The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes the repeal of §§53.1-53.18, 53.22, 53.25, 53.35, 53.41, 53.50, 53.60, 53.70, 53.90, 53.100, and 53.200-53.206, and new §§53.1-53.16, 53.30, 53.50, 53.60, 53.70, 53.80, 53.90, 53.100, 53.110, and 53.120, concerning the department's rules governing fees. For the most part, the proposed rule actions are nonsubstantive in nature and represent an overhaul of the structure of Chapter 53; however, the proposed new sections also implement a small number of fees, fee increases, and restructured licenses as noted. The repeals and new sections are necessary to reorganize the chapter as legislative, regulatory, and policy actions over the last 10 years have created the need to regroup various licenses and permits according to similarities of type and use so as to make reference and utilization easier. The repeals of §§53.1-53.8, 53.10-53.17, 53.25, 53.41, 53.50, 53.60, 53.90, 53.100, and 53.200-53.206 are necessary to allow the designation of new sections addressing the same subject material. The repeals of §§53.9, concerning Investment of Lifetime License Endowment Fund, 53.35, concerning Selling Price of Department Information, and 53.70, concerning Protest Procedures for Vendors, are necessary to remove those sections from Chapter 53 (Finance) and place them in Chapter 51 (Executive), where they more properly belong. The repeal of §53.18, concerning Vessel Registration Agents and Surety Bonds, and §53.22, concerning License Deputy Appointment and Cancellation Procedures, are necessary because the subject material of the sections can be addressed by department policy and procedure and are therefore unnecessary in rule.

New §53.1, concerning Applicability, establishes Chapter 53 as the sole repository for the department's regulations prescribing fees, except for those fees contained in Chapter 59, concerning Parks, and Chapter 69, Subchapter H, concerning Issuance of Marl, Sand, and Gravel Permits. References in other chapters to fee amounts will be removed in other rulemakings. The proposed new section is necessary to prevent conflicts with provisions in other chapters.

New §53.2, concerning License Issuance Procedures, Fees, Possession, and Exemption Rules, is identical to the current §53.1, except for nonsubstantive changes. Current subsection (a)(1), which prohibits the hunting of deer and turkey without a license, has been removed because that provision is established by statute in Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 42, and is therefore unnecessary in regulation. The grammatical structure of current subsections (a)(2) and (b)(1) has been modified to create an affirmative sense (i.e., 'a person may, if...,' replacing 'no person may, unless') to effect a clearer expression of the conditions under which a person may hunt or fish without being in physical possession of a license. Current subsection (b)(2) (regarding retention of red drum) has been modified to clarify that it applies to red drum caught in coastal waters and that a person must have a saltwater sportfishing stamp, and current subsection (d)(5) is removed because that provision is established by statute in Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 46, and is therefore unnecessary in regulation

New section §53.3, concerning Combination Hunting and Fishing Licenses and Packages, is substantively identical to the current §53.2, except for changes as noted. Language has been added establishing that the items included in combination packages shall be priced at a discounted rate. The provisions of current §53.2 (a) (establishing fees for combination hunting and fishing licenses) has been restructured in the proposed new section to establish combination hunting and fishing licenses packages for freshwater fishing, saltwater fishing, and all water fishing. The changes are intended to minimize customer confusion regarding addition of the new freshwater fishing stamp requirements and to maximize customer convenience. The proposed new section establishes a new resident combination hunting and freshwater fishing package ($47), resident combination hunting and saltwater fishing package ($52), resident combination hunting and "all water" fishing package ($57), resident senior combination hunting and freshwater fishing package ($15), resident senior combination hunting and saltwater fishing package ($20) and resident senior combination hunting and all water fishing package ($25). The fees for these packages consist of the current license cost plus (1) the cost of the new freshwater fishing stamp ($5), mandated under provisions of House Bill 1989, 78th Legislative Session, for the freshwater packages; (2) the cost of the current saltwater fishing stamp and surcharge ($10) for saltwater fishing packages; and (3) the cost of both the new freshwater fishing stamp and the current saltwater fishing stamp for all water fishing packages. Current subsection §53.2 (a) (3) (establishing the fee for the lifetime resident combination hunting and fishing license) has been removed and relocated to proposed new §53.4, concerning Lifetime Licenses. The provisions of current §53.2 (b) (establishing fees for combination license packages) also have been restructured to establish resident and resident senior super combination hunting and fishing license packages that incorporate the freshwater fishing stamp. The proposed new section establishes a resident super combination hunting and all water fishing package ($64) and a new resident senior super combination hunting and all water fishing package ($30). The super combination packages do not include references to the muzzleloader and freshwater trout stamps, but include the new freshwater fishing stamp, all of which is mandated under provisions of H.B. 1989, enacted by the 78th Texas Legislature, and contains a reference to the red drum tag for clarification purposes. The fees for these packages were determined by incorporating the new $5 freshwater fishing stamp fee and by applying a discounted rate of 73.6% of the value of each individual item (licenses and stamps) available in the new packages. The proposed new section also incorporates a resident disabled veteran super combination hunting and all water package ($0), relocated from current §53.90 (which is proposed for repeal in this rulemaking), does not include references to the muzzleloader and freshwater trout stamps, contains provisions relative to the new freshwater fishing stamp mandated by H.B. 1989; and includes a reference to the red drum tag for the purpose of clarification. The proposed new section retains the fee for replacement of combination packages at $10, with modifications to clarify that the cost of replacement super combination packages is also $10, and provides that there is no charge for replacement of a disabled veteran super combination hunting and all water fishing package.

New §53.4, concerning Lifetime Licenses, consolidates provisions concerning the lifetime hunting license (from current §53.3), the lifetime fishing license (from current §53.3), and the lifetime resident combination hunting and fishing license (from current §53.2) into a single section dealing with lifetime licenses. The new section also includes the fee for the upgrade of a lifetime fishing or hunting license to a lifetime combination license, and the fee for replacing a lifetime license of any type. The remaining contents of current §53.3 are being relocated to other proposed new sections as noted.

New §53.5, concerning Recreational Hunting Licenses, Stamps, and Tags, is substantively identical to the provisions of current §53.3(a) and (b), except that: current subsection (a)(2) (establishing the fee for the lifetime hunting license) is eliminated because that provision is relocated to proposed new §53.4, concerning Lifetime Licenses; current subsection (a)(3) is reworded for the sake of clarity; and current subsection (b)(5) (establishing a fee for the muzzleloader stamp) is removed because the muzzleloader stamp was eliminated by legislative action.

Proposed new §53.6, concerning Recreational Fishing Packages, Stamps and Tags, establishes new freshwater, saltwater and all water fishing packages and is necessary to minimize customer confusion regarding addition of the new freshwater fishing stamp requirements (as mandated by H.B. 1989) and to maximize customer convenience by adding various licensing options. The freshwater trout stamp found in current §53.3(d) is repealed because legislative action (H.B. 1989) eliminated that stamp, and the fee for the freshwater fishing stamp is incorporated, also as authorized by H.B. 1989. New §53.6(a) establishes the prices of individual licenses that will be available only as part of a package, and establishes the period of validity for the "Year-from-purchase" resident fishing license, the July and August resident fishing license, and the day resident and day non-resident fishing licenses. The fees for a resident fishing license ($23), special resident fishing license ($6), and non-resident fishing license ($50) are identical to current fees for these licenses as established in current §53.3(c). The "year-from-purchase" resident fishing license ($30), the July and August resident fishing license ($20), the day resident fishing license ($6 to $8), and day non-resident fishing license ($12 to $15) replace the temporary (14-day) resident sport fishing license, the temporary (three-day) resident sport fishing license, and the temporary (five-day) non resident fishing license in current §53.3(c). Proposed new §53.6(b) establishes the price for stamps that are sold either individually or as part of a package, and states the period of validity of the stamps. The fee for the freshwater fishing stamp ($5) is mandated in H.B. 1989, and the fees for the saltwater sportfishing stamp ($7) and surcharge ($3) are identical to the fees established in current §53.3(d). Proposed new §53.6(b) also clarifies that a red drum tag will be issued at no charge with each saltwater sportfishing stamp. Proposed new §53.6(c) establishes the price for fishing packages and licenses, as follows: resident freshwater fishing package ($28); resident saltwater fishing package ($33); resident "all water" fishing package ($38); special resident freshwater fishing package ($11); special resident saltwater fishing package ($16); special resident 'all water" fishing package ($21); "year-from-purchase" resident "all water" fishing package ($45); July and August resident freshwater fishing package ($25); July and August resident saltwater fishing package ($30); July and August resident "all water" fishing package ($35); resident freshwater fishing "day plus" package ($11 to $13 for the first day, plus $2 to $4 for each additional consecutive day); resident saltwater fishing "day plus" package ($16 to $18 for the first day, plus $2 to $4 for each additional consecutive day); resident all water fishing "day plus" package ($21 to $23 for the first day, plus $2 to $4 for each additional consecutive day); nonresident freshwater fishing package ($55); nonresident saltwater fishing package ($60); nonresident "all water" fishing package ($65); nonresident freshwater fishing "day plus" package ($17 to $20 for the first day, plus $5 to $8 for each additional consecutive day); nonresident saltwater fishing "day plus" package ($22 to $25 for the first day, plus $5 to $8 for each additional consecutive day); nonresident all water fishing "day plus" package ($27 to $30 for the first day, plus $5 to $8 for each additional consecutive day); Lake Texoma fishing license ($12); and a replacement fee for fishing packages and licenses ($10). All packages established in the proposed new section are priced at an amount equal to the cost of the license plus the costs of the stamps included in that package. The resident and nonresident freshwater, saltwater, and "all water" fishing "day plus" package, consisting of the day resident fishing license or day nonresident fishing license and the applicable stamp, and the option to purchase additional consecutive days, establishes that a previous purchaser of these packages within the license year may repurchase the package for the price of the day resident fishing license or the day nonresident fishing license plus the cost for additional consecutive days, as the stamp privileges from the first purchase will be extended to the holder for the term of the subsequent purchase. The Lake Texoma fishing license is established at a fee identical to the fee in current §53.3 (c) for this item, and clarifies that holders of this license are exempt from freshwater fishing stamp requirements when fishing on Lake Texoma. Proposed new §53.6(d) establishes fees for fishing tags as follows: exempt angler tag ($3); bonus red drum tag ($0); tarpon tag ($120); replacement tarpon tag ($30); individual bait-shrimp trawl tag ($35); and salt water trotline tag ($4). The exempt angler tag is established to provide a mechanism to provide a red drum tag to individuals exempt from purchase of a resident or nonresident fishing license. The fees for the bonus red drum tag, tarpon tag, replacement tarpon tag, and individual bait- shrimp trawl tag are identical to current fee amounts established in current §53.3(e). The fee for the saltwater trotline tag increases from $3 to $4. The fee increase is necessary because it was inadvertently omitted from the comprehensive fee adjustments adopted in 2003. The department determined at that time that additional funds were needed to maintain current levels of service to the public. Fees for the majority of the licenses and permits had not been increased since 1996. Since that time, inflation significantly increased the cost of doing business (such as the cost of office space, utilities, vehicles, and gasoline), and the Department added a variety of new programs and services. The existing fees were compared with various cost of living indices and the accumulated rates of inflation since 1996, which was approximately 20%. The fee increase for the saltwater trotline tag is proposed based on that calculation.

New §53.7, concerning Furbearing Animal Licenses and Permits, contains the provisions of current §53.4(b), which are relocated into a new section exclusively addressing licenses and permits pertaining to furbearing animals. The contents of the proposed new section do not include current §53.4(b)(3) and (6) (establishing the fees for the resident and nonresident retail fur buyer's permits, respectively) because rulemaking action in 2003 amended the provisions of Chapter 65, Subchapter Q, to eliminate the sale of those permit types.

New §53.8, concerning Alligator Licenses, Permits, Stamps, and Tags, contains the provisions of current §53.4(c), which are relocated into a new section exclusively addressing licenses, permits, stamps, and tags pertaining to alligators. In addition, the proposed new section incorporates the provisions of §65.362(e) and §65.365 (which establish fees for the alligator export permit and the alligator management tag, respectively) so that all fees concerning alligators are located in a single section.

New §53.9, concerning Falconry Permits, contains the provisions of current §53.8(c), which are being retained in order to create a single section exclusively addressing falconry permits. The remaining provisions of current §53.8 are being relocated in other sections as noted.

New §53.10, concerning Public Hunting and Fishing Permits and Fees, contains the provisions of current §53.5. Several nonsubstantive changes are made to the current rules. The caption of subsection (a) changes from 'Hunting permits' to 'Hunting and access permits,' to more accurately reflect the scope of the provisions, and the wording of current §53.5(b)(1)(B) and (C) and (c)(2) have been nonsubstantively altered to eliminate awkward sentence construction.

New §53.11, concerning Commercial Hunting Licenses and Permits, contains the provisions of current §53.4(a), which are being relocated to a single section pertaining exclusively to commercial hunting activities regulated by the department. The proposed new section differs from the current §53.4(a) only in that 1) fees for hunting cooperatives are removed, since those fees are established by statute in Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter G, need not be repeated in regulations, and in any case cannot be altered by the commission; and 2) the fee for an antlerless and spike-buck control permit application has been relocated to new §53.14, concerning Deer Management and Removal Permits so that all fees related to deer management and removal are in the same section.

New §53.12, concerning Commercial Fishing Licenses and Tags, contains the provisions of current §53.6, with the following nonsubstantive alterations: references to 'license plates' are replaced with the term 'display licenses,' because metal plates will no longer be used; and a reference to 'commercial oyster captain's' is changed to 'commercial oyster boat captain's' for accuracy and consistency.

New §53.13, concerning Business Licenses and Permits-Fishing, contains the provisions of current §53.7, with the exception that current §53.7(4) (establishing the saltwater trotline tag fee) is removed because it has been relocated to proposed new §53.6, concerning Recreational Fishing Licenses, Stamps, and Tags. In addition, the proposed new section increases the fees for license transfers because those fee increases were inadvertently omitted from the comprehensive fee adjustments adopted in 2003. The fee increases are necessary for the department to recoup the increased administrative costs associated with processing transfers since the last fee increase in 1996.

New §53.14, concerning Deer Management and Removal Permits, contains the provisions of current §53.8(a) and (d)-(f) that apply to fees for permits pertaining to deer management and removal. The provisions have been nonsubstantively altered to: clarify that the renewal fee for the scientific breeder's permit is the same as the initial fee (to be consistent with the terminology of §65.603(d)(4), which addresses renewals, rather than re-application, which is consistent with Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.355); clarify that the fee for the trap, transport, and transplant permits is an administrative fee for application review, rather than for the permit itself (to be consistent with Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.061(f), which authorizes the commission to implement a fee for review of permit applications); clarify that the fee for the deer management permit is for the permit itself, rather than for processing the application (to be consistent with Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.603(c), which authorizes a fee for permit issuance, rather than for processing); incorporate current §53.4(a)(12); and modify the current reference to 'antlerless deer control permit' to 'antlerless and spike-buck deer control permit,' which is necessary to accurately reflect the purpose of the permit.

New §53.15, concerning Miscellaneous Fisheries and Wildlife Licenses and Permits, contains the provisions of current §53.8(b) and (g), concerning game bird and game animal breeding licenses and commercial nongame permits, respectively; §69.310, concerning fees for educational, scientific, and zoological permits); §§57.117, 57.125, and 57.131, which establish fees for permits pertaining to exotic fish, shellfish, and exotic plants; §69.6, which establishes the fee for the commercial plant permit; §55.150, which establishes the fee for the permit for aerial management of wildlife and exotic species; §57.395, which establishes the fee for the permit to collect broodfish from Texas waters; §58.30, which establishes the fees for an application for an oyster lease, oyster lease rental, and oyster lease renewal or transfer. The fees are being relocated from other chapters in order to consolidate all fees in Chapter 53.

New §53.16, concerning Vessel, Motor, and Marine Licensing Fees, contains the provisions of current §53.10, which have been nonsubstantively altered to clarify that 'quick' title fees consist of an administrative surcharge for expedited title to a vessel or motor, and are in addition to applicable fees, and to remove obsolete references to effective dates.

New §53.30, concerning Facility Admission and Use Fees, contains the provisions of current §53.50, which establishes the entry fees for the Athens Freshwater Fisheries Center. In addition to the current fee, the proposed new section also establishes a new fee for facility use and for the annual pass to the Athens Freshwater Fisheries Center; admission fees for Sea Center Texas; fees for the use of facilities at the Parrie Haynes Youth Ranch; entry fees for Old Tunnel Wildlife Management Area; and facility use fees for Mason Mountain Wildlife Management Area. The creation of the annual pass (and fee) at the Athens Freshwater Fisheries Center is intended to address requests for a discounted entry fee from persons who visit the center multiple times. The entrance fees for Sea Center Texas are necessary to recoup operational costs. The fees for the use of Parrie Haynes Youth Camp are necessary to ensure the ability of the facility to serve the youth of Texas under terms of agreement with the Texas Youth Commission, and the costs of providing the facility for public use. The entry fees at Old Tunnel WMA, as well as the facilities use fees on Mason Mountain WMA, are necessary to fund public outreach, research, operations, and management on those areas, which, unlike the other wildlife management areas in the state system, are not eligible for reimbursement for those expenses under the federal Wildlife Restoration program; thus; it is imperative that the agency generate some type of revenue in order to continue to operate the areas for public use.

New §53.50, concerning Training and Certification Fees, contains the provisions of current §53.60, which establish fees for marine safety enforcement officer training and eliminates the current fee of $3 per student per hour for that training to make the course more affordable for peace officers from smaller jurisdictions and to ensure uniform quality of training instruction. The proposed new section also includes the provisions of §55.609, concerning registration fees for hunter education training, to consolidate all fees in Chapter 53; and incorporates a new fee for deferred hunter education.

New §53.60, concerning Stamps, consolidates the provisions of current §§53.11-53.16 and those of current 53.3(f) (concerning the collector's edition stamp package) in a single section. References to the muzzleloader and freshwater trout have been eliminated because of legislative action that eliminated those stamps (H.B. 1989, 78th Legislature, Regular Session, 2003); the freshwater stamp has been added (also because of H.B. 1989); references to obsolete effective dates have been removed; reference to a collectible freshwater fishing stamp (authorized by H.B. 1989) has been added; and other, minor nonsubstantive grammatical changes have been made to enhance clarity.

New §53.70, concerning License Deputies and Vessel Registration Agents, contains the provisions of current §53.17 and §53.25. The proposed new section is substantively identical to the current provisions, except that current §53.17(b), concerning public inspection of application forms for appointment as an authorized vessel registration agent, is eliminated because there is no reason to state in regulation something that is self-evident, and because the forms can be mailed or transmitted electronically to anyone; and current §53.25 has been modified to eliminate amounts retained by license deputies for sale of Lake Texoma Fishing licenses in order to make amounts retained by license deputies uniform for all license types.

New §53.80, concerning Commercial Fishing Boat Numbers, contains the provisions of current §53.41. The only change to the current text is the replacement of the term 'metal plate' with the term 'display license,' which is necessary because the department will replace the metal license-plate type identification with a display license.

New §53.90, concerning Display of Registration Validation Sticker, contains the unchanged provisions of current §53.205, which prescribe the manner in which registration decals must be displayed and make a special provision for antique boats.

New §53.100, concerning Bonded Title-Acceptable Situations, contains the unchanged provisions of current §53.206, which set forth the circumstances under which the department will issue a bonded title in the event that complete documentation cannot be provided or obtained by an applicant for title, registration, or transfer.

New §53.110, concerning Marine, Dealers, Distributors, and Manufacturers, contains the unchanged provisions of current §§53.200-53.204, which are being consolidated into a single section. New subsection (a) is current §53.200, concerning Definitions, which establishes a specific meaning for the word 'consignment' for use in the context of the subchapter. New subsection (b), which is current §53.201, concerning Application, Renewal, Transfer, and Replacement, sets forth the required information and documentation that an applicant must submit in order to be licensed by the department as a dealer, distributor, or manufacturer. New subsection (c), which is current §53.202, concerning Notification-Change of Dealer, Manufacturer, Distributor Status, establishes a notification requirement for dealers, manufacturers, and distributors in the event that a change in address, ownership, business name, location, franchise agreement, contact information, or phone number has occurred. New subsection (d), which is current §53.203, concerning Display of License, requires licenses to be publicly displayed at all times. New subsection (e), which is current §53.204, concerning Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, sets forth the types of records that must be maintained as a condition of licensure.

New §53.120, concerning License Format and Legibility, consists of current §53.100, which has been modified to clarify that the provisions of the section apply only to licenses sold through the department's point-of-sale system.

Ms. Julie Horsley, program specialist, has determined that there will be fiscal implications to state government as a result of enforcing or administering the rules as proposed. For each of the first five years the rules are in effect, the department is estimated to realize between $4.4 and $5.9 million in additional revenues as follows:

Saltwater trotline and business license transfer fees: $4,508 in each year. Estimate was derived by multiplying the proposed new fee for each type of transaction by the anticipated number of transactions for each license/permit. The number of anticipated transactions was based on a two year average of transactions, adjusted down by 4% to reflect historic reductions in license purchases resulting from fee increases in the past. The result was adjusted down by 5% to reflect commissions retained by license deputies, and also adjusted down by 76 cents per transaction to reflect transaction charges by the vendor operating the Department's point-of-sale system. This result was then compared to the two- year average of revenue to obtain the net gain figure of $4,508.

Lake Texoma: $3,517 in each year. Estimate was derived by determining the total current amount retained by license deputies for sale of Texoma licenses (at 75 cents per transaction and average total transactions of 23,446) and subtracting the new amounts (at 5% of each $12 transaction, and average total transactions of 23,446) expected to be retained. The difference is the net gain to the Department

Texas Freshwater Fisheries Center Annual Pass: $2,000 in each year. Estimate was derived based on past admission/visitation reports since the visitor center opened in 1996.

Texas Freshwater Fisheries Center Meeting/Convention Room Rental : $ 0 to $2,000. Estimate was derived based on polling other similar facilities in the local area during peak times of the year.

Sea Center Texas: $0 to $ 385,000 in each year. Estimate was derived based on past visitation and studies regarding the number of return visitors to the facility.

Parrie Haynes Youth Ranch: $52,080 to $115,896 in each year. Estimate was derived based in past usage patterns, market demand, and frequency of inquiries regarding ranch usage.

Mason Mountain Wildlife Management Area: $6,000 to $7,200 in each year. Estimate was based on historic usage of the facilities.

Old Tunnel Wildlife Management Area: $16,650 to $33,525 in each year. Estimate was based on past visitation to the facility.

Deferred Hunter Education Option: $3,000 in additional revenue. This estimate was derived based on the following : 600 hunters per year will opt to take advantage of the deferral. In the absence of the deferral, these hunters would have otherwise had to take the hunter education course at $10 each, generating $6,000 in revenue, $3,000 of which would be retained by the department, with the remainder retained by volunteer instructors. With the deferral, the department would generate an additional $6,000 in revenue, for a net increase to the department of $3,000. Of the 600 opting to use the deferral, 400 would later take the hunter education course for the $5 reduced rate. The revenue generated from these hunters ($2,000) would be retained by the volunteer instructors. The costs associated with implementing the deferred hunter education option primarily involve the programming costs of modifying the department's electronic point-of-sale system. The current programming cost is estimated to be $98 per hour; however, the department is unable to estimate the exact amount of programming time needed to implement the changes, but anticipates that the cost of implementation will be not be exceed by the revenue generated as a result of the fee.

License Restructuring: $4.5 million to $5.5 million in each year. The additional anticipated revenue is primarily due to the mandated freshwater fishing stamp, the proceeds of which are dedicated to the repair, maintenance, renovation, or replacement of freshwater fish hatcheries or the purchase of game fish that are stocked in the public waters of this state. The proposed licenses and packages were designed to be essentially revenue neutral with regard to the Game, Fish, and Water Safety Account (Fund 009). The estimate was derived by (1) calculating the estimated number of each affected license/stamp sold in FY 2004 (based on analysis of year to date trends), multiplying the results by the FY 2004 price of each item to derive the estimated FY 2004 revenue, and adjusting the figure to reflect the five percent retained by license deputies; (2) determining the projected FY 2005 sales for each license/package (based on historical trends and analysis of anticipated purchasing trends given the new licensing options; and an anticipated 3% decline in sales associated with the fee adjustments to incorporate the $5 freshwater fishing stamp), multiplying the results by the price of each item to calculate projected FY 2005 revenues under the proposed new licensing structure, and adjusting the result to reflect the five percent retained by license deputies; and (3) subtracting the estimated FY2004 revenues from the projected FY 2005 revenues.

For each of the first five years the rules are in effect, the department is estimated to lose revenue as follows (Note: these losses are factored into the total revenue figures of $4.4 and $5.9 million above):

Elimination of $3 per student/hour instruction fee for Marine Safety Enforcement Training: $1,793 in each year. This estimate was derived by multiplying the current fee of $3 by the average number students and average number of hours per TPWD class.

License restructuring: Elimination of muzzleloader and freshwater trout stamps; change to replacement fee for fishing packages: $127,480 in each year. Of this, $5,344 is associated with repeal of the muzzleloader stamp, and $99,803 is associated with the repeal of the freshwater trout stamp. Revenue loss associated with the change to the replacement fee for fishing packages is estimated at $22,333. These estimates were derived based on FY 2003 sales of the muzzleloader stamp, freshwater trout stamp; and replacement saltwater fishing stamps, respectively, adjusted to reflect the five percent retained by license deputies.

Ms. Horsley 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: (1) the department's ability to maintain current levels of service to customers and constituents and the continued ability of the department to adequately discharge it's statutory obligations; (2) elimination of public confusion regarding agency rules (through changes made for clarification, consistency, and consolidation of fee and other related information in Chapter 53); (3) consistency in training of Marine Safety Officers; (4) improved customer convenience through addition of new licensing and annual pass entrance options; and (5) to offer an opportunity for persons 17 years of age or older who would otherwise be required to possess evidence of completion of a hunter education course to explore the hunting experience.

There will be an economic cost to persons required to comply with the rules as proposed, namely the $1 fee increase for the saltwater trotline tag; the $15 increase for the business license transfer fees; the admission/ tour and annual pass fees for various TPWD facilities (Texas Freshwater Fisheries Center, Old Tunnel and Sea Center), which range from $0 to $90; fees for use and rental of various department facilities (Parrie Haynes, Mason Mountain, and Texas Freshwater Fisheries Center), which range from $0 to $5,000, depending on the type of facility rented; ; and the fees associated with the new hunting and fishing license packages, which incorporate the $5 freshwater fishing stamp. There is no economic cost associated with the deferred hunter education option, because it is not mandatory.

For the amounts retained by license deputies for the Lake Texoma fishing license, the proposed change from 75 cents per transaction to 5% would result in a revenue loss to businesses engaged in selling licenses of 15 cents per license sold. Based on the number of licenses sold at each business location, this revenue loss could range from between 15 cents to a maximum of $450 per year. Some of the businesses affected will be small or microbusinesses, however, there is no difference in the cost of compliance between a large and small business as a result of the proposed amendments. Likewise, there is no disproportionate economic impact on small or microbusinesses. For business license transfers, the proposed fee increase would impose a maximum per employee cost ranging from $15 for a business with one employee, to $0.15 for a business employing 100 people. For microbusinesses the maximum per employee cost would range from $15 for one person to $0.75 for 20 employees. For large business, the minimum per employee cost would be fractions of a dollar lower than the maximum cost of compliance for a small business.

The department has determined that the rules will not affect local economies; accordingly, no local employment impact statement has been prepared.

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

The department has determined that Government Code, Chapter 2007 (Governmental Action Affecting Private Property Rights), does not apply to the proposed rules.

Comments on the proposed rules may be submitted to Julie Horsley, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744; (512) 389-4913 or 1-800-792-1112, e-mail: julie.horsley@tpwd.state.tx.us.

Subchapter A. LICENSE FEES AND BOAT AND MOTOR FEES

Subchapter J. MANDATORY HUNTER EDUCATION PROGRAM

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes the repeal of §55.609 and an amendment to §55.607, concerning the department’s regulations governing mandatory hunter education. The amendment to §55.607, concerning Other Non-certified Persons, would create a one-time mechanism that would allow a person who otherwise would be required to have completed a mandatory hunter education course to go hunting under certain conditions during a specific license year after partially prepaying the fee to take the course. Persons seeking to defer course attendance would prepay $10 at the time of license purchase and pay $5 at the time of course enrollment. Although the fee will be codified in Chapter 53, this rulemaking includes a discussion of the fiscal impacts of the fee in order to present all relevant information for the purposes of public comment. The proposed amendment also stipulates that persons who have been convicted of or have received deferred adjudication for violation of the mandatory hunter education requirement are prohibited from applying for a deferral, which is necessary because the department does not intend to furnish a way for persons who have violated the mandatory hunter education requirement to avoid prosecution.

The repeal of §55.609, concerning Hunter Education Fees, is necessary because proposed rules affecting Chapter 53 (Finance) incorporate the provisions of the section as part of a restructuring of Chapter 53 so that all fees imposed by the department are located in a single chapter of the Texas Administrative Code.

Under the provisions of Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, §§62.014, and 31 TAC Chapter 55, Subchapter J, a person must complete a mandatory hunter education program by the time they are 17 years of age in order to hunt in this state. The statute and 31 TAC Chapter 55, Subchapter J, further provide that a person 16 years of age and younger who does not possess a certificate of hunter education may hunt if accompanied by a licensed hunter 17 years of age or older. Research indicates that approximately 2% of potential hunters are deterred by hunter education requirements from trying the hunting experience. The proposed amendment would allow a person 17 years of age or older who has not completed a hunter education program to defer completion of a hunter education program for up to one year, provided that when the person is hunting, he or she is accompanied by a person 17 years of age or older who has passed a hunter education course or is otherwise exempt (born prior to September 2, 1971) from the hunter education requirement. The intent of the department is to create a mechanism for adults who have not been exposed to hunting to explore the hunting experience with a licensed hunter who has completed the required hunter education course.

Steve Hall, education director, has determined that for each of the first five years that the proposed rule is in effect, there will be revenue implications to the department, but not to any other units of state or local government. For each of the first five years the proposed rule is in effect the department is estimated to realize $3,000 in additional revenue. This estimate was derived based on the following: 600 hunters per year will opt to take advantage of the deferral. In the absence of the deferral, these hunters would have otherwise had to take the hunter education course at $10 each, generating $6,000 in revenue, $3,000 of which would be retained by the department, with the remainder retained by volunteer instructors. With the deferral, the department would generate an additional $6,000 in revenue, for a net increase to the department of $3,000. Of the 600 opting to use the deferral, 400 would later take the hunter education course for the $5 reduced rate. The revenue generated from these hunters ($2,000) would be retained by the volunteer instructors. The costs associated with implementing the deferred hunter education option primarily involve the programming costs of modifying the department’s electronic point-of-sale system. The current programming cost is estimated to be $98 per hour; however, the department is unable to estimate the exact amount of programming time needed to implement the changes, but anticipates that the cost of implementation will be not be exceed by the revenue generated as a result of the fee.

Mr. Hall also has determined that for each of the first five years the rule as proposed is in effect, the public benefit of the proposed rule will be to offer an opportunity for persons 17 years of age or older who would otherwise be required to possess evidence of completion of a hunter education course to explore the hunting experience, which might result in additional hunters and therefore additional revenue to the department to assist in the discharge of its statutory duties for the benefit of the people of the state.

There is no economic cost to persons required to comply with the rule as proposed; however, there is a $15 fee for selecting a deferral of mandatory hunter education.

The department has determined that the rule will not affect local economies; accordingly, no local employment impact statement has been prepared.

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

The department has determined that the rule will not have an adverse economic effect on small or micro-businesses.

The department has determined that Government Code, Chapter 2007 (Governmental Action Affecting Private Property Rights), does not apply to the proposed rule.

Comments on the proposed rule may be submitted to Terry Erwin, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744; (512) 389-8140 or 1-800-792-1112, e-mail: terry.erwin@tpwd.state.tx.us.

Subchapter A. STATEWIDE OYSTER FISHERY PROCLAMATION

Subchapter A. STATEWIDE HUNTING AND FISHING PROCLAMATION

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes amendments to §§65.3, 65.30, 65.42, 65.60, 65.64, 65.71, 65.72, 65.78, and 65.82, concerning the Statewide Hunting and Fishing Proclamation.

The amendment to §65.3, concerning Definitions, adds a definition for ‘folding panel trap.’ Current gear restrictions do not address the use of folding panel traps for taking crabs. The proposed amendment to §65.78 would allow the use of folding panel traps, and a definition is needed to describe that type of gear so that it may be legally differentiated from other devices.

The amendment to §65.30, concerning Pronghorn Antelope, would clarify what is meant in the section by the term ‘tract of land.’ The current method used by the department to allocate antelope permits is based on the concept of the herd unit, which can be thought of as the antelope within that set of natural or man-made physical boundaries (such as highways, rivers, net-wire fences, etc.) that function to segregate those animals from other groups of antelope. Biological determinations of sustainable harvest numbers within a herd unit are derived from analysis of population data and habitat quality for that herd unit. The current regulation uses the term ‘tract of land’ in a way that suggests permits are issued for a specific tract of land, which indeed is the case in some instances. However, there are situations in which a landowner owns several tracts of land within a single herd unit. Because the harvest recommendations and subsequent permit issuance are based on the herd unit, it makes no difference, from a biological standpoint, exactly where the harvest of animals occurs, provided it occurs within the herd unit for which the permits were issued. The amendment accordingly adds language to clarify that, for the purposes of the section, "tract of land’ means any tract of land (including multiple tracts of land) under the same ownership within a single herd unit.

The amendment to §65.42, concerning Deer, consists of several actions. The first affects the Late Youth-Only Season. The late Youth-Only season was implemented in 2002 to complement the popular October youth-only season instituted in 1999 under the provisions of House Bill 2542, enacted by the 75th Texas Legislature, which authorized the commission to provide special hunting seasons restricted to persons less than 17 years of age. The purpose of the youth-only seasons is to foster and encourage youth participation in hunting activities by offering special time periods when mentors can take the opportunity to introduce to or instruct youths in the enjoyment of wildlife resources without the distractions of competing seasons or adult hunters. The exclusivity of the youth seasons also serves to promote hunting activities generally to those who might be interested in becoming involved. The current Late Youth-Only Season takes place the weekend following the general open season in counties that do not have a late special season or a late muzzleloader-only season, and does not apply to properties for which Level 3 Managed Lands Deer permits have been issued. The bag limit is restricted to antlerless deer in the number specified for the county where the take occurs, and if there are permit restrictions in the county during the general season, the harvest of antlerless deer during the late youth-only season must be by permit. The proposed change would alter the late youth-only season to allow the harvest of buck deer in all counties that have an open general season, and eliminate permit requirements for the take of antlerless deer in all counties except those where the antlerless harvest during the general season is by permit only for the entire general season. The action is intended to make the late youth-only season more consistent with the early youth-only season so as to reduce confusion and encourage greater participation. Department data indicate that the cumulative harvest during the current youth-only seasons is a negligible part of the overall deer harvest and therefore the proposed changes will not result in depletion or waste as defined by Parks and Wildlife Code, §61.005.

The amendment to §65.42 also would implement a four-day period (from Thanksgiving Day through the Sunday following Thanksgiving Day) during which antlerless deer could be taken without a permit in Brazos, Cherokee, Gregg, Grimes, Houston, Madison, Rusk, and Robertson counties. Under current regulations, the take of antlerless deer in those counties is by permit only for the entire general season. The current system of allowing general-season doe harvest with only LAMPS or MLD permits is not suitable for the current deer herd conditions. Analysis of deer herd characteristics indicates some deteriorating herd health indicators throughout the counties in question. The sex ratio is greatly skewed towards the doe segment of the deer herd and has remained above 4.9 does per buck for the past eight years (stabilized at around 5.6 does per buck for the last three years). Breeding chronology records for the Post Oak and Pineywoods ecoregions show an extremely long breeding season, which is most likely due to a skewed sex ratio. Fawn production has declined over the past eight years, and the values remain very low. The overall trend during the past eight years indicates a slightly-increasing density, with a dramatic increase over the past three years. According to hunter harvest surveys for the 2002-2003 hunting season, hunters killed only 1.5 does per 1,000 acres of deer range in the eight counties. Dressed body weight for 2.5 year-old does has consistently declined over the past eight years to well below the 80 pounds typical for this age/sex class; however, yearling buck weights have been on a slight increase. Increased doe harvest during the general season would help reduce the impact of the deer herd upon the habitat, improve the sex ratio, improve fawning success, and shorten the breeding season. The improved habitat resulting from this change should improve herd health by improving the quantity, quality, and diversity of food resources. Additionally, harvest pressure on yearling and 2.5 year old bucks could potentially decrease by redirecting some of the harvest towards does. In addition to improving biological parameters, addition of doe days to the proposed counties would increase hunter opportunity with absolutely no detriment to the resource for an area that has seen a 25% and 23% decrease in number of hunters and hunter days, respectively, over the past 10 years. Based on the supporting data, the proposed changes will not result in depletion or waste as defined by Parks and Wildlife Code, §61.005.

The amendment to §65.60, concerning Pheasant; Open Seasons, Bag, and Possession Limits, reinstates an opening date of the first Saturday in December in Armstrong, Bailey, Briscoe, Carson, Castro, Childress, Cochran, Collingsworth, Cottle, Crosby, Dallam, Deaf Smith, Donley, Floyd, Gray, Hale, Hall, Hansford, Hartley, Hemphill, Hockley, Hutchinson, Lamb, Lipscomb, Lubbock, Moore, Motley, Ochiltree, Oldham, Parmer, Potter, Randall, Roberts, Sherman, Swisher, Wheeler, and Wilbarger counties. In April of 2003, the commission established an opening day of the first Saturday in December for those counties; however, the Outdoor Annual (a publication that is the principal source of hunter and angler information in the state) erroneously listed the opening day as the second Saturday in December. Rather than cause confusion amongst hunters and landowners, the commission in August of 2003 established the opening date as the second Saturday in order to be consistent. The opening date is now being moved to the date originally adopted in April of 2003 to reflect the original rulemaking.

The amendment to §65.64, concerning Turkey, would open a fall season for Rio Grande turkey in Denton and Johnson counties, a spring season for Eastern turkey in Hardin and Liberty counties, make the open spring season for Eastern turkey effective for the entire county in Montgomery and Tyler counties (each of which under current regulations enjoys a spring season for Eastern turkey in only a portion of the county), and extends the spring season for Eastern turkey to run from April 1 through April 30 of each year in all counties with a spring season for Eastern turkey.

Rio Grande turkey habitat in Denton and Johnson counties is confined to riparian areas, which is also where turkey habitat occurs in adjoining counties. Fall turkey harvest data for surrounding counties indicate harvest ranges from 0 to 375 turkeys harvested per county. Since portions of Denton and Johnson counties contain amounts of suitable turkey habitat similar to that in the surrounding counties, the harvest numbers in Denton and Johnson counties should be less than or equivalent to the harvest in surrounding counties.

Hardin County was stocked with Eastern turkey at three sites along the Big Thicket Corridor. One site was stocked in 1994 and two sites were stocked in 2001. The original stocking was in a remote area and Hardin County has few cooperators for the annual statewide brood survey, so little data exists regarding the success of this site. However, the remaining two sites, approximately 30 miles from the original release site, reported observing scattered individuals prior to release. Post-release, groups of turkeys (5-10 birds, including juveniles) have been observed on a regular basis during the fall of 2001 and 2002. It is therefore evident that an established population exists along the Big Thicket Corridor. The Big Thicket Corridor population will have been protected from harvest from 4-12 breeding seasons prior to the opening of the proposed season and further protection from harvest is no longer necessary. Liberty County was stocked at two sites along the Trinity River Corridor in 1999. The Liberty County turkey population, therefore, will have had six breeding seasons of protection prior to the proposed season and further protection is unnecessary. The season in Montgomery County (north of State Hwy. 105) was opened in 2000, when the season was opened for the entire Sam Houston National Forest. The Sam Houston National Forest includes lands in Montgomery, San Jacinto, and Walker counties. The only two sites stocked in Montgomery County exist entirely on private land south of State Hwy. 105, which were stocked in 1993. Opening the remainder of Montgomery County would simplify regulations, and after 12 protected breeding seasons, further protection is unnecessary. Two areas in Newton County were stocked in 2000 under license agreements that prohibited turkey hunting within posted areas. Observers have reported seeing production every year since the release, and gobble call counts on one release site indicated the presence of a minimum of 30 different gobblers during the spring of 2002. These Newton County sub-populations will have experienced five protected breeding seasons prior to the 2005 spring season. Further protection on these properties is unnecessary. The spring season in Tyler County (north of U.S. Hwy. 190) was opened during the 2000 season. Tyler County was last stocked in 1997. Therefore, continued protection is unnecessary and opening the southern half of Tyler County would expand recreational opportunity and simply regulations. Harvest regulations currently governing eastern turkey hunting in East Texas are the most conservative in the nation. These regulations allow limited hunting opportunity as soon as populations are proven to be established and are designed not to interfere with expansion. The opening date of the initial Eastern turkey season in 1995 in Red River County (the Monday closest to 21 April) was timed to coincide with the peak median date of incubation initiation identified from two previous Eastern turkey studies in Jasper and Trinity counties (Hopkins 1981 and Campo 1983). By selecting this season structure, all of the breeding has occurred prior to the season opening and gobblers are entering a second peak in gobbling activity, coinciding with a decrease in hen availability. Significant comments received from the public concerning the late starting date and data from additional eastern turkey studies (Lopez 1996 and George 1997) justified moving the starting date to the Monday closest to April 14, where it has remained to date. The trend in harvest occurrence from the check station data from 1997-2003 indicates that 21% of the harvest occurs opening day and 67% occurs within the first week. Since the chronology of spring green-up in East Texas varies greatly from north to south and the season is only 14 days long, it is probable that hunter satisfaction and success is impacted by the timing of the season. When peak incubation occurs later than April 14, the season starts during the period of peak breeding, when gobblers are not as vocal or vulnerable to hunters. Hunting pressure further decreases gobbling activity and vulnerability as the season progresses. Based on these data, the proposed season length expansion is not expected to exert a negative effect on the population, but will significantly increase hunter opportunity. Age structure is also not expected to change significantly and jake harvest may actually show a decline over time as hunters become more experienced. With a one-bird bag limit and a 30-day season, experienced hunters are more likely to be selective. The expected benefits of the season expansion are an increase in hunter satisfaction and participation. Spring turkey hunting has never been shown to negatively impact breeding activity or associated reproductive success. Therefore, a season opening April 1 and continuing through April 30 will provide hunting access to turkey populations throughout the peak periods of gobbling activity, which should increase hunter satisfaction and success. On public lands, the season expansion should also increase hunter satisfaction by distributing hunting pressure more evenly throughout the season and decreasing hunter interference rates. A longer season may also be more attractive to potential turkey hunters who have not participated thus far.

The change to §65.71, concerning Reservoir Boundaries, would alter the current definitions for Lake O’the Pines (Camp, Marion, Morris, and Upshur counties) and Pat Mayse Reservoir (Lamar County) to exclude tailrace waters. The new boundary for Lake O’the Pines would comprise the impounded waters of Big Cypress Creek from Ferrell’s Bridge Dam upstream to U.S. Hwy 259 bridge The new boundary for Pat Mayse Reservoir would comprise all impounded waters of Sanders Creek from Pat Mayse Reservoir Dam upstream to County Road 35610. The proposed changes to §65.72 would make the bag and possession limits on each of these two reservoirs identical to the limits in downstream waters. The original purpose of the reservoir definition (i.e., the inclusion of downstream waters for the applicability of limits) was to prevent problematic enforcement situations relating to differential harvest regulations. Unscrupulous persons in possession of fish in excess of limits were claiming to have caught the fish in nearby waters where the limits were different. The equalization of limits therefore makes the current boundary definitions unnecessary. However, on Lake Murvaul (Panola County), the problem has occurred frequently enough that a boundary definition is considered necessary. The proposed amendment would define Lake Murvaul as all impounded waters of Murvaul Bayou Creek upstream from the Lake Murvaul dam and Murvaul Bayou Creek downstream from the dam to Farm to Market Road 1970 bridge.

The change to §65.72, concerning Fish, consists of several actions that affect both fresh and salt water regulations, as follow.

Current harvest regulations for largemouth bass on San Augustine City Lake consist of an 18-inch minimum length limit and a five fish daily bag limit (in place since 1990).The proposed amendment would implement a 14-18 inch slot length limit, and the five fish daily bag would be retained. Changing the length limit to a 14-18 inch slot should enhance harvest opportunities that, for the most part, currently do not exist. The bass population structure is dominated by fish that are smaller than 14 inches in length. Local anglers have expressed a desire to harvest these small bass. This should be beneficial to the population as intraspecific competition would be decreased and may lead to an increase in the bass growth rates.

A new reservoir in Travis County, Lake Pflugerville, is scheduled to open to angling in 2005. The proposed amendment would implement an 18-inch minimum length limit and five fish daily bag for largemouth bass, and angling methods would be restricted to pole and line angling only. Protecting largemouth bass to 18 inches on this small impoundment should protect 14-18 inch bass from over harvest when the park is opened to the public. This will prevent a decrease in the quality of the fishery. Restricting gear to pole and line only will increase angler opportunity for channel catfish by preventing possible over harvest with other fishing methods such as trotlines or juglines.

Current harvest regulations for community fishing lakes (CFLs-impoundments of less than 75 acres and all impoundments regardless of size totally within a state park) consist of a 12-inch minimum length limit on channel and blue catfish with a five-fish daily bag limit (the statewide standard regulation is 25 fish). The proposed amendment would eliminate the length limit for catfish and retain the five-fish daily bag limit. The management goal for small-lake fisheries such as CFLs is to provide quality angling opportunities for anglers who cannot or choose not to go to the many large reservoirs located around Texas. Removing the length limit for catfish will help promote angling to novice or infrequent anglers who are unfamiliar with harvest regulations.

The current harvest regulations for white bass and white/striped bass hybrids on Lake O’the Pines (Camp, Marion, Morris, and Upshur counties) and Pat Mayse Reservoir (Lamar County) consist of a 10-inch minimum length and 25 daily bag limit (both species combined), of which only five may be 18 inches or longer. The proposed amendment would implement the statewide standard regulations for both species (10-inch minimum length limit and 25-fish daily bag limit for white bass and an 18-inch minimum length limit and five-fish daily bag for white/striped bass hybrids). The changes will have no effect on the population or fisheries of either species. Angling pressure for hybrids in both reservoirs was not sufficient to impact the population structure of hybrid striped bass. Abundance of hybrid striped bass has declined in these populations due to the absence of stocking, and hybrids no longer constitutes a viable fishery in either reservoir. The change will also make the fishing regulations for Pat Mayse and Lake O’the Pines reservoirs consistent with those of other reservoirs in the area.

The amendment to §65.72 also would allow the use of minnow traps in salt water. The department has determined that the use of minnow traps in salt water, under the same restrictions governing the use of minnow traps in freshwater, will not adversely affect any populations of marine organisms, primarily due to the small size and relative inefficiency of such devices, especially when restricted to nongame species only. The amendment also requires perch traps to be equipped with degradable panels. Research has shown that abandoned or lost traps can continue to function for years, leading to unnecessary lost and waste of marine organisms. By requiring that each perch trap be equipped with a degradable panel, the department hopes to reduce the potential of the trap to function as a killing machine in the event it is lost or abandoned.

The amendment to §65.78, concerning Crabs and Ghost Shrimp, would allow the use of certain folding panel-type traps to take crabs. Current gear restrictions do not address the use of folding panel traps, which are similar in effect and efficiency to hoop-type traps that are designated as lawful devices. To prevent angler confusion, the department proposes to allow the use of folding panel traps, provided the maximum volume of the trap does not exceed that prescribed for the hoop-type traps.

The amendment to §65.82, concerning Other Aquatic Life, would allow the take by hand of aquatic life the take of which is not specifically addressed by the other provisions of the subchapter, except for threatened or endangered species. The action is taken in order to allow persons to take by hand such organisms as they may encounter, and the department has determined that such take will not result in depletion or waste because of the limited success of hand take and the overall minuscule impact that hand take would have on marine life.

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

Mr. Macdonald 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 the dispensation of the agency’s statutory duty to protect and conserve the wildlife resources of this state, the duty to equitably distribute opportunity for the enjoyment of those resources among the citizens, and the execution of the commission’s policy to maximize recreational opportunity within the precepts of sound biological management practices.

There will be economic costs for persons required to comply with the rules as proposed. The amendment to §65.72(c)(5)(H) will require each perch trap to be equipped with a degradable panel. In each case the cost of compliance per device is less than $1 per trap. There are no other economic costs for persons required to comply with the rules as proposed. The agency has determined that there will be no adverse economic impacts to small businesses or microbusinesses as a result of the rules as proposed.

The department has not drafted a local employment impact statement under the provisions of Government Code, §2001.022, as the agency has determined that the rules as proposed will not impact local economies.

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 rules.

The department has determined that the proposed rules are not major environmental rules as defined by Government Code, §2001.0225.

Comments on the proposed rules may be submitted by phone (area code 512) or e-mail to Robert Macdonald (Wildlife 389-4775; e-mail: robert.macdonald@tpwd.state.tx.us), Ken Kurzawski (Inland Fisheries 389-4591; e-mail: ken.kurzawski@tpwd.state.tx.us), Paul Hammerschmidt (Coastal Fisheries 389-4650; e-mail: paul.hammerschmidt@tpwd.state.tx.us), David Sinclair (Wildlife Enforcement 389-4854; e-mail: david.sinclair@tpwd.state.tx.us), or Larry Young (Fisheries Enforcement 389-4628; e-mail: larry.young@tpwd.state.tx.us), Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744; (512) 389-4775 or 1-800-792-1112.

Subchapter A. STATEWIDE HUNTING AND FISHING PROCLAMATION

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes the repeal of §65.29, concerning Bonus Tags, and amendments to §§65.7, concerning Harvest Log; 65.10, concerning Possession of Wildlife Resources; 65.26, concerning Managed Lands Deer permits; 65.28, concerning Landowner Assisted Management Permits, and 65.38, concerning Game Animals: Open Seasons and Bag Limits.

Under current regulations, a hunter upon killing a deer is required to fill out the harvest log on the back of the hunting license and attach a properly executed tag from his or her hunting license to the deer. The information on the harvest log and the license tag attest to the identity of the person who killed the deer, the date the deer was killed, and the location where the deer was killed. This information is sampled by department biologists to develop and maintain harvest data to be used in determining appropriate regulatory and management strategies, and by law enforcement personnel in enforcing harvest regulations. Also under current rules, if the deer has been taken under a LAMPS permit, MLD permit, department special permit, or WMA special antlerless permit, the hunter is also required to attach a completed permit to the carcass. The department’s current rules thus require deer in certain situations to be tagged twice with the same information. The proposed rule changes are in part undertaken to eliminate this so-called ‘double tagging’ requirement. In addition, the proposed rules would eliminate personal bag limits for deer taken by LAMPS and MLD permits, and would extend the period of validity for MLD permits to make the ending date of validity concurrent with that of antlerless and spike-buck control permits.

The proposed repeal of §65.29, concerning Bonus Tags, is necessary because the proposed amendment to §65.26, concerning Managed Lands Deer (MLD) permits, eliminates personal bag limits for deer taken by MLD permit, which makes the bonus tag superfluous. The bonus tag was created primarily as a mechanism for land managers participating in department permit programs to achieve harvest goals by allowing individual hunters to exceed the statewide bag limit through the use of bonus tags in conjunction with LAMPS and MLD permits. The rationale for creating this mechanism was that since permits were issued on the basis of a specific harvest quota established for each property (i.e., a controlled harvest), the number of deer taken by individual hunters was immaterial. A secondary purpose for the creation of bonus tags was to allow hunters selected for participation in special hunts on department lands to avoid having to use license tags, particularly in counties with a one-buck bag limit, where the use of a license tag on a department hunt would preclude that hunter from taking a buck in any other one-buck county.

The proposed amendment to §65.7, concerning Harvest Log, would remove the requirement that the harvest log be filled out for deer killed under a LAMPS permit, MLD permit, department special permit, or WMA special antlerless permit. The proposed amendment also removes a reference to bonus tags, which are being eliminated. The amendment is necessary because the information entered on a harvest log is identical to the information contained on a department-issued permit.

The amendment to §65.10, concerning Possession of Wildlife Resources, exempts a person who takes a deer by LAMPS permit, MLD permit, department special permit, or WMA special antlerless permit from the tagging requirements of Parks and Wildlife Code, §42.018, which requires a person to attach a tag from their hunting license to all deer taken by that person. Under Parks and Wildlife Code, §42.0177, the commission is authorized to modify or eliminate the tagging requirements of §42.018. The amendment is necessary because the intent of this rulemaking is to eliminate requirements that cause hunters to have to attach the same information in multiple forms to a single deer. The proposed amendment also clarifies that a bird or animal taken under circumstances that require the bird or animal to be tagged must be tagged immediately upon take. The amendment is necessary to establish with certainty when a person’s legal obligations begin with respect to tagging requirements.

The amendment to §65.26, concerning Managed Lands Deer (MLD) Permits, eliminates personal bag limits for antlerless deer on Level I MLD properties and personal bag limits for both antlerless and buck deer on Level II and Level III MLD properties; makes Level II bucks valid for the take of fork-antlered bucks during the early youth-only season; eliminates references to stamp requirements for deer taken during the muzzleloader-only open season; removes references to bonus tags and the statutory requirement that a license tag be attached to all deer taken by MLD permit; and stipulates that deer not immediately tagged by MLD tag upon take are to be taken by the most direct route to a location where a MLD tag can be attached to the deer. The removal of personal bag limits is being implemented because MLD permits are issued on the basis of a specific harvest articulated in a wildlife management plan, which is a controlled harvest agreed upon by the landowner. Proper management of deer populations is essential to maintaining the habitat quality that all species of wildlife depend upon for sustenance. By its very nature, hunter success is unpredictable, and the department desires to provide a mechanism to land managers that will provide them a greater probability of achieving the harvest quota specified in the wildlife management plan. Thus, if the harvest on a given property is in danger of not fulfilling the goal stipulated by the wildlife management plan, the landowner has the option of giving more permits to the remaining hunters, or themselves using the permits to achieve the harvest quota. The provision for the take of fork-antlered bucks by youth during the youth-only open season on Level II MLD properties is part of the department’s efforts to simplify and make consistent the regulations governing youth-only hunts. Under current rule, Level II MLD permits are valid only for spike-antlered bucks prior to the general open season. Because the early youth-only season takes places one week prior to the opening of the general season, and because fork-antlered can be taken by youth during that season on non-MLD properties, Level I MLD properties, and Level III MLD properties, the department sees no reason to exclude youth on Level II MLD properties from the same opportunity. The removal of references to the stamp requirement for hunting during the muzzleloader-only season is necessary because the legislature eliminated the muzzleloader stamp during the most recent legislative session. The elimination of the provision requiring deer taken on MLD properties to be tagged with a license tag or bonus tag is necessary because the intent of this rulemaking is to eliminate requirements that cause hunters to have to attach the same information in multiple forms to a single deer. Since deer on MLD properties must be tagged with an MLD permit, the license tag is superfluous. The bonus tag is being eliminated for reasons set forth in elsewhere in this rulemaking in the discussion of the proposed repeal of §65.29. The stipulation that deer taken by MLD permit but not immediately tagged by MLD tag are to be taken by the most direct route to a location where a MLD tag can be attached to the deer is necessary for clarification purposes. The current rule acknowledges that landowners face logistical problems related to permit allotment and use. Hunters are not always successful, and to require each hunter to have a permit on their person in the field means that unused permits would have to be returned to the landowner and reissued to subsequent hunters, which is inefficient, particularly on larger properties that might entertain dozens of hunters in a season. The department thus allows hunters to harvest a deer and then take it to a location on the property where the MLD tag can then be attached to the carcass. The language requiring deer to be taken by the most direct route to a tagging station is intended to reduce potential enforcement problems that could arise when law enforcement personnel encounter hunters with untagged deer, since another element of this rulemaking eliminates the requirement that deer taken on MLD properties be tagged with a license tag. The final proposed change is to make the period of validity for MLD permits concurrent with that of antlerless and spike-buck control permits. The department finds that it is inconsistent to have one period ending several days before another, and by making the two periods end at the same time, the potential for confusion among landowners, hunters, and law enforcement is eliminated.

The proposed amendment to §65.28, concerning Landowner Assisted Management Permit System (LAMPS), eliminates personal bag limits for antlerless deer on LAMPS properties and removes references to both the bonus tag and the statutory requirement that a license tag be attached to all deer immediately upon take. LAMPS permits are valid only for antlerless deer. The removal of personal bag limits is being implemented because when LAMPS permits are issued there is no other lawful way for antlerless deer to be harvested on the receiving property (except during the archery-only season). In light of a finite antlerless harvest, the department wishes to provide land managers with a flexible and efficient method of removing antlerless deer in order to facilitate maximum permit utilization. The elimination of the provision requiring deer taken on LAMPS properties to be tagged with a license tag or bonus tag is necessary because the intent of this rulemaking is to eliminate requirements that cause hunters to have to attach the same information in multiple forms to a single deer. Since antlerless deer on LAMPS properties must be tagged with a LAMPS permit, the license tag is superfluous. The bonus tag is being eliminated for reasons set forth in elsewhere in this rulemaking in the discussion of the proposed repeal of §65.29.

The proposed amendment to §65.38, concerning Game Animals-Open Seasons and Bag Limits, adds language to allow bag limits to be exceeded. The amendment is necessary because other elements of this rulemaking allow persons under certain circumstances to exceed the statewide bag limit for white-tailed deer.

Robert Macdonald, regulations coordinator, has determined that for each of the first five years that the rules as proposed is in effect, there will be no fiscal implications to state and local governments as a result of enforcing or administering the rules.

Mr. Macdonald 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 the enhancement of the ability of land managers and landowners who participate in department permit programs to more efficiently and easily achieve harvest goals and thus protect the habitat that all species depend upon, which benefits the public by protecting and enhancing ecosystems in a variety of ways, and by eliminating redundant systems of hunter documentation, which benefits that segment of the public that enjoys hunting.

There will be no adverse economic effects on small businesses, microbusinesses, or persons required to comply with the amendment as proposed.

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.

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.

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

Comments on the proposed rule may be submitted to Clayton Wolf, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas, 78744; (512) 389-4363 (e-mail: clayton.wolf@tpwd.state.tx.us).