Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1975 )

. .. The Honorable Jack K. Williams Opinion No. H- 677, President Texas A & M University Re: Validity of proposed College Station, Texas 77843 regulation of State Board of Professional Engineers limiting the use of the word engineer in academic Dear President Williams:’ titles. You have requested our opinion regarding the validity of a proposed regulation of the State Board of P:rofessional Engineers limiting the use of the word “engineer” in academic titles. The proposed regulation, Board Rule 23, would provide in pertinent part: Engineering titles which are confusing to the Public arid.which may be interpreted differently under varying circumstances are prohibited. Included in this group are Chief Engineer, Process Engineer, Project Engineer, Plant Engineer, Highway Engineer, Traffic Engineer, Sales Engineer, Utility Engineer, Water Engineer, Design Engineer, City Engineer, Sanitary Engineer, Professor of Engineering, Professor of Chemical (or other) Engineering, Dean of Engineering, Engineering Department Head or the Assistant or Associate of any of these listed titles except that the teaching title of Assistant Professor of Engineering will be allowed until tenure is obtained. (This privi- lege will not be granted for Engineering Titles above the grade of Assistant Professor. This permissive use of title does not allow the holder to practice Engineering on the public. ) p. 2949 The Honorable Jack K. Williams, page 2 (H-677) Special exemption is granted to the Educational Community to allow Public identification of visiting educators from out of state with their acquired titles, provided they do not publicly practice en- gineering in Texas other than speaking engagements, lecture s~eries or research performed under the sponsorship of a recognized college of university. Non-engineer faculty teaching in Colleges or Departments’ of Engineering should be designated by academic rank and teaching field + or Ef the College or Department of Engineering. An example of this might be Professor of Applied Mathematics in the College of Engineering. You inquire whether the rule-making authority of the Board extends to the regulation of academic titles, and our opinion is directed only to the portion of the rule relating to academic titles such as professor or dean of engineering. The Texas Engineering Practice Act, article 327la. V.T.C.S., vests the Board with rule-making authority as follows: . . . to make and enforce all rules and regulations necessary for the performance of its duties, to establish standards of conduct and ethics for engineers in keeping with the purposes and intent of this Act or to insure strict compliance with and enforcement of this Act. Article 3271a. section 8. The Board contends that proposed Rule 23 is necessary “to insure strict compliance” with section 1.2(2) of the Act, which provides that a non-registered individual may not: [dlirectly or indirectly, employ, use, cause to be used or make use of any of the following terms or any combinations, variations or abbreviations thereof as a professional; business or commercial identification, title, name, representation, claim, asset or means of advantage or benefit: ‘engineer, ’ ‘professional engineer, ’ ‘licensed engineer, ’ ‘registered engineer, ’ ‘registered professional engineer, ’ ‘licensed professional engineer, ’ ‘engineered. ’ p. 2950 The Honorable Jack K. Williams, page 3 (B-677) In Gerst V. Qak Cliff Sayings & ,Loan Ass’n., 432 S. W:2d 702. 706 (1968), the Supreme Court declared: Thk determining factor, in. . . dealing,with the I. question of whether or not a particular admini- .’ strativcagency has exceeded its rule-making,. powers is ‘that the rule’s provisions must be in harmony with the general objectives of the Act involved. The general objectives of the Act are indicate.d~in section l., 1: . . . to pr.otect the public health, safety and welfare . . i. and [to enable] the public . . . to identify those duly authorized to practice engineering in this state and fix ,responsibility 1’ ~’ for wo,rk done or services or acts performed in the ,practice of engineering., _. . ,.,,’ ., . / It seems,.,clear that. the “general obje,ctives” of the ,Act contemplate the protection of the public against persons who “practice” engineering without fulfilling the requirements of registration and,licensing’. Since a “professor of engineering ‘I does~,.not in such capacity “practice” engineering, we do not believe the regulation ,of liie,employment g & professor’cah reasonably be said to fall within the g.eneral objectives of the Act; In light of the general objectives of the Act, we do not believe that the exercise of the Board!8 rule-making authority extends to the prohibition of names or terms, such as “professor of engineering, ” which are not specifically listed in section 1.2(2), which cannot reasonably be deemed to be “combinations , variations or abbreviations thereof’ and which do not suggest that the person holding the title practices engineering; As a result, it is our opinion that the State Board of Professional Engineers ,may not restrict the use of the word “engineer” in academic titles such as dean or professor of engineering. p. 2951 The Honorable Jack K. Williams, page 4 (~-677) SUMMARY The State Board of Professional Engineers may not restrict the use of the word “engineer” in academic titles such as dean or professor of engineering. Very truly yours, APPROVED: v Attorney General of Texas L& DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant Opinion Committee p. 2952