Part 1.
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
Chapter 13.
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
Subchapter E. PRECURSORS AND APPARATUS
37 TAC §13.101, §13.116
The Texas Department of Public Safety adopts amendments to §13.101
and new §13.116, concerning Precursors and Apparatus, without changes
to the proposed text as published in the May 14, 2004, issue of the
Amendment to §13.101 paragraph (12) is necessary in order to clarify
the use of the terms "precursor" and "chemical precursor." The addition of
new paragraph (15) to §13.101 is necessary in order to explain that the
term "immediate precursor" as used in the subchapter means a chemical substance
item as listed in new §13.116 of this title (relating to Immediate Precursor
List).
New §13.116 is necessary because the 78th Texas Legislature (2003)
amended the Health and Safety Code, §481.002(22) to authorize the director
of the Texas Department of Public Safety to establish an "immediate precursor"
list. Previously, this function was held by the Commissioner of Health. New §13.116
identifies the substances that are designated by the director to be "immediate
precursors."
No comments were received regarding adoption of the amendments and new
section.
The amendments and new section are adopted pursuant to the Health
and Safety Code, Chapter 481, including §481.003, which authorizes the
director to adopt rules to administer the chapter, and §481.002(22) which
authorizes the director to designate a substance to be an immediate precursor
by rule.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on June 24, 2004.
TRD-200404222
Thomas A. Davis, Jr.
Director
Texas Department of Public Safety
Effective date: July 14, 2004
Proposal publication date: May 14, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 424-2135
37 TAC §21.1
The Texas Department of Public Safety adopts amendments to §21.1,
concerning Standards for Vehicle Equipment, without changes to the proposed
text as published in the March 5, 2004, issue of the
Texas Register
(29 TexReg 2261).
The section provides specifications and performance standards for vehicle
equipment to include: lamps, reflective devices, and other lighting devices;
sunscreening and reflective window devices; and safety guards or flaps. The
main purpose of this rulemaking is to implement changes resulting from the
passage of Texas Senate Bill 345, 78th Legislature, Regular Session (2003),
Chapter 136.
Senate Bill 345 amends Texas Transportation Code, §547.613, which
restricts sunscreening devices on certain vehicle windows to at least 25 percent
light transmission measured in combination with both the window glass and
the sunscreening device. Additional amendments to §21.1 provide clarifying
language explaining preemptive federal window glazing (sunscreening/window
tint) standards and the procedure to obtain a medical exemption from the department
for sunscreening devices and its limitations.
The department held a public hearing on the proposal in Austin on April
13, 2004, and the extended comment period closed on April 13, 2004. The department
received several comments concerning the proposal. Following each comment
summary is the department's response and any resulting change(s).
COMMENT: The International Window Film Association and Enpro Distributing,
Inc. made comments referencing §547.613(d) which permits the department
to allow a three percent tolerance from the standard on light transmission
and luminous reflectance on after-market sunscreening materials. These comments
include statements regarding meter accuracy used to test these materials when
installed as plus or minus two percent. The comments suggested incorporation
of this tolerance into the after-market window sunscreening device standard.
RESPONSE: These comments are outside the scope of this rule. This rule,
regarding sunscreening devices (window tint), states the legal standard for
after-market sunscreening devices. The measurement of window tint on motor
vehicles generally occurs under two circumstances. The most frequent is during
the annual safety inspection. The department rule administering that measurement
is 37 TAC §23.42, Inspection of Sunscreening Devices (Glass Tinting)
by Official Vehicle Inspection Stations. Section 23.42 currently provides
inspection criteria compensating for meter accuracy. The second and less frequent
occasion is during a traffic stop by law enforcement personnel. The applicable
department rule for the second circumstance is 37 TAC §3.26, Inspection
of Drivers and Vehicles. In the latter, law enforcement personnel inspect
"as outlined in the statutes." These comments resulted in no changes to the
proposal.
COMMENT: A station operator representing the Texas State Inspection Association
members in San Antonio supported amendment of the rule, but expressed concern
regarding the luminance reflectance specification. The speaker wanted to know
if this specification would be part of the inspection criteria found under
Chapter 23. If so, the speaker was concerned over the cost of new inspection
equipment and the department to address the economics of time and cost requirements
to inspection stations.
RESPONSE: These comments are outside the scope of this rule. As previously
stated, 37 TAC §23.42 is the applicable rule for "Inspection of Sunscreening
Devices (Glass Tinting) by Official Vehicle Inspection Stations." Texas Transportation
Code, §547.613 contained restrictions for luminous reflectance before
its revision during the last legislative session. In any event, Texas Transportation
Code, §548.501 regulates the fee inspection stations may charge for the
state's compulsory vehicle inspection. This comment resulted in no changes
to the proposal.
The amendments are adopted pursuant to Texas Government Code, §411.004(3),
which authorizes the Public Safety Commission to adopt rules considered necessary
for carrying out the department's work; Texas Transportation Code, §547.101,
which authorizes the Department of Public Safety to adopt standards for vehicle
equipment; and the provisions of Texas Senate Bill 345, 78th Legislature,
Regular Session (2003), Chapter 136.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on June 22, 2004.
TRD-200404140
Thomas A. Davis, Jr.
Director
Texas Department of Public Safety
Effective date: July 12, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 424-2135
Subchapter A. VEHICLE INSPECTION STATION LICENSING
37 TAC §23.15
The Texas Department of Public Safety adopts amendments to §23.15,
concerning Inspection Station and Certified Inspector Denial, Revocation,
Suspensions, and Administrative Hearings, with changes to the proposed text
as published in the March 5, 2004, issue of the
Texas Register
(29 TexReg 2265) and will be republished.
The amendments clarify grounds for denial, revocation, and suspension of
certificates for inspection stations and inspectors. The amendments explicate
that listed violations in the rule are not exclusive, includes additional
minor violations generally requiring retraining and/or warning enforcement
actions, and further adds other serious violations contained in other department
rules.
The department held a public hearing in Austin on April 13, 2004, and the
extended comment period closed on April 13, 2004. The department received
both written and oral comments concerning this proposal. Summaries of the
comments are arranged according to the applicable subject area within the
rule. Changes to the proposed amendments are in response to comments received
and follow the department responses where indicated. Additionally, there are
corrections for slight typographical errors.
