Opinion ID: 1851970
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of Comity Licensure.

Text: There are two ways to become licensed as a professional engineer in Iowa: (1) licensure by examination; and (2) licensure by comity. The first method applies to applicants seeking original licensure as a professional engineer in Iowa. To obtain initial licensure, an applicant must satisfy each of the following requirements: a. (1) Graduation from a course in engineering of four years or more in a school or college which, in the opinion of the board, will properly prepare the applicant for the examination in fundamental engineering subjects. .... b. Successfully passing a written, oral, or written and oral examination in fundamental engineering subjects which is designed to show the knowledge of general engineering principles.... [i.e., the Fundamentals of Engineering examination] c. ... [A] specific record of four years or more of practical experience in engineering work which is of a character satisfactory to the board. d. Successfully passing a written, oral, or written and oral examination designed to determine the proficiency and qualifications to engage in the practice of engineering.... [i.e., the Principles and Practice of Engineering examination] Iowa Code § 542B.14(1). The NCEES prepares the two examinations administered to initial licensure applicants. Iowa Admin. Code r. 193C1.4(4) (1997). Both are written, uniform examinations. Id. The Fundamentals exam covers general engineering principles, id. r. 193C1.4(4)(a), and is intended to satisfy the requirements of section 542B.14(1)(b), while the Principles and Practice exam addresses proficiency and qualification to engage in the practice of professional engineering, id. r. 193C1.4(4)(b), and is intended to satisfy the requirements of section 542B.14(1)(d). The second method, comity licensure, is available to those who have been previously licensed in another jurisdiction and have satisfied specific circumstances. See Arizona State Bd. of Accountancy v. Cole, 119 Ariz. 489, 581 P.2d 1139, 1142 (1978) (purpose of comity licensure is to grant licensed status when specific factors are fulfilled, not to automatically recognize licenses held in foreign jurisdictions). Comity applicants may receive professional licensure in Iowa without further examination if the original license is active, Iowa Admin. Code r. 193C1.4(5), and was based on requirements and qualifications equivalent to the requirements of chapter 542B. [3] Iowa Code § 542B.20. Section 542B.20 establishes the requirements for this second method of licensure, and provides that a person holding a certificate of licensure as a professional engineer issued by the proper authority of a foreign country based on requirements and qualifications which, in the opinion of the board, are equal to or higher than the requirements of chapter 542B may be licensed without examination. Id. Because the licensure requirements of chapter 542B are found in section 542B.14, the four requirements for licensure by examination under section 542B.14 must therefore be considered in determining whether the requirements of licensure by comity have been satisfied. Dr. Al-Khattat sought professional licensure through the comity provisions of section 542B.20. The Board did not dispute Dr. Al-Khattat's satisfaction of the educational and practical experience requirements of section 542B.14(1)(a) and (c). Furthermore, because Dr. Al-Khattat passed the Fundamentals examination in 1995, the Board found he also satisfied section 542B.14(1)(b). [4] Instead, the Board concluded the United Kingdom's professional examination was not equivalent to the Principles and Practice of Engineering examination given to applicants for licensure by examination to satisfy section 542B.14(1)(d). Dr. Al-Khattat claims the Board essentially precludes all comity licensure for any engineer from a foreign country by requiring proof that the examination taken to obtain the foreign license was equivalent to or superior to the NCEES examination taken by applicants for licensure by examination in Iowa. He claims the comity licensure statute does not require a comparison between the foreign examination and the NCEES examination to determine if they are equivalent, but only requires a determination by the Board that the foreign examination passed by the applicant to obtain the foreign license was, like the NCEES examination, designed to show the knowledge of general engineering principles and designed to determine the proficiency and qualifications to engage in the practice of engineering. See id. § 542B.14(1)(b), (d). Thus, any comparison by the Board must relate to the design of the tests, not the mechanics, scoring, or other aspects of the tests. We agree with Dr. Al-Khattat that the comity licensure statute only requires the foreign license to be based on the requirements and qualifications ... equal to or higher than the requirements for licensure by examination in Iowa. See id. § 542B.20. This means a comity applicant must show, together with the education and experience prerequisites, that the foreign license was predicated on passing an examination in fundamental engineering subjects designed to show the knowledge of general engineering principles and an examination designed to determine the proficiency and qualifications to engage in the practice of