Legislative Rule Review- Proposed Changes to Chapter 53, Finance

Please limit submissions to one per person. (Por favor limite sus comentarios a uno por persona)

Summary

• English Summary
• Resumen en español

LEGISLATIVE RULES REVIEW

CHAPTER 53. FINANCE

 1. Introduction.

        The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes an amendment to §53.10, concerning Public Hunting and Fishing Permits and Fees.

        The proposed amendment would implement a conforming change to terminology with respect to references to pronghorn antelope. In 2022, the department amended 31 TAC §65.3, concerning Definitions, to define “pronghorn” as “pronghorn antelope (Antilocarpa americana).” Although Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 63, designates the “pronghorn antelope” as a game species, the animal is not in fact a true antelope. Additionally, it is less cumbersome to simply refer to the animal as a pronghorn. Therefore, the definition was changed and the department is addressing the term throughout the agency’s rules as the opportunity arises.

        The proposed amendment is 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.

        Robert Macdonald, Regulations Coordinator, has determined that for each of the first five years that the rule as proposed are in effect, there will be no fiscal implications to state or local governments as a result of administering or enforcing the rule.

3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.

        Mr. Macdonald 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 consistent terminology throughout agency rules.

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

        (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.

        The department has determined that the proposed rule does not affect small businesses, micro-businesses, or rural communities. Therefore, neither the economic impact statement nor the regulatory flexibility analysis described in Government Code, Chapter 2006, is required.

        (C) 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.

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

        (E) 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.

        (F) 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:

                 (1) neither create nor eliminate a government program;

                 (2) not result in an increase or decrease in the number of full-time equivalent employee needs;

                 (3) not result in a need for additional General Revenue funding;

                 (4) not affect the amount of any fee;

                 (5) not create a new regulation;

                 (6) not limit, expand, or repeal an existing regulation;

                 (7) neither increase nor decrease the number of individuals subject to regulation; and

                 (8) not positively or adversely affect the state’s economy.

4. Request for Public Comment.

        Comments on the proposed rule may be submitted to Robert Macdonald, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744; (512) 389-4775, email: Robert.Macdonald@tpwd.texas.gov. Comments also may be submitted via the department’s website at www.tpwd.texas.gov.

5. Statutory Authority.

        The amendment is proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, §81.403, which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a permit for the hunting of wildlife or for any other use in wildlife management areas.

        The proposed amendment affects Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 81.

        §53.10. Public Hunting and Fishing Permits and Fees.

                 (a) (No change.)

                 (b) Special and regular permits. The following permit fee amounts apply only to persons 17 years of age and older:

                         (1) special permits.

                                  (A) standard period for deer, exotic mammal, pronghorn [antelope], javelina, turkey, coyote, alligator — $80;

                                  (B) – (C) (No change.)

                         (2) (No change.)

                 (c) – (d) (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