Commission Agenda Item No. 1
Exhibit A

LEGISLATIVE RULES REVIEW
CHAPTER 53. FINANCE
PROPOSAL PREAMBLE

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes amendments to §§53.2, 53.14, 53.60, and 53.91, concerning Finance.  The proposed amendments are a result of the department’s review of its regulations under the provisions of Government Code, §2001.039, which requires a state agency to review each of its regulations no less frequently than every four years and to re-adopt, adopt with changes, or repeal each rule as a result of the review.

        The proposed amendment to §53.2, concerning License Issuance Procedures, Fees, and Exemption Rules, would correct statutory and regulatory cross-references in subsection (a)(3)(B)(iii) and (iv). Current §53.2(a)(3) provides that a person who has acquired a hunting license electronically may hunt prior to obtaining the physical license so long as the person has a valid confirmation number. However, the current provisions in subparagraph (B)(iii) and (iv) regarding hunting on certain public lands and or department-leased land contain inaccurate references to provisions authorizing those public hunting activities. The proposed amendment corrects the inaccuracy.

        The proposed amendment to §53.14, concerning Deer Management and Removal Permits would delete the reference to the “antlerless and spike buck control permit application processing fee” since these permits are no longer being issued. The regulations providing for the issuance of antlerless and spike buck control permits were repealed by action of the Parks and Wildlife Commission in March 2016, and published in the August 12, 2016 issue of the Texas Register (14 TexReg 6052).  The elimination of the antlerless and spike buck control permit obviates the need for the associated permit application fee.

        The proposed amendment to §53.60, concerning Stamps, would modify the references to stamp form, design, and issuance to reflect current practice, and eliminate provisions regarding nongame and endangered species stamps and collector’s edition stamps. The department no longer issues collector’s edition stamps. Currently, a “stamp” is issued as an endorsement on the appropriate license issued through the department’s electronic license sales system.  The proposed amendment is necessary to reflect current practice.

        The proposed amendment to §53.91, concerning Documented Vessels, would clarify various provisions. The proposed amendment would add the term “certificate of number” in subsection (a) and “participating Tax assessor-Collector office” in subsections (a) — (c) to more accurately describe the locations where vessels may be registered. The proposed amendment also would delete the reference to the tax for vessels greater than 65 feet in length in subsection (c)(3) since the tax on these vessels is not collected by the department.  In addition, a reference is to Parks and Wildlife Code, §31.026 would be added to subsection (c)(4) to more completely describe the authority for collection of the appropriate registration fee.

2. Fiscal Note.

        Ann Bright, General Counsel, has determined that for each of the first five years that the rules as proposed are in effect, there will be no fiscal implications to state or local governments as a result of administering or enforcing the rules.

3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.

        Ms. Bright also has determined that for each of the first five years that the rules as proposed are in effect:

        (A) The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the proposed rules will be clearer, better organized, and more accurate regulations governing the processes and entities administered under the provisions of Chapter 53.

        (B) There will be no adverse economic effect on persons required to comply with the rules as proposed.

        (C) Under the provisions of Government Code, Chapter 2006, a state agency must prepare an economic impact statement and a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule that may have an adverse economic effect on small businesses and micro-businesses. As required by Government Code, §2006.002(g), the Office of the Attorney General has prepared guidelines to assist state agencies in determining a proposed rule’s potential adverse economic impact on small businesses. Those guidelines state that an agency need only consider a proposed rule’s “direct adverse economic impacts” to small businesses and micro-businesses to determine if any further analysis is required. For that purpose, the department considers “direct economic impact” to mean a requirement that would directly impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements; impose taxes or fees; result in lost sales or profits; adversely affect market competition; or require the purchase or modification of equipment or services. The department has determined that the rules will not directly affect small businesses and/or micro-businesses. Therefore, the department has not prepared the economic impact statement or regulatory flexibility analysis described in Government Code, Chapter 2006.

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

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

4. Request for Public Comment.

Commission Agenda Item No. 1
Exhibit B

LEGISLATIVE RULES REVIEW
CHAPTER 57. FISHERIES
PROPOSAL PREAMBLE

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes amendments to §§57.117, 57.120, 57.252, 57.392, 57.395, 57.399, and 57.951, concerning Fisheries.  The proposed amendments are a result of the department’s review of its regulations under the provisions of Government Code, §2001.039, which requires a state agency to review each of its regulations no less frequently than every four years and to re-adopt, adopt with changes, or repeal each rule as a result of the review.

        The proposed amendment to §§57.117, concerning Exotic Species Permit: Application Requirements, would alter subsection (a)(5) to waive the permit fee for persons removing prohibited nuisance aquatic vegetation in accordance with an approved treatment proposal. Because such activity is consistent with department goals, department-approved, and is not undertaken at department expense, the department believes that a fee waiver is appropriate.       The proposed amendment to §§57.120, concerning Exotic Species Permit: Expiration and Renewal, would alter subsection (a) to clarify that permits allowing removal of prohibited plants from a public water body in accordance with an approved treatment proposal may share the same period of validity with the treatment proposal. The proposed amendment will increase efficiency and prevent confusion regarding the removal of exotic plants pursuant to approved treatment proposals.

        The proposed amendment to §57.252, concerning General Provisions, would alter subsection (d) to provide that a period of permit validity other than 60 days may be specified in the terms and conditions of the permit, which is intended to enhance efficiency and compliance in instances in which repeated introductions are scheduled over a period of time longer than 60 days or when a project is delayed.

        The proposed amendment to §57.392, concerning General Rules, would alter subsection (a) to eliminate the reference to a saltwater stamp. A valid recreational fishing license now includes a freshwater stamp, saltwater stamp, or both. The language proposed for elimination is an artifact and predates the implementation of the freshwater stamp.

        The proposed amendment to §57.395, concerning Broodfish Permits; Fees, Terms of Issuance, would alter subsection (d) to eliminate the reference to the $25 fee for a broodfish permit. The fees for such permits are established in §53.15(h)(3).

        The proposed amendment to §57.399, concerning Permit Denial Review, would alter paragraph (3)(C) to afford additional latitude in the composition of panels that review agency decisions to deny issuance or renewal of permits. The current rules require the Deputy Executive Director for Natural Resources, the Director of the Coastal Fisheries Division, and the Deputy Director of the Coastal Fisheries Division to function as the review panel. In practice this is problematic, because such personnel are typically not in the same place at the same time very often, making the scheduling of review panels difficult. Therefore, the proposed amendment would require a review panel to be consist of three agency employees at the level of program director or above who have knowledge of the affected resources, to be appointed by the Executive Director or the Chief Operating Officer.

