. . . 

The Honorable Jack K. Williams 

President 

Texas A & M University 

College Station, Texas 77843 

Opinion No. H- 677, 

Re: Validity of proposed 

regulation of State Board 

of Professional Engineers 

limiting the use of the 

Dear President Williams:’ 

word engineer in academic 

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 privilege 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 engineering 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, 

v Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

L& 

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant 

Opinion Committee 

p. 2952