JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General 

Supreme Court Building 

P. 0. Box 12546 

Austin. TX. 76711.2546 

5121475-2501 

Telex 910/674-1367 

Telecopier 5121475.0266 

714 Jackson, Suite 700 

Dallas, TX. 75202.4506 

2141742-6944 

4624 Alberta Ave.. Suite 160 

El Paso, TX. 79905-2793 

915/533G464 

-1 Texas. Suite 7W 

Am, TX. 77002~3111 

71312255866 

806 Broadway, Suite 312 

Lubbock, TX. 79401-3479 

606/747-5236 

4309 N. Tenth. Suite B 

McAllen. TX. 76501-1665 

512,682.4547 

2M) Main Plaza, Suite 400 

San Antonio, TX. 76205.2797 

512/225-4191 

An Equal Opportunity/ 

Affirmative Action Employer 

The Attorney General of Texas 

Ma:ech 14, 1986 

Mr. Fred S. Brinkley, Jr. 

Executive Director/Secretary 

Texas State Board of Pharmacy 

211 East 7th Street 

Suite 1121 

Austin, Texas 787101 

Dear Mr. Brinkley: 

Opinion No. JM-452 

Re: Whether the Texas State Board 

of Pharmacy may license a foreign. 

pharmacy graduate under certain 

circumstances 

You advise us that the Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Examination 

Comission (FPGEC) of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy 

offers the Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Equivslency Examination to 

foreign pharmacy I:raduates who seek educational equivalency certification as partial fulfillment of the eligibility requirements fcr 

licensure to practice pharmacy in the United States. You ask, in a 

situation in which the professional pharmacy degree cf the college is 

not accredited by the American Council on Pharmaceutical Education, 

whether the Texas Pharmacy Act authorizes the Texas State Board of 

Pharmacy to licens~c an individual who graduates from a college of 

pharmacy located outside the United States if the applicant obtains an 

FPGEC certification, fulfills other licensing requirements, and passes 

the licensing examfnation administered by the board. We conclude that 

the Texas Pharmacy Act neither prohibits nor requires the licensing of 

such persons by the Taxas State Board of Pharmacy. 

The Texas Phz,rmacy Act, article 4542a-1, V.T.C.S., provides, in 

pertinent part, as :Eollows: 

Sec. 5. In this Act, unless the context of its 

use clear:ly indicates otherwise: 

(1) 'A.C.P.E.' means the American Council on 

Pharmaccltical Education. 

. . . . 

(9) 'College of pharmacy' mesas a school, 

university, or college of pharmacy that satisfies 

the accreditation standards of A.C.P.E. as adopted 

by the board: or that has degree requirements 

p. 2050 
Mr. Fred S. Brinkley, Jr. - Page 2 (m-452) 

which meet the standards of accreditation set by 

the board. 

. . . . 

Sec. 21. (a) To qualify for a license to 

practice pharmac>,, an applicant for licensing by 

examination must submit to the board a license fee 

as determined by the board and a completed application on a forn prescribed by the board with 

satisfactory sworn evidence that he: 

. . . . 

(4) has gradca,ted and received s professional 

degree from an a$credited college of pharmacy that 

has been spprovediby the board; and 

. . . . 

Sec. 22. (a) To qualify for a license to 

practice pharmacy 'by reciprocity, an applicant for 

licensing must: 

. . . . 

(3) have graduated -- and received a professional 

degree from an accredited college of pharmacy that 

has been approved:by the board; 

. . . . 

Sec. 26. (a) The board shall refuse to issue 

a pharmacist 1i:ense for failure to meet the 

requirements of Section 21 or 22 of this Act. 

The Rules of the Texas State Board of Pharmacy state that 

The following are the educational and age 

requirements each applicant must meet: 

(1) have obtsined a B.S. in pharmacy or a 

Pharm.D. from a college of pharmacy accredited by 

ACF'E and meeting the requirements of the board; 

and 

(2) provide satisfactory evidence that the age 

of 21 years has been obtained. 

p. 2051 
Mr. Fred S. Brinkley, Jr. -. Page 3 (JM-452) 

22 T.A.C. 9283.3 (1982). 

The issue is neither the residency nor nationality of an 

applicant but whether, under the Texas Pharmacy Act, persons who have 

completed a pharmacy educal:ion at a pharmacy school outside the United 

States may be licensed by the Texas State Board of Pharmacy [Board of 

Pharmacy]. 

