Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1971 )


Menu:
  • .   ,
    March 19, 1971
    Mr. Donald C. Klein, P. E.                  Opinion No. M- 816
    Executive Director
    Texas State Board of Registration           Re:   Authority of Board
    for Professional Engineers                      under Article 3271a.
    Room 200, 1400 Congress                           V.C.S., to require
    Austin, Texas 78701                               written examination
    of all applicants
    Dear Mr. Klein:                               for license.
    Your recent letter requested the opinion of this
    department on the authority of the Board under Article 3271a,
    Vernon's Civil Statutes, to require a written examination of
    -all applicants for a license as a professional engineer.
    You submitted a copy of a proposed rule which would
    require such an examination and also a very able brief on the
    question.
    After a careful review of the pertinent sections of
    Article 3271a, Vernon's Civil Statutes, and of language found
    in recent Texas cases on the subject of authority of admini-
    strative agencies to make rules, we are of the opinion that the
    Texas State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers
    does not have the authority to require by administrative rule
    a written examination of all applicants for a license as a
    professional engineer.
    Subsections   (a) and (b) of Article 3271a. read as
    follows:
    "Sec. 12. The following shall be considered
    as minimum evidence satisfactory to the Board that
    the applicant is qualified for registration as a
    professional engineer, to-wit:
    -3954-
    Mr. Donald C. Klein, P. E., page 2
    (a) Graduation from an approved course in
    engineering of four (4) years or more in a rec-
    ognized school or college approved by the Board
    as of satisfactory standing, and a specific record
    of an additional four (4) years or more of active
    practice in engineering work, of a character sat-
    isfactory to the Board, indicating that the appli-
    cant is competent to be placed in responsible
    charge of such work: or
    (b) Successfully passing a written, or
    written and oral, examination designed to show
    knowledge and skill approximating that attained
    through graduation from an approved four (4)
    years engineering course: and a specific record
    of at least eight (8) years of active practice
    in engineering work of a character satisfactory
    to the Board and indicating that the applicant
    is competent to be placed in responsible charge
    of such work."
    Subsection   (g) of Article 3271a reads as follows:
    "(9) Any person having the necessary quali-
    fications prescribed in this Act to entitle him
    to registration shall be eligible for such reg-
    istration though he may not be practicing at the
    time of making his application."
    Section 8 of the article reads, in part, as follows:
    "The Board shall have the authority and
    power to make and enforce all rules and regu-
    lations necessary for the performance of its
    duties, to establish standards of conduct and
    ethics for engineers in keeping with the pur-
    poses and intent of this Act or to insure strict
    compliance with and enforcement of this Act . . .)I
    -3955-
    Mr. Donald C. Klein, P. E., page 3       (M-816)
    The thrust of opinions we have examined appears to
    be (1) that authority to make a particular rule must be found
    in the statute governing the agency, (2) that the rule must
    not be inconsistent with the statute, and (3) that the rule
    must be referable to and consistent with one or more specific
    provisions of the statute.
    In Gerst v. Oak Cliff Savinqs and Loan Association,
    432 S.W.Zd 703 (Tex.Sup. 1968) the court said:
    "In exercising the powers and broad au-
    thority granted by the Legislature, the only re-
    quirement is that rules and regulations must be
    consistent with the Constitution and Statutes of
    this State. Kee v. Baber, 
    157 Tex. 387
    , 303 S.W.
    Zd 376 (1957). In m,    we said:
    ' * * * * * * The determining factor in
    this and other decisions of our courts
    dealing with the question of whether or not
    a particular administrative agency has ex-
    ceeded its rule-making powers is that the
    rule's provisions must be in harmony with
    the general objectives of the Act involved.
    In Texas State Board of Examiners in OP-
    tometrv v. Carp, 412 S.W.Zd 307 (Tex.Sup.
    1967), we held that the Rule's provision
    were in harmony with the general objectives
    of the Act and referable to and consistent
    with one or more of its snecific proscriptions."'