        The proposed amendment to §57.951, concerning Definitions, would alter the definitions of “Agent” in paragraph (1) and “Applicant” in paragraph (2) to clarify that an “Applicant” includes the applicant’s agent.

2. Fiscal Note.

        Ken Kurzawski, Regulations and Information Programs Director, Inland Fisheries Division, has determined that for each of the first five years that the rules as proposed are in effect, there will be fiscal implications to state or local governments as a result of administering or enforcing the proposed amendment to §57.117, consisting of approximately $108 per year, based on the historical permit issuance to entities removing exotic species under a department-approved proposal. The department issues approximately four permits per year at $27 per permit to entities removing exotic species from public water under a department approved proposal. There are no other fiscal implications to units of state or local governments as a result of the proposed rules.

3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.

        Mr. Kurzawski also has determined that for each of the first five years that the rules as proposed are in effect:

        (A) The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the proposed rules will be clearer, better organized, and more accurate regulations governing the processes and entities administered under the provisions of Chapter 57.

        (B) There will be no adverse economic effect on persons required to comply with the rules as proposed.

        (C) Under the provisions of Government Code, Chapter 2006, a state agency must prepare an economic impact statement and a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule that may have an adverse economic effect on small businesses and micro-businesses. As required by Government Code, §2006.002(g), the Office of the Attorney General has prepared guidelines to assist state agencies in determining a proposed rule’s potential adverse economic impact on small businesses. Those guidelines state that an agency need only consider a proposed rule’s “direct adverse economic impacts” to small businesses and micro-businesses to determine if any further analysis is required. For that purpose, the department considers “direct economic impact” to mean a requirement that would directly impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements; impose taxes or fees; result in lost sales or profits; adversely affect market competition; or require the purchase or modification of equipment or services. The department has determined that the rules will not directly affect small businesses and/or micro-businesses. Therefore, the department has not prepared the economic impact statement or regulatory flexibility analysis described in Government Code, Chapter 2006.

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

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

4. Request for Public Comment.

Commission Agenda Item No. 1
Exhibit C

LEGISLATIVE RULES REVIEW
CHAPTER 58. OYSTERS AND SHRIMP
PROPOSAL PREAMBLE

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes an amendment to §58.165, concerning Noncommercial (Recreational) Shrimping. The proposed amendment is a result of the department’s review of its regulations under the provisions of Government Code, §2001.039, which requires a state agency to review each of its regulations no less frequently than every four years and to re-adopt, adopt with changes, or repeal each rule as a result of the review.

        The proposed amendment would eliminate subsection (c)(3)(D), which would provide for consistency with commercial shrimping regulations by eliminating the count and size requirements during the Fall season. The proposed amendment also would alter subsection (d)(3) to provide consistency with commercial shrimping regulations by clarifying that legal shrimping hours are 30 minutes before sunrise to 30 minutes after sunset.

2. Fiscal Note.

        Ann Bright, General Counsel, has determined that for each of the first five years that the rule as proposed is in effect, there will be no fiscal implications to state or local governments as a result of administering or enforcing the proposed amendment.

3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.

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

        (A) The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the proposed rule will be clearer, better organized, and more accurate regulations governing the processes and entities administered under the provisions of Chapter 58.

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

        (C) Under the provisions of Government Code, Chapter 2006, a state agency must prepare an economic impact statement and a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule that may have an adverse economic effect on small businesses and micro-businesses. As required by Government Code, §2006.002(g), the Office of the Attorney General has prepared guidelines to assist state agencies in determining a proposed rule’s potential adverse economic impact on small businesses. Those guidelines state that an agency need only consider a proposed rule’s “direct adverse economic impacts” to small businesses and micro-businesses to determine if any further analysis is required. For that purpose, the department considers “direct economic impact” to mean a requirement that would directly impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements; impose taxes or fees; result in lost sales or profits; adversely affect market competition; or require the purchase or modification of equipment or services. The department has determined that the rule will not directly affect small businesses and/or micro-businesses. Therefore, the department has not prepared the economic impact statement or regulatory flexibility analysis described in Government Code, Chapter 2006.

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

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

4. Request for Public Comment.

Commission Agenda Item No. 1
Exhibit D

LEGISLATIVE RULES REVIEW
CHAPTER 59. PARKS
PROPOSAL PREAMBLE

1. Introduction.

        The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes amendments to §§59.2 — 59.4, concerning State Parks. The proposed amendments are a result of the department’s review of its regulations under the provisions of Government Code, §2001.039, which requires a state agency to review each of its regulations no less frequently than every four years and to re-adopt, adopt with changes, or repeal each rule as a result of the review. The proposed amendments are nonsubstantive and intended to clarify regulatory provisions. The department wishes to stress that the rules as proposed will not result in additional fees or increased fees at any park and are strictly nonsubstantive in that regard.

        The proposed amendment to §59.2 concerning Park Entrance Fees, would delete references to a “permit” in subsection (a). In parks at which a fee is required for park entrance, the department has determined that it is more accurate to describe the fee as an entrance fee, rather than a permit fee. The proposed amendment also would alter subsection (a)(3) to eliminate the reference to an overnight facility use fee since such fees are addressed in §59.4. The proposed amendment also would replace the word “imposed” in subsection (b) with the more accurate term “collected” to clarify that that fee is actually collected, rather than imposed.

        The proposed amendment to §59.3 concerning Park Entry Passes, would delete the reference to a “tour” fee since that fee is addressed in §59.4(c)(7). In addition, the proposed amendment would delete the word “other” from paragraph (1)(A)(ii) and (iii) because it is unnecessary in describing the number of persons authorized to enter a park by an annual park pass. Similarly, “motorcycle” is added to the list of means by which persons may enter a park other than a vehicle in paragraph (1)(A)(iii) and the word “guided” is deleted from paragraph (1)(B)(ii), since not all tours in parks are guided. The proposed amendment would also remove  reference to an “order of” the department’s executive director from paragraphs (1)(D) and (2)(C) since the executive director may document the establishment of the referenced fee by a method other than an executive order.

