Opinion

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Court
Texas Attorney General Reports
Filed
Jul 2, 1971
Status
Published
On the bench
Crawford Martin
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 3.5%

The opinion

. ,

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-

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.