have little effect on anyone on either side of the border.

With a little deeper digging it now seems this is being proposed as a misunderstood requirement of "NAFTA" under some agreement called the Washington Accord.  I have not found a copy of the Washington Accord, though there is much commentary about it on the internet and a special website dedicated to this.  

Our small group is not opposed to foreign engineers working in Washington State, in fact that is already common practice with several dozen engineers crossing the border daily from the suburbs of Vancouver to work in NW Washington State; and many dozen Canadian Engineering companies also working in Washington State. We are opposed to the double standard that would automatically grant every foreign engineer Washington Licensure without have passed the same examinations that will continue to be required of residents. Many credentialed engineers from Canada, do not want the double standard either, as that could diminish their credibility.  

It is also interesting that this rule change is being heavily promoted and advocated amongst Canadians (i.e: APPEGA Magazine)in the interest of "license mobility", yet there is ZERO effort on the part of these individuals to open engineering opportunities up in Canada, where they might have some influence.  Engineering is presently constricted by Canadian Immigration, Customs and Licensing requirements, those are true trade "barriers" and not technical requirements.  It is overdue that all parties involved learn a bit more about the other side, and also distinguish between arbitrary international trade barriers and technical requirements.        

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

(OP)
Sorry you feel that way Greg.  

Or do you have a legitimate reason to add to this thread why foreign engineers desire to be exempted from the same technical test that is required of residents?    

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

Because that's what comity (legal reciprocity) means.

I look forward to your new interpretation of comity with respect to USA and Canadian driving licenses.

 

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies  http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

There is free trade in goods AND services between Canada and the US.  NO TARRIFS- no involvement from either US or Canadian Customs.

Free trade means that firms (whether those be corporations or sole proprietorships) are free to seek BUSINESS in either country without their fees being subject to tarrifs.  

Free trade does NOT permit citizens of one nation to become resident and take employment in the other without a work visa or other similar arrangement.  This is true in BOTH nations and is controlled by the Immigration/Naturalization departments in both countries.  It is EXTREMELY important to understand this distinction when crossing the border in either direction for work:  what matters is who pays your salary, NOT what kind of work is being done.

Electic's claim that:

  "Engineering is presently constricted by Canadian Immigration, Customs and Licensing requirements, those are true trade "barriers" and not technical requirements."  

is, in my own personal experience, a baseless statement, and would be so were it to be made in either direction across the Canada/US border.

It's totally inconsistent to argue that comity between particular Canadian provinces and particular US states is not warranted because the US tests are harder or more thorough (i.e. more protective of the public interest against incompetent practitioners), and then to argue that Canadian licensure requirements are mere "trade barriers" and "not technical requirements".  Both countries have licensure rules intended to protect their respective publics against incompetent or unscrupulous practitioners- we merely differ in what rules we set and how we evaluate competence.  

I'm not saying that licensure processes can't act as a proxy for protectionism- there certainly ARE jurisdictions in the world where that is true- but it's a stretch to imagine that Canada's comparatively weak licensure system acts in any meaningful way in restraint of trade with respect to the US.

  

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

(OP)
Moltenmetal;

I'm not saying the US tests are harder or more thorough; I am correctly stating the fact that there is no Canadian test.   

Province of Alberta now offers the FE and PE tests to NCEES standard for those engineers seeking licensure in the United States, but that is not a requirement for the provincial licenses.

I never said that "Canada's comparatively weak licensure system" (your words!) acts as a trade restriction; customs and immigration does that.  Before you declare there is no trade restriction going north you should try to enter Canada as an Engineer seeking projects: not possible. And also, in the provinces I checked, one cannot obtain a real license without citizenship or residency, only a provisional licensee type of thing.  

If someone has passed the  FE and PE test, that is a common basis for comity in States.  

Here is the bottom line: Canada hands out an engineering license to everyone that apply, on basis of graduating from a recognized engineering school. That includes schools from around the world. That also includes ABET accredited US schools, so the claim that somehow Canadian education standards are more rigorous is not correct.  On basis of this untested Canadian license (comparatively weak) they are now seeking parity with US licensure which requires passing the test.  It does not take a mental giant to notice the inequity in this proposal.  

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

"you should try to enter Canada as an Engineer seeking projects: not possible"

If this is your experience, I suggest that you are approaching the border crossing with the wrong mindset.  You need to figure out what the rules are, and are not, before you attempt to cross a national border for commercial purposes.