        The proposed amendment to §59.4, concerning Activity and Facility Use Fees, would combine the group day use facility fee in subsection (b)(3) with the group day use area fee in subsection (b)(4) and remove the reference to “recreation/meeting hall/dining hall” in subsection (b)(3) to better describe the facilities for which the fee is imposed. In addition, the proposed amendment would move the fee for group use of a swimming pool facility from subsection (c)(2)(C) to subsection (b)(8) since other group fees are located in subsection (b). The proposed amendment also would alter subsection (c)(7) by removing the detailed description of types of tours and simply refer to “tour fees.” The proposed amendment also would alter  subsection(c)(7) to replace “$.25” with the more accurate “$0.25.”

2. Fiscal Note.

        Kevin Good, Special Assistant to the Division Director of the State Parks Division, has determined that for each of the first five years that the rules as proposed are in effect, there will be no fiscal implications to state or local governments as a result of enforcing or administering the proposed rules.

3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.

        Mr. Good also has determined that for each of the first five years the rules as proposed are in effect:

        (A) The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the rules as proposed will be clearer, more understandable rules to enhance recreational benefits to the park-going public, consistent management of state park concessions, and the protection of habitats and ecosystems on department lands for the enjoyment of the public.

        (B) Under the provisions of Government Code, Chapter 2006, a state agency must prepare an economic impact statement and a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule that may have an adverse economic effect on small businesses and micro-businesses. As required by Government Code, §2006.002(g), the Office of the Attorney General has prepared guidelines to assist state agencies in determining a proposed rule’s potential adverse economic impact on small businesses. Those guidelines state that an agency need only consider a proposed rule’s “direct adverse economic impacts” to small businesses and micro-businesses to determine if any further analysis is required. For that purpose, commission considers “direct economic impact” to mean a requirement that would directly impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements; impose taxes or fees; result in lost sales or profits; adversely affect market competition; or require the purchase or modification of equipment or services.

        The department has determined that there will be no adverse economic effects on small businesses, microbusinesses, or persons required to comply with the rules as proposed. Accordingly, the department has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis under Government Code, Chapter 2006.

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

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

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

4. Request for Public Comment.

Commission Agenda Item No. 1
Exhibit E

RULE REVIEW
CHAPTER 65. WILDLIFE
PROPOSAL PREAMBLE

1. Introduction.

        The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (the department, or TPWD) proposes the repeal of §§65.26, 65.28, 65.34, and 65.42, amendments to §§65.7, 65.9, 65.10, 65.24, 65.25, 65.33, and new §65.42, concerning the Statewide Hunting Proclamation. The proposed repeals, amendments, and new section are a result of the department’s review of its regulations under the provisions of Government Code, §2001.039, which requires a state agency to review each of its regulations no less frequently than every four years and to re-adopt, adopt with changes, or repeal each rule as a result of the review.

        The proposed repeal of §§65.26, concerning Managed Lands Deer Permits (MLDP)—White-tailed Deer; 65.28, concerning Landowner Assisted Management Permit System (LAMPS); and 65.34, concerning Managed Lands Deer Permits (MLDP)—Mule Deer and the proposed amendments to §§65.7, concerning Harvest Log; 65.9, concerning Open Seasons: General Rules; 65.10, concerning Possession of Wildlife Resources; 65.24, concerning Permits; 65.25, concerning Wildlife Management Plan (WMP); and 65.33, concerning Mandatory Check Stations, are necessary to accommodate the provisions of §65.29, concerning Managed Lands Deer (MLD) Programs. In 2014, the department adopted new §65.29 (41 TexReg 806), concerning Managed Lands Deer Program (MLDP) to replace the current MLDP programs for white-tailed and mule deer and the Landowner Assisted Management Program (LAMPS) for white-tailed deer. Those rules were adopted with an effective date that would allow program implementation beginning with the 2017-18 deer seasons. In order to prevent regulatory conflict, references to and provisions of the programs being replaced therefore need to be removed or altered.

        The proposed repeal of §65.42, concerning Deer, and proposed new §65.42, concerning Deer, would remove references to deer permit programs that no longer exist and reorganize the remaining provisions of the current rule to make it more concise and user-friendly. As discussed earlier in this preamble, a single MLD program will take effect for the 2017-18 hunting seasons; therefore, references and provisions regarding the previous permit programs must be removed from the current rule or altered to conform to the new rule. In addition, the proposed rule also rewords the roadway definition that delineates the north and south deer zones in Val Verde County in the interests of clarity. Finally, proposed new §65.42 would nonsubstantively reorganize and restructure existing provisions to eliminate repetition and categorize regulatory provisions in a more consistent fashion.

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

2. Fiscal Note.

        Mr. Clayton Wolf, Wildlife Division Director, has determined that for each of the first five years that the rules as proposed are in effect, there will be no fiscal implications to state or local governments as a result of enforcing or administering the rules.

3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.

        Mr. Wolf also has determined that for each of the first five years the rules as proposed are in effect:

        (A) The, the public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the rules as proposed will be the exercise 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 opportunities within the precepts of sound biological management practices.

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

        (C) Under the provisions of Government Code, Chapter 2006, a state agency must prepare an economic impact statement and a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule that may have an adverse economic effect on small businesses and micro-businesses. As required by Government Code, §2006.002(g), the Office of the Attorney General has prepared guidelines to assist state agencies in determining a proposed rule’s potential adverse economic impact on small and micro-businesses. Those guidelines state that an agency need only consider a proposed rule’s “direct adverse economic impacts” to small businesses and micro-businesses to determine if any further analysis is required. For that purpose, the department considers “direct economic impact” to mean a requirement that would directly impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements; impose taxes or fees; result in lost sales or profits; adversely affect market competition; or require the purchase or modification of equipment or services.

        The department has determined that the proposed rule will not directly affect small businesses or micro-businesses. Therefore, the department therefore has not prepared the economic impact statement or regulatory flexibility analysis described in Government Code, Chapter 2006.

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

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

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

4. Request for Public Comment.

        Comments on the proposed rules may be submitted by phone or e-mail to Robert Macdonald (512) 389-4775; e-mail: robert.macdonald@tpwd.state.tx.us, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744. Comments also may be submitted via the department’s website at http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/feedback/public_comment/.