    (Emphasis supplied.)
    Section 8 of Article 3271a, Vernon's Civil Statutes,
    gives the Board the power to make rules necessary to, in sub-
    stance, do &    the following:
    (1) enable the Board to carry out its duties:
    (2) establish standards of conduct and ethics,
    and
    -3956-
    Mr. Donald C. Klein, P. E., page 4      (M-816)
    (3) insure strict compliance with and enforce-
    ment of the Act.
    There is no provision in Article 3271a that would give
    the Board authority to enlarge on or make more restrictive the
    provisions of the statute governing requirements for a license.
    In considering the rule now proposed by the Engineer's
    Board, we are of the opinion that the rule is inconsistent with
    the statute for the reason that it imposes a requirement on
    every applicant for a license that the Legislature did not
    choose to impose on every applicant. The Legislature in pro-
    viding subsections (a) and (b) of Section 12 clearly wrote in
    the disjunctive.  Subsection (b) applies only if the applicant
    does not qualify under (a). Further, the language of Sub-
    section (g) clearly imposes on the Board a mandate to register
    an applicant who has the necessary qualifications prescribed
    in the Act, which of course includes Subsection 12(a), where
    no requirement of an examination is made.
    We are also of the opinion that the rule proposed
    by the Board does not meet the test of being referable to and
    consistent with one or more specific provisions of Article
    3271a. See Texas State Board v. Carp, 412 S.W.Zd 307 (Tex.
    Sup. 1967).
    Neither this department nor the State Board of Regis-
    tration for Professional Engineers may enlarge or in any way
    modify the statutory requirements as laid down by the Legisla-
    ture. Attorney General's Opinion No. M-30 (1967). This was
    discussed in Railroad Commission v. Ft. Worth & D.C.R.R.Co.,
    161 S.W.Zd 560 (Tex.Civ.App. 1942, err. ref. w.o.m.), where
    the court held:
    "It is also true that though such statutes
    and orders will be liberally construed to carry
    out the intent of the legislature, the Commission
    can exercise only the powers expressly delegated
    to it by law, or necessarily implied from those
    so delegated: and cannot enlarge such delegated
    powers by its own orders."  (citing authorities)
    -3957-
    Mr. Donald C. Klein, P. E., page 5         (M-816)
    Only under the licensing procedure provided in Sub-
    section 12(b) may the Board impose the requirement of a written
    examination, and then conditioned that the Board makes no re-
    quirement that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
    In Attorney General's Opinion No. M-609-A (1970), this
    office considered the rule-making power of the State Health De-
    partment under Article 459013, and wrote as follows:
    "However, the statute does not authorize
    the issuance of rules and regulations which are
    in excess of or inconsistent with the statutory
    provisions: nor may such an administrative body
    impose any additional burdens, conditions, or
    restrictions in that regard. Kellv v. Industrial
    Accident Board, 350 S.W.Zd 874 (Tex.Civ.App. 1962,
    error ref.). Such regulations or rules cannot be
    used in construing the law so as to give it a
    higher mandate than that of the statute. Bailey
    v. Texas Indemnity Insurance Co., 14 S.W.Zd 798,
    802 (Tex.Civ.App. 1929)."
    For the reasons discussed above, we are of the opinion
    that the State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers
    does not have the authority to make and enforce a rule requiring
    everv applicant for a license as a professional engineer to take
    a written examination.
    SUMMARY
    Under the provisions of Article 3271a,
    V.C.S., the State Board of Registration for
    Professional Engineers does not have the au-
    thority to make and enforce a rule requiring
    every applicant for a license as a professional
    engineer to take a written examination.
    Very truly yours,
    CRAWFORD C. MARTIN
    General of
    NOW  WHITE
    First Assistant
    -3958-
    Mr. Donald C. Klein, P. E.. page 6    (~-816)
    Prepared by James S. Swearingen
    Assistant Attorney General
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    Kerns Taylor, Chairman
    W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman
    Bob Lemens
    Melvin COrley
    Bob Lattimore
    Jerry Roberts
    MEADE F. GRIFFIN
    Staff Legal Assistant
    ALFRED WALKER
    Executive Assistant
    -3959-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: M-816

Judges: Crawford Martin

Filed Date: 7/2/1971

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017