. . .

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 theword “engineer” in academic titles. The proposed regulation, Board Rule 23, would provide in pertinent part:

Engineering titles which are confusing to the Public arid.whichmay 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 thatthe teaching title ofAssistant Professor of Engineering will be allowed until tenure is obtained. (This privilege will not be granted for Engineering Titles above the grade ofAssistant Professor. This permissive use of title does not allow the holder to practice Engineering on the public. )

p. 2949The 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 notpublicly practice engineering in Texas other than speaking engagements, lecture s~eries or research performed under the sponsorship of a recognized college ofuniversity. Non-engineer faculty teaching in Colleges or Departments’ of Engineering should be designated by academic rank and teaching field + or Efthe College or Department of Engineering. An example of this might be Professor ofApplied Mathematics in the College of Engineering. You inquire whether the rule-making authority ofthe Board extends to the regulation of academic titles, and our opinion is directed only to theportion 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 ofthis 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 theAct, which provides that a non-registered individual may not:

[dlirectly or indirectly, employ, use, cause to be used or make use of any ofthe 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 orbenefit: ‘engineer, ’

‘professional engineer, ’ ‘licensed engineer, ’
‘registered engineer, ’ ‘registered professional engineer, ’ ‘licensed professional engineer, ’

‘engineered. ’ p. 2950The Honorable Jack K. Williams, page 3 (B-677)

In Gerst V. Qak Cliff Sayings &,LoanAss’n., 432 S.W:2d 702. 706 (1968), the Supreme Court declared:

Thk determining factor, in.
. . dealing,with the I. question ofwhether or nota particular admini-
.’ strativcagency has exceeded its rule-making,. powers is ‘thatthe rule’s provisions must be in harmony with the general objectives ofthe Act involved. The general objectives of the Act are indicate.d~insection 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,rkdone 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 ‘Idoes~,.notin such capacity “practice” engineering, we do not believe the regulation ,ofliie,employment g &professor’cah reasonably be said to fall within the g.eneral objectives of theAct; Inlight of the general objectives of the Act, we do notbelieve thatthe exercise ofthe 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’ andwhich 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 theword “engineer” in academic titles such as dean or professor of engineering.

p. 2951The Honorable Jack K. Williams, page 4 (~-677)

SUMMARY The State Board of Professional Engineers may not restrict the use of theword “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