Board hears overview of NCEES–U.K. mutual recognition agreement, raises fairness and exam concerns

The Professional Engineers Licensing Board on an informational item heard from Gregor, a liaison between His Majesty's Government (HMG) and the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES), about a Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) that would simplify licensing mobility for engineers between the U.K. and participating U.S. licensing boards.

Board members were told about the MRA’s current status and mechanics. Gregor said about 26–28 U.S. boards had signed letters of intent and several states — North Carolina, Arizona, Texas, Nevada and Delaware — intended to implement the agreement early in the year so they could begin accepting eligible applicants. Gregor said an independent review body, the International Engineering Alliance, reviewed both systems’ competency assessments and deemed them reciprocal. “We already have looked at each other’s competency assessment, and … we have decided that even though the system is slightly different … the competency of our engineers is equivalent,” Gregor said.

The nut graf: the agreement aims to let engineers meeting the highest international standards move more quickly between jurisdictions without duplicate assessment, while leaving each state board discretion to require discipline- or jurisdiction-specific checks. That balance is central to the board’s discussion because members must weigh convenience for internationally qualified engineers against established U.S. licensing standards and fairness to domestic applicants.

Board members pressed on how the process would work in practice and whether applicants from the U.K. would still be required to take U.S. national exams such as the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) and the Principles and Practice (PE) exams. Gregor described an application route in which an internationally recognized engineer applies through the U.K. engineering council, which forwards competency documentation and a disciplinary record to the receiving state board; the receiving board may then perform “final third checks” or add jurisdiction-specific requirements. He noted that states retain the option to add exams for jurisdiction-specific needs — citing the example of California, which would require an additional seismic exam for engineers seeking licensure there.

Several members said they were sympathetic to credential recognition but worried about fairness and technical standards. John DeWolf, who identified himself as a structural engineer and a (retired) professor of structural engineering, argued that U.S. applicants must pass the FE and PE and that exempting U.K. engineers could be unfair and risk missing U.S. code-specific knowledge: “The second exam … test[s] your ability to use the current specifications in the United States to do design,” DeWolf said. He added: “Why should U.S. applicants have to go through those exams and applicants from abroad do not?”

Other board members noted the agreement does not compel any state to opt in; participation is a decision each board can make. Tony, serving as chair for the meeting, summarized that the board could continue to consider applications on a case-by-case basis under current rules and defer any formal decision about adopting the MRA. Board members asked staff to add the topic to the February 11 meeting agenda for further discussion.

No formal vote or change to licensure rules occurred; the discussion was informational and left in the hands of the board for later action.