Texas Register, Volume 41, Number 52, Pages 10019-10486, December 23, 2016 Page: 10,075
10019-10486 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
(2) date of sale;
(3) hull identification number and/or motor identification
number;
(4) name and address of person selling to the dealer;
(5) name and address of person purchasing from the dealer;
(6) name and address of selling dealer or individual if ves-
sel and/or outboard motor is offered for sale by consignment;
(7) a copy of the vessel/outboard motor title/registration re-
ceipt;
(8) copies of any and all documents, forms, and agreements
applicable to a particular sale, consignment, listing, transfer of owner-
ship, titling, titling and registration, or documentation through the U.S.
Coast Guard, including, but not limited to title applications, work-up
sheets, Manufacturer's Certificates of Origin, titles or photocopies of
the front and back of titles, factory invoices, sales contracts, retail in-
stallment agreements, buyer's orders, bills of sale, waivers, or other
agreements between the seller and purchaser; and
(9) copies of written consignment agreements or power of
attorney for vessels, motorboats, or outboard motors.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the pro-
posal and found it to be within the state agency's legal authority
to adopt.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on December 9,
2016.
TRD-201606451
Ann Bright
General Counsel
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Earliest possible date of adoption: January 22, 2017
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
CHAPTER 55. LAW ENFORCEMENT
SUBCHAPTER F. FLOATING CABINS
31 TAC 55.202, 55.208
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes an amend-
ment to 55.202, concerning Period of Validity; Renewal and
Transfer of Permits and new 55.208, concerning Refusal to Re-
new Permit; Review of Agency Decision to Refuse Permit Re-
newal.
The proposed amendment to 55.202 would eliminate language
in subsection (c) providing for notification and review of permit
expiration. The proposed amendment is necessary because
proposed new 55.208 creates a comprehensive process for re-
fusal of renewal of a floating cabin permit; thus, the provisions in
55.202 are not necessary.
Under current rules the only criteria for denying renewal of a
floating cabin permit is if the permittee has allowed a floating
cabin permit to expire. Proposed new 55.208 would institute
additional criteria for denial of permit renewal, and implement
a review process for permit denials. The amendment is part of
an overall effort to create uniform criteria for the denial of special
permits and licenses to persons who have been proven to exhibit
disregard for statutes and regulations governing special permit
and license privileges and Parks and Wildlife laws in general.Proposed new 55.208 would allow the department to deny per-
mit renewal to any person who has been finally convicted or
assessed an administrative penalty for a violation of Parks and
Wildlife Code that is Class A or B misdemeanor, state jail felony,
or felony, or a violation of Water Code, 26.121 (which applies
to water pollution, such as wastewater discharges). Additionally,
the proposed new section would allow for permit renewal denial if
the applicant is liable to the state under Parks and Wildlife Code,
12.301 (civil restitution value of fish and wildlife resources un-
lawfully taken or possessed).
The department believes that a person who has demonstrated
egregious, repeated, or reckless disregard for Parks and Wildlife
laws other than those punishable as Class C misdemeanors (i.e.,
minor crimes such as bag and possession limit violations), and
specifically, laws relating to water pollution, should not be ac-
corded the privilege of holding a floating cabin permit. Similarly,
a person who is indebted to the state for the civil restitution value
of fish and wildlife resources that were unlawfully taken or pos-
sessed should not be accorded permit privileges.
The department does not intend for a conviction or administra-
tive penalty to be an automatic bar to renewal of a floating cabin
permit. Therefore, the proposed new rule would provide for the
department to consider a number of factors and make such de-
terminations on a case-by-case basis. The factors that may be
considered by the department in determining whether to deny
a permit based on a conviction or deferred adjudication would
include the seriousness of the offence, the number of offenses,
the existence or absences of a pattern of offenses, the length
of time between the offense and the permit application, and any
other pertinent factors.
Finally, the proposed amendment would create a mechanism for
persons who have been denied permit renewal to have the op-
portunity to have such decisions reviewed by department man-
agers, which is intended to help ensure that decisions affecting
license privileges are correct.
Cody Jones, Boating Law Administrator, has determined that for
each of the first five years that the rules as proposed are in effect,
there will be no fiscal implications to state or local governments
as a result of enforcing or administering the rules.
Mr. Jones also has determined that for each of the first five years
the rules as proposed are in effect, the public benefit anticipated
as a result of enforcing or administering the rules as proposed
will be consistent regulations governing the department's admin-
istrative processes with regard to license and permit issuance.
There will be no adverse economic effect on persons required to
comply with the rules as proposed.
Under the provisions of Government Code, Chapter 2006, a
state agency must prepare an economic impact statement and a
regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule that may have an adverse
economic effect on small businesses and micro-businesses. As
required by Government Code, 2006.002(g), the Office of the
Attorney General has prepared guidelines to assist state agen-
cies in determining a proposed rule's potential adverse economic
impact on small businesses. Those guidelines state that an
agency need only consider a proposed rule's "direct adverse
economic impacts" to small businesses and micro-businesses to
determine if any further analysis is required. For that purpose,
the department considers "direct economic impact" to mean a re-
quirement that would directly impose recordkeeping or reporting
requirements; impose taxes or fees; result in lost sales or profits;PROPOSED RULES December 23, 2016 41 TexReg 10075
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas. Secretary of State. Texas Register, Volume 41, Number 52, Pages 10019-10486, December 23, 2016, periodical, December 23, 2016; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth835937/m1/57/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.