If you represent yourself in such a way which leaves ANY doubt in the mind of the immigration folks about your desire to seek EMPLOYMENT work without a work visa, you can and SHOULD expect to be turned back and refused entry.  Doesn't matter WHICH direction you're crossing that border on that point, trust me!  If you however are going to meet potential clients to discuss projects that your firm might be engaged to carry out, you will not be denied entry on that basis by either country.

To correct your statement:  there ARE Canadian tests- we just choose to accredit schools and programs and review experience rather than making every single applicant sit the tests.  It is an efficient licensure system which represents far less of an arbitrary barrier to licensure for engineers trained outside Canada, including those educated in the US, than does your system- that issue is pretty important to us as a nation primarily composed of immigrants.  Some may argue that our system is also less protective of the public safety than is your system.  I'd argue that the general industrial EXEMPTION your nation offers to most people who work as engineers in most states is far more worrisome from that perspective, but we can agree to disagree on that point.

Comity/reciprocity arrangements are needed to remove the residency requirement which is usually part of the governing legislation on BOTH sides of the border.  Those residency requirements ARE understandable, since it is tough for a provincial/state body to reach across a national border to discipline a licensee in any meaningful way.  You cannot reasonably expect one state or province to remove that requirement unilaterally- they will only do it reciprocally.  When the systems of licensure between the two jurisdictions are not identical, there will always be one side feeling that it's coming out the loser.

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

(OP)
MoltenMetal,

what you are overlooking, like many Canadians, is that to be licensed in the United States generally requires

1) Graduation from an ABET accredited engineering school. This is not a lightweight accreditation process and in fact (go ahead and verify this) all ABET accredited US schools qualify for licensure within the Western Provinces. I know this because I have done this.
 
2) Documentation of four years professional experience. Onc again this in not a lighweight accreditation process and it typically may require more years of work to accumulate the required 4 years of experience. Because we do not hand out engineering licenses Carte Blache, it is a real consideration for young engineers to select an employer where proper experience can be accumulated to the satisfaction of the State Board.  Once again I have completed this on both sides of the border and most Canadians I've spoken to are not aware the Americans have this standard.

3) only then, in the US does one qualify to sit for the PE exam. Passing rates are somewhere around 50-60%. Many American Engineers do not pursue licensure, in fact only 15% of electrical engineers in Washington State are licensed because they are not offering "engineering" services to the public.

May Canadians make a big deal about the "industry exception" not understanding how this works.  Nobody in the United States is allowed to offer engineering services to the public without a PE license, and the Industry Exception is used at locations like power companies and aircraft manufacturers where the industry sets the standard and folks are not working independently for the public. I know from personal experience the same situation exists in Canada, wherein undocumented designers and engineers DO work inside of larger corporations where their work is reviewed by others.  If you think only licensed P.Eng's are drawing up subdivisions for the Canadian power companies, you are delusional; however, at some point the power company will be responsible for its product and that might involve review by a P.Eng. That is exactly how the oft quoted and rarely understood "industrial Exception" works

Having obtained a P.Eng license for the province of BC and living 20 miles from the border, I have tried to obtain work across the border. This is not hypothetical, it is real world experience and unless I have a letter of agreement from the B.C. Government (previous employer had this, I am not certain who originated it) I WILL NOT BE ALLOWED ACCESS INTO THE COUNTRY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES.    That is in stark contrast to the several dozen engineers I personally know that are commuting to Washington State. These engineers have also had to obtain work permits, green cards or some other authorization, but generally that is available.

You need to understand, there is no residency requirement to obtain licensure in the United States; so that part of it already exists. It is easy to obtain a work permit as a Canadian Engineer physically working in the US, and in fact much work is done in Canada on American projects: no permit required that I am aware of: that part of it already exists (going south only)also.

I simply do not believe in a double standard, wherein one group of engineers can exempt themselves from a technical test based on country of origin; while the resident engineers remain burdened by the test. Why bother with the test at all?     

   

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

"It is inoteworthy that an engineer can obtain licensure in Canada without writing the Fundamentals of Engineering or Professional Engineering test...It is possible for graduates of American Schools to obtain licensure in Canada, and with this proposed change it would be possible for those graduates to obtain Washington State license and then other state licenses by comity."