5. Statutory Authority.

        The amendments are proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 42, which allows the department to issue tags for deer during each year or season; and Chapter 61, which requires the commission to regulate the periods of time when it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the means, methods, and places in which it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the species, quantity, age or size, and, to the extent possible, the sex of the game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life authorized to be hunted, taken, or possessed; and the region, county, area, body of water, or portion of a county where game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life may be hunted, taken, or possessed.

        The proposed amendments affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapters 42 and 61.

6. Rule Text.

        §65.7. Harvest Log.

                 (a) The provisions of this subsection apply only to a person in possession of a license purchased through an automated point-of-sale system.

                         (1) A person who kills a white-tailed deer shall complete, in ink, the harvest log on the back of the hunting license immediately upon kill.

                         (2) Completion of the harvest log is not required for deer taken:

                                  (A) under the provisions of §65.29 of this title (relating to Managed Lands Deer Program[§65.26 of this title (relating to Managed Lands Deer (MLD) Permits];

                                  [(B) under the provisions of §65.28 of this title (relating to Landowner Assisted Management Permits (LAMPS);]

                                  (B)[(C)] by special permit under the provisions of Subchapter H of this chapter (relating to Public Lands Proclamation) on department lands;

                                  (C)[(D)] on department-leased lands under the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, §11.0272; or

                                  (D)[(E)] by special antlerless permit issued by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) for use on USFS lands that are part of the department’s public hunting program.

                 (b) (No change.)

        §65.9. Open Seasons: General Rules.

                 (a) (No change.)

                 (b) No antlerless deer permit is required to take an antlerless white-tailed deer during the archery-only open season, except on lands enrolled in the Managed Lands Deer Program[for which Managed Lands Deer permits have been issued].

                 (c) (No change.)

        §65.10. Possession of Wildlife Resources.

                 (a) – (b) (No change.)

                 (c) A person who lawfully takes a deer is exempt from the tagging requirements of Parks and Wildlife Code, §42.018 if the deer is taken:

                         (1) under the provisions of §65.29 of this title (relating to Managed Lands Deer Program[§65.26 of this title (relating to Managed Lands Deer Permits (MLDP) — White-tailed Deer)];

                         [(2) under the provisions of §65.34 of this title (relating to Managed Lands Deer Permits (MLDP) — Mule Deer);]

                         [(3) under the provisions of §65.28 of this title (relating to Landowner Assisted Management Permits (LAMPS));]

                         (2)[(4)] under an antlerless mule deer permit issued under §65.32 of this title (relating to Antlerless Mule Deer Permits);

                         (3)[(5)] by special permit under the provisions of Subchapter H of this chapter (relating to Public Lands Proclamation);

                         (4)[(6)] on department-leased lands under the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, §11.0271; or

                         (5)[(7)] by special antlerless permit issued by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) for use on USFS lands that are part of the department’s public hunting program.

                 (d) – (g) (no change.)

                 (h) No additional proof of sex is required for a deer that is lawfully tagged in accordance with:

                         (1) the provisions of §65.29[§65.26] of this title;

                         [(2) the provisions of §65.34 of this title;]

                         [(3) the provisions of §65.28 of this title;]

                         (2)[(4)] the provisions of §65.32 of this title; or

                         (3)[(5)] on department-leased lands under the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, §11.0271.

                 (i)- (l) (No change.)

        §65.24. Permits and Tags.

                 (a) Except as specifically provided in this subchapter, permits and tags issued under the provisions of this subchapter[Permits] shall be issued only to the landowner.

                 (b) Except as provided in §65.29 of this title (relating to Managed Lands Deer Program or §65.30 of this title (relating to Pronghorn Antelope Permits[§65.26 of this title (relating Managed Lands Deer Permits (MLDP) — White-tailed Deer and §65.34 of this title (relating to Managed Lands Deer Permits (MLDP) — Mule Deer], no person may hunt white-tailed deer, mule deer, desert bighorn sheep, or antelope when a permit or tag is[permits are] required unless that person has received from the landowner and has in possession a valid permit or tag issued by the department.

                 (c) When a permit or tag is[permits are] required to hunt or possess the wildlife resources listed in subsection (b) of this section, it is unlawful to:

                         (1) use a permit or tag more than once;

                         (2) use a permit or tag on a tract of land other than the tract for which the permit or tag was issued;

                         (3) falsify or fail to fully complete any information required by a permit or tag application; or

                         (4) possess the wildlife resource without attaching a valid, properly executed permit or tag, except as may be otherwise provided in this subchapter[§65.26 and §65.34 of this title], which shall remain attached until the wildlife resource reaches its final destination.

                 (d) (No change.)

                 [(e) An applicant for a permit issued under §65.26 of this title or §65.34 of this title may request a review of a decision by the department to deny issuance of those permits.]

                         [(1) An applicant seeking review of a decision of the department under this subsection shall contact the department within ten working days of being notified by the department of permit denial.]

                         [(2) The department shall conduct the review and notify the applicant of the results within ten working days of receiving a request for a review.]

                         [(3) The request for review shall be presented to a review panel. The review panel shall consist of the following:]

                                  [(A) the Director of the Wildlife Division;]

                                  [(B) the Regional Director with jurisdiction;]

                                  [(C) the Big Game Program Director; and]

                                  [(D) the White-tailed Deer or Mule Deer program leader, as appropriate.]

                         [(4) The decision of the review panel is final.]

                         [(5) The department shall report on an annual basis to the White-tailed Deer Advisory Committee the number and disposition of all reviews under this subsection that involve white-tailed deer.]

        §65.25. Wildlife Management Plan (WMP).

                 (a) Deer.

                         (1) An approved WMP, specifying a harvest quota for antlerless deer or both buck and antlerless deer, is required for participation in the Conservation Option of the Managed Lands Deer Program under the provisions of §65.29 of this title (relating to Managed Lands Deer Program[the issuance of Managed Lands Deer Permits].

                         [(2) MLD permit issuance shall be determined by the WMP as follows.]

                                  [(A) Level 1 MLD permits shall be issued to a landowner whose WMP includes current deer population data.]

                                  [(B) Level 2 MLD permits shall be issued to a landowner whose WMP includes:]

                                          [(i) deer population data for both the current year and the immediately preceding year;]

                                          [(ii) deer harvest data from the immediately preceding year; and

(iii) at least two recommended habitat management practices.]