Written comments were received from the Executive VP/Chief Counsel of the
Texas Automobile Dealers Association (TADA). Written and oral comments were
received from an attorney representing Express Sticker, PitStop USA, Stickerstop,
Stickerstop USA, and Vehicle Inspections by MOGO consisting of twelve vehicle
inspections stations (Stations(12)) and members of the department staff (Staff).
Oral comments were received from: a representative from the Texas State Inspection
Association (TSIA-1); a spokesperson for San Antonio members of the Texas
State Inspection Association (TSIA-2); a spokesperson representing Texas State
Inspection Association and LoneStar Lubrication (TSIA-3); and the owner/operator
of Mr. Sticker, Inc., (Mr. Sticker). The comments received were generally
favorable to the rule as proposed; however, many of the commenters had questions,
specific concerns, or offered suggestions for change.
The following comments were received concerning the proposed amendments.
The comments are consolidated and summarized in the same order as the proposed
language appears in the rule. Following each comment summary is the department's
response.
COMMENT: Stations(12) noted that the amended text to subsection (d) creates
an "overall catch-all" clause. This subsection allows the department to address
those violations not specifically listed. Stations(12) expressed concern that
the penalty for the resulting violations could be anything from re-education
to lifetime revocation. The recommended language by Stations(12) would provide
that all such violations be classified as "Category A" violations.
RESPONSE: Stations(12) correctly stated in its comments that while the
department, after making the effort to enumerate every violation, could not
possibly list all of them. The department never intended the rule to be an
all-inclusive list. The amendments make this position clear to all. Categorizing
the resulting penalty for such a violation would be premature. When presented
with circumstances where an inspector or inspection station violates a law,
statute, or rule requiring administrative action against the license holder,
the department during the review process will make a determination regarding
the appropriate penalty category. No change was made based on this comment.
COMMENT: Stations(12) noted that subsection (e)(1)(B) uses the word "verifying"
relating to the statutory requirement placed upon an inspection station and
inspector regarding proof of financial responsibility during the vehicle inspection.
With no definition given, "verifying" gives rise to doubt as to what measures
are required. Stations(12) recommends use of language similar to that contained
in department's manual,
Rules and Regulations Manual
for Official Vehicle Inspection Stations and Certified Inspectors
(Manual).
RESPONSE: The department agrees. The use of the word "verifying" would
indicate a duty above that which is statutorily required. The department is
making the following minor change due to this comment to clarify the intent
and improve the accuracy of subparagraph.
COMMENT: Stations(12) noted that subsection (e)(1)(G) does not define the
term "properly safeguard" and does not provide guidance as to the actions
necessary to meet the minimum "safeguard" threshold. Stations(12)'s comments
focus on the PIN number used by inspectors and states that the lack of written
password standards provides no quantifiable method for the department to categorically
determine violations by inspectors. Stations(12) suggests that the department
develop guidelines for the physical safeguarding of cards and PINs including
password (PIN) selection standards similar to those in use in the private
sector.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the comment. This violation stems
from two separate department rules. First, 37 TAC §23.25, Safeguarding
Certificates, defines properly safeguard as it relates to certificates: "The
certificates shall be kept under lock and key at all times in a metal box
or a secure container with a locking device." Second, 37 TAC §23.96,
Emissions Analyzer Access/Identification Card concerns safeguarding the PIN
number. Subsection (c)(3) of the latter rule states: "Inspectors may not give,
share, lend, or divulge this PIN to another person without the explicit consent
of appropriate department personnel. Failure to comply with this paragraph
shall result in suspension or revocation of the inspector's certification
as well as any appropriate criminal action or administrative disciplinary
action. Inspectors are responsible for unauthorized access of the Texas Information
Management System resulting from their negligence or carelessness in maintaining
the confidentiality of their Personal Identification Number (PIN)." No change
was made based on this comment.
COMMENT: TSIA-2 expressed concern about subsection (e)(1)(H) that was not
affected by revision, but wants clarification because human errors do occur
and sometimes numbers are transposed on the records.
RESPONSE: The comment is outside the scope of this rule making. Subsection
(e)(1)(H) is a violation of an inspection station to follow department rules
contained in 37 TAC Subchapter D and the department Manual. As stated in the
previous department response, the inspection business exists because of state
regulation and all highly regulated businesses are required to keep accurate
records. This rule limits administrative punishment to a minor violation that
would result in re-education, warnings, and finally license suspension for
habitual violators.
COMMENT: TSIA-2 is concerned that subsection (e)(1)(J) penalizes small
stations in rural areas where the station removes a bad employee or when they
don't have anybody. (In both cases, the department assumes TSIA-2 means instances
where the station has only one certified inspector.)
RESPONSE: The department disagrees. The station is not penalized because
an inspection station without an inspector can not inspect vehicles. It is
the duty of an inspection station to inspect vehicles for the public. This
is a category A violation. The station operator is first re-educated on the
requirement of an inspector on duty. Next, the operator may receive a warning
for failing to heed the instruction. Finally, if another violation occurs
within two years of the first, the operator receives a three months suspension.
No change was made based on this comment.
COMMENT: TSIA-1 and TSIA-2 both commented on subsection (e)(1)(M). TSIA-1
states the violation is vague and results in adverse actions against the stations.
The stations need to know the correct way to do it. As an example, stations
performing emissions testing may have more than one inspection lane, but use
only one book of certificates. Certificates issued from one book, entered
into the analyzer in each lane then appear issued out of sequence. If stations
are required to have a complete series of books of each type of certificate
for each lane, it could double or triple the inventory cost of inspection
certificates for which the station has to prepay. TSIA-2 states this often
results from human mistakes with most stations usually having more than one
book of certificates. One inspector issues from one book, returns it to the
lock box and the next inspector on duty inadvertently picks up the other book
of certificates resulting in a break in the sequence. TSIA-2 is concerned
that this human error will be result in adverse action against the station.
TSIA-2 states, based on monthly issuance of several thousands of certificates,
there are printing errors in the certificate books, e.g., poor printing quality,
portion of certificate missing, whole certificates missing, and certificates
with duplicate numbers. TSIA-2 believes that these printing errors unfairly
jeopardize stations.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees that the violation is vague. These comments
are outside the scope of this rule. The subparagraph at issue details the
penalty resulting from violation of 37 TAC §23.21, Issuance of Inspection
Certificates. Section 23.21(a)(1) states: "An inspection certificate shall
be issued in numerical sequence for every vehicle inspected and approved."
Section 23.15 is not the procedural instruction for inspections or operation
of a certified inspection station. The department and the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, which prints the inspection certificates, take great
pains to prevent printing errors, but with tens of millions of certificates
printed each year some mistakes will be present. As TSIA-2 indicates, each
inspection station should routinely check all the inspection certificate books
after purchase and notify the department of any errors found. This will prevent
any adverse action against the station and further the quality control process
for printing the certificates. Regarding TSIA-1's comments on multiple lane
operations, the state inspection program design is based on one inspection
area per station. With the advent of emission testing, many large-scale operators
entered the program. The department allowed multiple lane operation under
one inspection station license on the provision that each separate inspection
area is complete, i.e., each inspection lane has an emissions analyzer. No
change was made based on this comment.
COMMENT: TSIA-1 and Stations(12) both commented on subsection (e)(1)(R).
TSIA-1 states it is vague and stations can not determine what careless or
negligent means, since this is a rule and not a law. Stations(12) uses one
recognized legal definition of negligence as "simple inadvertence" and suggests
the standard of care is high as evidenced by references to the department
Manual. Stations(12) suggests changing the standard from careless or negligent
to recklessly indifferent and further define it as "as such conduct that under
the circumstances evinces disregard or indifference to consequences." Stations(12)
also notes that the phrase "vehicle information" is not defined, however they
assume the term encompasses all information required by the analyzer.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees with TSIA-1, generally agrees with Stations(12)
definitional uses, but declines to lower the standard of care as suggested.
First, administrative rules are a creation of the law, therefore legal terms
apply, and as Stations(12) comments show the violation is not vague. This
is a violation of Transportation Code §548.601(a)(2), (3)(B), and (9).
It occurs when an inspector enters vehicle information required by the emissions
analyzer, with an additional opportunity to verify and correct that which
is incorrect, and causes the vehicle to fail the emission test during the
inspection. Entering the correct vehicle information is extremely important
to the vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program because: 1) federal
and state regulations require this information for each vehicle; 2) accurate
vehicle information is required for mobile emissions planning; and 3) false
failures cause public resentment and distrust of the I/M program. No change
was made based on this comment.
COMMENT: Staff requests, in reference to subsection (e)(1)(S), clarification
in counting the two-year period for subsequent violations, i.e., if the license
holder received a suspension for a third Category A violation, does the two-year
period start on the date of that violation or when the three month suspension
was over. TSIA-2 also requested the department to clarify this issue and recommended
the two year period include the suspension period.
RESPONSE: The department agrees with Staff and TSIA-2 and will clarify
the procedure for assessment of Category A violations, along with other categories,
elsewhere in the rule resulting from these comments.
COMMENT: Stations(12) stated that the distinction between subsection (e)(2)(E),
a Category B violation and subsection (e)(3)(H), a Category C violation, is
unclear. The comment provides a semantical analysis focusing on the terms
"allowing," "permitting," and "issuing." Stations(12) suggests the department:
1) clearly distinguish the criteria between the two violations; 2) define
"allowing" by developing a set of minimum standards for owner/operator control
procedures and policies over inspectors for which any violation would be considered
"allowing" conduct in violation of these rules; and 3) add an element for
knowledge and culpability on the part of the owner/operator resulting in a
violation.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees that the distinction between the two
violations is unclear and declines to define "allowing" as suggested. The
department agrees that the words allowing and permitting are synonymous; redundant
use was for emphasis. Unless defined otherwise, words have their common meanings
when considered in the context in the rule. Within the context of this rule,
the common meaning of "allow" is to neglect to restrain or prevent and "permit"
is to consent or to make possible. For clarification, "issuing" a certificate
by attaching it to the vehicle, is the culminating act incorporating the whole
of the inspection procedure. Discussion of the subsection (e)(2)(E) violation
was at some length during the prior rule making. It results from violating
department rules on tag-team inspections and hands-on on-the-job training,
both of which are strictly prohibited, where uncertified helpers perform some
or all of the inspection and the certified inspector merely signs off on their
work. The violation primarily focuses on the inspector, although a station
operator with knowledge of this activity is responsible. The subsection (e)(3)(H)
violation added, at the Category C level, focuses primarily on the station
operator who authorizes an uncertified person to perform inspections. The
use of the term issuing is key because the inspection station operator must
allow (neglect to restrain, prevent, or permit) the uncertified person access
to the certificates which the station operator is charged to safeguard. The
knowledge or culpability is clear. The department is making the following
minor change due to this comment in order to clarify the intent and improve
the accuracy of subparagraph.
COMMENT: TSIA-1 and TSIA-2 commented on subsection (e)(2)(I). TSIA-1 wants
the department to define the term "gross negligence" and asks if it will stand
up in district court. Both proffered questions regarding securing inspection
certificates based on anecdotal situations, e.g., if a loss occurs is gross
negligence assumed, inspectors keeping the certificates in their shirt pockets,
leaving the book lying on the analyzer with no one present but the department
technician while stepped away, and lock failure on safes, lock boxes, or cash
drawers used.
RESPONSE: The majority of questions proffered are outside the scope of
this rule. This subparagraph addresses the penalty for violation of 37 TAC §23.25,
Safeguarding Certificates that requires: "Adequate facilities shall be provided
for safeguarding all certificates. The certificates shall be kept under lock
and key at all times in a metal box or a secure container with a locking device."
The department uses the term "gross negligence" as is generally accepted in
legal usage and defined in
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY
1057
(7th ed. 1999), to include the annotations. While the precautions
are simple, the assumption of gross negligence is not predicated on loss of
the certificate alone. No change was made based on this comment.
COMMENT: The Staff commented the rule does not include instances where
the inspection station does not have a certified inspector available i.e.,
sole inspector quit, fired, or under suspension. Staff recommends it be Category
D violation in subsection (e)(4). TSIA-2 appeared to support staff's recommendation.
TSIA-3 stated closing a station is a concern. TSIA-3 comments it should not
happen due to an inspector sick day where the department locks out the analyzer
and it takes three days to unlock it (used for emissions testing), otherwise
it would not be a problem.
RESPONSE: The department agrees with the comments. Category D violations
are temporary eligibility situations where an inspection station or inspector
is temporarily prohibited from inspecting vehicles until a prescribed department
requirement is met. It is to put the inspector or inspection station on notice
of the problem. Obviously, vehicle inspections performed by uncertified personnel
would result in a more serious violation. It is the policy of the department
to unlock emissions analyzers immediately when any problem is cleared. The
department is making the following minor change to subsection (e)(4)(B) due
to the comments to include this omission.
COMMENT: TSIA-1 and Stations(12) both commented on subsection (e)(5)(A)(xi).
TSIA-1 agrees with the department if the violation defrauds the public or
the state. Stations(12) noted that this violation is broader than contained
in subsection (e)(1)(R) and as a result any mistake that results in the entry
of incorrect, e.g. false, information, no matter the cause, is applicable.
Stations(12) stated that it has no knowledge requirement, not even a careless
or negligence aspect, in the violation. TSIA-1 also inquired about differentiating
who did it and what was the intent. Stations(12) noted that as opposed to
subsection (e)(1)(R), this violation concerns any type of information and
not just vehicle information.
RESPONSE: The department agrees with most of the comments but declines
to change the subparagraph because the violation goes to the heart of why
and how the department administers an I/M (emissions testing) program. The
Clean Air Act, both federal and state, requires vehicle emissions testing
to find and fix polluting vehicles. Under the State Implementation Plan (SIP),
adopted by the State, prepared in accordance with federal rules, and adopted
in the
Federal Register
, the requirement for
enforcement against inspection stations and inspectors is clear: "Substantial
penalties or retainage shall be imposed on the first offense for violations
that directly affect emission reduction benefits. At a minimum, in test-and-repair
programs inspector and station license suspension shall be imposed for at
least 6 months whenever a vehicle is intentionally improperly passed for any
required portion of the test. In test-only programs, inspectors shall be removed
from inspector duty for at least 6 months (or a retainage penalty equivalent
to the inspector's salary for that period shall be imposed)." (40 CFR 51.364(a)(2))
To answer TSIA-1's "who" question, the violation includes all information
collected during the emissions test because a key informational item is the
identity of the inspector as proven by use of the access card and PIN number.
Inspector knowledge in this violation is clear since each inspector has two
opportunities to ensure that the correct vehicle information is entered into
the analyzer in order to conduct the emissions test. The intent is clear:
"entering false information" "in order to issue an inspection certificate."
The design of the emissions analyzer causes the testing of a vehicle based
on the information the inspector is responsible for entering or verifying.
A vehicle may only be issued a certificate is if it passes the emission test
or, in other words, by entering the correct information to issue a certificate.
The issue is whether the inspector has circumvented the test protocol to allow
a polluting vehicle to continue to pollute, despite the entire vehicle emissions
testing program instituted by the state. Above the cost of the annual safety
inspection and based on the previous 12 months of certificate sales, the State,
in round numbers, will require that approximately 5.5 million vehicles to
be emissions tested at a cost to the public in excess of $147 million per
year to find and fix vehicles polluting the air. The majority of these funds
go to the inspection stations. Allowing an inspector to enter false information
to circumvent the I/M program is a fraud perpetrated against the public and
the state. Texas law contains no provision for monetary fines for inspection
stations or inspectors, therefore any violators are suspended from inspecting
for six months. No change was made based on this comment.
COMMENT: The department received numerous comments concerning subsection
(f). Some of these comments also referred to subsection (e)(4)(D), which gives
effect to subsection (f), while others did not. Stations(12) made mention
of subsection (f)(2), referring to criminal violations of deceptive trade
practices, and use of subsection (d) to expand it to include violations as
a result of civil suits based on the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA).
TADA expressed similar concerns about confusion over civil DTPA actions and
suggested either strict adherence to the language of the statute and restricting
those convicted of a felony or a Class A or B misdemeanor or changing subsection
(f)(2) to read: "a criminal conviction of a statute that protects a consumer
against an unlawful business practice." TSIA-1 and TSIA-2 voiced their support
for raising the "bar" and removing "bad actors," but subsection (f)(15) incorporates
the entire Transportation Code and the inclusion of Chapter 548 which does
not apply to the "program" creates potential for "big dragnet" and could deliver
the "death penalty" (lifetime revocation) to an inspector or station. TSIA-1
commented that a conviction of a person at age sixteen should not be held
against them when they are thirty-five. TSIA-2 stated it contained no time
limitation. TSIA-1 believed that the requirement is not evenly enforced since
prospective employees they turndown because of criminal background appear
in competitors' stations. TSIA-1 and TSIA-2 voiced concern about the economy
impacts of the standard, paying for the background check and paying higher
wages. TSIA-2 restated as two years ago, that this is an entry-level position
and that 80% of the employees would not meet this standard and it is not doable
at this time. TSIA-1 and TSIA-2 would like this paragraph removed.
RESPONSE: The department agrees with TADA that under Transportation Code, §548.405(a)(7)(A)
- (D) the department can deny, revoke or suspend the certificate of a person
either inspector or station operator for the conviction of any felony, Class
A, or B misdemeanor without time limitation. In addition to the legal authority
cited by TADA, under Transportation Code, §548.407(d)(8) - (10), adverse
action can be taken immediately without a prior notice or hearing for criminal
violations of Subchapter F (emissions testing), §548.603, and conviction
of a felony or a Class A or B misdemeanor directly relating to or affecting
vehicle inspection station or inspector duties or responsibilities. Finally,
a violation under §548.603 includes any violation under Chapter 548,
any department rule; or a law of another state, the United States, the United
Mexican States, a state of the United Mexican States, Canada, or a province
of Canada. For all those who commented, subsection (e)(4)(D) provides for
the temporary removal from the inspection program for a conviction of the
crimes listed in subsection (f) until the court imposed punishment or supervision
elapses. This means civil judgment under the Business and Commerce Code, Chapter
17, Deceptive Trade Practices are not applicable. However, a criminal conviction
under that chapter would apply until any punishment is complete just as would
a conviction under Penal Code §32.42, Deceptive Business Practices. Past
convictions of other crimes listed in subsection (f) do not prohibit inspection
activities after the sentence has been completed. The amendment of subsection
(f) is minor, only for clarification purposes, and not a fundamental change.
The concerns of TSIA-1 and TSIA-2 regarding this subsection are apparently
the result of misunderstanding of reading subsection (f) alone. Subsection
(f) must be read in conjunction with subsection (e)(4)(D). Regarding comments
concerning subsection (f)(15), this violation is not new; it is in the current
rule in exactly the same form. Formatting used in publication in the
COMMENT: Staff asked that consideration be given for a time limitation
for the other categories of violations, besides Category A. The difficulty
of tracking violations more than five years old and after that time, the circumstances
of the past violation may have little relevance to the current violation.
TSIA-2 believes that five years may be too long to be held accountable for
bad acts and because of employee turn-over three years may be better.
RESPONSE: The department agrees with Staff and believes that the turnover
TSIA-2 indicates justifies establishing a period to consider past Category
B, C, and E violations. While three years may appear appropriate for inspection
stations with high employee turnover, the violation also applies to station
operators as well as long time inspectors. Additionally a revocation carries
a three year prohibition on reapplication, a three year limitation for subsequent
violation allows a previous serious violator to start with a clean record
under the penalty schedule, which is not desirous. The department is revising
subsection (g) based on this comment and another regarding Category A violations
to consolidate and clarify the manner in which subsequent penalties are calculated.
COMMENT: The department received numerous comments concerning subsection
(h). Stations(12) stated a strict construction of the subsection would allow
no family member to take over a station once the department has initiated
action under any circumstance and previously the provision became applicable
when an actual suspension or revocation became effective. Stations(12) believed
the affidavit language does not modify family member takeovers but applies
to non-family members and suggests revised language to clarify the affidavit
applies to a family member takeover. TSIA-1 and TSIA-2 stated it closes a
station without giving due process. TSIA-1 stated the expressed intent of
House Bill 3071 is to prevent the department from making a rule to suspend
due process. TSIA-2 stated that most inspection stations are family owned
businesses and contends that House Bill 3071 says that a family member "can
be certified," however with requirements such as the affidavit, which TSIA-2
supports. TSIA-2 recommends removal of the subsection; but supports the affidavit
requirement and even additional requirements such as additional audits by
the department.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the interpretations of House Bill
3071 by TSIA-1 and TSIA-2. The department agrees with TSIA-2 that a significant
number of inspection stations are family businesses, with operational control
shared in varying degrees by close family members. House Bill 3071 amended
Transportation Code, §548.405, Denial, Revocation, or Suspension of Certificate,
relating to inspection stations and inspectors. The purpose was to strengthen
this law and include certain family members of the certificate holder as well
as other individuals, such as partners and shareholders. The statute, as amended,
clearly provides that a person who has an immediate family member suspended
or revoked "may not" be granted certification at the same location. This prohibition
is not total since it does not extend to another location. Additionally, the
certificate seeker may overcome it with proof that the immediate family member
whose certificate is suspended or revoked will not be involved in that place
of business. Contrary to TSIA-1 and TSIA-2, House Bill 3071 does not address
"due process." The department disagrees with TSIA-1 and TSIA-2; the subsection
does not suspend due process. There are various legal principals concerning
due process. Under administrative law, it is generally procedural due process
where there are two requirements, notice and a hearing. This rule and individual
notification of denial are notice and a hearing is available upon request
with the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH). Stations(12) generally
reads the subsection correctly with two exceptions. First, Stations(12) overlooks
the operative word "may" in the restriction, meaning that it can be overcome.
Second, the affidavit later mentioned is the primary method to overcome this
specific restriction, therefore the previous certificate holder must be an
immediate family member whose certificate is suspended or revoked or for whom
the suspension or revocation process has been initiated. By parsing the subsection,
instead of reading it as a whole, Stations(12) applies the use of the affidavit
in a circumstance addressed by 37 TAC §23.17, concerning the lease or
sale of inspection station during suspension, rather than intra family transfers
or the affidavit requirement. From this comment, the department recognizes
that both cases of new certifications, with immediate family members and strangers
or non-immediate family members, should be treated the same with certain obvious
exceptions. The department is revising subsection (h) based on the Stations(12)
comment to clarify new inspection station certification pending or during
suspension or revocation.
COMMENT: During the public hearing, TSIA-1 made reference to his comments
during the previous amendment of this rule and indicated submission of written
comments.
RESPONSE: The department received no written comments from TSIA-1 but has
included the substance of all oral comments made by TSIA-1. No change was
made based on this comment.
COMMENT: TSIA-2 was curious as to the reason this rule is being revised
after two years, because they thought that the issues have already been resolved.
While supportive of removing bad actors quickly and fining them, TSIA-1 and
TSIA-2 have concerns about due process, shutting down an entire business,
or family business, and the many thousands of dollars if not tens of thousands
of dollars for legal defense. TSIA-1 complained about SOAH rules of procedure,
the length of the hearing process, and limited defenses available at SOAH.
RESPONSE: The reason for the amendment of the section is included in the
preamble of the proposed amendment, to clarify the rule and include earlier
oversights. The department has no authority to levy monetary fines, does not
target businesses, family owned or otherwise. The costs of legal defense and
SOAH rules of procedure are beyond the scope of this rule. No change was made
based on this comment.
COMMENT: TSIA-3 commented that the livelihood of inspection stations is
in the hands of the department (in Austin) and they have to trust the department
not to write overly punitive rules and fairly implement them. For the most
part, everything is fine except for "local rules" (local application of agency
rules). Some of the non-commissioned department technicians don't have the
training or temperament for the job. A small mistake, instead of being worked
out, is turned into a big mistake and the technician becomes punitive, repeatedly
trying to get the inspector or station. TSIA-3 recommends more training and
some testing, like department troopers for the technicians.
RESPONSE: These comments regarding testing, training, and conduct of department
personnel are generally outside the scope of this rule. The testing and training
of department personnel is an internal matter. Complaints about department
personnel should be addressed under 37 TAC §1.38. No change was made
based on this comment.
COMMENT: Mr. Sticker agreed with TSIA-3 comments and recommendations. Noting
a technician job is neither high paying nor one that he would want, it is,
probably for some, the first with any kind of authority, complete control
over your family's business, and a few abuse it extremely. They come to the
station at the busiest time and stay there until customers and employees are
mad or find something whether right or wrong. Mr. Sticker complained about
the technician "clocking-in" on the station analyzer and tying it up for hours,
while going over records from 3 months before, even on the busiest days, losing
customers, until they leave. Mr. Sticker noted that a failing equipment audit
results in immediate shut down and correction; however with a covert audit
(undercover inspection to detect faults) the problem is not immediately brought
to their attention for a response. Mr. Sticker recommends immediate notification
while realizing that this would identify the covert auditor and counters that
rotation would solve this issue.
RESPONSE: The comments, attitude, and conduct of department personnel are
generally outside the scope of this rule. Complaints about department personnel
should be addressed under 37 TAC §1.38. Federal and state regulations
require use of covert audits and identification of the technician exclude
their further use. The audit procedure, technician log-in, the timing of audits,
and length of audits is outside the scope of this rule. No change was made
based on this comment.
The amendments are adopted pursuant to Texas Government Code, §411.004(3),
which authorizes the Public Safety Commission to adopt rules considered necessary
for carrying out the department's work, and Texas Transportation Code, Chapter
548, Subchapter A, §548.002, which authorizes the department to adopt
rules to administer and enforce the compulsory inspection of vehicles, and
Subchapter G, §548.405, which allows the department to deny, revoke or
suspend the certificate of an inspection station and or inspector.
§23.15.Inspection Station and Certified Inspector Denial, Revocation, Suspensions, and Administrative Hearings.
(a)
As provided in Transportation Code, Chapter 548, §548.405,
the department may deny an application for a certificate, revoke or suspend
the certificate of a person, inspection station, or inspector, place on probation,
or reprimand a person who holds a certificate in accordance with this section.
(b)
Applicability. This section applies to any entity capable
of applying for or holding a certificate from the department to include:
(1)
a natural person,
(2)
a business association entitled to do business in the state,
including but not limited to:
(A)
a corporation,
(B)
a partnership,
(C)
a limited liability partnership, and
(D)
a limited liability company,
(3)
each member of a partnership or association issued a certificate
under this title,
(4)
each director or officer of a corporation issued a certificate
under this title, and
(5)
a shareholder that receives compensation, in the form of
a salary, from the day-to-day operation of an inspection station by a corporation
issued a certificate.
(c)
Terms and/or Definitions. Unless specifically defined in
the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA) or in the rules of the Texas Department of
Public Safety (DPS), the terms used in this section have the meanings commonly
ascribed to them in the fields of air pollution control and vehicle inspection.
In addition to the terms defined by the TCAA, the following words and terms,
when used in this section, shall have the following meanings.
(1)
Suspension--means a temporary cessation of the authority
associated with the certification of an inspection station or inspector.
(2)
Revocation--means the withdrawal of the authority granted
by the department to inspect vehicles under the certificate of an inspection
station or inspector and the inability to re-apply for such a certificate
for a period of at least three years.
(3)
Lifetime Revocation--means the withdrawal of the authority
granted by the department to inspect vehicles under the certificate of an
inspection station or inspector and the inability to re-apply for such a certificate
for the lifetime of the applicant.
(4)
Warning--means a written reprimand based on a minor violation
which if repeated will result in a more severe administrative sanction.
(5)
Re-education--means to provide mandatory, additional and/or
remedial training to a certificate holder to correct errors observed or discovered
by department personnel. The technician provides this training immediately
on-site, or later as scheduling permits. It is for errors sufficient to warrant
adverse administrative action against the certificate holder but is administered
for first time infractions, as opposed to re-certification.
(A)
Re-education shall be recorded in the certificate holder's
department file. This record will contain the date of re-education, the violation
requiring re-education, and the name of the department personnel who administered
the re-education.
(B)
Re-education will not be administered again for a subsequent
Category A violation.
(6)
Re-certification--means required training and examination,
both written and practical demonstration tests, required by the department
per 37 TAC §23.61 after a holder's certificate has been suspended or
revoked.
(d)
Penalty Schedule. Pursuant to Transportation Code, Chapter
548, §548.405(h) - (i) the department will administer penalties by the
category of the violation. The list of violations listed in this section is
not an exclusive list of violations. The department shall assess penalties
for any violations of Texas Transportation Code, Chapter 548, rules adopted
by the department, or other statutes not provided for in this section. Any
penalty assessed for a violation not provided for in this section shall be
approved by the director or designee before it is assessed.
Figure: 37 TAC §23.15(d) (No change.)
(e)
Violation categories are as follows:
(1)
Category A.
(A)
Issuing an inspection certificate without inspecting an
item of inspection.
(B)
Issuing an inspection certificate without the requiring
the owner or operator to furnish proof of financial responsibility for the
vehicle at the time of inspection.
(C)
Failure to complete the reverse side of an inspection certificate.
(D)
Failure to place an inspection certificate in the proper
location.
(E)
Issuing out of date inspection certificates.
(F)
Refusing to inspect a vehicle without an objective justifiable
cause, i.e. fuel leak, unsafe tires, etc.
(G)
Failure to properly safeguard inspection certificates,
department issued forms, and Emissions Analyzer Access/Identification Card
and/or PIN number.
(H)
Failure to properly maintain required records.
(I)
Failure to keep an adequate supply of certificates.
(J)
Failure to have at least one certified inspector on duty
during the normal working hours of the vehicle inspection station.
(K)
Failure to properly display the official department issued
station sign, certificate of appointment, procedure chart, and other notices
required by the department.
(L)
Failure to keep department approved inspection area clean.
(M)
Failure to issue certificates in numerical sequence for
every vehicle inspected and approved.
(N)
Failure to account for an inspection certificate.
(O)
Failure to maintain minimum requirements.
(P)
Issuing a certificate to a vehicle with one failing item
of inspection.
(Q)
Transferring an inspection certificate from an old windshield
to a new windshield on the same vehicle or failing to properly affix the certificate
to the windshield of a passenger vehicle, if one is present.
(R)
Carelessly or negligently entering incorrect vehicle information
into an emission analyzer at an inspection station, where emission testing
is required by §23.93 of this title (relating to Vehicle Emissions Inspection
Requirements), resulting in a false failure of the vehicle or the reporting
of erroneous information concerning vehicle.