The dominant considerntion in construing statutes is legislative 

intent. The Texas Supreme Court recently stated that 

[nlo inflexible ,rule can be announced for the 

construction of e,tatutes. However, the dominant 

rule to be obsa?rved is to give effect to the 

intention of the Legislature. Generally the 

intent and meaning is obtained primarily from the 

language of the statute. In arriving at the 

intent and purpose of the law, it is proper to 

consider the l:i,story of the subject matter 

involved, the en3 to be attained, the mischief to 

be remedied, and the purposes to be accomplished. 

y Commission, 643 S.W.2d 681, 684 

quoting wI;ji 

S.W.2d 488,'490 

Coahoma V. Public Utility Commissioa, 626 

(Tax. 19817 and Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Walker, 83 

S.W.2d 929 (Tex. 1935). 

The Texas Pharmacy Ac: was enacted by House Bill No. 1628, Sixtyseventh Legislature. in l%l to replace article 45428, V.T.C.S., and 

to continue the existence and operation of the Board of Pharmacy as 

part of the Texas Sunset C,ndssion review process provided by article 

5429k, V.T.C.S. (now recod.LJi1e.d as chapter 325, Government Code). The 

bill analysis of Rouse BilL No. 1628, prepared for the House Committee 

on Government Organizatti)n, on file with the Texas Legislative 

Reference Library, expla::ns that the term "college of pharmacy" 

defined in section S(9) of the bill appears in section 9(a) of the 

replaced pharmacy act, but that the term was not defined in the prior 

act. The bill analysis describes section 21(a) as "Section 9(a) of 

the current act" (art. 454:2a) and section 22(a) as "Section 9(c) of 

the current act." See mts 1979, 66th Leg., ch. 837, at 2202. 

Section 9(a) of article 4542a provided that an applicant seeking to 

take the examination given, by the Board of Pharmacy shall present 

satisfactory evidence "that he has attended and graduated from a 

reputable university, school, or college of pharmacy which meets the 

requirements of the Board." (Emphasis added). Section 9(c) of 

article 4542a authorized :%ensing by reciprocity for applicants who 

furnish proof that they ar L registered as pharmacists in a stare whose 

board "in its examination required the same general degree of fitness 

required by this State." 

p. 2052 
Mr. Fred S. Brinkley, Jr. - Page 4 (JM-452) 

The Texas State Board of Pharmacy Staff Report to the Sunset 

Advisory Commission, dated June 19, 1980, states that 

The licensing standards for pharmacists can be 

broken down into three basic components: education, experience and examination. With regard to 

education, the ststute requires at least an undergraduate degree from a board-approved. school of 

pharmacy. (Fmphe,sis added). 

The Pharmacy Board Report to the Sunset Commission suggested modifications to the Pharmacy Board statute but contained no indication that 

foreign pharmacy schools pr,esented a problem and no suggested legislation on that subject. The Sunset Commission Report on the Board of 

Pharmacy did not recommenC. any statutory changes relating to educational requirements. 

We find no indication that the legislature intended the Texas 

Pharmacy Act enacted In 195L, to deny to the Texas Board of Pharmacy 

the discretion to approve, for licensing purposes, schools of pharmacy 

that meet standards set by the board or to limit schools that are 

eligible for approval to those schools of pharmacy that satisfy 

accreditation standards of A.C.P.E. The legislature defined a 

"college of pharmacy" to m'ssn a school of pharmacy that satisfies the 

accreditation standards of A.C.P.E. as adopted by the board or that 

has degree requirements whLch meet the standards of accreditat% set 

by the board. 