One misconception I would like to point out is that comity is not usually applied blindly, but is used where the other state has equivalent requirements.  For example, back when I got my Texas license, Texas did not require either test (and was the only state that didn't at the time).  However, in order to get a license in any other state, I had to take the tests.  As applied to the original post, I think the concern would be entirely for the state of Washington, and would not be an issue for other states, who would still require the tests prior to licensing Washington PE's by comity.

At one time, Texas had some information on comity licensing under NAFTA, I'm not sure if it's still there or not.

Personally, I'm not opposed to the tests or altogether in favor of them, either.  The main drawback I see is that the tests assume you are pigeonholed into certain slots.  If not, they simply don't relate to what you do, and are relatively pointless.  It's like requiring a brain surgeon to take a plumbing test before practicing.  Presumably any good brain surgeon could study up on the subject and pass the test, but it seems a poor way to ensure compentency in brain surgery.

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

"the tests assume you are pigeonholed into certain slots.  If not, they simply don't relate to what you do, and are relatively pointless."

Amen.  There is no test to match my particular pigeonhole.  Any test I take is nothing more than a hoop to jump through.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies:  FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

(OP)
I agree with what both HgTX and JStephen have posted.  The test is a hoop to jump through.  Though I would add that it has been a somewhat effective hoop (not perfect) to the extent that it requires preparation, sincerity and respect for due process.  I think verifying these attributes is more appropriate for foreign engineers that might originate in different cultures, than for resident engineers.
 
Also, to remove this requirement only from foreign engineers could affect domestic engineers if comity is lost to other jurisdictions that require testing. For example, the State of Oregon is opposed to granting comity to foreign engineers without testing, so it is plausible Oregon would withdraw comity agreements from Washington State, testing is not required for all engineers in Washington.

To put a real life example to this, a friend of mine with a Masters Degree in Electrical Engineering recently retired, having never pursued or obtaining his PE license.  This fellow also had his Journeyman Electrician license maintained at all times and also had his Master Electrician license. He has forgotten more about industrial power systems than most engineers will ever know.

For his entire career, this fellow never offered engineering to the public, nor did he work on public projects.  He did not appreciate the pomp and formality associated with engineering licenses and said many times that his most satisfying and challenging engineering projects were some that he started to work on as an electrician. At one time he owned a large contracting business on the North Slope of Alaska, and worked much of his career as an independent "designer" on paper mill, refinery and saw mill sites.  

It is ludicrous for our State Board to endorse untested foreign engineers, as being better qualified than folks like this friend of mine.  



  

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

I just renewed my Colorado license, and they had a certificate about legal residency.  I didn't look at ALL the details, but it looks like if you are not in the country in the first place, it is not applicable to you, and I would think that is the intent elsewhere.  IE, they are trying to root out illegal aliens, not to keep foreignors from being licensed.

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

A local engineer in Bellingham is starting a campaign to combat this.  Got an email from him today.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto:  KISS
Motivation:  Don't ask

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

(OP)
Msquared48

the fellow you got the e-mail from is working with me on this. We have received nearly unanimous support for our opposition, including from legitimate Canadian engineers.  Most engineers we have contacted are initially not aware of the proposed rule change and after we convince them it is real, are disappointed in our State Board.

I hope you sign his petition, and also consider forwarding the info to as many engineers and other interested parties as possible.

       

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

Small World...

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto:  KISS
Motivation:  Don't ask

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

(OP)
This is an update:

on Friday September 24th the Washington State Board by split decision voted against the proposed rule change granting comity to foreign engineers that have not passed the PE or EIT examinations.  

At this time Canadian Engineers may work in the State of Washington (pending immigration compliance) under the same provision granted to resident engineers, as either an unlicensed engineer under another engineer's suprevision, or by obtaining a Washington State license by passing the examinations.

The Board stated that they felt this was 'not the time' to make such a rule change in light of overwhelming opposition to the rule change.  Over 900 engineers had signed a petition or wrote letters of opposition; some of the most compelling letters were from Canadian Engineers that had already obtain American licensure and have lived according to the differing engineering expectations.  ASCE section 8 (14,000 members) opposed the rule change, and approximately 16 local legislators and State Senators wrote letters of opposition.  There is a draft revision to Washintong State Code drafted by one of our legislators that prohibits licensure by comity to regions with less rigorous standards including specific wording about the tests, and there were several threats of lawsuit if the measure had passed.  

It is interesting how many half truths were presented by Canadian interests seeking this rule change. Both the Alberta and British Columbia Associations of professional engineers have been negotiationg such 'comity' for many years (over 12 years).    

