Practising Engineering in USA States 17

[stanier]

Has the requirement for bieng licensed in a state ever been challenged as being in restraint of free trade?

Does the free trade agreements with Canada, mexico, Australia allow for engineers considered professional in their homelands to work without registration in the state?

I am a consultant working out of Sydney Australia and undertake work all over the world except as yet in the USA. I am primarily engaged by consultants as a sub consultant. Is it possible for me to work on USA projects? It would be a nonsense if I did my work but some other engineer had to sign off on it because he had a license and I didnt. The only relelvance that engineer may have to my speciality is knowing my email address and phone number.

 

[stanier]

Sorry I was forgetting it is the "United" "States" of America where the states do their own thing rather than one country.

Please explain one thing then. If there were say five engineers in the world who were capable of designing a new technological advanced reactor needed for a process. If the process was to be part of a plant in a particvular state in the USA and none of the five would bother getting their PE license would that stop the plant being built? Or would a licensed PE sign off on the job even though he didnt have the expertise?

 

[Ashereng]

Or would a licensed PE sign off on the job even though he didnt have the expertise?

Now that would be unethical.


The engineering stamp is required on an engineering drawing. If this reactor was built in the home country of the engineer, and then shipped to the US, the reactor can still be imported.

You don't need an engineering drawing to be stamped by a PE in the states if you are importing a thing.

 

[Ashereng]

stanier,

In Canada, you need a PE license per "province" to practice as a professional engineer, since the engineering acts are provincial acts.

To be a PE in Ontario, you need to be a PEO member, in Alberta, you need to be an APEGGA member, etc.

 

[GregLocock]

EddyC - then the USA should not sign agreements that it knows it cannot honour. The reciprocity right gives an American engineer the right to practice in any Australian state. So where's the reciprocity?

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[imagitec]

I wrote:

The "US" signatory is the "Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology"

Stanier wrote, I believe in response:

Sorry I was forgetting it is the "United" "States" of America where the states do their own thing rather than one country.

I didn't put "US" in quotes to emphasize ABET as a federal versus state organization. In fact, it is neither; that's why I put it in quotes. The Washington Accord is not an agreement between the USA and Australia. It's an agreement between ABET and the Institution of Engineers, Australia (among others). I don't know about its foreign counterparts, but ABET is not a part of either the federal or the state governments. So not only does the Washington Accord not stipulate that each country recognize the other's engineering licenses, it is not an agreement between countries.

That said, if the US tried to sign away the state's rights to regulate engineering, it would surely be challenged in court as an unconstitutional by NSPE (the National Society of Professional Engineers) and others. The Constitution grants the federal government very limited powers; all others belong to the states by default. The Constitution is a living document - the words largely remain the same, but the interpretation constantly changes - so the outcome would be unknown. But I suspect the federal government would lose.

Rob Campbell, PE
Finite Monkeys -

http://www.livejournal.com/users/robcampbell

 

[imagitec]

Greg wrote:

EddyC - then the USA should not sign agreements that it knows it cannot honour. The reciprocity right gives an American engineer the right to practice in any Australian state. So where's the reciprocity?

Please read my last couple of responses above. The US has signed no such agreement, and the agreement that Stanier seems to be referring to says no such thing.

Rob Campbell, PE
Finite Monkeys -

http://www.livejournal.com/users/robcampbell

 

[imagitec]

Actually, the Washington Accord does allow engineers to "practice" engineering in a limited way. From the second bullet on their site:

Establishing that graduates of programs accredited by the accreditation organizations of each member nation are prepared to practice engineering at the entry level.

Entry level means you can't stamp drawings. Domestic engineers can't, and foreign engineers can't. But because of the Accord, foreign engineers have the same opportunity to become PEs as domestic engineers.

Greg, as you and I know and as I've pointed out to Stanier, the accord is meaningless for the vast majority of engineering work in the US, because no credentials whatsoever are required.

Rob Campbell, PE
Finite Monkeys -

http://www.livejournal.com/users/robcampbell

 

[solid7]

The Constitution is a living document - the words largely remain the same, but the interpretation constantly changes

No, that's a position held by certain political idealogues. It's a set in stone document, that has the ability to be CHANGED by a 2/3 vote.