                                  [(C) Level 3 MLD permits shall be issued to a landowner whose WMP includes:]

                                          [(i) deer population data for the current year and the immediately preceding two years;]

                                          [(ii) deer harvest data from the immediately preceding two years; and]

                                          [(iii) at least four recommended habitat management practices.]

                         (2)[(3)] A WMP is not valid unless it is:

                                  (A) consistent with Parks and Wildlife Code, §61.053 and §61.056; and

                                  (B) signed by a Wildlife Division biologist or technician. A WMP is valid for one year following the date of such signature.

                 (b) (No change.)

        §65.33.  Mandatory Check Stations.

                 (a) (No change.)

                 (b) Except as required under §65.40 of this title (relating to Pronghorn Antelope: Open Seasons and Bag Limits) or Subchapter B of this chapter, the[The] entire wildlife resource, with head and hide/plumage attached, except that internal and sexual organs may be removed (field-dressed), of any designated wildlife resource taken in a county in which mandatory check stations have been established must be presented:

                         (1) – (2) (No change.)

                 (c) — (d) (No change.)

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

        Issued in Austin, Texas, on

        The repeals are proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 42, which allows the department to issue tags for deer during each year or season; and Chapter 61, which requires the commission to regulate the periods of time when it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the means, methods, and places in which it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the species, quantity, age or size, and, to the extent possible, the sex of the game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life authorized to be hunted, taken, or possessed; and the region, county, area, body of water, or portion of a county where game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life may be hunted, taken, or possessed.

        The proposed amendments affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapters 42 and 61.

        §65.26. Managed Lands Deer Permits (MLDP)—White-tailed Deer.

        §65.28. Landowner Assisted Management Permit System (LAMPS).

        §65.34. Managed Lands Deer Permits (MLDP)—Mule Deer.

        The repeal is proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 42, which allows the department to issue tags for deer during each year or season; and Chapter 61, which requires the commission to regulate the periods of time when it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the means, methods, and places in which it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the species, quantity, age or size, and, to the extent possible, the sex of the game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life authorized to be hunted, taken, or possessed; and the region, county, area, body of water, or portion of a county where game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life may be hunted, taken, or possessed.

        The proposed repeal affects Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapters 42 and 61.

        §65.42. Deer.

        The new section is proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 42, which allows the department to issue tags for deer during each year or season; and Chapter 61, which requires the commission to regulate the periods of time when it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the means, methods, and places in which it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the species, quantity, age or size, and, to the extent possible, the sex of the game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life authorized to be hunted, taken, or possessed; and the region, county, area, body of water, or portion of a county where game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life may be hunted, taken, or possessed.

        The proposed new section affects Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapters 42 and 61.

        §65.42. Deer.

                 (a) General.

                         (1) No person may exceed the applicable county bag limit or the annual bag limit of five white-tailed deer (no more than three bucks) and two mule deer (no more than one buck), except as provided by:

                                  (A) §65.29 of this title (relating to Managed Lands Deer Program);

                                  (B) use of an antlerless mule deer permit issued under §65.32 of this title (relating to Antlerless Mule Deer Permits);

                                  (C) use of a special permit under the provisions of Subchapter H of this chapter (relating to Public Lands Proclamation); or

                                  (D) use of special antlerless permit issued by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) for use on USFS lands that are part of the department’s public hunting program.

                         (2) During an archery-only open season, deer may be taken only by the means described in §65.11(2) and (3) of this title (relating to Lawful Means).

                         (3) The issuance and use of MLDP tags is prescribed by §65.29 of this title.

                 (b) White-tailed deer. The open seasons and bag limits for white-tailed deer shall be as follows.

                         (1) South Zone. The general open season for the counties listed in this subparagraph is from the first Saturday in November through the third Sunday in January.

                                  (A) In Aransas, Bee, Brooks, Calhoun, Cameron, Dimmit, Duval, Frio, Hidalgo, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Kenedy, Kinney (south of U.S. Highway 90), Kleberg, LaSalle, Live Oak, Maverick, McMullen, Medina (south of U.S. Highway 90), Nueces, Refugio, San Patricio, Starr, Uvalde (south of U.S. Highway 90), Val Verde (south of a line beginning at the International Bridge and proceeding along Spur 239 to U.S. Hwy. 90 and thence to the Kinney County line), Webb, Willacy, Zapata, and Zavala counties, there is a general open season. The bag limit is five deer, no more than three bucks.

                                  (B) In Atascosa County there is a general open season.

                                          (i) The bag limit is five deer, no more than two bucks; and

                                          (ii) antler restrictions apply.

                         (2) North Zone. The general open season for the counties listed in this subparagraph is from the first Saturday in November through the first Sunday in January.

                                  (A) In Bandera, Baylor, Bexar, Blanco, Burnet, Callahan, Coke, Coleman, Comal (west of Interstate 35), Concho, Crockett, Edwards, Gillespie, Glasscock, Haskell, Hays (west of Interstate 35), Howard, Irion, Jones, Kendall, Kerr, Kimble, Kinney (north of U.S. Highway 90), Knox, Llano, Mason, McCulloch, Medina (north of U.S. Highway 90), Menard, Mitchell, Nolan, Pecos, Real, Reagan, Runnels, San Saba, Schleicher, Shackelford, Sterling, Sutton, Taylor, Terrell, Throckmorton, Tom Green, Travis (west of Interstate 35), Upton, Uvalde (north of U.S. Highway 90), Val Verde (north of a line beginning at the International Bridge and proceeding along Spur 239 to U.S. Hwy. 90 and thence to the Kinney County line), and Wilbarger counties, the bag limit is five deer, no more than two bucks.

                                  (B) In Archer, Bell (west of IH 35), Bosque, Brown, Clay, Coryell, Hamilton, Hill, Jack, Lampasas, McLennan, Mills, Palo Pinto, Somervell, Stephens, Wichita, Williamson (west of IH 35) and Young counties:

                                          (i) the bag limit is five deer, no more than two bucks; and

                                          (ii) the antler restrictions described in paragraph (3) of this subsection apply.

                                  (C) In Armstrong, Borden, Briscoe, Carson, Childress, Collingsworth, Cottle, Crosby, Dickens, Donley, Fisher, Floyd, Foard, Garza, Gray, Hall, Hardeman, Hemphill, Hutchinson, Kent, King, Lipscomb, Motley, Ochiltree, Roberts, Scurry, Stonewall, and Wheeler counties, the bag limit is five deer, no more than two bucks.

                                  (D) In Brewster, Culberson, Jeff Davis, Presidio, and Reeves counties, the bag limit is four deer, no more than two bucks

                                  (E) In Comanche, Cooke, Denton, Eastland, Erath, Hood, Johnson, Montague, Parker, Tarrant, and Wise counties:

                                          (i) the bag limit is four deer, no more than two bucks and no more than two antlerless;

                                          (ii) the antler restrictions described in paragraph (3) of this subsection apply; and

                                          (iii) on USFS, Corps of Engineers, and river authority lands, the take of antlerless deer shall be by MLDP tag only, except on USFS lands in Montague and Wise counties, where antlerless deer may be taken without MLDP tags from Thanksgiving Day through the Sunday immediately following Thanksgiving Day. On all other tracts of land, no MLDP tag is required to hunt antlerless deer unless MLDP antlerless tags have been issued for the tract of land.

                                  (F) In Angelina, Brazoria, Chambers, Cherokee, Fort Bend, Galveston, Goliad (south of U.S. Highway 59), Hardin, Harris, Houston, Jackson (south if U.S. Highway 59), Jasper, Jefferson, Liberty, Matagorda, Montgomery, Newton, Orange, Polk, San Jacinto, Trinity, Tyler, Victoria (south of U.S. Highway 59), Walker, and Wharton (south of U.S. Highway 59) counties:

                                          (i) the bag limit is four deer, no more than two bucks and no more than two antlerless;

                                          (ii) the antler restrictions described in paragraph (3) of this subsection apply; and

                                          (iii) antlerless deer may be taken without MLDP tags from opening day through the Sunday immediately following Thanksgiving Day. From the Monday immediately following Thanksgiving Day until the end of the season, antlerless deer may be taken by MLDP tag only.

                                  (G) In Anderson, Bowie, Brazos, Camp, Cass, Gregg, Grimes, Harrison, Henderson, Lamar, Leon, Madison, Marion, Morris, Nacogdoches, Panola, Red River, Robertson, Rusk, Sabine, San Augustine, Shelby, and Upshur counties:

                                          (i) the bag limit is four deer, no more than two bucks and no more than two antlerless;

                                          (ii) the antler restrictions described in paragraph (3) of this subsection apply.

                                          (iii) on USFS, Corps of Engineers, and river authority lands the take of antlerless deer shall be by MLDP tag only; and

                                          (iv) on all other tracts of land, antlerless deer may be taken without MLDP tags during the first 16 days of the season. After the first 16 days of the season, antlerless deer may be taken by MLDP tag only.

                                  (H) In Bell (East of IH 35), Burleson, Delta, Ellis, Falls, Fannin, Franklin, Freestone, Hopkins, Hunt, Kauffman, Limestone, Milam, Navarro Rains, Smith, Titus, Van Zandt, Williamson (East of IH 35), and Wood counties:

                                          (i) the bag limit is four deer, no more than two bucks and no more than two antlerless;

                                          (ii) the antler restrictions described in paragraph (3) of this subsection apply; and

                                          (iii) on USFS, Corps of Engineers, and river authority lands, the take of antlerless deer shall be by MLDP tag only, except in Fannin County; and

                                          (iv) on all other tracts of land, antlerless deer may be taken without MLDP tag from Thanksgiving Day through the Sunday immediately following Thanksgiving Day. At all other times, antlerless deer may be taken by MLDP tag only.

                                  (I) In Collin, Dallas, Grayson, and Rockwall counties there is a general open season:

                                          (i) the bag limit is four deer, no more than two bucks and no more than two antlerless;

                                          (ii) the antler restrictions described in paragraph (3) of this subsection apply; and

                                          (iii) lawful means are restricted to lawful archery equipment and crossbows only, including properties for which MLDP tags have been issued.

                                  (J) In Austin, Bastrop, Caldwell, Colorado, Comal (east of IH 35), De Witt, Fayette, Goliad (north of U.S. Highway 59), Gonzales, Guadalupe, Hays (east of IH 35), Jackson (north of U.S. Highway 59), Karnes, Lavaca, Lee, Travis (east of IH 35), Victoria (north of U.S. Highway 59), Waller, Washington, Wharton (north of U.S. Highway 59), and Wilson counties;

                                          (i) the bag limit is four deer, no more than two bucks and no more than two antlerless;

                                          (ii) the antler restrictions described in paragraph (3) of this subsection apply; and

                                          (iii) antlerless deer may be taken by MLDP tag only.

                                  (K) In Andrews, Bailey Castro, Cochran, Dallam, Dawson, Deaf Smith, Gaines, Hale, Hansford, Hartley, Hockley, Lamb, Lubbock, Lynn, Martin, Moore, Oldham, Parmer, Potter, Randall, Sherman, Swisher, Terry, and Yoakum counties, the bag limit is three deer, no more than one buck and no more than two antlerless.

                                  (L) In Crane, Ector, Loving, Midland, Ward, and Winkler counties:

                                          (i) the bag limit is three deer, no more than one buck and no more than two antlerless; and

                                          (ii) antlerless deer may be taken by MLDP tag only.

                                  (M) In all other counties, there is no general open season.

                         (3) Antler Restrictions. In any county for which antler restrictions are imposed under the provisions of this subsection:

                                          (A) a legal buck is a buck deer with at least one unbranched antler or an inside spread of 13 inches or greater; and

                                          (B) no person may take may more than one buck with an inside spread of 13 inches or greater.

                         (4) Special Late General Seasons.

                                          (A) There is a special late general season during which harvest is restricted to antlerless and unbranched antlered deer, as follows:

                                                  (i) in the counties listed in paragraph (1)(A) and (B) of this subsection: 14 consecutive days starting the first Monday following the third Sunday in January;

                                                  (ii) in the counties listed in paragraph (2)(A)-(C) and (E) of this subsection: 14 consecutive days starting the first Monday following the first Sunday in January; and.

                                                  (iii) in all other counties there is no special late general season.

                                          (B) The bag limit during a special late general season is the bag limit established for the county for the general open season and is not in addition to any other bag limit.

                          (5) Archery-only open seasons.

                                  (A) The open season is from the Saturday closest to September 30 for 35 consecutive days.

                                  (B) The bag limit in any given county is as provided for that county during the general open season.

                                  (C) No tag is required to hunt antlerless deer unless MLDP tags have been issued for the property.