(2)
Category B.
(A)
Issuing an inspection certificate without inspecting the
vehicle.
(B)
Improperly issuing inspection certificate to a vehicle
with multiple failing items of inspection.
(C)
Requiring repair or adjustment not required by law, rule,
or regulation.
(D)
Refusing to allow owner to have repairs or adjustments
made at location of owner's choice.
(E)
Allowing an uncertified person to perform, in whole or
part, the inspection and/or rejection of a required item during the inspection
of a vehicle.
(F)
Charging more than statutory fee.
(G)
Requiring an additional fee or service charge in conjunction
with the inspection.
(H)
Inspector performing inspection while under the influence
of alcohol or drugs.
(I)
Gross negligence resulting in the failure to properly safeguard
certificates and/or department issued forms from theft or loss.
(J)
Issuing a certificate from a location other than on the
premises or licensed location authorized and approved by the department as
listed on the station application (VI-2).
(K)
Altering a previously issued inspection certificate to
include changing the expiration numeral insert or issuing an inspection certificate
removed from another vehicle.
(L)
A fleet or government inspection station inspector issuing
an inspection certificate to an unauthorized vehicle to include those not
owned, leased, or under service contract to that entity or personal vehicles
of officers and employees of the fleet or government station and/or the general
public.
(M)
Intentionally or knowingly preparing and/or submitting
to the department a false, incorrect, incomplete, or misleading form or report.
(N)
Issuing an inspection certificate without inspecting multiple
inspection items on the vehicle.
(O)
Issuing an inspection certificate by using the Emissions
Analyzer Access/Identification Card and/or the associated PIN number of another
inspector.
(P)
Giving, sharing, or lending an Emissions Analyzer Access/Identification
Card and/or divulging the associated PIN number to another person without
the explicit consent of appropriate department personnel.
(3)
Category C.
(A)
Issuing more than one inspection certificate without inspecting
the vehicles.
(B)
Multiple instances of issuing inspection certificates to
vehicles with multiple defects.
(C)
Emissions testing the exhaust or electronic connector of
another (clean) vehicle fraudulently causing a vehicle to pass the emissions
test (clean piping or clean scanning).
(D)
Multiple emissions related violations on one vehicle or
violations on more than one vehicle.
(E)
Allowing a person whose certificate has been suspended
or revoked to participate in a vehicle inspection or to participate in the
operation of the inspection station where the current certificate holder was
required to provide proof as prescribed in Transportation Code, Chapter 548, §548.405(e).
(F)
Charging more than statutory fee in addition to not inspecting
vehicle.
(G)
Material misrepresentation in any application to the department
or any other information filed pursuant to Transportation Code, Chapter 548,
or department rules.
(H)
Permitting or allowing an uncertified person to issue an
inspection certificate.
(4)
Category D.
(A)
Failure to possess a valid driver's license from state
of residence.
(B)
Failure to posses an operational item of inspection equipment
or a certified inspector on duty during normal working hours as required by
the department.
(C)
Failure to enter into and maintain a business arrangement
with the Texas Information Management System contractor to obtain a telecommunications
link to the Texas Information Management System Vehicle Identification Database
(VID) for each vehicle exhaust gas analyzer, if in an affected county as defined
in §23.93(b)(1) of this title.
(D)
Conviction under the laws of this state, another state,
or the United States of any crime as detailed in subsection (f) of this section.
A conviction will be cause for denial, suspension, or revocation, under this
subsection, until after the court imposed punishment or supervision has elapsed.
For the purposes of this section, a person is convicted of an offense when
an adjudication of guilt for the offense is entered against the person by
a court of competent jurisdiction. A dismissal and discharge in a deferred
adjudication proceeding shall not be considered a conviction for the purpose
of this section.
(5)
Category E.
(A)
The following applies to inspectors and inspection stations
in which emission testing is required by §23.93 of this title applies:
(i)
Failure to perform applicable emission test as required.
(ii)
Issuing an emissions inspection certificate without performing
the emissions test on the vehicle as required.
(iii)
Failure to perform the gas cap test or use of unauthorized
bypass for gas cap test.
(iv)
Issuing an emissions inspection certificate when the required
emissions adjustments, corrections, or repairs have not been made after an
inspection disclosed the necessity for such adjustments, corrections or repairs.
(v)
Falsely representing to an owner or operator of a vehicle
that an emission related component(s) must be repaired, adjusted, or replaced
in order to pass emissions inspection.
(vi)
Requiring emissions repair or adjustment not required
by law, rule or regulation.
(vii)
Tampering with the emissions system or an emission related
component in order to cause vehicle to fail emissions test.
(viii)
Refusing to allow owner to have emissions repairs or
adjustments made at location of owner's choice.
(ix)
Allowing uncertified person to conduct an emission inspection.
(x)
Charging more than the authorized emissions inspection
fee.
(xi)
Entering false information into an emission analyzer in
order to issue an inspection certificate.
(B)
The following applies to inspectors and inspection stations
in which §23.93 of this title is not applicable: issuing a safety only
inspection certificate to a vehicle required to undergo a safety and emissions
inspection without requiring a signed and legible affidavit, approved by the
department (VIE-12), from the owner or operator of the vehicle.
(f)
The department has determined a certified inspection station
and certified vehicle inspector is in a position of trust, performing a service
to members of the public where the Transportation Code, Chapter 548, requires
the public to report for vehicle inspection. Therefore, the department has
determined that conviction of a felony or Class A or Class B misdemeanors
of the following crimes relate directly to the duties and responsibilities
of a certified vehicle inspector and/or those for whom this section is applicable
as detailed in subsection (b) of this section. For the purpose of this section,
this also includes a similar crime under the jurisdiction of another state
or the federal government that is punishable to the same extent as a felony
or a Class A or Class B misdemeanor in this state; or a crime under the jurisdiction
of another state or the federal government that would be a felony or a Class
A or Class B misdemeanor if the crime were committed in this state. Those
crimes include:
(1)
any crime of which fraud is an element,
(2)
deceptive business practices, deceptive trade practices,
or any criminal violation of statutes that protect consumers against unlawful
business or trade practices,
(3)
murder,
(4)
burglary,
(5)
robbery,
(6)
aggravated robbery,
(7)
aggravated sexual assault,
(8)
indecency with a child,
(9)
sexual assault,
(10)
aggravated assault,
(11)
any violent crime against a person involving knowledge
or purpose,
(12)
theft,
(13)
violation of the Texas Controlled Substance Act (Health
and Safety Code, §§481.112 - 481.126),
(14)
driving while intoxicated, and
(15)
conviction of an offense as detailed in Texas Transportation
Code, Chapter 548, §548.601, and §548.603.