The idea of a "living breathing document" lends itself to political activism, and creates all sorts of messes - not unlike the one we are discussing, albeit in a different context.

This a different thread, however...




**************
Check out CATBlog!

 

[solid7]

You don't need an engineering drawing to be stamped by a PE in the states if you are importing a thing.

What about in the case of aircraft of automobiles, to meet airworthiness and emissions standards?

I've never seen an auto or aircraft that wasn't signed off prior to import, and that's exactly what I had in mind when I posed the question.




**************
Check out CATBlog!

 

[GregLocock]

PEs are not required to sign off cars in the USA and members of IEAust don't have any particular authority when they sign them off over here.

Cars are signed off by self certifying companies which demonstrate that the products comply with the regulations.










Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[Ashereng]

Solid7,

I am not sure about an airplane.

However, I used to work for Honeywell (an American company), and with regards to a control system, when you buy a control system manufactured outside of Canada (from the USA), the drawings are those of Honeywell USA, and the stamp is that of an American PE.

Signing off for import is not the same as an engineer's stamp. Signing off for import for example, means that it meets CSA requirements (for Canadian use, CSA is required).

 

[solid7]

Good points fellas - but some *companies* DO require a PE, in order for the employee to be able to sign off. Though not universal, it is a mandatory title, in some professions. (because senior level engineers are often classified as "subjet matter experts")

I've seen it in several cases. One of those cases, was an engineer (American) working composite structures for aircraft. Some of those structures were built outside of the US. While it's true that the products were still allowed to be imported by the governmental authorities, they were not signed off on until they met the proscribed internal requirements. The PE was the visible authority for handling the matter.

The engineer in question was a senior level engineer, and the job prerequisite was that he also be a PE. So to be honest, nobody is really saying that the title is required for that functon, but rather IF it's required, then we're still going back to a few simple things:

1) It's available to ANY qualified individual.
2) It's the same process for a citizen or non-citizen.
3) Non-citizens should NOT get any special (or differing, if you will) treatment, and treaties were not meant to allow such a thing.




**************
Check out CATBlog!

 

[stanier]

Going full circle. The USA and Australia has signed a free trade agreement. Great play was made of the fact that engineers could now freely work in the USA. I believe that the Washington Accord may even have been mentioned. What a crock.

The situation in the USA isnt going to change as there is no political will that side of the Pacific. It appears each state has its own protectionist policy and no one wants to change it. Even threats of organisations sueing if they do. Perhaps the Anti Trust Laws should be revisited. There doesnt even appear to be free trade between the states in this matter. If an engineer is competent in New York he then has to prove it again in California. And I thought the Canadians were bureaucracy gone mad.

Free trade to the USA means "Mind over Matter". They dont mind and we dont matter. Or "Give and take". We give they take.

 

[solid7]

Stanier - I think it's time you reconsider whether or not this thread is worth your time to type. As I see it, you are now using the forum as a soapbox to whine about what you don't like in someone else's country, when it's been adequately discussed and debated. Clearly, you want to make the kind of money that is to be had in the US, but you are unwilling to play by the simple rules that everyone else - citizens included - have to follow.

I'm sorry that things aren't the way you'd like them to be. But the fact is, just because you can't get your way, doesn't mean that the whole world is going to hell. (because of the big bad ol' USA) Things still manage to get done, despite your disliking.

Your nation isn't perfect, and neither is anybody else's. (the person who steps forth to tout is a fool) It doesn't mean that I want to talk about it. Just please keep your mind on the subject at task, or please refrain, altogether.

Your remarks are no longer intellectual - they're just plain abrasive.




**************
Check out CATBlog!

 

[imagitec]

I no longer see the point of discussion with Stanier.

Rob Campbell, PE
Finite Monkeys -

http://www.livejournal.com/users/robcampbell

 

[imagitec]

From Chapter 10 of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement, Cross-Border Trade in Services:

Article 10.2 : National Treatment

Each Party shall accord to service suppliers of the other Party treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own service suppliers.

In other words, it is not an unfair practice to require that foreign engineers be licensed just like domestic engineers if the work requires it. It would be unfair if foreign engineers were not given the same opportunity to become licensed, but they are.

Ealier in the same document, it is made clear that Party can refer to any or all of "central, regional, or local governments and authorities." It is not against the rules for states to have their own regulations.

