Rules Review - Marine Dealer, Manufacturer, or Distributors Card Rules

Please limit submissions to one per person.

LEGISLATIVE RULES REVIEW

CHAPTER 53. FINANCE

SUBCHAPTER A – FEES

PROPOSAL PREAMBLE

1. Introduction.

        The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes an amendment to 53.16, concerning Vessel, Motor, and Marine Licensing Fees. The proposed amendment would alter subsection (c) to eliminate an unnecessary word and clarify that a replacement marine dealer, manufacturer, or distributor’s card does not include a decal.

        The proposed amendments are a result of the department’s review of its regulations under the provisions of Government Code, §2001.039, which requires each state agency to review each of its regulations no less frequently than every four years and to re-adopt, adopt with changes, or repeal each rule as a result of the review.

2. Fiscal Note.

        Julie Aronow, Manager of Boat Titling, Registration and Marine Licensing, has determined that for each of the first five years that the rule as proposed is in effect, there will be no fiscal implications to the department as a result of administering or enforcing the rule.

3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.

        Ms. Aronow also has determined that for each of the first five years that the rule as proposed is in effect:

        (A) The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the proposed rule will be rules that accurately reflect agency products available to the public.

        There will be no adverse economic effect on persons required to comply with the rule.

        (B) 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, micro-businesses, or rural communities. As required by Government Code, §2006.002(g), the Office of the Attorney General has prepared guidelines to assist state agencies in determining a proposed rule’s potential adverse economic impact on small and microbusinesses and rural communities. Those guidelines state that an agency need only consider a proposed rule’s direct adverse economic impacts to determine if any further analysis is required. The department considers “direct economic impact“ to mean a requirement that would directly impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements; impose taxes or fees; result in lost sales or profits; adversely affect market competition; or require the purchase or modification of equipment or services.

        (C) The department has determined that proposed rule would result in no direct economic effect on any small businesses, micro-businesses, or rural community. Therefore, neither the economic impact statement nor the regulatory flexibility analysis described in Government Code, Chapter 2006, is required.

        (D) The department has not drafted a local employment impact statement under the Administrative Procedures Act, §2001.022, as the agency has determined that the rule as proposed will not impact local economies.

        (E) The department has determined that Government Code, §2001.0225 (Regulatory Analysis of Major Environmental Rules), does not apply to the proposed rule.

        (F) The department has determined that there will not be a taking of private real property, as defined by Government Code, Chapter 2007, as a result of the proposed rule.

        (G) In compliance with the requirements of Government Code, §2001.0221, the department has prepared the following Government Growth Impact Statement (GGIS).  The rule as proposed, if adopted, will not create or eliminate a government program; not result in an increase or decrease in the number of full-time equivalent employee needs; not result in a need for additional General Revenue funding; not affect the amount of an existing fee; not expand, limit, or repeal an existing regulation; not increase or decrease the number of individuals subject to regulation; and not positively or adversely affect the state’s economy.

4. Request for Public Comment.

        Comments on the proposal may be submitted to Julie Aronow at (512) 389-4860, e-mail: julie.aronow@tpwd.texas.gov. Comments also may be submitted via the department’s website at https://www.tpwd.texas.gov/business/feedback/public_comment/.

5. Statutory Authority.

        The amendment is proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, §31.041, which authorizes the commission to establish rules concerning the issuance and price of validation cards; and §31.0412, which authorizes the commission to adopt rules regarding marine dealer, manufacturer, and distributor licenses.

        The proposed amendment affects Government Code, Chapter 31.

6. Rule Text.

        §53.16. Vessel, Motor, and Marine Licensing Fees.

                 (a) – (c) (No change.)

                 (d) Marine dealer/distributor/manufacturer fees:

                         (1) – (5) (No change.)

                         (6) replacement [card] marine dealer, manufacturer, or distributor’s licensee validation card [(with decal)] — $11.

                 (e) – (f) (No change.)

        This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency’s authority to adopt.

        Issued in Austin, Texas, on