Administrative rules "are valid so long as they are not unreasonable; and, if doubt exists as to their invalidity, they must be upheld." Sterling Secret Service, 20 Mich App at 514; see also Toole v State Bd of Dentistry, 306 Mich 527, 533-534; 11 NW2d 229 (1943). Administrative rules are presumed to be constitutional.

Administrative rules " are valid so long as they are not unreasonable; and, if doubt exists as to their invalidity, they must be upheld." Sterling Secret Service, 20 Mich.App. at 514, 174 N.W.2d 298; see also Toole v. State Bd. of Dentistry, 306 Mich. 527, 533-534, 11 N.W.2d 229 (1943). Administrative rules are presumed to be constitutional.

The court's review should be limited to whether, under the three-pronged Dykstra/Luttrell test, the rules are "`reasonable'" or bear a "`rational relationship'" to the underlying act. Mich Admin Law, supra, § 4:35, p 222; see, also, Toole v Michigan State Bd of Dentistry, 306 Mich 527, 533-534; 11 NW2d 229 (1943); Sterling Secret Service, Inc v Dep't of State Police, 20 Mich App 502, 514; 174 NW2d 298 (1969). In making this determination, the court's review should be limited to the factual record created by the department during the rulemaking process.

If there is any doubt as to the invalidity of a rule in this regard, the rule must be upheld. Toole v State Board of Dentistry, 306 Mich. 527, 533-534; 11 N.W.2d 229 (1943), Sterling Secret Service, Inc. v Dep't of State Police, 20 Mich. App. 502, 514; 174 N.W.2d 298 (1969). In support of their argument that a fee scale based solely upon gross revenue, including parts and goods sold in conjunction with repairs, is arbitrary and capricious, plaintiffs point to the business of Russ Zuker Tire Service, Inc., one of the named plaintiffs.

The board is given no standards by which to judge a practitioner's conduct and we are directed to no administratively promulgated rules creating such standards. See Toole v State Board of Dentistry, 306 Mich. 527; 11 N.W.2d 229 (1943). Cf. Sanchick v State Board of Optometry, 342 Mich. 555; 70 N.W.2d 757 (1955).

"`It is too well settled to need the citation of supporting authorities that the legislature, within limits defined in the law, may confer authority on an administrative officer or board to make rules as to details, to find facts, and to exercise some discretion, in the administration of a statute'. "See, also, Warnshuis v State Board of Registration in Medicine, 285 Mich. 699 [ 281 N.W. 410 (1938)]; Toole v Michigan State Board of Dentistry, 306 Mich. 527 [ 11 N.W.2d 229 (1943)]; Ranke v Corporation Securities Commission, 317 Mich. 304 [ 26 N.W.2d 898 (1947)].

The practice of a profession under a trade name has often been regulated and prohibited by rules. Fisher v. Schumacher, 72 So.2d 804 (Fla. 1954); Pearle Optical of Monroeville Inc. v. Georgia State Board of Examiners in Optometry, 219 Ga. 364, 133 So.2d 374 (1963); State Board of Dental Examiners v. Bohl, 162 Kan. 156, 174 P.2d 998 (1946); Silverman v. Board of Registration in Optometry, 344 Mass. 129, 181 N.E.2d 540 (1962); Toole v. Michigan State Board of Dentistry, 306 Mich. 527, 11 N.W.2d 229 (1943); State Board of Optometry v. Orkin, 249 Miss. 430, 162 So.2d 883 (1964); Strauss v. Univ. of New York, 2 N.Y.2d 464, 161 N.Y.S.2d 97, 141 N.E.2d 595 (1957); Strauss v. Univ. of New York, 282 App. Div. 593, 125 N.Y.S.2d 821 (1953); Straus Inc. v. Univ. of State of New York, 186 Misc. 242, 59 N.Y.S.2d 429 (Sup.Ct. 1945); 41 Am.Jur. Physicians and Surgeons § 52 (1942); 70 C.J.S. Physicians and Surgeons §§ 31, 33 (1951). Sections 1(d), 1(e), and 1(f) of the rule require and assure the presence of an optometrist at the offices with which his name is identified and at which he holds himself out as a practitioner.

We have upheld a delegation of power by the legislature to determine facts or the state of things upon which the applicability of the law depends, as well as the exercise of some discretion. Tribbett v. Village of Marcellus, 294 Mich. 607; Toole v. Michigan State Board of Dentistry, 306 Mich. 527; Milk Marketing Board v. Johnson, 295 Mich. 644. It is generally held that a delegation by a municipality is proper where it concerns ministerial or administrative duties as opposed to purely legislative or discretionary acts.

. . . Highly trained intelligence combined with disregard of the fundamental virtues is a menace" (page 429). See further McMurdo v. Getter, 298 Mass. 363, 367-368; Commonwealth v. Brown, 302 Mass. 523, 527; Commonwealth v. Weene, 319 Mass. 231; Perlow v. Board of Dental Examiners, 332 Mass. 682; Toole v. Michigan State Board of Dentistry, 306 Mich. 527; State v. State Board of Health, 325 Mo. 41; Bell v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York, 295 N.Y. 101. It is not necessary to accumulate citations for a proposition that is essentially indisputable. The fee splitting operations of the plaintiff were in plain conflict with his moral obligations as a physician.

"`It is too well settled to need the citation of supporting authorities that the legislature, within limits defined in the law, may confer authority on an administrative officer or board to make rules as to details, to find facts, and to exercise some discretion, in the administration of a statute.' "See, also, Warnshuis v. State Board of Registration in Medicine, 285 Mich. 699; Toole v. Michigan State Board of Dentistry, 306 Mich. 527; Ranke v. Corporation Securities Commission, 317 Mich. 304." While the function of setting professional school standards and rating the schools accordingly was expressly intrusted to the international association of boards of examiners in optometry by the legislature, which for reasons heretofore mentioned we hold unconstitutional, yet it does indicate legislative intention to set up minimum standards as a guide to the board.