Texas Register, Volume 37, Number 40, Pages 7815-8094, October 5, 2012 Page: 7,954
7533-7814 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:
Road, Austin, Texas 78744; (512) 389-4591 (e-mail: ken.kurza-
wski@tpwd. state. tx. us).
The amendment is proposed under Parks and Wildlife Code,
66.007, which prohibits the possession or placement into pub-
lic waters of exotic fish or shellfish except as authorized by rule
or permit issued by the department.
The proposed amendment affects Parks and Wildlife Code,
Chapter 66.
57.972. General Rules.
(a) - (j) (No change.)
(k) A person who leaves a water body listed in this subsection
while in possession of a harmful or potentially harmful species listed
in 57.111 of this title (relating to Definitions) that is invisible to the
unaided human eye is not in violation of 57.112 of this title (relating
to General Rules), provided that:
(1) all live wells, bilges, and other similar receptacles and
systems that are capable of retaining or holding water as a consequence
of being immersed in a water body have been drained prior to the use
of a public roadway; or
(2) the person is travelling on a public roadway via the most
direct route to another access point located on the same body of water.
(3) This subsection applies to the following bodies of wa-
ter:
(A) the Red River from the 1-44 bridge in Wichita
County to the Texas/Arkansas border, including the Texas waters of
Lake Texoma; [and]
(B) Lake Lavon; and[.]
(C) all impounded and tributary waters of the Elm
Fork of the Trinity River above the Lewisville Dam, including Lake
Lewisville and Lake Ray Roberts.
This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal author-
ity to adopt.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on September 24,
2012.
TRD-201205061
Ann Bright
General Counsel
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Earliest possible date of adoption: November 4, 2012
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
CHAPTER 61. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
SUBCHAPTER A. CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC
WORKS
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes the repeal
of 61.21 - 61.26 and new 61.21, concerning Contracts for
Public Works. The proposed repeal and new section are a result
of the department's review of its regulations under the provisions
of Government Code, 2001.039, which requires a 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.Under Parks and Wildlife Code, 11.0171, the executive director
or executive director's designee may negotiate, contract, or en-
ter an agreement relating to a project of the department, includ-
ing professional services agreements relating to a department
project, consistent with Subchapter A, Chapter 2254, Govern-
ment Code (the Professional Services Procurement Act). Sec-
tion 11.0171 also requires the commission to adopt by rule poli-
cies and procedures consistent with applicable state procure-
ment practices for soliciting and awarding contracts.
In reviewing Chapter 61, Design and Construction, the depart-
ment determined that the existing rules governing construction
contracts do not reflect all of the options for modern construction
contract award and management. In addition, the current rules
contain provisions that are more appropriately addressed in so-
licitation documents, such as a request for proposals. There-
fore, the department proposes to replace the existing rules with
a single, flexible regulation that enables the department to deal
effectively with the multiplicity of possible conditions and circum-
stances affecting the various construction projects undertaken
by the department.
Proposed new 61.21(a) would require the department to solicit,
evaluate, negotiate, select, and award contracts for construction
projects by means of a fair and impartial method, including but
not limited to competitive bidding, competitive sealed proposal,
construction manager-agent, construction manager-at-risk, de-
sign-build method, and single source.
Proposed new 61.21(b) would require the department to en-
sure that any method used to solicit, evaluate, select, and award
a contract for construction results in the best value for the de-
partment. In addition to the obvious importance of ensuring that
construction contracting occur in compliance with state law and
by means of a fair and impartial process, the department be-
lieves it is important that the proposed regulation acknowledge
that as a public agency, the department's goal in all cases is to
make sure that the interest of the people of the state is served by
striving to obtain the best value when contracting for construc-
tion.
Ms. Teresa Rodgers-Curtis, Contracting Branch Manager, Infra-
structure Division, 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 state and local governments as a result of enforc-
ing or administering the rule.
Ms. Rodgers-Curtis also has determined that for each of the
first five years the rule as proposed is in effect, the public benefit
anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the rule as
proposed will be rules that enable the department to contract for
construction projects in the quickest, most effective, and most
economical manner.
There will be no adverse economic effect on persons required to
comply with the rule 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,37 TexReg 7954 October 5, 2012 Texas Register
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 37, Number 40, Pages 7815-8094, October 5, 2012, periodical, October 5, 2012; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth288982/m1/140/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.