engineering. See id. § 542B.14(1)(a)-(d). This standard does not require the mechanics of the foreign examinations to mirror those of the NCEES examinations administered to applicants in Iowa. There may be many differences in the types and methods of examinations that nevertheless have the same design or purpose. The Board must determine if the examination component for foreign licensure met the design of the examination components for licensure by examination under section 542B.14. Clearly, the Board placed considerable emphasis on the numerous mechanical differences in the United Kingdom examination and the NCEES examination. Yet, differences in the mechanics and approach taken between two examinations, although not alone determinative, can be helpful to ascertain the design and purpose of each examination. As mentioned, the NCEES principle and practice examination is clearly designed to test an applicant's overall proficiency in the general practice of mechanical engineering. It conforms to the design contemplated by section 542B.14(1)(d). It is a uniform, standardized, objective examination, and is not tailored to a specific applicant's area of expertise within a particular engineering branch. The exam concentrates on general problem-solving ability. It consists of two parts. The first part requires the examinees to show their calculations. The examinee receives points for each level reached in solving the problem. The second part is a multiple-choice format. In both exams, the problem content covers a variety of problems encountered in the mechanical engineering profession. In contrast, the United Kingdom professional examination is tailored to an applicant's particular accomplishments and experiences. Although the United Kingdom professional examination may in fact be designed to determine a particular individual's competence, it focuses on proficiency in a specific discipline. In essence, as characterized by Dr. Al-Khattat, the United Kingdom licensure process is an oral evaluation of the candidate based on the facts that he [or she] provides. The peer interview does not address problems affecting the general practice of mechanical engineering, other than what issues were presented by the applicant's written report. In Dr. Al-Khattat's case, the peer interview primarily concerned his Ph.D. dissertation regarding metal forming plasticity applications. Thus, he was only required to demonstrate his proficiency in this specialized area of mechanical engineering. The exam seems to assume general competency in the field of engineering. [5] We think the differences in the United Kingdom examination and the NCEES examination reveal that the design of the United Kingdom examination taken by Dr. Al-Khattat to obtain his license was not to determine the proficiency and qualifications to engage in the practice of engineering. The practice of engineering covers a broad range of areas, and the evidence submitted to the Board shows that the United Kingdom examination, as a separate requirement for licensure in the United Kingdom, is geared towards proficiency in a particular area practiced by the applicant, not the general practice of engineering. This evidence supports the finding made by the Board that the certificate of licensure held by Dr. Al-Khattat was not based on the requirements and qualifications equal to those found in chapter 542B. We acknowledge the distinguished career attained by Dr. Al-Khattat as an engineer. He has reached a level of education and experience beyond that required under section 542B.14. Yet, our licensing requirements do not substitute experience for the lack of compliance with a professional examination requirement. The Board carefully considered the content and purposes of the two examinations before making its decision. This is not a case where the Board failed to even make a comparison. See Fiber v. New Mexico Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 93 N.M. 67, 596 P.2d 510, 512 (1979). Furthermore, the Board has consistently interpreted section 542B.20 to reject comity licensure where the applicant has not satisfied standards comparable to those required of initial licensure applicants in Iowa. See Horner v. State Bd. of Eng'g Exam'rs, 253 Iowa 1, 8-9, 110 N.W.2d 371, 375 (1961). No evidence was produced indicating the Board has issued comity licensure to an applicant who has not taken an examination comparable in design to the Principles and Practice of Engineering examination. The consistent application of comity licensure requirements suggests the Board did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in rendering its decision in this particular case. See Binkley v. Zollar, 289 Ill.App.3d 189, 224 Ill.Dec. 171, 681 N.E.2d 153, 155 (1997); State Bd. of Registration for Prof'l Eng'rs v. Eberenz, 723 N.E.2d 422, 431 (Ind.2000). Furthermore, the legislature entrusted the Board to exercise its expertise in determining the requisite qualifications of licensure applicants. Horner, 253 Iowa at 6, 110 N.W.2d at 373. In a case such as this, where the decision is close, we will not second-guess the importance the Board places on the professional examination requirement. We find substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that Dr. Al-Khattat failed to successfully complete an examination designed to demonstrate his proficiency to engage in the practice of engineering.