One of the fundament%:l rules of statutory construction is the 

rule that words in connnon use, when contained in a statute, will be 

read according to their nat:u.ral, ordinary, and popular meaning, unless 

a contrary intention is clearly apparent from the context. See 

National Life Co. v. Stly&, 169 S.W.2d 155, 157 (Tex. 1943); 

Attorney General Opinion WW-1271 (1962). A dictionary may be 

consulted to ascertain the meaning of a word. See Board of Insurance 

Commissioners v. Duncan, 1174 S.W.2d 326, 328(Tex. Civ. App. - 

Amarillo 1943, writ ref'd'l;; Attorney General Opinion B-1277 (1978). 

Black's Law Dictionary 19 (5th cd. 1979), defines "accredit" to mean 

"to recognize as having sufficient academic standards to qualify 

graduates for higher educa,tion or for professional practice." In 

Ballentine's Law Dictionary 14 (3rd ed. 1969), "accredit" means "to 

recognize as worthy of mer:.t or rank, as to accredit a college." 

The effect of Rule 2X).3, as presently adopted by the Board of 

Pharmacy, is that only colleges of pharmacy in the United States meet 

the board's educational requirements because foreign colleges of 

pharmacy are not accredited by A.C.P.E. The Board of Pharmacy is 

authorized to utilize the A.C.P.E. and its standards to assist the 

board in determining the ~~rofessional degree programs of colleges of 

p. 2053 
Mr. Fred S. Brinkley, Jr. -. Page 5 (JM-452) 

pharmacy that meet the edc,cational requirements of the board for the 

purpose of licensure of pharmacists. We believe, however, that the 

legislature did not intend the Texas Pharmacy Act to preclude the 

board from utilizing other methods and tests which the board deems 

appropriate for determining the colleges of pharmacy with standards 

that merit board approval for the purpose of licensing pharmacists. 

The state has the power to regulate licensed professions. See 

Texas State Board of Pub+ Accountancy V. Fulcher, 515 S.W.2d 950 

(Tex. Civ. App. - Corpus Christi 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The 

legislature may delegate psrt of that authority by creating licensing 

agencies to make rules and ,cegulations consistent with the purpose of 

their respective enablinp 

licenses. 

acts and to grant. - . refuse. or revoke 

In so doing, the legislature may limit a licensing board's 

authority. See Francisco v. 

619, 621 (T=Tiv. App. 

Board of Dental Examiners, 149 S.W.2d 

- 'ii.ustin 1941, writ ref'd). 

We believe that, if l:h.e legislature intended the Texas Pharmacy 

Act to prohibit the licerls,ure of graduates of all schools located 

outside the United Statecl, it expressly would have provided such 

prohibitions or 1imitation:l. We conclude that the Texas Pharmacy Act 

authorizes the Board of Phz.tmacy to decide whether FPGEC certification 

of a foreign pharmacy graduate constitutes an appropriate method or 

test for determining whether the degree requirements of a school 

located outside the United !;tates meet the standards of accreditation 

set by the board. Cf. V.T.C.S. art. 4495b, $5.04 (individual who has 

been student of a fzgn medical school is eligible for licensurc to 

practice medicine in this state if he meets specific requirements); 

V.T.C.S. art. 4544, 62 (l'eras State Board of Dental Examiners may 

provide in rules and reguls,tions the procedures and requirements for 

graduates of foreign dent;Il. schools to become licensed to practice 

dentistry); V.T.C.S. art. 4518, $§I, 3 (Board of Nurse Examiners shall 

accredit schools of nursing; and educational programs that meet its 

requirements and standards .and every applicant for registration must 

complete an accredited pro;gram of professional nursing education); 

V.T.C.S. art. 4552-3.02 (applicant for license to practice optometry 

must graduate from a reputable university or college of optometry that 

meets the requirements of the Texas Optometry Board). 

Second, you also ask whether the Board of Pharmacy may require a 

foreign pharmacy graduate tiho has obtained an FPGEC certification to 

pass an oral communicatioas skill examination to determine such a 

person's oral communicatior, ability. It is our opinion that the Board 

of Pharmacy does not have authority to require an applicant for 

licensing to pass an oral communications skill examination in order to 

qualify for a license. 