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

I think that was a wise decision by the Washington State board.
 

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

Electic - thanks for the update.

As an APEGGA member, I am very interested in your comment

Quote (Electic):

It is interesting how many half truths were presented by Canadian interests seeking this rule change. Both the Alberta and British Columbia Associations of professional engineers have been negotiationg such 'comity' for many years (over 12 years).

Please be so kind as to let us know what these "half-truths" are.  If my association is engaging in "half-truths", I will be most unkind to those responsible.

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

Electic...thanks for the update and for pushing hard against this in your state.  It will come around again.  I was encouraged to see the support for not allowing the change.

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

(OP)
TGS4; Many times these were individual statements, not representing the Canadian Associations, however some originate from high ranking members:

1) There is a great Canadian misunderstanding of licensed v. non-licensed engineering work completed in the U.S. Having worked on both sides of the border I can say the rules really are quite similar.

2) Canadian engineering education is more tightly controlled because there are only a few engineering schools in Canada.  

3) Canadian engineering education is superior because only licensed PE's can teach.

4) Canadian Engineers are more responsible.

5) NCEES model legislation has authority above State legislation.

6) Comity without testing is a requirement of NAFTA.

There are many Canadian Engineers that have obtained licensure within Washington State by passing the same tests as required of resident engineers. Some of the most compelling letters of opposition to the proposed comity without testing, originated from these fellows who have lived with and understand the differences of both systems.   


 

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

I have a question relating to this thread:

Is reciprosity possible in Canada for an engineer from the states? I always understood that you had to be either
1) a resident of Canada
2) a non-resident, but anything that you design has to be also stamped by a resident engineer.

Does anyone know if there is a way around these requirements?

FWIW, I'm all about national pride in regards to engineering prowess, but I beleive that both systems (Canada and the U.S.) have inherent strengths and weaknesses. I doubt either country produces consistently better/ more responsible/ smarter engineers than the other.

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

(OP)
VESE: there is good information about the requirements of most (if not all; we didn't check) provincial Associations on their respective web sites. Province of BC offers something like 6 different grades of licensure based on citizenship or residency status and other qualifications. I suspect that at least you could obtain a temporary, limited license that would allow you to do the work and stamp your drawings.

The basis for obtaining these licenses is graduation from an accredited school, 4 years of documented professional experience, and writing a morals and ethics test (intellectual property and copyright law etc.).  When I did it, the morals and ethics test could be sent to you and proctored by another PE.

The bigger challenge would be to understand the construction deliverables, how work is awarded, and requirements from the authority having jurisdiction. It might be best to work with a resident engineer to understand the local culture best.       

RE: Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's

Recieved Today  <%^)]

"Engineers of Washington State,

Thank you for your help in stopping WAC 196-13! On Friday September 24th,
the Board voted 5 to 2 against the proposed WAC 196-13, which would have
allowed Canadian/Foreign engineers to become licensed in WA without passing
the FE and PE. (See the attached from the Seattle Times).

At the vote, Board Members stated that they were impressed with the
significant opposition WAC 196-13 had received, and acknowledged their own
failure to gain consensus with the membership (licensed P.E.'s). There were
over 15 engineers attending the Board Meeting in opposition to WAC 196-13,
and hard copies were submitted of  920 petitions signed by WA PEs, as well
as letters of opposition from 18 State Legislators. I want to thank you for
your support in our efforts, which was instrumental in stopping this had
rule change.

Despite this positive result, there were troubling indications that the
Board may go forward with another tact. Board Members, as opposed to doing
away with the proposed changes entirely, stated at the meeting that they
felt it was "not the proper time" to make such a rule change. It is
concerning that the Board, and especially the Board's Executive Director,
have yet to address or show an understanding of the concerns expressed by WA
P.E.'s, and have instead done much to dismiss and discredit those concerns.
At the Board Meeting, Board Director Chun Lau specifically stated that the
Board's Mobility Committee would remain active. Thus, we fear it is likely
that this rule change may return.

For this reason, State Representative Kelli Linville has been working to
draft legislation that will explicitly require engineers from foreign
jurisdictions to either pass the FE and PE Exams in Washington, or
demonstrate that they have taken an examination of equal stature.  Such
legislation would effectively prevent the Board from moving forward in the
future with another rule change that would allow the skipping of the FE and
PE Exams. Our combined efforts have ensured that, at least on this occasion,
the integrity of the PE System has been protected!"

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources