Mrs. Frances Havins 

Executive Secretarv 

Opinion No. M-905 

State Board of Hairdressers Re: Effect of enactment of 

and Cosmetologists H. B. No. 156 by the 62nd 

1111 Rio Grande Legislature, Regular 

Aus tin, Texas 78701 Session, 1971, upon various 

provisions of Article 73413, 

Bear Mrs. Havins: Vernon's Penal Code. 

In your recent letter you requested the opinion of this 

office on the following questions: 

"1. Is August 31, 1972, the expiration date of 

a renewal 1972 license issued or applied for in 

accordance with the provisions of Article 734b during 

the period June 2 - August 29, 19711 

"2. Are license fees for renewal applications 

filed prior to August 30, 1971, and received in our 

office at a later date determined by Article 73433 

under the Penal Code or by House Bill 156? 

"3. Are license fees for applications filed after 

August 29 midnight determined by House Bill 156 or 

Article 734b of the Penal Code? 

"4. Please rule on the correct remittance for 

the September State Board examination and subsequent 

license provided the applicant is successful in passing 

the examination." 

In connection with your request you advised us as 

follows: 

"The practice of the Board for many years has 

been to consider an application for a renewal license 

timely filed if postmarked before the deadline for 

renewal. ' 

-4405- 
, 

Mrs. Frances Havins, page 2 (M-905) 

House Bill 156, enacted by the 62nd Legislature, 

Regular Session, 1971, will be effective August 30, 1971. That 

Bill repeals the present Article 73413, Vernon's Penal Code. 

(Acts 44th Leg., R. S., 1935, as amended, and hereinafter referred 

to as Article 73413.) Effective August 30, 1971, therefore, the 

State Board of Hairdressers and Cosmetologists will be abolished 

and the Texas Cosmetology Commission will be created. The Commission will in large measure perform those functions formerly 

performed by the Board. 

Our answer to your first question is in the affirmative. 

Section 8 of Article 734b provides, in part as follows: 

"(a) No certificate or license shall be issued 

for a longer period than one (1) year, and shall expire on the 31st day of August following the date of 

issuance. Applications for renewal may be filed at 

any time after June 1st preceding the expiration date 

of the license. . . ." 

Until August 30, 1971, Article 7341, is the controlling 

law. That statute provides that an application for a renewal 

license may be filed at any time after June 1st. Clearly the 

legislature intended that a renewal license issued following 

such application would be effective at the expiration of the 

applicant's current license. Hence a renewal license issued between June 2nd and August 29th of 1971 would be effective Septemb(:r 1, 1971. It would expire, under Section 8 of Article 734b, 

on August 31, 1972. The Board has the power during the life of 

Article 734b to approve such renewal even though the term of the 

license runs beyond the life of that statute. This is provided 

for under Section 48 of House Bill No. 156, which reads, in part, 

as follows: 

"(a) On the effective date of this Act, any 

license issued by the State Board of Hairdressers 

and Cosmetologists remains valid but is subject to 

the renewal procedures established by this Act." 

'We note from your inquiry that the practice of the Board 

for many years has been to consider an application for a renewal 

license timely filed if postmarked before the deadline for renewal. 

This administrative practice is accorded considerable weight in 

the construction of Article 73433. 53 Tex.Jur.Znd. 259, Statutes, 

Sec. 177. We are of the opinion, therefore, that an applicant who 

files a renewal application in time to have it postmarked not later 

-4406- 
Mrs. l?ances Havins, page 3 (M-905) 

than August 29, 1971, is entitled to have his renewal license 

made effective September 1, 1971, and to expire August 31, 1972, 

conditioned, however, on his application being complete, properly-made in every respect, and accompanied by a good remittance 

of the renewal fee prescribed by Article 73413, and on his being 

otherwise qualified. 

What has been written to this point concerns a renewal license for 1972. On the other hand, a new license, i.e., 

the first issued to a particular holder, if issued by the Board 

prior to August 30, 1971, would necessarily,expire on August 31, 

1971. 

The power of the Board to issue a new license ends at 

midnight August 29, 1971. Merely filing anapplication for a 

new license prior to that time does not, therefore, entitle the 

applicant to a new license under the conditions and fees prescribed by Article 73435. The Board may issue a'new license only 

after it is satis,fied that the applicant is qualified, has passed 

any required examination, and has met all requirements of the 

applicable statute. Hence any application for a new license 

filed on or before August 29, 1971, and not actually issued by 

the Board before the end of,that day, must 1ay'~over and be issued, 

if sat,~ all, by theCbmmission under the conditions and fees prescribed by House Bill 156. 

In reply to your second question, license fees for renewal appl .ications properly filed and postmarked prior to August 

30, 1971, 

though the 

are governed by Article 73433. This applies even 

applioation is not actually received until August 30th 

or later. An application is not properly filed unless it is 

complete, properly made in every respect, and accompanied by a 

good remittance for the proper fee. 

We have discussed in our answer to your,'first question 

the fact that under administrative practice followed by the 

Board an applicant who files under the conditions' prescribed in 

the above paragraph is deelned to have timely filed his application. Having timely filed his application for a renewal license 

during the life of Article 734b we think he is entitled to pay 

the lower fee prescribed by the same statute. He has done everything required of him. He should not be penalized because office 

procedure involved in actually issuing the:renewal license might 

require a week or more. We think this holding~follcws the practice authorized by statute for other State agencies in connection 

with the collection of taxes. 

-4407- 
Mrs. Frances Havins, page 4 (M-905) 

In answer to your third question, license fees for all 

applications filed after midnight,August 29, 1971, or postmarked 

after that time, are governed by House Bill 156. Section 48 of 

House Bill ,156 provides, ,in part, as follows: 

"(a) On the effective date of this Act, any 

license issued by the State Board of Hairdressers 

and Cosmetologists remains valid but is subject to 

the renewal procedures established by this' Act." 

Your fourth question concerns the,correct fee payable 

for the September 1971 State Board examination and license. 

Both Article 734b and House Bill 156 provide for the 

examination to be given on the first Tuesday in each month. The 

September examination in 1971 will fall on the.fth day of that 

month. .Both Acts provide for filing an application ten days 

prior to the date set for the examination. The,,application will 

therefore be filed under Article 734b, as House Bill 156 is not 

effective until August 30, 1971. 

The problem arises because Article 734b; in Section 4 

(a) (4) provides that an applicant for an operator's license 

shall accompany the application with a $15.00 fee. No further 

fee is required for the license. On the otherhand, Section 15 

(c) of House Bill 156 provides for a $5.00 fee with the application, and Section 15(d) provides for an additional $15.00 fee 

for the license. 

We are of the opinion that an application for a new 

license filed 10 days prior to the September, 7;1971, examination 

must be accompanied by a $15.00 fee. Article 734b will still be 

in effect. A new license issued following that,examination will 

be issued, however, under authority of House Bill 156. That 

statute prescribes a total of $20.00 for filing fee and examination fee. We are of the opinion that the requirements of both 

statutes will be wt if the~applicant pays a $15;80 filing fee 

inAugust and an additional $5.00 fee after,passing the examination. It is clearly the intention of the 62nd Legislature that 

the total cost to the applicant should be only $28.00. 

The filing fee and license fee required in connection 

with all examinationrtfollowing the one in September 1971 will be 

governed in all respects by House Bill 156. 

-4408- 
Mrs. Frances Havins, page 5 (M-t&) 

SUMMARY 

A renewal license issued by the.,State Board of. 

Hairdressers and Cosmetologists during'the period 

June 2 through August 29, 1971, expires on August 31, 

1972. An applicant whose proper application, with 

fee, is postmarked not later than August 29, 1971, 

is entitled to a renewal license to expire on August 

31, 1972, if he is otherwise qualified. 

The power of the Board to issue a new license 

expires at midnight August 29, 1971. Any n'ev'license 

actually issued by the Board prior to that time will 

expire August 31, 1971. Any application for a new 

license upon which a license has not bean .issued by 

the Board prior to August 30, 1971, must lay over for 

action by the Commission under H. B. No. 156. 

License fees for renewal applications properly 

filed and postmarked prior to August 30, 1971, are 

governed by Article 734b. 

License fees for all applioations postmarked or 

filed after midnight August 29, 1971, are governed by 

H. B. No. 156. 

An applicant for the September 7, 1971, Board 

examination will pay a $15.00 filing fee with the 

application and an additional $5.00 license fee. 

Fees for all examinations after the September 

1971 examination will be by H. B. No. 156. 

General of Texas 

Prepared by James S. Swearingen 

Assistant Attorney General 

-4409- 
I. ., 

Mrs. Frances Havins, page 6 (M-905) 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Kerns Taylor, Chairman 

W. E. Allen, Co-Ch&hIian 

Malcolm Quick 

S. J. Aronson 

Tom Sedberry 

Austin Bray 

MEADE F. GRIFFIN 

Staff Legal Assistant 

ALFRED WALKER 

Executive Assistant 

NOLA WHITE 

First Assistant 

-4410-