                         (6) Muzzleloader-only open seasons, and bag and possession limits shall be as follows. In Anderson, Angelina, Austin, Bastrop, Bell (East of IH 35), Bowie, Brazoria, Brazos, Brewster, Burleson, Caldwell, Camp, Cass, Chambers, Cherokee, Colorado, Comal (East of IH 35), Culberson, Delta, DeWitt, Ellis, Fannin, Falls, Fayette, Fort Bend, Franklin, Freestone, Galveston, Goliad, Gonzales, Gregg, Grimes, Guadalupe, Hardin, Harris, Harrison, Hays (East of IH 35), Henderson, Hopkins, Houston, Hunt, Jackson, Jasper, Jeff Davis, Jefferson, Karnes, Kaufman, Lamar, Lavaca, Lee, Leon, Liberty, Limestone, Madison, Marion, Matagorda, Milam, Montgomery, Morris, Nacogdoches, Navarro, Newton, Orange, Panola, Polk, Presidio, Rains, Red River, Reeves, Robertson, Rusk, Sabine, San Augustine, San Jacinto, Shelby, Smith, Titus, Travis (East of IH 35), Trinity, Tyler, Upshur, Van Zandt, Victoria, Walker, Waller, Washington, Wharton, Williamson (East of IH 35), Wilson and Wood counties, there is an open season during which deer may be taken only with a muzzleloader.

                                  (A) The open season is 14 consecutive days starting the first Monday following the first Sunday in January.

                                  (B) The bag limit is as specified in this section for the general season in the county in which take occurs.

                                  (C) Special provisions:

                                          (i) Buck deer. In any given county, all restrictions established in this subsection for the take of buck deer during the general season remain in effect.

                                          (ii) Antlerless deer. No MLDP tag is required for the take of antlerless deer, except:

                                                  (I) on properties for which antlerless MLDP tags have been issued; and

                                                  (II) in the counties listed in paragraph (2)(J) of this subsection.

                         (7) Special Youth-Only Seasons. There shall be special youth-only general hunting seasons in all counties where there is a general open season for white-tailed deer.

                                  (A) The early open season is the Saturday and Sunday immediately before the first Saturday in November.

                                  (B) The late open season is 14 consecutive days starting the first Monday following the first Sunday in January.

                                  (C) Bag limits, provisions for the take of antlerless deer, and special requirements in the individual counties listed in paragraph (2)(A) – (J) of this subsection shall be as specified for the first two days of the general open season in those counties, except as provided in subparagraph (D) of this paragraph.

                                  (D) Provisions for the take of antlerless deer in the individual counties listed in paragraph (2)(H) of this subsection shall be as specified in those counties for the period of time from Thanksgiving Day through the Sunday immediately following Thanksgiving Day.

                                  (E) Other than properties where MLDP tags have been issued under the provisions of §65.29(c)(2), only licensed hunters 16 years of age or younger may hunt deer during the seasons established by this paragraph, and any lawful means may be used.

                                  (F) The stamp requirement of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter I, does not apply during the seasons established by this paragraph.

                                  (G) Antlerless deer may be taken without an MLDP tag on USFS lands.

                 (c) Mule deer. The open seasons and bag limits for mule deer shall be as follows:

                         (1) In Armstrong, Borden, Briscoe, Carson, Childress, Coke, Collingsworth, Cottle, Crosby, Dallam, Deaf Smith, Dickens, Donley, Fisher, Floyd, Foard, Garza, Gray, Hall, Hansford, Hardeman, Hartley, Hemphill, Hutchinson, Kent, King, Knox, Lipscomb, Moore, Motley, Ochiltree, Oldham, Potter, Randall, Roberts, Scurry, Sherman, Stonewall, Swisher, and Wheeler counties:

                                  (A) the Saturday before Thanksgiving for 16 consecutive days;

                                  (B) bag limit: one buck; and

                                  (C) antlerless deer may be taken only by Antlerless Mule Deer permit or MLDP tag.

                         (2) In Crane, Crockett, Culberson, Ector, El Paso, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Loving, Midland, Presidio, Reagan, Reeves, Upton, Val Verde, Ward, and Winkler counties:

                                  (A) the Friday immediately following Thanksgiving for 17 consecutive days;

                                  (B) bag limit: one buck; and

                                  (C) antlerless deer may be taken only by antlerless mule deer permit or  MLDP tag.

                         (3) In Brewster, Pecos, and Terrell counties:

                                  (A) the Friday immediately following Thanksgiving for 17 consecutive days;

                                  (B) bag limit: two deer, no more than one buck.

                         (4) In Andrews, Bailey, Castro, Cochran, Dawson, Gaines, Hale, Hockley, Lamb, Lubbock, Martin, Parmer, Terry, and Yoakum counties:

                                  (A) the Saturday before Thanksgiving for nine consecutive days;

                                  (B) bag limit: one buck; and

                                  (C) antlerless deer may be taken by MLDP tag only.

                         (5) In all other counties, there is no general open season for mule deer.

                         (6) Archery-only open seasons and bag and possession limits shall be as follows.

                                  (A) In Armstrong, Borden, Briscoe, Carson, Childress, Coke, Collingsworth, Cottle, Crane, Crockett, Crosby, Culberson, Dallam, Deaf Smith, Dickens, Donley, Ector, El Paso, Fisher, Floyd, Foard, Garza, Gray, Hall, Hansford, Hardeman, Hartley, Hemphill, Hudspeth, Hutchinson, Jeff Davis, Kent, King, Knox, Lipscomb, Loving, Midland, Moore, Motley, Ochiltree, Oldham, Potter, Presidio, Randall, Reagan, Reeves, Roberts, Scurry, Sherman, Stonewall, Swisher, Upton, Val Verde, Ward, Wheeler, and Winkler counties:

                                          (i) from the Saturday closest to September 30 for 35 consecutive days; and

                                          (ii) bag limit: one buck.

                                  (B) In Brewster, Pecos, and Terrell counties:

                                          (i) from the Saturday closest to September 30 for 35 consecutive days.

                                          (ii) bag limit: two deer, no more than one buck. Antlerless deer may be harvested without a permit unless MLDP antlerless tags have been issued for the property.

                                  (C) In all other counties, there is no archery-only open season for mule deer.