(g)
When assessing administrative penalties, the following
procedures will be observed.
(1)
Multiple certificate holders. Violations will not be aggregated
or pooled in the case of a multiple inspection station certificate holder.
The department will deny, suspend, and/or revoke all certificates of a certificate
holder only if they have been found culpable in a prior adverse administrative
action resulting in a denial, suspension, or revocation.
(2)
Multiple violations. If multiple violations are found,
the department will impose separate penalties for each violation as required
by the penalty schedule. All suspensions will be served concurrently.
(3)
Subsequent violations.
(A)
Determination of a second or more subsequent violation
is based on previous violations in the same category.
(B)
For Category A violations, subsequent violations, second
or more, are based on the number of previous violations in this same category
within the preceding two-year period. When determining the appropriate penalty,
the department will count the number of previous Category A violations, using
the actual date of the violation and stop after reaching two years preceding
the date of the current violation."
(C)
For Category B, C, and E violations, subsequent violations,
second or more are based on the number of previous violations in the same
category within the preceding five year period of operation. No credit is
given for any time serving a suspension or revocation. In determining the
appropriate penalty, the department will count the number of previous violations
in the same category, using the actual date of the violation. The department
will stop counting violations after reaching five years, not counting any
time spent while suspended or revoked, preceding the date of the current violation.
(D)
Violations incurred before September 9, 2002 are not counted
in determining subsequent violations in subparagraphs (B) and (C) of this
paragraph.
(h)
Certification of an inspection station where the current
owner or operator is pending or currently serving a suspension or revocation
is subject to additional restrictions that may result in denial, suspension,
or revocation of certification.
(1)
An immediate family member may not be granted certification
for an inspection station if an immediate family member is suspended or revoked
as an inspection station owner or operator at that same location.
(A)
This restriction applies when the department initiates
any administrative action that may result in a suspension or revocation of
the inspection station certification until the suspension or revocation has
been completed.
(B)
The department may permit certification with proof that
the immediate family member who was the prior certificate holder and is the
subject of suspension or revocation has no further involvement in the place
of business. This proof shall at least meet the requirements of paragraph
(4) of this subsection.
(2)
A person may be granted new certification for an inspection
station at the same location where the previous certificate holder as an owner
or operator is pending or currently serving a suspension or revocation. The
person requesting certification must not be an immediate family member of
the previous certificate holder or paragraph (1) of this subsection applies.
This transaction must be the result of a complete change in ownership of the
inspection station, by lease or sale.
(A)
When the change of ownership of the inspection station
is by lease of building and/or inspection bay, the person seeking certification
must have:
(i)
A copy of the lease agreement on file with the county clerk.
(ii)
A certified copy of the lease agreement included with
the application for appointment as an official inspection station.
(B)
The person seeking certification must provide the department
with proof that the prior certificate holder, who is the subject of the suspension
or revocation, has no, nor will have, any further involvement in the business
of state inspections. This proof shall at least meet the requirements of paragraph
(4) of this subsection.
(3)
As with all certifications, the application, investigation,
forms, and procedure will be the same as set forth in §23.1 of this title
(relating to New Applications). Any additional documentation required by this
subsection shall be provided, as well.
(4)
Establishing proof is by a notarized affidavit signed by
the applicant. This affidavit must state that the previous certificate holder
may not inspect vehicles; deal with inspection customers; handle any certificates,
department forms, or certificate related materials; supervise; or to any extent
manage any portion of the inspection station business. The affidavit must
also contain the statement that the affiant understands and agrees that in
the event the department discovers that the previous certificate holder is
involved in the inspection business at that location, the certificate will
be revoked immediately, under Transportation Code §548.407(d).
(i)
When there is cause to deny an application for a certificate
of any inspection station or the certificate of any person to inspect vehicles
or revoke or suspend the outstanding certificate, the director shall, in less
than 30 days before refusal, suspension, or revocation action is taken, notify
the person in writing, in person, or by certified mail at the last address
supplied to the department by the person, of the impending refusal, suspension,
or revocation, the reasons for taking that action, and of his right to an
administrative hearing for the purpose of determining whether or not the evidence
is sufficient to warrant the refusal, suspension, or revocation action proposed
to be taken by the director.
(j)
The director, without a hearing, may suspend or revoke
or refuse to issue any certificate if, within 20 days after the personal notice
of the notice is sent or notice has been deposited in the United States mail,
the person has not made a written request to the director for this administrative
hearing.
(k)
On receipt by the director of a written request of the
person within the 20-day period, an opportunity for an administrative hearing
shall be afforded as early as is practicable.
(l)
Said hearing shall be held in accordance with Texas Transportation
Code, Chapter 548, and applicable rules of the department.
(m)
On the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing,
the director, acting for himself or upon the recommendation of his designee,
may refuse the application, suspend, or revoke the certificate.
(n)
Any person dissatisfied with the action of the director
may appeal the action of the director in accordance with Texas Transportation
Code, Chapter 548.
(o)
The department will investigate all violations of Texas
Transportation Code, Chapter 548, and all violations of rules and regulations
promulgated under Texas Transportation Code, Chapter 548.
(p)
Vehicle inspection station or certified inspector may waive
the right to an administrative hearing in writing by completing Form VI-63,
voluntary waiver of administrative hearing.
(q)
The procedure of the administrative hearing shall be covered
by the general rules of practice and procedure of the Texas Department of
Public Safety, Chapter 29 of this title (relating to Practice and Procedure),
except where other provisions are provided herein.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on June 22, 2004.
TRD-200404141
Thomas A. Davis, Jr.
Director
Texas Department of Public Safety
Effective date: July 12, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 424-2135
Chapter 145.
PAROLE
Subchapter A. PAROLE PROCESS
Chapter 21.
EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLE STANDARDS
Chapter 23.
VEHICLE INSPECTION
Part 5.
TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES