Can the Texas engineering board still give a reduced license fee to engineers 65 and older after a $200 fee increase?

Plain-English summary

In 1991, the Legislature passed House Bill 11, a large revenue bill that raised a long list of professional licensing fees by $200 each. One of those was the renewal fee for registered professional engineers, raised by a new section 13B of the Engineering Practice Act. Separately, an older provision (section 13(d), added in 1989) let the engineering board adopt reduced fees for registered engineers at least 65 years old. The board's executive director asked whether the board could still give that senior discount after the new $200 increase, or whether the increase had to be charged in full.

The Attorney General concluded the board could keep applying the discount. The $200 increase became part of the renewal fee, and the senior-discount authority let the board reduce that fee. Nothing in House Bill 11 said the Legislature meant to cancel the board's power to cut fees for older engineers, and the opinion would not read that cancellation in by implication. The result tracked an earlier opinion, JM-873 (1988), which had reached the same answer for accountants facing a similar fee increase.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. The Texas Engineering Practice Act (article 3271a) has since been recodified into the Occupations Code, and engineer licensing fees have changed many times since 1991.

Background and statutory framework

House Bill 11, enacted in the first called session of the 72d Legislature, was an omnibus revenue bill that changed the rates, collection, and administration of many state fees and taxes. Acts 1991, 72d Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 5, at 134. Article 10 of the bill uniformly raised a number of professional licensing fees by $200. Section 10.08 added section 13B to the Texas Engineering Practice Act, V.T.C.S. article 3271a, which provided that the registration fee, annual renewal fee, and reciprocal registration fee imposed under the Act were each "increased by $200." Section 13B took effect September 1, 1991.

The board's discount authority came from a different source. Section 13(d), added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 947, § 1, let the board adopt reduced fees "for registered engineers who are at least 65 years of age." The opinion traced the history of that provision: as introduced in House Bill 180, it would have given retired engineers relief from a temporary $110 fee increase the 70th Legislature had imposed; a committee substitute then dropped retirement as a condition and required only that the registrant be at least 65. The Legislature, in other words, deliberately singled out older engineers for fee relief, on the view that they had fewer opportunities to absorb licensing costs.

Reading the two provisions together, the Attorney General found no sign that House Bill 11 was meant to eliminate the board's discount authority. The $200 simply augmented the existing fee and became part of it, so the section 13(d) authority to reduce that fee reached the increased amount too. The opinion rested heavily on Attorney General Opinion JM-873 (1988), which had decided the same question for the State Board of Public Accountancy under comparable statutory language (V.T.C.S. art. 41a-1, §§ 9, 31): there, the $110 increase "became a part of the fee" the accountancy board could reduce, so it could take the increase into account when setting reduced fees for licensees over 65. The engineering board's situation was the same.

Common questions

What did this opinion let the engineering board do?
It let the board treat the $200 fee increase from House Bill 11 as part of the renewal fee, so the board could still set a reduced renewal fee for registered engineers at least 65 years old rather than charging them the full increase.

Did the $200 increase override the senior discount?
No. The opinion found no legislative intent in House Bill 11 to take away the board's discount authority. Because the increase merely became part of the existing fee, the board's power to reduce that fee under section 13(d) still applied.

Why did the opinion rely on an accountants' case?
A 1988 opinion, JM-873, had answered the identical question for the Board of Public Accountancy facing a similar fee increase, under statutory language and delegated authority the opinion treated as parallel. The Attorney General applied the same reasoning to engineers.

Citations

• Texas Engineering Practice Act, V.T.C.S. art. 3271a, §§ 13(b), 13(d), 13B
• House Bill 11, Acts 1991, 72d Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 5, at 134
• Section 13(d) as added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 947, § 1
• V.T.C.S. art. 41a-1, §§ 9, 31 (pre-1989 language)
• Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. JM-873 (1988)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/dan-morales/dm-0092
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1992/dm0092.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

Office of the Attorney General
State of Texas

DAN MORALES
ATTORNEY GENERAL

February 18, 1992

Charles E. Nemir, P.E.
Executive Director
State Board of Registration for
Professional Engineers
P. O. Drawer 18329
Austin, Texas 78760

Opinion No. DM-92

Re: Whether increase in renewal fees is applicable to registered engineers who are at least 65 years of age (RQ-173)

Dear Mr. Nemir:

House Bill 11, enacted during the first called session of the 72d Legislature, was an omnibus revenue bill that imposes sweeping changes in the rates, collection, and administration of various fees and taxes collected by the state and the allocation of revenue derived from these sources. Acts 1991, 72d Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 5, at 134. Article 10 of the bill amends several statutes to uniformly increase by $200 a number of professional licensing fees collected by state agencies, including certain fees collected by the Texas State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers (the board). Section 10.08 of House Bill 11 adds section 13B to the Texas Engineering Practice Act, V.T.C.S. article 3271a. Section 13B now provides the following in pertinent part:

(a) Each of the following fees imposed by or under another section of this Act is increased by $200:

  (1) registration fee;

  (2) annual renewal fee; and

  (3) reciprocal registration fee.

Section 13B took effect September 1, 1991. The board may set fees in an amount not to exceed the sums specified in section 13(b) of the act.

The board by rule may adopt reduced fees "for registered engineers who are at least 65 years of age." V.T.C.S. art. 3271a, § 13(d) (as added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 947, § 1, at 4012). You ask whether the board may exercise its authority under section 13(d) to reduce the annual renewal fee for senior engineers by the $200 amount imposed by section 13B. We conclude that the board may take the $200 amount into account when setting reduced fees for registered engineers who are at least 65 years of age.

As introduced, House Bill 180, the bill enacting section 13(d), gave the board the discretion to adopt reduced fees for retired engineers. Its author testified that the purpose of the bill was specifically to provide retired engineers relief from a temporary $110 fee increase imposed on certain professional licenses by the 70th Legislature. Hearings on H.B. 180 Before the House Comm. on Bus. and Com. (Feb. 27, 1989) (testimony of Rep. Ashley Smith). The author indicated that section 13(d) would in the future allow the board flexibility in adjusting fees for registered engineers who may no longer actually be engaged in the profession but, for personal reasons, wish to maintain their licenses. A committee substitute removed retirement as a qualification for the fee reduction, requiring instead only that the registrant be at least 65 years of age.

The legislature thus expressly recognized the special economic circumstances of registered engineers who are at least 65 years of age. It was presumed that because of their age, these professionals would have fewer opportunities to absorb the costs of licensing than younger persons. See House Comm. on Bus. and Com., Bill Analysis H.B. 180, 71st Leg. (1989); Testimony on H.B. 180, supra. Section 13(d) was specifically tailored to mitigate the harsh effects of future fee increases on this class of engineers. It is thus perfectly suited to the problem presented by House Bill 11 and section 13B of the Engineering Practice Act.

The structure and language of House Bill 11 indicates that its overall objective was to generate revenue from reliable sources, including the practitioners of professions regulated by the state. However, we detect no legislative intent to eliminate the board's discretion to reduce the fees of licensees who are at least 65 years of age. Consequently, we do not believe section 13B must be read to impliedly do so.

Finally, the result we reach here is supported by Attorney General Opinion JM-873 (1988). There, the issue was whether the State Board of Public Accountancy could reduce the licensing fees of accountants over the age of 65 who were affected by a $110 temporary fee increase on professional licensing fees imposed by the 70th Legislature. The statutory language imposing the fee increase was similar to the language of section 13B of the Engineering Practice Act, and the Board of Public Accountancy was delegated authority comparable to section 13(d) of the Engineering Practice Act. See V.T.C.S. art. 41a-1, §§ 9, 31 (pre-1989 language). The opinion determined that the reference in section 31 to fees set under other provisions of the statute indicated that the $110 figure merely augmented the specific fee referred to and did not impose a different fee or tax. The opinion concluded that the $110 amount became a part of the fee that the Board of Public Accountancy was given the discretion to reduce by section 9(c) of the statute. The board could therefore take the $110 into account when setting reduced fees for licensees at least 65 years of age. In keeping with Attorney General Opinion JM-873, we conclude that the State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers may take into account the $200 fee increase imposed by section 13B of article 3271a, V.T.C.S., when setting reduced fees for licensed engineers at least 65 years of age.

SUMMARY

The State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers may, for purposes of setting reduced fees for licensees at least 65 years of age, consider the $200 fee increase imposed by section 13B of article 3271a, V.T.C.S., as part of the fee subject to reduction.

Very truly yours,

DAN MORALES
Attorney General of Texas

WILL PRYOR
First Assistant Attorney General

MARY KELLER
Deputy Assistant Attorney General

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY (Ret.)
Special Assistant Attorney General

RENEA HICKS
Special Assistant Attorney General

MADELEINE B. JOHNSON
Chair, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Steve Aragon
Assistant Attorney General