It is well establish#!d that an administrative agency has only 

those powers expressly grarted to it by statute or necessarily implied 

p. 2054 
Mr. Fred S. Brinkley, Jr. - :Page 6 (JM-452) 

from the statutory authority conferred or duties imposed. See City of 

Sherman v, Public Utility Commission, 643 S.W.2d 681, 686 (G. 1983); 

Stauffer v. City of San Ant;&, 344 S.W.2d 158 (Tex. 1961). 

Section 21 of the Texas Pharmacy Act expressly provides qualifications for licensing by examination. The legislature specified 

qualifications relating to age, moral character, internship or other 

experience, education, and the passage of "the examination required by 

the board." Sec. 21(a). The examination shall be prepared to measure 

the competence of the appU.c,ant to engage in the practice of pharmacy 

and the board may employ and cooperate with any organization or 

consultant, including a national testing service, in the preparation 

and grading of an appropriate examination. Sec. 21(d), (e). Section 

21(f) directs that each applicant for licensing shall obtain practical 

experience in the practice of pharmacy. Under section 21(g), the 

board shall establish stand,ards for internship or any other program 

necessary to qualify an applicant for the licensing examination and 

shall determine the necessary qualifications for any preceptors used 

in an internship or other program. 

Rules and regulations adopted by Texas administrative agencies 

may not impose additional burdens, conditions, or restrictions in 

excess of or inconsistent with statutory provisions. See Bexar County 

Bail Bond Board v. Deckard, 604 S.W.2d 214, 216-17 (TX Civ. App. - 

San Antonio 1980, no writ) (in absence of statutory language indicating legislative intent zbat a board have the power to add to 

licensing qualifications enumerated by the legislature, it is not 

within the power of a board to impose qualifications that add to those 

expressed in the statute). 

We find nothing in t'xe Texas Pharmacy Act which suggests that 

oral communication ability is a qualification for licensure or would 

constitute express or impl.ied authority to the board to require 

passage of an oral communj.c:ation skills examination. You advise us 

that the Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Equivalency Examination is given 

only in English and that a requirement for FPGEC certification is 

documentation that the pe:rrron has passed the Test of English as a 

Foreign Language (TOEFL) examination. Oral communication skill is not 

necessarily the same as Enl&ish language skill, but it appears that a 

person's English language skill will have received some measure of 

testing when he obtains an FPGEC certification. 

The legislature has given the Board of Pharmacy broad power to 

approve the educational sta,ndards of the colleges of pharmacy which 

the board deems necessary :ior the purpose of licensing pharmacists in 

this state. While it is O'UC opinion that oral communication skill as 

such is not a qualificati~xl for licensure, we believe the Board of 

Pharmacy may require an oral communication skills examination to be 

given uniformly to all graduates of the colleges of pharmacy, if the 

p. 2055 
,- 

Mr. Fred S. Brinkley, Jr. .. Page 7 (JM-452) 

board needs to ascertain their skill for the purpose of evaluating the 

quality of education acquired by the graduates. 

SUMMARY 

The Texas Pharmacy Act neither prohibits nor 

requires the Tex,ss State Board of Pharmacy to 

license persons who graduate from colleges of 

pharmacy located outside the United States. The 

Texas Board of Pharmacy has discretion to approve 

colleges of pharmacy for licensing purposes and 

=Y utilize accreditation or certification by 

agencies it deems appropriate to assist the board 

in determining t'la colleges of pharmacy that meet 

standards set by the board. The Texas Board of 

Pharmacy has not bean granted express or implied 

authority to add verbal communication ability to 

the qualifications for a license to practice 

pharmacy. 

Jr?Jj+L& 

Attorney General of Texas 

JACK RIGRTOWRR 

First Assistant Attorney General 

MARY KELLER 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

ROBERT GRAY 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

RICK GILPIN 

Chairman, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by Nancy Sutton 

Assistant Attorney General 

p. 2056