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

            Issued in Austin, Texas, on

Commission Agenda Item No. 1
Exhibit F

RULES REVIEW
CHAPTER 69. RESOURCE PROTECTION
PROPOSAL PREAMBLE

1. Introduction.

        The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (the department) proposes the repeal of §69.6 and amendments to §§69.2, 69.8, 69.26, 69.102, 69.116, 69.121, 69.301 and 69.405, concerning Resource Protection.  The proposed amendments are a result of the department’s review of its regulations under the provisions of Government Code, §2001.039, which requires a state agency to review each of its regulations no less frequently than every four years and to re-adopt, adopt with changes, or repeal each rule as a result of the review.

        The proposed repeal of §69.6, concerning Permit and Tag, would eliminate a duplicative provision regarding the fee for a commercial plant permit. Over the years, the department has sought to locate regulations regarding most department fees in 31 TAC Chapter 53. In 2004, the fee for the commercial plant permit was adopted as part of §53.15 (29 TexReg 6309) and is now at §53.15(h)(1) (see, 34 TexReg 5381). Therefore, §69.6 is duplicative and unnecessary.

            The proposed amendment to §69.2, concerning Scientific Plant Permit, would correct a cross-reference in subsection (d)(2) regarding the letter of permission required to engage in regulated activities on public land. The requirement to obtain a letter of permission is contained in subsection (c)(3) rather than subsection (b)(3).  The proposed amendment corrects that error.

            The proposed amendment to §69.8, concerning Endangered and Threatened Plants, would remove Johnston’s frankenia (Frankenia johnstonii) from the list of endangered species of plants in subsection (a) and add the Neches River rose-mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx) to the list of threatened species of plants in subsection (b). Under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 88, a species of plant is endangered, threatened, or protected if it is indigenous to Texas and (1) listed by the federal government as endangered, or (2) designated by the executive director of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department as endangered, threatened or protected.  At the current time, the department maintains a single list of endangered plants that contains only those plants indigenous to Texas listed by the federal government as endangered. The proposed amendment removes the Johnston’s frankenia from the endangered species list because this species has been removed from the federal endangered species list.

        The proposed amendment to §69.26, concerning Commercial Species—Recovery Value, would alter subsection (a) by adding a mechanism for calculating the value of alligator eggs. Parks and Wildlife Code, §12.301, provides that a “person who kills, catches, takes, possesses, or injures any fish, shellfish, reptile, amphibian, bird, or animal in violation of this code or a proclamation or regulation adopted under this code is liable to the state for the value of each fish, shellfish, reptile, amphibian, bird, or animal unlawfully killed, caught, taken, possessed, or injured.” Parks and Wildlife Code, §12.302, requires the commission to adopt rules “to establish guidelines for determining the value of injured or destroyed fish, shellfish, reptiles, amphibians, birds and animals.”  The current per-foot calculation applicable to alligators does not accurately reflect the commercial value of alligator eggs. Therefore, the proposed amendment would add a mechanism for more accurately calculating the value of alligator eggs based on the market price and the survival rate of hatchlings.

        The proposed amendments to regulations in Subchapter H, concerning Issuance of Marl, Sand and Gravel Permits would make several nonsubstantive changes.  The proposed amendment to §69.102, concerning Definitions, would replace the reference to TNRCC in paragraph (8) with the current agency name, Texas Commission in Environmental Quality. The proposed amendment to §69.116, concerning Conditions, would correct cross-references, replacing “§65.115(b)” with “§69.115(a)” and “§69.101” with “§69.118.” The proposed amendment to §69.121, concerning Prices, would delete an outdated reference to the previous royalty of 6.25% in subsection (a) and replace “$.20 ton” with the more accurate “$0.20 ton.”

        The proposed amendment to §69.301, concerning Definitions, would update taxonomical information regarding the definition of “raptor” in paragraph (3).  From time to time the scientific community reclassifies an organism in light of consensus and/or emerging science. Scientific reclassification or change in nomenclature of taxa at any level in the taxonomic hierarchy does not, in and of itself, affect the status of a species as endangered, threatened or protected, but the department believes that the common and scientific names of listed organisms should reflect the most current agreement by the scientific community. Current §69.601(3) defines raptor by reference to the order Falconiformes or Stringiformes.  However, the classification of Falconiformes has been split into two orders, Accipitriformes (eagles, hawks, kites, harriers, osprey, secretary bird, etc.) and Falconiformes (all falcons, caracaras). In addition, all New World Vultures  have been placed into their own Order, Cathartiformes, based upon recent phylogenetics research. The proposed amendment would make these taxonomic changes.  Strigiformes remains unchanged.

        The proposed amendment to §69.405, concerning Permit Renewal, eliminates a reference to a duplicative and inaccurate provision regarding the nongame species fee in §53.15(c)(5) and (6). Over the years, the department has sought to locate regulations regarding most fees department fees in 31 TAC Chapter 53. In 2004, the fee for a nongame species permit and permit renewal was included in the fees relocated to §53.15 (29 TexReg 6309), and was increased to $210 in 2009 and redesignated as §53.15(c)((5) and (6) (see, 34 TexReg 5381).

2. Fiscal Note.

        Ann Bright, General Counsel has determined that for each of the first five years the repeal and amendments as proposed are in effect, there will be no fiscal implications to state or local government as a result of enforcing or administering the rules.

3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.

        Ms. Bright has also determined that for each of the first five years the rules as proposed are in effect:

        (A) The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the proposed rules will be clearer, better organized, and more accurate regulations governing the processes and entities administered under the provisions of Chapter 69.

        (B) There will be no adverse economic impact on persons required to comply with the rule as proposed.

        (C) Under the provisions of Government Code, Chapter 2006, a state agency must prepare an economic impact statement and a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule that may have an adverse economic effect on small businesses and micro-businesses. As required by Government Code, §2006.002(g), the Office of the Attorney General has prepared guidelines to assist state agencies in determining a proposed rule’s potential adverse economic impact on small businesses. Those guidelines state that an agency need only consider a proposed rule’s “direct adverse economic impacts” to small businesses and micro-businesses to determine if any further analysis is required. For that purpose, the department considers “direct economic impact” to mean a requirement that would directly impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements; impose taxes or fees; result in lost sales or profits; adversely affect market competition; or require the purchase or modification of equipment or services. The department has determined that the rules will not directly affect small businesses and/or micro-businesses. Accordingly, the department has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis under Government Code, Chapter 2006.

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

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

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

4. Request for Public Comment.