Article 10.7, Domestic Regulation, says:

2. With a view to ensuring that measures relating to qualification requirements and procedures, technical standards, and licensing requirements do not constitute unnecessary barriers to trade in services, each Party shall endeavour to ensure, as appropriate for individual sectors, that such measures are:

(a) based on objective and transparent criteria, such as competence and the ability to supply the service;

(b) not more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service; and

(c) in the case of licensing procedures, not in themselves a restriction on the supply of the service.

Nothing that says certified Australian engineers are granted a free pass to bypass state regulations. You could argue that the state's regulations are restrictive, but I think you would lose.

Unlike Greg, I'm sure that Stanier is in the right thread, but I'm still confused:

Going full circle. The USA and Australia has signed a free trade agreement. Great play was made of the fact that engineers could now freely work in the USA. I believe that the Washington Accord may even have been mentioned. What a crock.

Does he think the Washington Accord is a crock because he incorrectly believes we don't live up to our end of the bargain, or does he still not understand what it actually says?

Rob Campbell, PE
Finite Monkeys -

http://www.livejournal.com/users/robcampbell

 

[imagitec]

Article 10.9: Recognition

1. For the purposes of fulfilment, in whole or in part, of its standards or criteria for the authorisation, licensing, or certification of services suppliers, and subject to the requirements of paragraph 4, a Party may recognise the education or experience obtained, requirements met, or licences or certifications granted in a particular country. Such recognition, which may be achieved through harmonisation or otherwise, may be based on an agreement or arrangement with the country concerned or may be accorded autonomously.

May, may, may...

Experience obtained, requirements met, or licences or certifications granted

Rob Campbell, PE
Finite Monkeys -

http://www.livejournal.com/users/robcampbell

 

[imagitec]

Stanier's original post:

Has the requirement for bieng licensed in a state ever been challenged as being in restraint of free trade?

I don't believe so. If it has been, the challenge failed.

Does the free trade agreements with Canada, mexico, Australia allow for engineers considered professional in their homelands to work without registration in the state?

The AUSFTA doesn't, and from RDK's comments, it doesn't sound like NAFTA does either. A country can unilaterally recognize the other's certifications, or a side agreement may be negotiated. As a minimum, the requirements can't be anymore restrictive than they are for a domestic engineer.

I am a consultant working out of Sydney Australia and undertake work all over the world except as yet in the USA. I am primarily engaged by consultants as a sub consultant. Is it possible for me to work on USA projects? It would be a nonsense if I did my work but some other engineer had to sign off on it because he had a license and I didnt. The only relelvance that engineer may have to my speciality is knowing my email address and phone number.

It is absolutely possible for you to work on USA projects. Whether or not the work needs to be "stamped" depends on its specific nature. I would ask your US counterparts whether your type of work needs to be stamped.

If it must be stamped, it must be stamped by a Professional Engineer (PE). You can work with a PE, or you may become one yourself. Such a working arrangement is not unusual. Many who are engineers by education and profession are not engineers by licensure (again, in the vast majority of cases, stamping and licensure is not required).

Rob Campbell, PE
Finite Monkeys -

http://www.livejournal.com/users/robcampbell

 

[solid7]

Many who are engineers by education and profession are not engineers by licensure (again, in the vast majority of cases, stamping and licensure is not required).

Right right.

I really don't understand what the whole dilemma is. You've pretty much summed it all up with that one single statement. And this pretty much seals the debate:

As a minimum, the requirements can't be anymore restrictive than they are for a domestic engineer

**************
Check out CATBlog!

 

[stanier]

I will ignore the darts being thrown as I take them in good humour. I am very clear on the rules and regulations. I do not actually want or need to work in the USA. Nor do I wish to denigrate that country or its inhabitants. The USA have made a massive contribution to engineering in my field. If you find my interest abrasive I am sorry.

I have a question though.

Do not "domestic engineers" find the state regulations restrictive?

I hate bureacracy for the sake of it. There are national and international standards that allow the profession of engineering to be applied to things physical. Local state rules, industry codes etc to me just clutter up the works.

If one can design a piping system to B31.3 in Texas how should it be any different in Arkansas? The same engineer, pipe materials, fabrication and testing.